Opposition leader Peter Dutton has floated the idea of another referendum to decide whether ministers should have the power to strip dual nationals of their citizenship if they have committed a serious crime.
But the government has dismissed the idea as a "thought bubble" and a distraction ahead of the election, with legal experts questioning why Dutton would pursue citizenship-stripping laws again .
Hours after Dutton spoke about a potential proposal to deport "people who hate our country", Opposition legal affairs spokesperson Michaelia Cash said the Coalition had "no plans" for such a vote, which would cost hundreds of millions of dollars, but was keeping "all options on the table".
While the specifics of any referendum policy haven't been revealed, a constitutional change giving the minister the power to strip citizenship would centralise power in the hands of the minister, effectively bypassing the courts.
Luke Beck, professor of constitutional law at Monash University, told SBS News the High Court found in 2022 that it would be unlawful to give a minister the power to strip someone's citizenship in order to deport them, but the provision seems unnecessary anyway because the court already has the power to do so.
"It's a solution in search of a problem — a judge already has the power to deport dual citizens guilty of serious crimes, so why do we want to go and undermine the separation of powers?" he questioned.
"The question is, what is the point of this? This just sort of sounds like a state election law and order talking point rather than a federal election serious policy idea."
The Commonwealth can strip a dual national of citizenship if they have committed a serious offence, are sentenced to over three years in prison, and the conduct is so serious they show they have "repudiated their allegiance to Australia", according to the Department of Home Affairs.
This followed an incident where two nurses at Sydney's Bankstown Hospital were one of whom was later identified as an Afghan refugee who recently acquired Australian citizenship.
Dutton then raised the prospect of a referendum on Tuesday, being quoted in Nine newspapers and on Seven's Sunrise program as saying "that if you betray your allegiance to our country ... you should expect to lose your citizenship".
Beck said Dutton's suggestion that people convicted of child sexual abuse or antisemitism could be deported by a minister if a constitutional change were passed would be legally complex as the definition of antisemitism is so broad.
He said very few people are convicted of terrorism offences in Australia, and even fewer of those are dual nationals, also pointing out it's unclear why they need to have their citizenship stripped when already serving very long prison sentences.
Helen Irving, a professor emerita of constitutional law at Sydney University, said Dutton could amend the Citizenship Act to make it possible for a minister to strip someone's citizenship if they are convicted of hate speech.
"Under the current Citizenship Act, the minister may, during the trial of a person for a specified offence, apply to a court for the revocation of that person's Australian citizenship as part of the sentence imposed by the court," she said.
"The Citizenship Act refers to a range of criminal offences that might attract the minister's application but does not include hate speech.
"If Mr Dutton wants to extend the range to include hate speech (as he appeared to suggest in interviews earlier this year, in the context of the explosion of antisemitic statements and actions), he might seek to amend the Citizenship Act accordingly (so long as there is a relevant law)."
This wouldn't require a referendum.
"If what he wants is to (re-)empower the relevant minister to revoke citizenship without reference to the courts, a referendum to alter the constitution would be necessary," Irving said.
If Dutton's referendum were to go ahead, history suggests it may be unlikely to pass — Australia has held 45 referendums, but only eight have succeeded.
, which received a 60 per cent No vote, ultimately causing it to fail.
The Coalition has criticised Labor for spending $450 million on the Voice referendum, arguing the funds would have been better used to support struggling Australians rather than divide the nation.
When asked whether Australia could afford another referendum amid cost of living pressures, a key concern for voters, Dutton said holding a referendum would still be worthwhile.
"In terms of cost of living, of course, that's our priority economically … If we believe that we want to keep people safe if you want to keep your kids safe, and we want to keep kids safe in our community, I don't think you can put a price on that", he told Sunrise.
'It'll become toxic'
Independent senator Jacqui Lambie told Sky News she is not opposed to deporting dual citizens, but a referendum is not the best approach.
"I just want to know when did Peter Dutton bring those former retired judges to the table and discuss the best way around this," she said.
"Because I just don't know why we need to go to a referendum, which is, by the way, going to cost millions. It'll become toxic."
'A thought bubble'
Treasurer Jim Chalmers said it was an important issue, but the referendum idea was an attempt by Dutton to distract from the fact that his party has no economic policies.
Chalmers criticised Dutton for imposing the previous laws that were thrown out by the High Court, saying: "Now he wants a referendum to fix his mistakes."
"We've taken a different approach; we rewrote his broken laws to create a more robust system to keep our community safe," he told ABC radio.
"He quite bizarrely wants another referendum — I don't think this idea will last long, just like a lot of the other things that he said in an effort to try and avoid talking about the economy and his cuts."
Prime Minister Anthony Albanese also criticised the proposal, calling it a "thought bubble".
"This has not been thought through. It is not clear where this has come from.
"All these thought bubbles are an excuse to not come up with policies … When are they going to come up with serious policy alternatives?"
— With additional reporting by Australian Associated Press
