Abbott just can't get rid of all the 'bad' people. Democracy stands in the way
|
Version 0 of 1. The Abbott government’s current proposals to strip foreign fighters of their Australian citizenship are problematic and wrong-headed on several dimensions. In no way am I naive to the threat some people can pose to the safety of our community: I chaired the counter-terrorism committee of cabinet in the NSW government. One of the responsibilities of democratic government is to balance the safety of the citizenry without destroying the very principles that distinguish democracy from totalitarianism: the rule of law, equality before the law, due process and the separation of powers. Related: Abbott still backing plan to strip sole nationals of citizenship, says MP We know from media reports that some members of the federal cabinet are seemingly alive to this responsibility. It appears that, due to the intervention of half a dozen ministers, radical proposals from prime minister Tony Abbott and immigration minister Peter Dutton that would have rendered people stateless have been rejected – for now. But alarming implications remain even for the proposed Citizenship Act amendments approved by the federal cabinet. What Abbott and Dutton propose introduces a two-tiered citizenship regime that is open to misuse, is unnecessary, and is likely to be ineffective at keeping Australians safe. Today, a person born with Australian citizenship and a person who has Australian citizenship conferred are equal before the law – neither can have their citizenship revoked. A naturalised citizen cannot have their citizenship revoked unless relevant and previously undisclosed information about their activities before receiving Australian citizenship comes to light, for example criminal activity or fraud. But if all relevant information is disclosed, their citizenship – once conferred – is considered the same as a person who is born here. The one exception is outlined in section 35 of the Australian Citizenship Act: Australian citizens who hold dual citizenship of a foreign country will automatically lose their Australian citizenship if they serve in the armed forces of a country at war with Australia. Presumably this section was designed to deal with an Australian citizen with dual nationality who, in a situation in which the two nations were at war, chooses to join the armed forces of their other country to fight against Australia. Abbott is proposing an expansion of section 35 to include dual nationals who participate in terrorist activity here or overseas, and to allow that decision to be made at the discretion of the immigration minister (some kind of review of the minister’s decision is suggested but yet to be outlined by the government). It is fairly straightforward to determine if a person has joined a foreign army fighting against Australia in a declared war. It is far less easy to determine whether a person is actually involved in terrorist activity or a member of a terrorist organisation. Further, it is quite open to interpretation as to what threat any particular terrorist activity actually poses to Australia. Finally, putting all these determinations primarily in the hands of an elected representative means such power is far more likely to be used and abused for political purposes. As a nation we should be wary about further delineations between those who were born here and those who joined us later in life. Creating a two-tiered citizenship regime is not in our best interest: Team Australia breaks down quite quickly when some members are fully-fledged and others are conditional. Opening the door to revoking citizenship by ministerial decree may well lead to other claims. Why stop at terrorism? Surely paedophilia, rape and murder are just as deleterious to the Australian population. Under Abbott’s proposal, a trial might not even be necessary – a minister’s satisfaction that a dual national is guilty could be sufficient. Abbott’s proposals are also unnecessary insofar as the government already possesses the powers required to deal with Australian citizens who are suspected or involved in terrorism overseas: the government can already restrict their travel and cancel their passport, cancel their welfare payments, and deny them consular assistance. Stripping citizenship creates an impression the government is taking strong action, but it adds little to the government’s already extensive powers. One of the most important questions when considering any legislation is whether it is likely to be effective at achieving its stated aims. Neither Abbott nor Dutton has made a case that stripping the citizenship of dual nationals would aid our security agencies in their intelligence work or help prevent a terrorist attack on Australian soil. Dutton has notably refused in several interviews with Peter van Onselen on Sky News Australia to outline how many “foreign fighters” are currently dual nationals and how many are eligible for citizenship in another country but do not have it at present. It is possible that the government’s claim that 40-50 of the approximate 100 Australian “foreign fighters” are dual nationals includes both groups. If true, it would seem the government is seeking a radical change to our citizenship laws that would only affect a very small number of citizens. In that case, it sounds even more like dog-whistle politics than effective policy. Even if we take the government at its word that some 50% of Australian foreign fighters are dual nationals, what of the other half? The government acknowledges its obligations as a signatory to the Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness and therefore will allow half of those Australians who are foreign fighters to retain citizenship. As such, the government lays bare the fact that stripping citizenship from dual nationals would be a half-measure that would leave half the target population untouched. Divisive, unnecessary, ineffective and ultimately ironic: stripping citizenship from dual nationals might provide the government with a great soundbite, but thanks to six federal ministers and a 1961 UN convention, the proposals still runs smack into the demands of democratic government. The Abbott government can’t actually just get rid of all those “people seeking to do us harm.” One of the obligations of a nation-state is to protect its citizens; another is to deal with the “bad” people amongst its citizenry. There are no easy ways out. |