Former Attorney-General George Brandis has sharply criticized Peter Dutton’s proposal to hold a referendum aimed at allowing the deportation of criminal dual nationals. Brandis called the idea “as mad as I have heard in a long time.” The proposal came after the High Court ruled that only judges, not politicians, could strip individuals of Australian citizenship. Dutton, the opposition leader, insists the move would require constitutional change and claims it’s necessary for national security.
Peter Dutton’s Proposal Faces Backlash
Peter Dutton recently discussed the possibility of holding a national referendum to change Australia’s constitution and enable the deportation of criminal dual nationals. He argued the legal changes would ensure a safer nation and provide more power to politicians to strip citizenship from dual nationals convicted of serious crimes. The High Court had previously ruled in 2022 that such actions were unconstitutional, a ruling that has left many questioning the feasibility and practicality of Dutton’s referendum plan.
The proposal has sparked strong reactions from various political figures. Brandis, a former senior member of the Coalition, immediately dismissed it, labeling it as a poor idea. “A referendum to overturn the High Court’s decision has no chance of success,” he stated in an opinion piece for The Age and The Sydney Morning Herald. He further criticized Dutton’s suggestion, urging him to abandon it.
High Court Ruling Challenges Dutton’s Plan
The issue goes back to 2015 when the then Abbott government introduced a law allowing the government to strip dual nationals of their citizenship if convicted of certain crimes, including terrorism offenses. However, in 2022, the High Court ruled that the law was unconstitutional. The Court determined that the removal of citizenship is a punishment, which must be within the scope of the judiciary, not the executive branch of government.
Currently, only judges can make the decision to strip someone of their citizenship, and only under specific conditions. This decision has left Dutton and other Coalition figures looking for ways to circumvent the High Court’s ruling.
Political Leaders Criticize the Idea
Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and Treasurer Jim Chalmers have both dismissed Dutton’s proposal. Albanese referred to it as a “thought bubble” and questioned its practicality, saying, “This has not been thought through. It is not clear where this has come from.” Chalmers was similarly critical, accusing Dutton of attempting to divert attention from economic issues, including the government’s response to the cost of living crisis.
“The last time Dutton tried to impose these laws, the High Court threw them out, and now he wants a referendum to fix his mistakes,” Chalmers told ABC News. He defended the government’s approach, stating that they had already worked on a more robust system to keep Australians safe, and suggested that Dutton’s suggestion was a distraction.
Coalition MPs Offer Mixed Responses
While Dutton’s proposal has generated significant debate, some Coalition MPs have sought to downplay the idea of holding a referendum. Shadow Treasurer Angus Taylor was cautious, stating that it did not represent a firm election commitment. “As Peter Dutton has already said this morning, all options are on the table,” Taylor said in response to questions about the proposal. He assured the public that the Coalition was working on new citizenship eligibility policies and would provide more details soon.
Ted O’Brien, the Shadow Energy Minister, echoed Taylor’s remarks, clarifying that the referendum was not part of the Coalition’s current plan. “Any referendum is not part of our existing plan,” he said. “But let’s be very clear, we will do whatever it takes to keep Australians safe.” Michaelia Cash, the Shadow Attorney-General, also reinforced the view that the referendum should be a “last resort.”
Nationals MP Kevin Hogan Raises Concerns
While many Coalition MPs have distanced themselves from Dutton’s referendum idea, Nationals MP Kevin Hogan weighed in, stating that more criminal dual nationals might need to be deported. Hogan admitted that he did not know the exact number of such individuals but pointed out that the issue was important. “We know there’s been some already because we already tried to deport them,” he said. “We don’t want them to stay, and I don’t think that’s unreasonable.”
Some Support for the Proposal
Not all politicians have dismissed Dutton’s proposal entirely. Shadow Infrastructure Minister Bridget McKenzie expressed support for the idea, stating that it was “absolutely appropriate to amend our Constitution so we can keep Australians safe.” She added that Australia should be mature enough to have this important debate.
As the debate continues, Peter Dutton’s proposal for a referendum remains controversial. While some members of the Coalition have suggested it might be a last resort, others, including Brandis, argue it’s an impractical and unnecessary step. The future of Dutton’s plan remains uncertain, and it is unclear how the proposal will be received as the federal election approaches. What is clear, however, is that the question of national security, especially regarding dual nationals, is likely to remain a key issue in the political discourse.
