This bill became law on Dec 7th, 2023.
Immigration, border & security
Australian courts, not the minister alone, can now strip Australian citizenship from a person as part of sentencing for certain very serious crimes.
High CourtAustralia's top court, which struck down the earlier ministerial citizenship-stripping powers in the Alexander and Benbrika cases. rulings in Alexander and Benbrika invalidated the minister’s power to strip citizenship, finding only courts can impose that punishment for past conduct. This bill repeals those invalid provisions and lets a court remove a dual citizenA person who is an Australian citizen and also has citizenship of another country, which matters here because the law only applies if another citizenship remains.’s citizenship during sentencing for specified serious offences, without making anyone stateless.
Australia first added terrorism-related citizenship loss laws in 2015, then replaced them in 2020 with a model that let the minister strip dual nationals of citizenship after serious conduct, but the High CourtAustralia's top court, which struck down the earlier ministerial citizenship-stripping powers in the Alexander and Benbrika cases.’s Alexander decision in 2022 and Benbrika decision in 2023 ruled that kind of punishment for past conduct had to be imposed by a court, not the executive. This bill responded by repealing the invalid ministerial powers and creating a court-based process tied to sentencing for specified serious offences, before Parliament passed it in December 2023 and Royal AssentThe formal step where the Governor-General signs a bill so it becomes law, which is how this bill became an Act. turned it into law.
The main criticism was that the bill lets Australia treat some dual nationals as lesser citizens by making citizenship something a court can take away, while the drafting was also attacked as rushed and uneven. That full objection mainly came from the Greens, while the Coalition and some crossbench senators still backed the bill but only with complaints that it needed stronger safeguards, more scrutiny or different scope.
The government introduced this bill. It passed with support from Labor, Liberal Party, Nationals, Centre Alliance, some crossbench members; opposed by Greens, some crossbench members.
Did it become law?
Yes
Became law 07 Dec 2023
Final passage
Recorded final vote
1 counted final-passage vote was recorded.
Passage speed
8 days
From introduction to the latest recorded parliamentary step
Meaning
Australian courts, not the minister alone, can now strip Australian citizenship from a person as part of sentencing for certain very serious crimes.
The power applies when a person is convicted of serious offences such as explosives, treason, espionage, foreign interference, terrorism or foreign fighting offences, and gets at least 3 years in prison.
A court cannot take away citizenship if that would leave the person with no citizenship anywhere else.
The law can reach any Australian citizen, including someone who got citizenship at birth, and can count concurrent prison terms together when working out the 3-year threshold.
The minister must report yearly to Parliament on these court applications, and the Independent National Security Legislation MonitorAn independent reviewer who examines Australia's national security laws and, on this page, is required to review how the new citizenship loss regime works after three years. must review how the new citizenship loss laws work after 3 years.
the court may, when imposing such a period or periods of imprisonment on the person in respect of the conviction or convictions, also order at that time as part of the sentence or sentences that the person ceases to be an Australian citizen.Australian Citizenship Amendment (Citizenship Repudiation) Act 2023 final Act text
(3) A serious offence is an offence against any of the following provisions:Australian Citizenship Amendment (Citizenship Repudiation) Act 2023 final Act text
(2) However, the court must not make an order under subsection (1) in relation to the person if the court is satisfied that the person would, if the court were to make the order, become a person who is not a national or citizen of any country.Australian Citizenship Amendment (Citizenship Repudiation) Act 2023 final Act text
(10) This section applies in relation to a person who is an Australian citizen regardless of how the person became an Australian citizen (including a person who became an Australian citizen upon the person’s birth).Australian Citizenship Amendment (Citizenship Repudiation) Act 2023 final Act text
The Bill also requires the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor to review the operation, effectiveness and implications of the amendments as soon as practicable after the end of the 3-year period of the commencement of the amendments. Following this review, the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security may resolve to also consider the operation, effectiveness and implications of the amendments.Australian Citizenship Amendment (Citizenship Repudiation) explanatory memorandum
Context
Australia first added terrorism-related citizenship loss laws in 2015, then replaced them in 2020 with a model that let the minister strip dual nationals of citizenship after serious conduct, but the High CourtAustralia's top court, which struck down the earlier ministerial citizenship-stripping powers in the Alexander and Benbrika cases.’s Alexander decision in 2022 and Benbrika decision in 2023 ruled that kind of punishment for past conduct had to be imposed by a court, not the executive. This bill responded by repealing the invalid ministerial powers and creating a court-based process tied to sentencing for specified serious offences, before Parliament passed it in December 2023 and Royal AssentThe formal step where the Governor-General signs a bill so it becomes law, which is how this bill became an Act. turned it into law.
