Penny Wright (SA, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

I move:

That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Attorney-General (Senator Brandis) to a question without notice asked by Senator Wright today relating to proposed amendments to citizenship laws.

Yesterday was the 800th anniversary of the Magna Carta. I sat in the Great Hall along with many other distinguished guests and witnessed a ceremony that included great rhetoric from members of the current government about the symbolism of the Magna Carta and what an important principle it was for the rule of law. This week we also heard the Attorney-General celebrating the 800th anniversary of the Magna Carta and, in particular, praising it for limiting the arbitrary power of the Crown. So, my question to the Attorney-General today was a logical one when I asked him if it pained him to have to simultaneously promote these new citizenship laws, which will drastically increase the arbitrary powers of the executive—against the warnings and concerns of many, many people in the community, including many learned legal commentators, because they will allow the immigration minister to revoke an Australian's citizenship on the basis of mere suspicion and in the absence of any determination by a court—or is the Attorney-General, I asked, oblivious to his and the government's apparent staggering hypocrisy? On the one hand, they are extolling the virtues of this 800-year-old document; on the other hand they are pushing for unprecedented powers to be put in the hands of a minister: the power to strip away one of the most fundamental rights that we have in a democracy. In fact, it is the most fundamental right: that of being a citizen. Isn't it interesting that the Attorney-General's answer extolled the various virtues of the Magna Carta but, although I listened carefully, I did not hear him refer at all to the particular issue I addressed, which was the arbitrary power of the Crown?

Bret Walker SC has described the government's intention to put power to revoke citizenship solely in the hands of Minister Peter Dutton as 'constitutionally unthinkable' and a misreading of his advice. And he is not the only one who is presaging that, if there were to be a constitutional challenge to this legislation, it would fail; it would be against our fundamental governing document, our Constitution.

But is that going to stop the Prime Minister, Mr Abbott, from proceeding with this proposed legislation? No, no, no. He has been very clear that he will not be daunted by the likelihood that what he is proposing is constitutional, because, after all, we understand that it is a minister's job to be popular—a minister like the immigration minister, a minister in a government that is desperate to have more support in the polls, some of that done by dividing people and causing people fear and then pretending to fix that up to allay their concerns. That is exactly why, in a democracy, there are some things that should only ever be determined by a court—fundamental things like the right to citizenship—because, while it is a minister's job to be political, to be popular, it is a judge's job to be right. It is a judge's job to be right without fear or favour.

How can the Australian people continue to trust a government which continually and consistently works to bypass the courts—which is what we have been seeing in the swathe of legislation that has been coming through over the last months—especially when that bypassing of the courts will result in decisions like stripping people of their citizenship being put in the hands of someone with a track record like that of Minister Peter Dutton. The government's strategy to bypass the courts is extreme.

Like the other strategies that the government has been pursuing, strategies which have been described by the Prime Minister, very candidly, as things to be achieved 'by hook or by crook'—in other words, whatever it takes—this is a strategy that the government is increasingly, clearly, ready to pursue. It is clear that this government will do whatever is necessary to gain a political advantage. When it comes to stripping away fundamental rights and freedoms, the very fundamental rights and freedoms that are in the Magna Carta that we have been celebrating this week, it is chilling. It is not acceptable, and the government must abandon these proposed laws.

Question agreed to.