Terror bill ‘in no fit state’

Legal experts are warning that the government’s latest proposed national security laws are riddled with loopholes.

George Williams, professor of law at the University of NSW in Sydney, says the Coalition’s bill is ‘not in a fit state to be passed’.

Legal experts are warning that the government’s latest proposed national security laws, designed to automatically strip dual nationals engaged in terrorism of their Australian citizenship, are riddled with loopholes.

Leading constitutional law professor George Williams said the Coalition’s bill was so badly and hastily drafted that it was “not in a fit state to be passed’’ by the federal parliament: “I’ve given evidence to this committee and other committees 20, 30 times and this is the first time I’m prepared to say I’m confident not only that there is a strong case against this bill, but more likely than not it would be struck down by the High Court.’’

Professor Williams, speaking to the parliament’s joint committee on intelligence and security yesterday, also cautioned that many Australians may not know they in fact hold dual citizenship.

“It may be, for example, that a person is a dual national because of their grandparents’ ancestry and the person need not take any steps to actually manifest that citizenship, it just automatically may be conferred upon them.’’

He estimated there may be four to six million dual nationals in Australia and many would be unaware of their status.

“It does throw up the possibility that the first time a person would be aware that their citizenship has been revoked is when they get a knock on the door from immigration or other officials saying ‘You’re no longer a citizen, we’re now taking you to immigration detention’,’’ Professor Williams told the hearing.

The committee is examining the proposed modernisation of the Citizenship Act to ensure that dual nationals engaged in terror activities lose the privilege of their Australian citizenship.

It would target taking part in domestic or international terrorism, using explosive or other ­lethal devices, providing or receiving training in preparation for a terrorist act, as well as recruiting and financing terrorism.

Professor Williams and the Law Council of Australia both warned that the proposed changes were so broad they contained unintended consequences and people could be caught in the net for minor offences.

They argued that dual nat­ionals who intentionally damaged commonwealth property, whether puncturing the tyres of a commonwealth car, taking part in a sit-in protest on commonwealth property that damaged furniture, or writing a phone number in permanent marker on a soldier’s uniform could be impacted by the changes.

Law Council of Australia president Duncan McConnel, who argued that the changes lacked sufficient legal safeguards, said loss of citizenship should occur only after a conviction in an independent, impartial and competent court of tribunal.

“After a conviction, automatic citizenship cessation should not occur but should require a decision by the minister considering whether the person poses a substantial risk to Australia’s security or threatens Australia’s international standing,’’ he said.