Parliament creates the first terrorism-related citizenship loss laws
Australia amended the Citizenship Act to let dual citizens lose citizenship over terrorism-related conduct, aimed at convicted terrorists and foreign fighters.
Australian Citizenship Amendment (Citizenship Repudiation) explanatory memorandum ↗Independent monitor reviews the citizenship cessationA court order that ends a person's Australian citizenship for a listed serious offence, if the person has another citizenship and would not become stateless. regime
The Independent National Security Legislation MonitorAn independent reviewer who examines Australia's national security laws and, on this page, is required to review how the new citizenship loss regime works after three years. reviewed the existing provisions, setting up later legislative changes.
Australian Citizenship Amendment (Citizenship Repudiation) explanatory memorandum ↗Parliament shifts citizenship loss powers to the minister
Following that review, Parliament repealed the earlier provisions and replaced them with a ministerial discretion model as part of broader counter-terrorism measures.
Australian Citizenship Amendment (Citizenship Repudiation) explanatory memorandum ↗High CourtAustralia's top court, which struck down the earlier ministerial citizenship-stripping powers in the Alexander and Benbrika cases. strikes down the Alexander citizenship stripping power
In Alexander v Minister for Home Affairs [2022] HCA 19, the High CourtAustralia's top court, which struck down the earlier ministerial citizenship-stripping powers in the Alexander and Benbrika cases. found one ministerial citizenship cessationA court order that ends a person's Australian citizenship for a listed serious offence, if the person has another citizenship and would not become stateless. power invalid because it amounted to punishment that only a court could impose.
Australian Citizenship Amendment (Citizenship Repudiation) explanatory memorandum ↗High CourtAustralia's top court, which struck down the earlier ministerial citizenship-stripping powers in the Alexander and Benbrika cases. strikes down the Benbrika citizenship stripping power
In Benbrika v Minister for Home Affairs [2023] HCA 33, the High CourtAustralia's top court, which struck down the earlier ministerial citizenship-stripping powers in the Alexander and Benbrika cases. invalidated another ministerial citizenship cessationA court order that ends a person's Australian citizenship for a listed serious offence, if the person has another citizenship and would not become stateless. provision on the same Chapter IIIThe part of the Constitution that gives courts the power to punish criminal conduct, which is why the High Court said the minister could not strip citizenship for past offences. ground.
Australian Citizenship Amendment (Citizenship Repudiation) explanatory memorandum ↗Government introduces a court-based replacement bill
The bill was introduced to repeal the invalid provisions and let a court consider citizenship cessationA court order that ends a person's Australian citizenship for a listed serious offence, if the person has another citizenship and would not become stateless. as part of sentencing for specified serious offences.
Parliamentary timeline ↗Parliament passes the bill
Both houses passed the bill, clearing the way for citizenship cessationA court order that ends a person's Australian citizenship for a listed serious offence, if the person has another citizenship and would not become stateless. decisions to return in a judicial rather than ministerial form.
Parliamentary timeline ↗Royal AssentThe formal step where the Governor-General signs a bill so it becomes law, which is how this bill became an Act. makes the new court-based regime law
Royal AssentThe formal step where the Governor-General signs a bill so it becomes law, which is how this bill became an Act. enacted the bill, establishing a model under which courts can remove citizenship from dual nationals without making anyone stateless.
