Australia’s Human Rights Commission has urged the federal government not to revoke the citizenship of dual national children involved in terrorism, saying it was in their best interest.
AHRC President Rosalind Croucher raised concerns that the law could be applied to children as young as 14 years old, which went against international law obligations to protect children.
“Given the profound impact and severity of citizenship stripping, it is our view that no children, regardless of age, should be at risk of losing their citizenship, even for terrorism-related serious offences,” she told the Senate Committee.
The president pointed out that when children were involved in terrorism, the focus of the government should be rehabilitation and not retribution.
“We consider that the best interests of the children should be a primary consideration,” she said.
AHRC Questions Whether Revoking Citizenships Will Make Community Safer
At the same time, Ms. Croucher was sceptical about whether stripping criminal offenders of their citizenships would help improve public safety and national security.“We’re concerned that it serves a symbolic function only,” she said.
“The loss of Australian citizenship for dual nationals is an extremely serious matter, and should only be possible in exceptional circumstances, given the stakes involved only the gravest criminal conduct should be captured by the regime.”
The AHRC president was also concerned that the imprisonment threshold for serious offenders under the law was too low.
Currently, the federal government can apply to the court to remove the citizenship of serious offenders who received a three-year prison sentence.
The AHRC argued that the threshold should be raised to six and concurrent sentences shouldn’t count twice.
It also advocated for the law to only cover offences with a maximum of a 10-year prison sentence.
“We also caution against any suggestion that other non-terrorism related offences should be included,” Ms. Croucher said.
“This regime should only be a targeted conduct … and not be used as a general regime of exile for serious offences condemned by Australia.”
Iraq, on March 1, 2017. Ahmad Al-Rubaye/AFP via Getty Images
Safeguard Against Statelessness
While Ms. Croucher said the legislation included measures to prevent serious offenders from being stateless, she said those measures were inadequate.Under current law, the court can issue an order to remove the citizenship of an individual if it is satisfied that the person has citizenship or nationality of another country.
Ms. Croucher pointed out that there was a need for the court to consider the de facto status of the individual and his or her connection to the other country.
“We are concerned that this requirement does not exclusively require the court to consider the practical ability of a person to effectively access and exercise their right to return to and live in that country,” she said.
Echoing the sentiment, Law Council’s Stephen Keim SC said many people got their second citizenship through inheritance and had little connection to the other country.
“There are people with just no connection to places they are citizens of, and some of these countries are very oppressive,” he said.
