Revoking citizenship is pointless and absurd

We’re sorry, this feature is currently unavailable. We’re working to restore it. Please try again later.

Advertisement

This was published 8 years ago

Revoking citizenship is pointless and absurd

Abbott is suggesting an irresponsible and impractical way to manage terrorists.

By Andrew Zammit

The federal government has announced it will introduce legislation to revoke citizenship as a counter-terrorism measure, but this is not a practical or responsible way to tackle the terrorist threat that Australia faces.

Under the proposed law, dual-national Australians suspected of terrorism offences (namely fighting in Syria and Iraq with Jabhat al-Nusra and Islamic State) could lose their citizenship at the discretion of the Immigration Minister.

Mohamed Elomar

Mohamed Elomar

The recent citizenship discussion paper stated that this power might not only apply to dual-citizens. The government is considering enabling the power to apply to second-generation Australians who can obtain citizenship in a parent's country of origin.

In light of images of Australian jihadists posing with severed heads in Syria, the idea of revoking citizenship has an intuitive appeal, but that does not make it good policy.

Khaled Sharrouf, an Australian Islamic State member, has bragged about war crimes, but what would revoking his citizenship achieve?

Khaled Sharrouf, an Australian Islamic State member, has bragged about war crimes, but what would revoking his citizenship achieve?

This policy would be an impractical and irresponsible approach to counter-terrorism, for several reasons.

First, the power will not be restricted to people convicted of offences so there is a large risk of it being used mistakenly. The decisions can be judicially reviewed, but this will not require that guilt of a crime be proved beyond reasonable doubt.

There are times when it helps public safety to place restrictions on someone without proving their guilt. This occurs with Apprehended Violence Orders in domestic violence cases, as well as passport confiscations and Control Orders in terrorism cases. But revoking citizenship is a step far beyond this, and could potentially destroy the lives of innocent people.

Second, it will raise questions of why citizenship is not revoked for non-terrorist crimes, from rape and murder to theft and fraud, potentially requiring a rethink of Australia's whole approach to citizenship. This is a risky path to take, and it is unnecessary for dealing with a small number of terrorists.

Advertisement

Third, it risks undermining social inclusion. The policy treats dual-citizens and possibly second-generation Australians differently to other Australians for the same crime (or suspicion thereof). This could signal that the millions of dual-national Australians are somehow lesser Australians.

Fourth, even if the power is only used against truly dangerous people, it does nothing to bring them to justice.

For example, two Australian Islamic State members, Khaled Sharrouf and Mohamed Elomar, have bragged about war crimes and keeping sex slaves. Morally, they are surely two people who most deserve having such powers used against them. But practically, what would it achieve?

It would not reduce their ability to return to Australia; cancelling their passports has already prevented that. The Australian Federal Police has issued warrants for them, so in the unlikely event they contacted an embassy to facilitate their return, they would arrive in handcuffs. The arrest warrants and their lack of passports also limit their ability to leave the conflict zone in Syria and Iraq to travel to other countries.

Revoking citizenship could potentially destroy the lives of innocent people.

It is difficult to see how revoking their citizenship would restrict their activities any further. It would simply amount to a declaration that Australia is absolving responsibility, and that it's not our problem if Australian-born men are murdering people in foreign countries.

Fifth, the policy effectively pushes Australia's security problems on to other countries, which may be less capable of handling them.

For example, since 2002 around a dozen Lebanese-Australian dual citizens have been convicted of terrorism offences in Lebanon. This includes Hussam Sabbagh, who was a major jihadist figure in Lebanon and reportedly commanded a 300-strong militia. There may be many terrorist suspects currently in Lebanon who hold Australian citizenship. Australia would not appreciate it if the Lebanese government said "not our problem", revoked their citizenship and deported them.

But this is effectively what Australia could end up doing to other countries. Currently only a few countries, such as Britain, take this approach. If more countries adopt it, it could undermine the international counter-terrorism co-operation that is needed to tackle this global threat and that Australia itself benefits from.

When this legislation is presented to the parliamentary joint committee on intelligence and security, the committee should ask the hard questions of exactly what practical benefits it would have over the current approach; how it fits in with Australia's international counter-terrorism obligations; and how the government plans to address the many potential unintended consequences.

Andrew Zammit is a researcher at Monash University's Global Terrorism Research Centre and a PhD candidate at the University of Melbourne.

Most Viewed in National

Loading