Parliamentary timeline ↗Legislative route
The bill was formally presented to the chamber and read a first time, which starts its parliamentary journey.
Introduced and read a first time
A minister or sponsoring member moved the second reading, opening the main debate on the bill's purpose and principles.
Second reading moved
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
Recorded vote: 109 to 11.
The chamber agreed to the bill at second reading, meaning it accepted the bill in principle and allowed it to continue.
Second reading agreed to
The chamber agreed to the bill at third reading, which completed passage through that chamber.
Third reading agreed to
The bill was formally presented to the chamber and read a first time, which starts its parliamentary journey.
Introduced and read a first time
A minister or sponsoring member moved the second reading, opening the main debate on the bill's purpose and principles.
Second reading moved
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
The chamber agreed to the bill at second reading, meaning it accepted the bill in principle and allowed it to continue.
Second reading agreed to
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
Recorded vote: 39 to 8.
The chamber agreed to the bill at third reading, which completed passage through that chamber.
Third reading agreed to
Both houses passed the bill in the same form, completing parliamentary passage.
Finally passed both Houses
The Governor-General gave Royal AssentThe formal step where the Governor-General signs a bill so it becomes law, which is how this bill became an Act., turning the bill into an Act.
Referred to Committee (07/12/2023): Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and SecurityA cross-party parliamentary committee that can scrutinise national security laws, including the bill if Parliament sends it for inquiry or later review.; Report on the amendments made by the Australian Citizenship Amendment (Citizenship Repudiation) Bill 2023 (21/03/24)
Referred to committee
APH bill page notesKey criticism
The main criticism was that the bill lets Australia treat some dual nationals as lesser citizens by making citizenship something a court can take away, while the drafting was also attacked as rushed and uneven. That full objection mainly came from the Greens, while the Coalition and some crossbench senators still backed the bill but only with complaints that it needed stronger safeguards, more scrutiny or different scope.
Opposition existed, but much of the criticism was conditional rather than a broad case to reject the bill outright.
Two classes of citizens
Critics argued the bill makes citizenship conditional for dual nationals and creates two classes of Australians, because some citizens can lose their status while others cannot. They said that undermines equal citizenship and basic rights even if the decision is made by a court rather than a minister.
Rushed and under-scrutinised drafting
Several senators said the government moved too fast after the High CourtAustralia's top court, which struck down the earlier ministerial citizenship-stripping powers in the Alexander and Benbrika cases. fallout and brought forward an undercooked bill without enough scrutiny. Their concern was less about the goal itself than about poor process producing a law with avoidable gaps and risks.
Wrong scope and thresholds
Others argued the bill was drawn too narrowly in some places and too broadly in others. Coalition senators wanted more offences and older cases covered, while Senator Pocock and others sought limits so it would not reach under-18s, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, or people who were citizens by birth.
Further sources
Votes
The chamber-passage votes come first. Expand a vote to see the party breakdown.
House agreed to the bill's third reading on the voices, so there is no list of individual Aye and No votes for final passage in that chamber.
Passed on the voices
In a voice vote, members call out Aye or No and the presiding officer judges which side has it. Individual names are only recorded if a formal division is called.
Passed 39 to 8. Support came from Labor, Liberal Party, Nationals, One Nation, and minor parties and independents. Opposition came from Greens.
Earlier bill-stage votes
Passed 109 to 11. Support came from Labor, Liberal Party, Nationals, and Centre Alliance. Opposition came from Greens. Minor-party and independent votes were split.
Amendments grouped by chamber. These cards include amendment outcomes recorded without a counted division.
House
Defeated 11 to 67. Support came from Greens and minor parties and independents. Opposition came from Labor, Katter's Australian Party, Liberal Party, and Nationals. Minor-party and independent votes were split.
The bill's second-reading statement was not altered to call for removing the child-related exception.
Defeated 12 to 72. Support came from Greens and minor parties and independents. Opposition came from Labor, Liberal Party, Katter's Australian Party, and Nationals. Minor-party and independent votes were split.
