The High Court of Australia is wrong about the assertion that citizens from Canada, UK, NZ or any other country whose head of State is the Queen of the UK are foreign citizens.

Notwithstanding the argument that the 'High Court says it is so, end of story', I would encourage members to explain why they belief these 'countries' to be foreign powers.

I personally don't believe any of the 16 Commonwealth Realm nations (as distinct from the Commonwealth of nations as a whole) is a foreign country to Australia.

Let me explain.

First, the Head of State for each of the 16 jurisdictions is the Queen of the UK. All their respective Constitutions assert this fact, either directly or indirectly. Because we all share the same of legal of Head of State, it follows logically that we are not separate nations, but self-governing jurisdictions under one authority. In fact, this was the intention of Britain's idea of self-governance.

The idea of self-governance among the British colonies stemmed from the 'American' mistake. This experience created the impetus necessary to develop a new model of a nation-state whereby self-governance and common allegiance to an over-arching authority was possible. Hence, the British model was born.

No one in their right mind would ever argue that if Australia's Head of State was the President of the United States of America that we would be a 'foreign power' of the USA.
----
Second, each of these 16 jurisdiction's constitutions are all Acts of the UK Parliament. They legally derive their force from the UK Parliament. In fact, the Constitution Act of Australia is still in force today. Go to legislation.gov.uk and you'll see that it's still in force.

This is what I refer to as 'legislative DNA' - the connecting tissue. Contrast this with the American principal in which the Constitution was developed internally - this is known as Constitutional Authochtony, in which the Constitution is said to derive its force from 'within'; from the land and from 'internal' elements. The Constitution Acts of the 16 Commonwealth Realm nations derive their legal force from an external source - the UK Parliament.
----
Also, we must look at the question at when 'Australia became and independent nation'. This is a tough question to answer, because no one really knows, or can say for certain.

For e.g. if you assert that Australia became an independent country in 1901, upon Federation, then you also need to explain how we were also legally British citizens for much of a period after that time. If we were an 'independent' nation (to use the term), then we were foreign citizens of our own country.

Others argue that we became fully independent after the Australia Act 1986. True, the Australia Act does 'sever' all legal ties with the Crown; but again I refer to the concept of Legislative DNA. If all laws of the Australian Parliament derive their force from the Constitution Act, which in turn derives its force from the UK Parliament, then the source of authority for the Australia Act is the UK Parliament. So, the Australia Act 1986 seeks to limit the power of the authority which gave it power. Makes sense, yeah? I didn't think so.
------
Now, many of you will argue that Australia has moved on (and so has Britain from its imperial legacy) and therefore these outdated notions are no longer relevant. I would agree with you on this point if the Australian people had ratified this view in the Republican referendum in 1999. But, they didn't. Australians chose to remain 'loyal' to the Crown (for whatever reason).

And in fact, if you are a republican, you should really blame the High Court. If the High Court had stated from the Sue vs. Hill case that Britain (and the 16 other Commonwealth Realm nations) were not foreign powers under the current Constitution, such a decision would've caused so much controversy within the community that the 1999 referendum would've undoubtedly passed. In fact, this is what the High Court should've done.

In fact, the High Court did the exact opposite - by asserting that it was possible for Australia to be fully independent notwithstanding the above, they only weakened the republican cause. In fact, one could argue that the High Court Justices were closet monarchists!!

DonDeeHippy wrote on Jun 30^th, 2018 at 7:02am:


Aussie wants me to post more on his topic, so I have. I chose a topic which I knew he wouldn’t debate because questioning the high court and their rulings is taboo for him.

I would, however, be interested in your opinion.

Seems like the only thing a person can say is: “that’s what the high court has said. End of story.”

How can England be a foreign power when we have the same Queen?

The High Court is hopeless -
they should all be put in aged care for dementia.

Imrah wrote on Jun 30^th, 2018 at 4:08pm:


Voting would be limited to those who hold the respective citizenship of the particular jurisdiction. The question is whether or not Britain (or any other Realm jurisdiction) is a foreign power. You make a good point, and to that extent I'm willing to accept different citizenships within the Realm nations; but in terms of the legal definition of what is or is not a foreign power, then Britain and the 15 Realm nations are not, in my view, based on my reasons above.

Imrah wrote on Jun 30^th, 2018 at 4:25pm:


Two different governments under the same authority. When a territory is self-governing it naturally has a different government. The British model of the 'nation-state' is unique and cannot be compared to the normal understanding of a European nation-state.

Imrah wrote on Jul 1^st, 2018 at 2:35pm:


Again, this has nothing to do with voting. It's about the definition of a 'foreign power'.

Let me ask you this question: if the President of America were our Head of State legally, would that makes America a foreign power to Australia?