2016] The Prevention and Reduction of Statelessness in Australia 493 Importantly, unlike comparable provisions in the UK that permit the denationalisation of naturalised British citizens even if that renders them stateless,224 the Australian provisions do not apply to people who are Australian citizens only.225 Hence, any revocation on such grounds can apply only to dual nationals.226 At first glance, the fact that these provisions apply only to dual nationals may suggest that they accord with Australia’s obligations under the 1961 Convention, and indeed academic commentary and parliamentary scrutiny to date appears to accept that this is so.227 However, in our view, the amendments have the potential to render persons stateless because there are insufficient safeguards to ensure that a person is in fact a dual citizen before his or her citizenship is revoked.228 These concerns are particularly pertinent to the first two categories, since conduct that falls within them gives rise to ‘automatic’ renunciation of citizenship, without the explicit need for any 224 British Nationality Act 1981 (UK) c 61, s 40, as amended by Immigration Act 2014 (UK) c 22, s 66. 225 Citizenship Act ss 33AA(1), 35(1)(a), 35A(1)(c). The 1961 Convention only distinguishes between natural-born and naturalised citizens in relation to loss of nationality for long-term residence abroad: at art 7(4). During the drafting of the treaty, the UK representative, Mr Ross, stated that ‘[t]he natural-born person had a birthright to his nationality: but the naturalized person was expected to justify his acquisition of nationality by a higher standard of behaviour and States should have greater freedom to deprive him of his nationality’, but not all delegates shared this view: UN Conference on the Elimination or Reduction of Future Statelessness, Committee of the Whole ---- Summary Record of the Fifteenth Meeting, GAOR, 15th mtg, Agenda Item 7, UN Doc A/CONF.9/C.1/SR.15 (24 April 1961) 10; cf at 3. 226 This was acknowledged in Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, above n 188, 49 [4.53], quoting Explanatory Memorandum, Australian Citizenship Amendment (Allegiance to Australia) Bill 2015 (Cth) 2. 227 See, eg, Helen Irving and Rayner Thwaites, ‘Australian Citizenship Amendment (Allegiance to Australia) Bill 2015 (Cth)’ (2015) 26 Public Law Review 143, 148, referring to the Bill’s ‘respect’ for ‘the international law prohibition on citizenship revocation that gives rise to statelessness’. The most recent report of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, above n 217, 33 [2.28] states: ‘The Citizenship Act applies only to Australian citizens holding dual citizenship, regardless of how the person became an Australian citizen. Accordingly, its provisions cannot operate to render a person stateless.’ 228 The proposed amendments potentially breach various human rights principles, such as the right to a fair trial and freedom of movement, and are potentially unconstitutional: see Shipra Chordia, Sangeetha Pillai and George Williams, Submission No 17 to Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, Inquiry into the Australian Citizenship Amendment (Allegiance to Australia) Bill 2015, 16 July 2015; Centre for Comparative Constitutional Studies, Submission No 29 to Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, Inquiry into the Australian Citizenship Amendment (Allegiance to Australia) Bill 2015, 2015.