The chamber did not add a second-reading statement urging those limits on the bill.
Defeated 60 to 74. Support came from Liberal Party, Nationals, Centre Alliance, and minor parties and independents. Opposition came from Labor, Greens, and Katter's Australian Party. Minor-party and independent votes were split.
The bill proceeded without a committee referral step attached to the second-reading motion.
Senate
Passed 30 to 26. Support came from Labor, Greens, and minor parties and independents. Opposition came from Liberal Party, Nationals, One Nation, and UAP. Minor-party and independent votes were split.
This cut off debate so the chamber could move directly to the next vote on the bill.
Passed 31 to 28. Support came from Labor, Greens, and minor parties and independents. Opposition came from Liberal Party, Nationals, One Nation, and UAP. Minor-party and independent votes were split.
The motion was carried, so the Senate could use the suspension route for the next procedural step.
Defeated 27 to 30. Support came from Liberal Party, Nationals, One Nation, and Jacqui Lambie Network. Opposition came from Labor, Greens, and minor parties and independents. Minor-party and independent votes were split.
Defeating the package left the government's narrower set of grounds for citizenship cessationA court order that ends a person's Australian citizenship for a listed serious offence, if the person has another citizenship and would not become stateless. unchanged.
Senator Thorpe’s proposal, decided on voices, would change the bill so the relevant imprisonment period becomes five years instead of three.
Defeated on voices
The chamber decided this amendment without a counted division, so there is no list of individual Aye and No votes.
Senator Thorpe’s proposal, decided on voices, would make concurrent imprisonment periods count only once when working out the total term served.
Defeated on voices
The chamber decided this amendment without a counted division, so there is no list of individual Aye and No votes.
Senator Pocock’s proposal, decided on voices, would limit the bill so it does not apply to people who became citizens by birth, under section 12, or under the specified eligibility pathway.
Defeated on voices
The chamber decided this amendment without a counted division, so there is no list of individual Aye and No votes.
Senator Pocock’s proposal, decided on voices, would add a condition that the bill does not apply to Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander people and would require that status to be recorded.
Defeated on voices
The chamber decided this amendment without a counted division, so there is no list of individual Aye and No votes.
Senator Pocock’s proposal, decided on voices, would make the bill apply only to people aged 18 or over and remove a related under-18 provision.
Defeated on voices
The chamber decided this amendment without a counted division, so there is no list of individual Aye and No votes.
The Senate agreed on voices to an opposition second-reading amendment calling for the bill’s operation, effectiveness and implications to be referred for committee review after passage.
Carried on voices
The chamber decided this amendment without a counted division, so there is no list of individual Aye and No votes.
The Senate, on voices, rejected Senator Thorpe’s grouped proposal to increase the imprisonment period from three to five years and to count concurrent jail terms only once.
Defeated on voices
The chamber decided this amendment without a counted division, so there is no list of individual Aye and No votes.
The Senate, on voices, rejected Senator Pocock’s grouped proposal to exclude people born in Australia, exclude Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, and limit the bill to adults.
Defeated on voices
The chamber decided this amendment without a counted division, so there is no list of individual Aye and No votes.
This list includes amendment votes, procedural votes and votes on the bill itself.
Parliamentary debate
Start here — lead voices
McKim says the Greens will oppose the bill because they do not think citizenship-stripping powers should exist for either ministers or courts, and because the government is rushing it through without proper scrutiny.
Read in Hansard ↗Canavan says he supports the bill because people who seriously breach the citizenship oath, especially through terrorism, should face consequences and may lose citizenship if they are dual nationals.
Read in Hansard ↗Pocock supports the bill in principle as a terrorism-safety measure, but says he has serious concerns and will move amendments to raise the age limit and stop it applying to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people.
Read in Hansard ↗Paterson says the coalition will support the bill only if the government accepts amendments to strengthen it, including closing gaps for historical terrorist offenders and broadening the trigger offences.
