Looks like the relevant constitutional provision is transparently and “literally” obvious in meaning. You cannot hold any other citizenship and be in Australia’s parliament. It does not matter when or how you acquired that citizenship. The language is simple and unequivocal.
So, of course, mush-headed lawyers and pols try to say the constitution should not be taken “literally”.... yeah, sure, just more mental corruption in the rapid decline of civilization.
116 years ago NZers were not considered foreigners in Australia, neither were Brits or Canadians. Hopefully this will change when CANZUK comes into existence in the wake of Brexit.
Can’t take the Constitution literally?
The Australians have nothing on the U.S.
Our government was not taking our Constitution literally *before* Australia *had* a constitution!
The idea of separate nationalities for nations within what was then the British Empire and which became the Commonwealth did not even exist in British or Australian law until the late 1940s, and Australians remained explicitly British subjects until the 1980s. It wasn't until 1999 that anybody even questioned whether somebody holding citizenship of another Commonwealth Realm might be ineligible to be a Member of Parliament and the decision in that case was not unanimous and it is quite open to the High Court to revise that decision which was actually made in the context of many people (including probably some of the Judges) assuming Australia was likely to become a Republic by 2001 (in fact, the referendum held in late 1999, failed to the surprise of many to move Australia from being a constitutional monarchy).
Natural born citizen in our Constitution means born here of citizen parents.
Obama was born a British subject.
Ignored to our detriment.