When it comes to the citizenship debate, I agree with David Leyonhjelm who accused the government of “trying to wedge Labor on national security from the start”.

But I’d take it one step further – not only are they trying to “wedge” Labor, they are trying to wedge all non-government parliamentarians.



We are told, as is the public through the media, that if we do not support the proposals we do not care about national security.

The 'allegiance to Australia' bill: arguably unconstitutional, definitely questionable | Tim Vines Read more

This, in my eyes, is a grab at potentially excessive powers simply through ruling by fear. In ruling by fear, we are tricked into a mindset that it is OK to give away our privacy. We are told that if you aren’t doing anything wrong, you have nothing to hide.

Just because you are not doing anything wrong, does not mean that you have no right to privacy.

While I completely agree that 50 Australians fighting abroad is devastating, the reality is there are over 23 million Australians who have not and will not ever consider these acts; 23 million people who have a right to freedom, privacy and the presumption of innocence.

When I was young I remember asking if Santa was real. This was followed by a comment like, “Come here mate, we need to have a talk.” After this talk I was disappointed, but understood and accepted the reality.

I also remember questioning whether God was real at a similar time. Unlike the Santa question, this ended a little different. It was more along the lines of, “If you don’t believe in God, you will go to hell,” followed by a descriptive definition of demons, fire and all sorts of things which filled me with fear. So much fear that I essentially believed the boogie man was coming to get me, would pull the blankets over my head and pee the bed. Now, many years later, I see the same ruling-by-fear tactics being handed down through the media by our own prime minister and attorney general. When government overreach – such as granting a minister unprecedented powers and by-passing judicial process – was questioned, the government’s approach was to instil fear in the ALP.

“The ALP want to roll out the red carpet for terrorists” is what we were told. I sat in our great “democratic” Senate chamber and listened to George Brandis spray this at the ALP in question time, at the same time Tony Abbott was saying the exact same thing in the lower house. I guess they both got the same briefing paper on how to wedge the ALP (without it being leaked this time).



If members of the government honestly believe that they have a good policy they should sell it to the people without the unnecessary fear mongering and scare campaigning. If they are so convinced that they are making a decision in the best interests of Australia, they should be prepared to be scrutinised and have a good, calm argument to back up their views – not jump up and down screaming that the boogie man is coming in the hope that everybody will pull the blankets over their head and pee the bed. I agree that those who travel abroad to fight against us with Isis should feel the full weight of the law. I do not accept by-passing our judicial system, nor do I believe removing citizenship and leaving our “problems” in a situation where they can continue to commit crimes is good policy. I do believe that we should strengthen our current laws and consider life imprisonment without parole for those found guilty, but not without a proper judicial process to ensure that we do not falsely accuse a single innocent person. We have a separation of the executive and judicial powers for a good reason.

The government has introduced the creatively named Australian citizenship amendment (allegiance to Australia) bill 2015. I will need to examine the provisions of this bill closely but my initial reaction is that it could have been a lot worse, but it could be better.

At first glance, it appears the separation of powers has been respected, however senior public servants will have a role in deciding whether a dual national meets the criteria to have their citizenship taken away.

Tony Abbott has left open the possibility of amending the bill so that it applies retrospectively. Although there is no express or implied prohibition on the making of retrospective laws in the Australian constitution, we need to tread very carefully.

I do not accept the mentality of ruling by fear and I worry about the slippery slope we may head down if we allow government to enact laws based on fear rather than rationale.

If our government has a desire to strengthen laws they should do so factually and calmly, not by spreading fear – that is doing the job of the terrorist.

The report from the parliamentary joint committee on intelligence and security will be telling. With Labor indicating possible support, it looks like the wedge has done its job.