Citizenship, Identity
&
Passport
In the next few weeks, possibly a month, Australia is likely to follow Britain lead by introducing legislations cancelling passports and the citizenship of individuals who had left to join ISIS (Islamic State Iraq & Syria).
Like their British counterparts, those individuals whose names are known to the Australian authorities would, when checking to depart from Istanbul or other airports, discover that their Australian passport had been cancelled.
Officially they are no longer Australian citizens.
Does that mean that Australia had abandoned those individuals? And if so, what are the legal and other consequences of such purported abandonment?
In short, such Legislation pose the potential for a legal nightmare both domestically and internationally. What would, or should, Turkey do with an individual at Istanbul or Ankara International Airport with a valid ticket and booking who finds his passport cancelled? For that matter, what should France do with a British jihadist returning to Britain through France that finds his British passport had been cancelled?
What does Turkey (in the case of Australian jihadist) or France (in the case of British jihadist) do with this now stateless individual? Are Turkey or France bound by international obligations towards those purported jihadist?
The chances are, whilst their passport were valid the Australian jihadist flew to Turkey and departed to Syria through the Turkish/Syrian border. Likewise, the chances are the British jihadist departed to France and from France flew to Turkey and entered Syria through Syrian/Turkish border. In other words the Customs Record of both France and Turkey would show these two jihadists had valid passports in which they legally entered the country. Why should either Turkey or France be burdened by domestic politics of Australia and Britain? Needless to say at this stage, before Australia proceeds with drafting the anticipated legislation, that is likely to receive bipartisan support, it is worth noting that the ‘constitutionality’ of the British legislation had not yet been legally challenged. Would the British legislation withstand legal challenge based on Britain international legal obligations and human rights both of which are enshrined in the British Constitution as well as International Treaties?
In Australia’s case, it is worthwhile, and indeed highly advisable, for Attorney-General, George Brandis, (and, since the anticipated legislation is likely to receive bi-partisan support, shadow Attorney-General, Mark Dreyfus) to remember that Part V of the Australian Constitution, more specifically Section 51(xxix), whilst giving Parliament the right to legislate on matters to do with foreign affairs is by no means a blank power. Any anticipated legislation the effect of which is to deprive Australian citizen of his or her passport and make that individual stateless, effectively non-existent, must be able to pass the ‘international guidelines’ and relevant guidelines of United Nations to do with human rights. Whilst Australia had thus far weathered the plethora of international criticisms to do with its treatment of the relatively miniscule number of boat refugees, it is highly unlikely it would be able to weather criticisms whereby Australian citizens are denied their human rights. Needless to say the proposed legislation surviving properly prepared and argued is Constitutional challenge for the High Court of Australia.
…………………………………………..