Cancellation of Citizenship – Committee Doesn’t Go Far Enough

QCCL President Michael Cope said today, “The QCCL notes the decision of government members of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security to recommend the recommend the delay of new citizenship cancellation powers and of the Labor members to reject the Bill due to questions about its constitutionality. However, neither goes far enough. This Bill should be rejected outright.”

Under the current law, terrorists can be stripped of their citizenship only if they are a dual national and therefore would not be rendered stateless. They must also have been convicted of a terrorism-related crime and have received a jail sentence of at least six years.

Under the proposed laws:

1.     the threshold for determining dual citizenship will be lowered- the home affairs minister need only be “satisfied” that the person is not going to be rendered stateless

2.     the requirement for a sentence of at least six years for relevant terrorism convictions will be removed

3.     the citizenship removal power will be applied to the offence of ‘associating with a terrorist organisation’

4.     it will be retrospective application- applying to certain convictions after 12 /12/15

“The first change is particularly concerning given that the Minister, Mr Dutton, has demonstrated his incompetence by recently rendering Mr Prakash stateless.”

"Citizenship is person's basic right for it is nothing less than the right to have rights.”

“Citizenship is not a license that expires upon misbehaviour. Where does the principle underlying this legislation stop? Could a citizen be deprived of her nationality for evading tax or social security fraud?”

Why should a person who is convicted of a terrorist offence on the basis of the compilation of training materials be deprived of their citizenship when a husband who murdered his wife is not deprived of their citizenship?

A person should not have their citizenship stripped by a Minister. If it is to be done, it should be done by a Judge.

In a world of cheap and easy international air travel and the Internet keeping a person out the country is not going to prevent them from urging and facilitating criminal activity.

In fact, from the security point of view and of our obligation to deal with our own problems it would be better to have these people in the country either in jail or under surveillance.

Mr Cope said, “We should not be foisting our problems onto other people. The government has given itself more than ample power to deal with these people in the country by gaoling them or putting them under surveillance after appropriate procedures have been followed”