.png)
4 hours ago
1
But by mid-morning, the opposition leader’s shadow attorney general, Michaelia Cash, was telling media: “We have no plans to hold a referendum at this stage.”
Other Liberal and National members told Guardian Australia they learned about the idea from media reporting and had strong reservations about changing citizenship laws – a sentiment echoed within hours by former Liberal attorney general George Brandis.
After weeks of pressure on the Coalition to explain its small-target policy agenda – amid confusion and shifting or unclear answers on how its policies on divestiture, insurance, the public service and tax-deductible meals would actually work – Anthony Albanese panned the proposal as “another thought bubble from Peter Dutton that hasn’t made it to lunchtime”.
Here’s the timeline.
21 February
According to News.com.au, Dutton tells a conference in South Australia he is concerned about a lack of power to deport dual nationals convicted of serious crimes, saying: “The constitution is a barrier.
“If we need to amend the constitution, then I think that’s a debate that our country is mature enough to have.”
17 MarchMonday night
The Nine newspapers report Dutton is considering an election pledge for a referendum to allow the government to strip Australian citizenship from dual nationals convicted of serious crimes such as terrorism. According to the report, Dutton and “senior MPs have held high-level talks” about the idea, still under consideration and not confirmed, if they “cannot find a legislative fix” to the problem.
Nine reports that the Coalition believs a referendum is needed because of a 2022 high court ruling that found it was unconstitutional for a government minister to strip citizenship – as opposed to a judge.
18 MarchTuesday, 7.15am
On Channel Seven’s Sunrise program, Dutton does not explicitly confirm he wants a referendum, but does not deny Nine’s report. He says such a move would target people “who hate our country – who want to cause terrorist attacks”.
“My argument is that if you betray your allegiance to our country in that way, you should expect to lose your citizenship,” Dutton says.
Later on the program, Dutton says any new powers could also be used to deport people convicted of paedophilia and antisemitism offences.
Asked why a referendum is needed, Dutton says: “We can do as much as we can by legislation but, as they say, you can’t out-legislate the constitution.
“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.”
18 MarchTuesday, 8am
Nationals senator and shadow infrastructure minister, Bridget McKenzie, tells Radio National such a change would be “absolutely appropriate”.
“If you want to change our founding document, that we ask every single Australian their opinion on the change, I think that’s very, very democratic, ideally. And usually that takes place with a constitutional convention where both sides get to publicly debate each other,” she says.
“I think that that would be an absolutely appropriate thing, to amend our constitution so that we can keep Australians safe.”
18 MarchTuesday, 9am
Soon afterward, Sky News reports Cash saying the Coalition has “no plans to hold a referendum at this stage, and would only look to that option as a last resort”.
Her office confirmed this in a statement to Guardian Australia, where Cash went on to add: “However, if gets to the point where it is necessary to amend our constitution to keep Australians safe, then we believe that’s a debate our country is mature enough to have.”
18 MarchTuesday, 9.30am
The Nationals leader, David Littleproud, tells Sky News “everything should be on the table and we’re exploring all options”, adding: “A referendum is expensive and it also takes time.
“The primary responsibility of any government is to keep its people safe. And if governments don’t have the tools to do that, and one of the constraints is the constitution, then ultimately, we may have to explore that,” he says.
18 MarchTuesday, 12.35pm
The Nine papers publish an op-ed by Brandis, who calls the suggested referendum a “very bad” idea. “Dutton should rule it out, and fast,” he writes.
“An unwanted referendum, without bipartisan support, to overturn the High Court?
“It is as mad an idea as I have heard in a long time.”
18 MarchTuesday afternoon
At a press conference in Tasmania, the shadow treasurer, Angus Taylor, says the Coalition is “working on” its policies around citizenship, and does not say how much such a referendum would cost.
“We haven’t announced that policy, and we’ll say more in the coming weeks.”
18 MarchTuesday, 4.30pm
Nationals MP Kevin Hogan, the shadow trade minister, tells ABC TV: “I don’t think necessarily we will have to have a referendum, and hopefully we won’t have to. Obviously, it’s a tool in our arsenal if we need to.”
Hogan says the Coalition, in government, would look at “other solutions” to fix the issue.
“We do not want to have a referendum as a first option … So I think what Peter is saying, quite reasonably, is we’ll have other things that we’ll try and do first.”
Many remained tight-lipped on the proposal on Tuesday, but several members of the Liberal and National parties told Guardian Australia the referendum idea had not been formally discussed in either party room.
Some MPs expressed support, saying considering how to deal with people convicted of serious crimes was a worthwhile endeavour. Veteran Liberal MP Warren Entsch suggested the idea could save the government money, in place of having to house or care for people in detention.
But several others, who said they learned of the proposal through media reports, wanted more details of the potential constitutional change before they commented further.
One Coalition MP, referencing the unsuccessful Indigenous voice referendum, noted the opposition had criticised the Labor government for a lack of detail on its proposed constitutional change.
Another MP looked forward to “finding out next week” – and getting more detail when the party rooms met in Canberra. Asked their opinion of the proposed change, they pointed to Brandis’s comments.
It is unclear whether Dutton will formally commit to such a referendum, or if it is simply what politicians call a “test balloon” – to check the public mood on a change. We expect more questions – about this, and the Coalition’s other policies – when parliament resumes next week.
