Aug 11, 2015

Citizenship bill: bureaucrats can override courts and ignore allies

The citizenship-stripping bill will hand extraordinary power to Australia's most secretive and least competent bureaucrats -- including the power to override court decisions.

Bernard Keane — Politics editor

Bernard Keane

Politics editor

National security bureaucrats will be able to override the decision of Australian courts and strip Australians of their citizenship and detain them under the government's bizarre, controversial citizenship-stripping bill, officials have admitted to Parliament's intelligence committee. And the government has made no effort to consult with other countries, including our closest allies, about whether they would accept Australian dual nationals who had been stripped of their citizenship for conduct linked directly or indirectly to a broad range of "terrorist" offences. The admissions were made in a hearing of the Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security late yesterday afternoon involving the Secretary of the Department of Immigration, Mike Pezzullo, and a range of security officials from ASIO, the AFP (including Mike "Bali Nine" Phelan) and the much-criticised Australian Border Force. Under the Australian Citizenship Amendment (Allegiance to Australia) Bill 2015, dual nationals may be stripped of their citizenship through a complex process by which certain conduct -- from fighting with another country or proscribed terrorist organisation through to vandalising Commonwealth property -- is identified as having occurred and therefore been the basis for an "automatic" relinquishing of citizenship by the person responsible. The Minister for Immigration must then sign a notice that citizenship has been relinquished, although the target might not be told that his or her citizenship has been revoked. The process of identifying conduct that is said to have automatically led to the relinquishing of citizenship will be carried out in complete secrecy by a group of security bureaucrats, who will then in effect the minister to declare that a person has relinquished his or her citizenship. However, the committee heard yesterday that this apparent lack of ministerial discretion -- a hastily contrived mechanism to cover the constitutional and political problem of giving a minister an unreviewable power -- is in effect a fiction. The minister must (in the words of the bill) sign a notice that citizenship has been lost, but might also instantly (or late) rescind that decision (in cases, for example, where it is considered prudent that a person retain their citizenship despite engaging in the relevant behaviour). Indeed, officials make recommend the rescission of citizenship and the retraction of that rescission in the same brief. The minister also has complete discretion about the timing of making the notice -- meaning he or she could perpetually delay making the notice. The minister thus has almost full discretion about the making of the notice to strip someone of their citizenship, despite legally having no discretion. Officials yesterday also confirmed that it would be possible for a person to be stripped of citizenship and then detained under the Migration Act despite courts acquitting the person of the conduct that formed the basis for stripping their citizenship. Pressed on this point, bureaucrats said that their standard for determining if certain conduct had occurred would be a "high probability" -- well short of the criminal standard of beyond reasonable doubt required by Australian courts. This process would be conducted entirely in secret by bureaucrats, with no accountability or review. However, the bureaucrats insisted in their own defence, people detained under the Migration Act weren't detained in quite the same way as under the criminal justice system. Recall that the department administering this legislation will be the one that deported Vivian Solon, detained Cornelia Rau and cancelled Muhamed Haneef's visa, illegally in each case. Pezzullo and the rest of the officials present tried to resist answering questions on the issue of their own process for deciding to strip someone of their citizenship as much as possible, repeatedly trying to sidetrack the committee by insisting that they would not be making any legal decisions that certain conduct had occurred. Labor's Mark Dreyfus, however, refused to be distracted, and eventually drew admissions from officials on the process. And in a remarkable admission, in response to a question from committee deputy chair, Labor's Anthony Byrne, Pezzullo also said that no consultations had been undertaken with other countries about the impact of the bill, which might "dump" convicted or suspected terrorists on countries in which they held dual citizenship. The majority of Australian dual nationals come from the UK and New Zealand, two of our "Five Eyes" partners, with whom intelligence officials regularly consult, making the omission all the more extraordinary and raising the possibility that Australia might dump terrorists on its allies with no consultation. As the committee learns more about this bill, the extraordinary, almost Kafkaesque nature of it becomes clearer and clearer -- as does the extent to which it hands extraordinary power to Australia's most secretive, unaccountable and, as history has shown, incompetent bureaucrats.

