Citizenship law changes would ‘dump dangerous people’ abroad, say Greens
|
Version 0 of 1. Proposed changes to Australian citizenship laws would “dump really dangerous people” in other countries where police were ill-equipped to deal with them, the Greens have argued. The Coalition is expected to produce legislation in the next parliamentary sittings to grant the immigration minister the power to revoke the Australian citizenship of dual nationals who were deemed to be involved in terrorism but may not have been convicted of any crimes. Labor has offered its in-principle support to the proposal but the senior opposition frontbencher Anthony Albanese said MPs “must always be vigilant about what the detail of these changes are”. Scott Ludlam, a deputy leader of the Greens, said individuals returning to Australia from conflict zones in Syria and Iraq “could conceivably present a security risk” but he questioned whether the proposed citizenship changes were the right approach. “The government appears to be just systematically wrong-footing itself with these proposals that come half-hatched and half-backed into the public domain in an attempt to appear tough,” he said on Sunday. “One of the perverse consequences, I think, is that you’re conceivably dumping really dangerous people in other jurisdictions or in neighbouring countries where police, law enforcement and security agencies won’t be as able or as prepared to deal with them. “There’s obviously a very severe security issue at stake here but simply dumping people off in other jurisdictions is not necessarily the best way to go.” Tony Abbott said last week the government subscribed to the “very clear principle” that “anyone who raises a gun or a knife to an Australian because of who we are has utterly forfeited any right to be considered one of us”. But the criteria and procedure for such ministerial determinations remains unclear because the legislation is yet to be released. The immigration minister, Peter Dutton, confirmed on Sunday his powers to strip dual-nationals of their Australian citizenship could be used against people regardless of whether they were located in Australia or overseas. “If they’re involved in the name of terrorism, and their activities are able to be defined within a few sections of the criminal code that we’ve said we’ll put into legislation – if they’re deemed to be a terrorist or acting in support of those terrorists, fundraising, [doing] acts preparatory to, all of those which we’ve defined in the legislation – if they fall within that category and we don’t render them stateless, whether they’re here or they’re offshore, we will strip citizenship from them under this proposal,” Dutton told Network Ten’s Bolt Report. “I think it’s a very important [proposal] because, as I say, I think it has now dawned on all of us how significant this [terrorism] threat is and it is only going to ramp up over the coming years.” While the government is pressing ahead with new powers in relation to dual nationals, it has deferred a decision about allowing the immigration minister to revoke citizenship from sole nationals who may be able to apply for citizenship elsewhere. That proposal generated a significant cabinet backlash which spilled into the public arena, but remains on the table thanks to its inclusion as an option in a discussion paper released for public consultation. Albanese called on the government to release the proposed legislation, saying Labor’s decision to offer in-principle support to the changes for dual nationals would not prevent the opposition from applying scrutiny. “We must always be vigilant about what the detail of these changes are. They shouldn’t be done lightly which is why it’s extraordinary that these changes were proposed without even a cabinet submission. It’s important that there be integrity in the process,” Albanese told Sky News. “I will wait and see the legislation, but I do think that Peter Dutton needs to grow up a bit, frankly. He’s in a serious position. He needs to stop looking for disagreement and actually bring the nation with him. It’s part of my concern about how this debate is happening is that the government seems to be looking for an area of disagreement with Labor.” Ludlam said he would like to see a more measured debate and greater focus on prevention, rather then the “extraordinary overemphasis that we’re seeing on surveillance and tracking people while the prime minister takes us into yet another war in the Middle East”. “Individuals coming back from that conflict zone having been exposed to these ideologies with post-traumatic stress, there’s no question they could conceivably present a security risk, but whether Islamic State overall represents an existential threat to Australia – it doesn’t. It’s a security risk that needs to be dealt with,” he said. |