Read in Hansard ↗All speeches by bloc
3 speakers · 3 support
“The bill provides an appropriate mechanism to deal with dual Australian citizens who have committed crimes that are so serious and so significant that they demonstrate the repudiation of their allegiance to Australia. The bill promotes the value and integrity of Australian citizenship and the ongoing commitment to Australia and its shared values, while also contributing to the protection of the Australian community.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“This is why the Government is committed to a citizenship cessation regime—to uphold the integrity of Australian citizenship and to provide an appropriate response to criminal conduct which constitutes repudiation of a person's allegiance to our great nation.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“When the High Court makes a decision and hands down that decision, the government of the day, whatever colour it may be, is required to accept that decision of the High Court. If we don't, we descend into anarchy. The law is the law. The courts make the law. The government is required to abide by the law. All of us, whether it's Senator Ruston, the government, the Liberal Party, the National Party, even members of the crossbench—the Greens, One Nation, the Jacqui Lambie Network, Senator Van, Senator Thorpe, Senator Babet—are on a unity ticket to prevent rapists, murderers, contract killers, paedophiles. There is not a single person in this building, there is not a single decent Australian that wants these people out, but every Australian and every government that accedes to the way the law works in this country would have to deal with the fact that the people who are in the same situation as NZYQ had to be released, and that is why this careful, considered legislation that the opposition is going to support, because it is the best response to the reality that we confront, should be passed today. The mischief making, the misinformation that has so characterised the public commentary of the opposition needs to stop in the national interest. (Time expired)”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
9 speakers · 7 support · 2 mixed
“As I said in my opening remarks, we intend to facilitate the passage of this bill this week—but only if the government agrees to strengthen the bill. We do not want to see a weak or inadequate bill pass the parliament. We want to see these issues which we have identified and written to the Prime Minister about addressed by way of amendments.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“The coalition considers there are clear gaps in the bill we are debating here today. As I foreshadowed, we will be making amendments to this legislation when it goes into committee.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“Now, as Senator Paterson has said, in the interests of improving this bill for all Australians, the coalition will be putting forward a number of what we say are small amendments but incredibly serious amendments which will actually strengthen the bill we have before us. I have circulated them.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“That is one of the contexts in which we're having this debate at the moment in relation to this new piece of legislation, which has been brought forward, again at the last minute—notwithstanding the fact that the government had months to prepare with respect to this legislation and with respect to the issue. The High Court decision was brought down in June. What was the government doing? What was the government doing in July? What was the government doing in August? What were they doing in September? What were they doing in October? Why is it that this legislation is introduced at the last minute? It's such a significant piece of legislation, dealing with people's rights of citizenship, and it's introduced at the last minute, putting the Senate, again, in an invidious situation where we are seeking the best opportunity to discharge our obligations to apply scrutiny and to act as a check and balance, especially on the executive. Yet, this piece of legislation is brought in at the last minute. It's just unacceptable. This is no way to govern a country. The government is in total reactionary mode. They're reacting to the daily political agenda. It's not acceptable. You can't legislate with respect to serious matters like this on that sort of basis.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“This bill is important, as I stated. We as an opposition seek to work constructively with the government. We hope that we can get through amendments that are going to strengthen this bill. If more is required through the inquiry process going forward, I'm confident—particularly as that will be in the hands of Senator Paterson and Senator Cash—that we will work constructively with the government to ensure that the bill is further strengthened. Today is an opportunity. Let's get it done. I encourage the government to work with us. I encourage Mr Albanese to take his job seriously. Work with the opposition. We want to do that so that we can get this bill strengthened and passed today.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“My understanding is we will be moving significant amendments to this bill, as Senator Paterson and Senator Chandler have talked about. Those will make a real difference in strengthening the framework that is put through in this bill.