A minister's decision to strip Australian citizenship from dual-nationals should be open to independent review by an administrative tribunal, a joint parliamentary security committee has heard.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
The Human Rights Commission fronted a joint parliamentary intelligence committee review on the government's proposed changes to its citizenship-revoking laws on Friday.
Under the proposed changes, people convicted of terrorism offences resulting in three years jail - rather than six years - would have their citizenship revoked.
It will also apply to conduct since May 29, 2003, instead of December 12, 2015.
The committee was warned that simply allowing a minister to be "satisfied" the person had dual citizenship would leave people stateless without proper evidence.
The commission's Deputy General Counsel Graeme Edgerton said the risk of making a wrong decision was "particularly grave".
The idea of a merits review would ensure that the correct and preferable decision is made, "correct in the sense that it's legally correct", Mr Edgerton said.
He also said more efforts should be made by the government when notifying people their citizenship would be stripped.
He said the system only required that a letter be sent to the last known address.
The Law Council of Australia has warned a minister would only have to consider the conduct of an offence, rather than any political or ideological motivation, which would define it as a terrorist offence under criminal law.
The council's David Neal said someone like Bourke Street killer James Gargasoulas, who killed six people in 2017 when he drove his car through Melbourne's CBD, would be deported.
Dr Neal said it was "unreal" that a minister would only have to consider the conduct, while a court would normally have to prove terrorist motivations.
He said the citizenship loss board which would oversee decisions to revoke citizenships was a "poor substitute" for a court.
"I do notice that when parliamentarians had their dual citizenships challenged they wouldn't settle for anything less than the High Court," Dr Neal said.
Both Mr Edgerton and Dr Neal agreed with Labor shadow attorney-general Mark Dreyfus' suggestion that under the laws, people who had their citizenship wrongly revoked wouldn't have any means to seek compensation.
Dr Neal said they might have access to an act of grace payment.
These are payments that fall outside statutory entitlements and generally are a last resort means of providing compensation to people who may have been unfairly disadvantaged by the Commonwealth but who have no legal claim against it.
Australian Associated Press
