This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2015/jun/04/labor-agrees-in-principle-to-stripping-citizenship-from-dual-national-fighters

The article has changed 3 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Labor agrees 'in principle' to stripping citizenship from dual-national fighters Labor agrees 'in principle' to stripping citizenship from dual-national fighters
(35 minutes later)
Labor has given “in principle” backing to the Abbott government’s proposal to strip citizenship from dual nationals fighting for Islamic State, saying it is a “sensible step”. But prominent lawyers have questioned whether it is constitutional.Labor has given “in principle” backing to the Abbott government’s proposal to strip citizenship from dual nationals fighting for Islamic State, saying it is a “sensible step”. But prominent lawyers have questioned whether it is constitutional.
The prime minister, Tony Abbott, has been demanding “in principle” support from Labor for the as-yet-undetailed plan to use an existing provision of the constitution to allow dual citizens fighting with Isis to have their citizenship revoked though a ministerial decision, with some kind of judicial review.The prime minister, Tony Abbott, has been demanding “in principle” support from Labor for the as-yet-undetailed plan to use an existing provision of the constitution to allow dual citizens fighting with Isis to have their citizenship revoked though a ministerial decision, with some kind of judicial review.
“We know, instinctively, 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. That is what we believe. What do you believe? Do you want dual national citizens to keep their citizenship?” he asked Bill Shorten across the despatch box during question time on Wednesday.“We know, instinctively, 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. That is what we believe. What do you believe? Do you want dual national citizens to keep their citizenship?” he asked Bill Shorten across the despatch box during question time on Wednesday.
On Thursday the opposition leader provided an answer, telling reporters, “We think it is a sensible development in principle that these dual citizens should not be able to claim any longer the marvellous gift of Australian citizenship … We think [it] is a sensible step … but we need to go beyond the principled discussion and see the details.”On Thursday the opposition leader provided an answer, telling reporters, “We think it is a sensible development in principle that these dual citizens should not be able to claim any longer the marvellous gift of Australian citizenship … We think [it] is a sensible step … but we need to go beyond the principled discussion and see the details.”
Asked whether the citizenship revocation decisions should be made by a minister, Shorten said “we haven’t seen the legislation. We’ve got concerns of ministers just having those sort of powers without a court process, you know, that’s a question mark, that’s a new development. I think there’s a lot of people concerned by that and you’d want to see what the case was for that.”
Abbott said the legislation to give the immigration minister the power to strip dual-national foreign fighters of their citizenship would be introduced “in a week or so” and Labor would receive a briefing on its detail then.Abbott said the legislation to give the immigration minister the power to strip dual-national foreign fighters of their citizenship would be introduced “in a week or so” and Labor would receive a briefing on its detail then.
The government has referred a further proposition – that citizenship also be stripped from foreign fighters who had the potential to claim citizenship of another country – to a “discussion paper” after a dramatically leaked backlash during a cabinet discussion two weeks ago. But Abbott is encouraging about 40 backbenchers who are publicly lobbying for the government to also legislate on this front.The government has referred a further proposition – that citizenship also be stripped from foreign fighters who had the potential to claim citizenship of another country – to a “discussion paper” after a dramatically leaked backlash during a cabinet discussion two weeks ago. But Abbott is encouraging about 40 backbenchers who are publicly lobbying for the government to also legislate on this front.
But prominent constitutional lawyers are questioning whether the government can legally bypass judicial process and give a minister the discretion to take the decision to strip citizenship.But prominent constitutional lawyers are questioning whether the government can legally bypass judicial process and give a minister the discretion to take the decision to strip citizenship.
The vice-chancellor of the Catholic University, Greg Craven, wrote in the Australian that stripping either dual or sole nationals of citizenship via a ministerial decision “would be irredeemably unconstitutional. By conferring a profoundly judicial power on a minister, it mocks the separation of powers. It would be swatted down like a bug by the high court.The vice-chancellor of the Catholic University, Greg Craven, wrote in the Australian that stripping either dual or sole nationals of citizenship via a ministerial decision “would be irredeemably unconstitutional. By conferring a profoundly judicial power on a minister, it mocks the separation of powers. It would be swatted down like a bug by the high court.
“The possibility of stripping Australian citizenship from a terrorist dual citizen is more plausible, at least provided Australia managed to get in first. But even then the decision would have to lie with a judge, not a politician.”“The possibility of stripping Australian citizenship from a terrorist dual citizen is more plausible, at least provided Australia managed to get in first. But even then the decision would have to lie with a judge, not a politician.”
Professor George Williams, from the University of NSW law school, agreed, although he said he would not be quite as unequivocal as Craven.Professor George Williams, from the University of NSW law school, agreed, although he said he would not be quite as unequivocal as Craven.
“I think it is a good argument, although I wouldn’t be quite as definitive about the outcome,” he said.“I think it is a good argument, although I wouldn’t be quite as definitive about the outcome,” he said.
“What they are proposing runs counter to basic and fundamental principles of the rule of law and the separation of powers. It is proposing that a minister be given powers that usurp the role of the courts.“What they are proposing runs counter to basic and fundamental principles of the rule of law and the separation of powers. It is proposing that a minister be given powers that usurp the role of the courts.
“Just because it might be hard to get enough evidence for a conviction does not mean you can work around the rule of law. I can’t see how they can do this if they bypass the courts.”“Just because it might be hard to get enough evidence for a conviction does not mean you can work around the rule of law. I can’t see how they can do this if they bypass the courts.”
On Wednesday Malcolm Turnbull also called for the citizenship debate to be guided by the rule of law, rather than “bravado”.
“Some people like to suggest that some people are tougher on terrorism or tougher on national security than others,” he said.
“Honest people, knowledgeable people, really well-informed people, can have very different views about what the right measures are for national security, and can have very different views about the right balance between, say, citizenship and national security.
“It’s not good enough that laws simply be tough, this is not a sort of bravado issue, they’ve got to be the right laws, you’ve got to get the measure right.”