Last month Opposition Leader Peter Dutton told news.com.au that he was considering a pledge to hold a referendum next term on deporting criminal dual nationals as part of the Coalition’s plan to toughen the requirements for Australian citizenship. The idea was put to him this morning by Sunrise host on Channel 7 Nat Barr. He chose not to retract rather endeavored to cement his argument, laboring hard to make Australian community’s safety a top priority for the coalition.
As would be expected, the Labor spin doctors went into overdrive immediately. Within hours, we saw Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and Treasurer Jim Chalmers ridiculing the Opposition Leader Peter Dutton’s proposal, presumably on advice. The idea was labelled as a thought bubble and bizarre.
Peter Dutton has said he is considering an election pledge on changing the Constitution to allow ministers to cancel the citizenship of people guilty of crimes such as terrorism. The idea is to legislate such automatic cancellation which would remove the very expensive and lengthy court battles between the criminals and the government from the Australian court system, which can take decades in some cases and tens of millions of dollars.
In my view, such an idea, which seems logical and rational, will appeal to majority of Aussie battlers who are finding it hard to make ends meet with rising costs of living, particularly in light of the High Court’s intervention from time to time in reducing the use of ministerial discretion on immigration matters. The parliament has unlimited powers to make laws as long as it follows the Constitution. And Dutton has clarified that the legislation will be within the confines of Australian Constitution.
By ridiculing the idea, the Labor spin doctors have ignored the changing political climate in Australia. Unable to reign in youth crime, Labor lost in Queensland. In Victoria too, clearly heading to the calls for tougher handling of law-and-order issues, the Victorian Premier Jacinta Allan has decided to make Bail Laws in Victoria, toughest in Australia. It cannot be without an eye on ‘votes’, particularly in the state where we have seen campaigns to raise the age of criminal responsibility, from 10 to 12 and then to 14, and then back again to 12, all in the ‘to do list’.
Peter Dutton is no bunny and would know what he is doing. The failed Voice to parliament referendum, which Peter Dutton had opposed from day 1, cost Australians $450 million. Why then he would talk of a referendum? Because, “We can do as much as we can by legislation, but as they say, you can’t out-legislate the Constitution. The Constitution is the rule book and people don’t change it lightly, and they need good reason to,” he told Sunrise. He can only argue in this way because he is aware of the 2022 decision of the High Court in Alexander v Minister for Home Affairs where the Court ruled that only judges and not ministers (politicians) could strip criminals of their citizenship.
Thus, Peter Dutton’s argument is that the reform may need a referendum, rather than a law.
“What we’re proposing here is a discussion about whether we’ve got adequate laws, whether the Constitution is restrictive, and ultimately, what I want to do is keep our country safe and keep communities safe.”
Peter Dutton also suggested any new laws could be used to deport paedophiles, as well as terrorists and spies.
Prime Minister Albanese attacked the idea saying:
“It is not clear where this has come from. Peter Dutton wants to talk about anything but the cost of living,”
“(Dutton) has “no plans, just thought bubbles”.
On ABC’s RN Breakfast, treasurer Jim Chalmers said: “He (Peter Dutton) 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.”
Also on ABC’s RN Breakfast, the opposition transport spokeswoman Bridget McKenzie strongly backed the referendum proposal:
“[It is an] absolutely appropriate thing to amend our Constitution so that we can keep Australians safe. And I think our country is mature enough to have that debate.”
If Peter Dutton has got the pulse of Australians, and can craft the narrative for it (the referendum) and the mechanism to control the cost to Australian taxpayer, only he would have the last laugh. In his first term as Prime Minister, Peter Dutton can suggest to Australians that such a referendum (should that still be required at the time) will be held on the same day as 2029 federal election. That has happened at least 8 times in Australia earlier. Referendums on – 12 December 1906, 13 April 1910, 31 May 1913, 13 December 1919, 17 November 1928, 28 September 1946, 18 May 1974 and 1 December 1984 – all were held on the same day as the federal election. That will take care of the cost of having a referendum problem. It will also potentially hand the control of the election 2029 narrative to Peter Dutton as well.