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“As I said, whilst the opposition is going to support actions that are taken that are going to toughen the laws in Australia around making sure that Australians are able to be kept safe, particularly from some of the most unsavoury characters that you could possibly imagine, we still stand here today with a great inadequacy in the response that the government has provided. We see people talking about Benbrika. This doesn't even impact Benbrika, because of the inability to draft things from a retrospective perspective. I condemn the government for their lack of action, but we will be supporting this bill. (Time expired)”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“I want to make one particular point about this bill. When someone who has a monitoring device removes their monitoring device, there is a carve-out in this particular legislation from treating that as a serious offence. I think that, if anyone is released on parole with a monitoring device, they should have to keep that monitoring device on. If they deliberately remove that device, that should be considered a serious offence.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
2 speakers · 2 oppose
“We won't be supporting this bill, because we don't believe these powers should be available to any public institution in this country, whether it be the minister or the courts, and also because this bill is being rammed through—at least, the government is attempting to ram it through—with indecent haste.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“Labor's defence of this bill is: it's better having a minister bring an application and then a court adjudicating than just having the minister do it all. Well, what about we take a more principled approach, and we just say that Australian citizenship is not there to be stripped, and, if an Australian citizen commits a wrong, then we'll deal with them as an Australian citizen and we won't pretend to deal with people equally while holding the threat of stripping the citizenship off, potentially, millions of Australian citizens who fit into a class of citizen that the coalition thinks is lesser? We just fundamentally reject that, and that's why we reject this bill.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
1 speaker · 1 support
“Finally, the Labor government tells us this is a matter of urgency, and it is, yet the Albanese government in charge of the House of Representatives gave itself Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday off. Why didn't it call the House of Representatives back and get on with it? Don't just talk urgency; take urgent action. It's time for Labor to genuinely listen to the views of the community and to act quickly and accordingly to protect Australians and ensure justice.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
1 speaker · 1 mixed
“Terrorism is unacceptable, and I will always support measures that keep Australians safe. But I would urge all in this place to take very seriously our obligation to respect the human rights of people and to take an approach that is going to enhance social cohesion; that is aimed at early intervention; and that doesn't go down the road that we have seen some politicians heading down, where we are willing to 'other' people in our communities and to 'other' people for political advantage.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
Record
House · Introduced and read a first time
Introduced
The bill was formally presented to the chamber and read a first time, which starts its parliamentary journey.
House · Second reading moved
Second reading opened
A minister or sponsoring member moved the second reading, opening the main debate on the bill's purpose and principles.
House · Second reading debate
Second reading debate
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
House · Second reading agreed to
Recorded vote: 109 to 11.
Second reading agreed
The chamber agreed to the bill at second reading, meaning it accepted the bill in principle and allowed it to continue.
House · Third reading agreed to
Third reading agreed
The chamber agreed to the bill at third reading, which completed passage through that chamber.
Senate · Introduced and read a first time
Introduced
The bill was formally presented to the chamber and read a first time, which starts its parliamentary journey.
Senate · Second reading moved
Second reading opened
A minister or sponsoring member moved the second reading, opening the main debate on the bill's purpose and principles.
Senate · Second reading debate
Second reading debate
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
Senate · Second reading debate
Second reading debate
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
Senate · Second reading agreed to
Second reading agreed
The chamber agreed to the bill at second reading, meaning it accepted the bill in principle and allowed it to continue.
Senate · Committee of the Whole debate
Committee of the Whole debate
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
Senate · Third reading agreed to
Recorded vote: 39 to 8.
Third reading agreed
The chamber agreed to the bill at third reading, which completed passage through that chamber.
Parliament · Finally passed both Houses
Passed both houses
Both houses passed the bill in the same form, completing parliamentary passage.
Assent · Assent
Assent
The Governor-General gave Royal AssentThe formal step where the Governor-General signs a bill so it becomes law, which is how this bill became an Act., turning the bill into an Act.
Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security; Report on the amendments made by the Australian Citizenship Amendment (Citizenship Repudiation) Bill 2023 (21/03/24)
Referred to committee
Referred to Committee (7 Dec 2023): Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security; Report on the amendments made by the Australian Citizenship Amendment (Citizenship Repudiation) Bill 2023 (21/03/24)
APH bill page notes
