Section 117 of the Constitution of Australia

The court held that the purpose of the section was national unity, and consequentially, residence should be given a broader meaning.

Combining this with the fact that there is little case law referencing section 117, there remains significant debate over the nature and extent of the right contained within it.

[5] In Street, several of the Justices suggested that, in modern times, "subject of the Queen" was synonymous with "Australian citizen", but ultimately, it was not necessary to decide the question.

Welfare schemes, as well as voting rights and regulation of conduct that threatens state security are not seen to be inconsistent with the section.

However, in the 2006 case Sweedman v Transport Accident Commission, it was hinted – but not determined – that when a regulation is "appropriate and adapted... to the attainment of a proper objective",[11] it will be permissible.

[12][13] The issue remains undetermined, but ANU Senior Lecturer Amelia Simpson has expressed the opinion that "the chances of survival, or revival, of the rights-inspired reading of s 117 appear slim",[3] while Jeremy Kirk has acknowledged the opposition of many of the Justices to the adoption of such a view.