Free Trial

You've hit members-only content.

Sign up for a FREE 21-day trial to keep reading and get the best of Crikey straight to your inbox

By starting a free trial, you agree to accept Crikey’s terms and conditions


Leave a comment

14 thoughts on “Citizenship bill: bureaucrats can override courts and ignore allies

  1. WakeUpAustralia

    Yet another “senior moment” from our “adult” government.

    If Australians allow the LNP to get away with all of their collective destruction (including that which was intended but so far thwarted) simply because they change leaders….well, then Aussies deserve everthing they get from this disgraceful sellout circus of a government.

    Being a responsible citizen actually requires you to think about what these idiots are doing (or not doing…or actively obstructing) so wake the hell up Australia and smell the roses….because they smell like crap.

  2. Dogs breakfast

    Bald-faced, pure, unadulterated, premium grade incompetence.

    With just a hint of malevolence.

  3. James O'Neill

    I agree with comments 1 & 2, but there are some further serious questions that need to be asked. For example, this latest Bill is part of a long line of legislation since 2001 that has seriously eroded our basic liberties. On what basis could one seriously argue that this won’t continue, especially given the craven attitude of the Labor Party on all matters “national security”? Secondly, shouldn’t this reawaken the debate about a Bill of Rights (or equivalent) to give a measure of constitutional protection against the steady erosion of our rights? Are we such victims of State propaganda that like the “good” Germans of the 1930s we simply march in lock step to the totalitarian state?

  4. The Pav

    Ditto Comments 1& 2

    So much for the rule of Law and protections of our rights

  5. Kniest Paul

    The real problem with giving bureaucrats the power to make these decisions is that they are simply doing what they expect their Ministers want them to do. It’s no accident the other stuff occurred under Vanstone and Andrews.

  6. klewso

    “Doh! Where’s Lenny and Carl? …. They said it would work?”

  7. klewso

    When can we turn this on a government spreading terror?

  8. Peter Kemp

    Australian Citizenship Amendment (Allegiance to Australia) Bill 2015

    Australian Citizenship (Wogs We don’t Like & Sundry Rooinek Voter Enhancement) Bill

    The process of identifying conduct that is said to have automatically led to the relinquishing of citizenship will be carried out in complete secrecy by a group
    of security bureaucrats, who will then in effect the minister to declare that a person has relinquished his or her citizenship.

    Grammatical error there Bernard but the antidote to all this neocon poison is s75(5) of the Constitution, the High Court has the Catch 22, raising the number of missions:

    75. In all matters–

    (i.) Arising under any treaty:

    (ii.) Affecting consuls or other representatives of other countries:

    (iii.) In which the Commonwealth, or a person suing or being sued on behalf of the Commonwealth, is a party:

    (iv.) Between States, or between residents of different States, or between a State and a resident of another State:

    (v.) In which a writ of Mandamus or prohibition or an injunction is sought against an officer of the Commonwealth: The High Court shall have original jurisdiction.

    It’s unique in the world, I won’t post a link to Mary Gaudron on that cos Crikey spaminator will have me in the in bin for 24 hours

  9. Bonza Bill


    “…this latest Bill is part of a long line of legislation since 2001 that has seriously eroded our basic liberties.”

    I prefer to think of it as a progressive transferring of power from the judiciary, legislature and citizenry to the executive and spooks/military.

    “…shouldn’t this reawaken the debate about a Bill of Rights…?”

    Many things need reforming. I think political “donations” reform is the most likely to pull us out of this nosedive.

  10. Norman Hanscombe

    Guy, if you genuinely can’t see that bureaucrats are not over-riding Courts in cases where Legislation gives those bureaucrats the legal power to act as they do, It’s time you sought sound legal advice from someone, otherwise you’ll continue to provide your fervent acolytes in Crikey Land excuses for them not analysing information more carefully.
    Surely you’re in a strong position than most to not be silenced by the Crikey Censor?

Share this article with a friend

Just fill out the fields below and we'll send your friend a link to this article along with a message from you.

Your details

Your friend's details