Australia on Track to Terminate Dual Citizenship for People Convicted of ‘Serious Crimes’

The Australian Senate chamber at Parliament House in Canberra, Australia on Sept. 8, 2022. (AAP Image/Mick Tsikas)

Legislation that would give courts the power to take away dual citizenship from Australians has passed the House of Representatives and entered the Senate on Nov. 30 for heated debate.

The Australian Citizenship Amendment (Citizenship Repudiation) Bill 2023 enables the court to strip a dual Australian of their citizenship if they commit serious offences.

These include terrorism, treason, advocating mutiny, espionage, foreign interference, foreign incursions and recruitment and certain offences in relation to explosives and lethal devices.

Labor Minister Murray Watt, discussing the legislation in the Senate (pdf), said the bill provides an “appropriate mechanism” to deal with dual Australian citizens who have “committed crimes that are so serious and significant that they demonstrate the repudiation of their allegiance to Australia.”

“The bill promotes the value and integrity of Australian citizenship and the ongoing commitment to Australia and its shared values, while also contributing to the protection of the Australian community,” he said.

The power to cease the citizenship of an Australian under the legislation would be left to the courts, as a judicial ruling, rather than via executive power of government.

Related Stories

Australia Appoints Former Ambassador to Afghanistan for Counter-Terrorism

5/26/2023

Convicted Terrorist Wins High Court Challenge Over Australian Citizenship Case

11/2/2023

“Under the legislation, the court would only be able to make a citizenship cessation order if the Minister for Home Affairs makes an application for the order,” Mr. Watt explained.

Shadow Home Affairs Minister James Paterson said the coalition supports the bill because it “enables the citizenship of a convicted terrorist to be removed.”

However, he explained Opposition leader Peter Dutton wrote to Prime Minister Albanese with amendments (pdf) to “strengthen” the bill.

“If the government is able to agree to these amendments, which we have also circulated in the chamber and which should now be available to senators, that would make it very easy for us to support the swift passage of the bill,” he said.

Coalition Seeks Amendments

Mr. Paterson explained the amendments expand the list of offences to include advocating terrorism and genocide; advocating violence against Australia’s national interest; child sex offences; and other serious crimes.

“We are concerned that it doesn’t capture slavery; torture; use of a carriage service for child abuse material; use of a carriage service involving sexual activity or causing harm to a person under 16; urging violence; advocating terrorism; threats to security, including training with a foreign military; offences related to monitoring devices in the Criminal Code; harming Australians, including the murder of Australians overseas; and many other matters,” he said.

The Greens did not support the bill due to concerns that dual nationals would be treated differently than Australians holding citizenship only in Australia.

Australian Greens Whip Senator Nick McKim said, “the Greens will not be supporting this legislation.”

“If you’re a dual national, you'll be treated differently under the law to someone who is just an Australian citizen,” he said.

“If you’re a dual national and this bill does become enduring law in Australia, which I suspect it will, and depending on what the High Court has to say about it, and I expect the court will be asked to think about this in due course—pending those two matters—it will create two different classes of people that are treated differently under the law,” he said.

Opposition deputy leader Senator Cash said the bill was rushed through the House of Representatives and had a number of “very clear gaps.”

“There’s a reason we are talking about this bill today: because it is nothing more and nothing less than a cover for the government’s failings in relation to the NZYQ case,” she said.

“Now, as Senator Paterson has said, in the interests of improving this bill for all Australians, the coalition will be putting forward a number of what we say are small amendments but incredibly serious amendments which will actually strengthen the bill we have before us.

Senator Claire Chandler, on behalf of colleague Mr. Paterson, moved for the legislation to be referred to an intelligence and security parliamentary joint committee after it passes the Senate.

Ms. Paterson moved a motion on behalf of colleague Mr. Paterson that after the bill is passed, it be referred to the parliamentary joint committee on intelligence and security for inquiry and report by March 14, 2024.

However, the Senate journal (pdf) indicates debate on the bill continued before being interrupted for Senators statements on other matters.

Law Council Raises Concerns

Meanwhile, the Law Council of Australia has raised concerns that the bill is proceeding through parliament with “insufficient scrutiny.

In a media release on Nov. 30, the Law Council suggested the bill be referred to committee prior to passing the Senate, not after, as has been proposed.

“At the very least, this Bill should be referred to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security (PJCIS) to allow proper scrutiny—before, not after, the Bill passes,” Law Council of Australia president Luke Murphy said.

“Any measures pursued to remove the citizenship of an Australian engages the key legal principles on which our democracy was founded, and therefore demand careful consideration by the Commonwealth Parliament and Australian citizens themselves. Such measures should be reserved for the most extraordinary of cases.”