This bill is currently before Parliament.
Immigration, border & security
The bill would require a court to order that an adult Australian citizen ceases to be a citizen if they are convicted of a terrorism offenceFor this bill, an offence against the terrorism provisions in Part 5.3 of the Criminal Code, with several listed exclusions. and the court is satisfied their conduct seriously repudiated allegiance to Australia.
Barnaby Joyce introduced the bill to create a court-based pathway for removing Australian citizenship from dual citizens convicted of terrorism offences, followed by removal from Australia after release from custody. The explanatory memorandum frames the purpose as protecting public safety by removing people whose serious terrorist conduct shows repudiation of allegiance to Australia.
Australian governments have tried for years to strip citizenship from dual nationals involved in terrorism, but the policy has repeatedly raised constitutional and rights questions. The immediate legal backdrop is the 2023 Benbrika High Court decision, where a ministerial citizenship-cancellation provision was reported as invalid because it took on the judicial function of punishing criminal guilt. This bill responds in a court-centred way: the citizenship-loss decision would be made by a court after conviction, with a statelessness safeguard.
The local source bundle does not record direct public opposition to this 2026 bill after introduction. The main concerns visible in the available sources are the recurring constitutional and rights issues around citizenship-stripping laws, especially who decides citizenship loss and how the policy affects movement and return rights.
Barnaby Joyce MP introduced this bill. Supportive speeches so far have come from Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party.
Did it become law?
Not yet
Final passage
No final vote yet
The bill has not yet completed passage through Parliament.
Days since introduction
72 days
Updated 10 June 2026.
Meaning
The bill would require a court to order that an adult Australian citizen ceases to be a citizen if they are convicted of a terrorism offenceFor this bill, an offence against the terrorism provisions in Part 5.3 of the Criminal Code, with several listed exclusions. and the court is satisfied their conduct seriously repudiated allegiance to Australia.
The court would have to consider the scale, duration, impact and intended impact of the conduct, including whether it caused or was intended to cause harm to human life or loss of life.
The bill would not let a court make a citizenship-loss order if that would leave the person with no nationality, so it is aimed at Australian citizens who also hold another citizenship.
If a court made a citizenship-loss order, the Minister would have to take reasonable steps to remove the person from Australia as soon as practicable after their release from custody.
The explanatory memorandum says the bill engages freedom of movement and the right to enter one's own country, but argues the limits are justified by the objective of protecting Australians from terrorism.
If a person is convicted of a terrorism offence, the court must decide to order that the person ceases to be an Australian citizen if the court is satisfied that: (a) the person is aged 18 or over; and (b) the person is an Australian citizen; and (c) the person's conduct to which the conviction relates is so serious and significant that it demonstrates that the person has repudiated their allegiance to Australia.Australian Citizenship Amendment (Stripping Terrorists of Australian Citizenship) introduced bill text
the degree, duration or scale of the person's commitment to, or involvement in, the conduct to which the conviction relates; the intended scale of the conduct to which the conviction relates; the actual impact of the conduct to which the conviction relates; whether the conduct to which the conviction relates caused, or was intended to cause, harm to human life or a loss of human life.Australian Citizenship Amendment (Stripping Terrorists of Australian Citizenship) introduced bill text
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 (Stripping Terrorists of Australian Citizenship) introduced bill text
If a court orders under subsection 36BA(1) that a person ceases to be an Australian citizen, the Minister must take all reasonable steps to cause the person to be removed from Australia as soon as practicable after the person is released from custody.Australian Citizenship Amendment (Stripping Terrorists of Australian Citizenship) introduced bill text
The human rights engaged by the bill fall under Article 12 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. This protects the right to enter one's own country and freedom of movement, directly impacted by loss of citizenship.Australian Citizenship Amendment (Stripping Terrorists of Australian Citizenship) explanatory memorandum
Context
Australian governments have tried for years to strip citizenship from dual nationals involved in terrorism, but the policy has repeatedly raised constitutional and rights questions. The immediate legal backdrop is the 2023 Benbrika High Court decision, where a ministerial citizenship-cancellation provision was reported as invalid because it took on the judicial function of punishing criminal guilt. This bill responds in a court-centred way: the citizenship-loss decision would be made by a court after conviction, with a statelessness safeguard.
Major parties backed an earlier dual-citizen terrorism proposal
Australian Financial Review reporting said the government had a path to introduce laws enabling dual nationals to be stripped of Australian citizenship, while constitutional experts and some MPs warned the plan could face High Court challenge.
Australian Financial Review ↗Renewed citizenship-stripping powers drew watchdog and opposition concern
Later reporting described a political fight over renewed laws to revoke citizenship from a wider group of convicted terrorists, following a critical report from the independent national-security legislation watchdog.
Australian Financial Review ↗High Court restored Abdul Nacer Benbrika's citizenship
The collected AFR report says the High Court found the provision used to cancel Benbrika's citizenship constitutionally invalid because it usurped the exclusively judicial function of punishing criminal guilt.
Australian Financial Review ↗Citizenship laws were described as needing redesign after High Court cases
Follow-up reporting said two major High Court citizenship cases involving dual citizens convicted of offences had left citizenship-stripping laws needing further work.
Australian Financial Review ↗Joyce introduced a court-based terrorism citizenship bill
The r7460 bill was introduced and second reading moved in the House of Representatives. Its introduced text would require the court, not the minister alone, to decide citizenship loss after a terrorism conviction if statutory conditions are met.
Parliamentary timeline and introduced bill text ↗Legislative route
The bill was formally presented to the House of Representatives and read a first time.
Introduced and read a first time
Barnaby Joyce moved that the bill be read a second time, opening debate on the bill's purpose and principles.
Second reading moved
Key criticism
The local source bundle does not record direct public opposition to this 2026 bill after introduction. The main concerns visible in the available sources are the recurring constitutional and rights issues around citizenship-stripping laws, especially who decides citizenship loss and how the policy affects movement and return rights.
These are concerns from the policy and legal context in the collected sources, not recorded amendment outcomes or later parliamentary objections to r7460.
Constitutional limits on punishment
Earlier citizenship-cancellation powers were vulnerable where they let the executive impose what the High Court treated as punishment for criminal guilt. This bill appears drafted around that issue by giving the citizenship-loss decision to a court after conviction, but the concern explains why the policy area is legally sensitive.
Movement and return rights
The explanatory memorandum itself says the bill engages Article 12 rights under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights because citizenship loss directly affects the right to enter one's own country and freedom of movement.
Further sources
Votes
No recorded votes have been found yet for this bill.
Parliamentary debate
Start here — lead voices
Barnaby Joyce supported the bill as a way to remove dual citizens convicted of terrorist conduct from Australia after they leave custody.
Read in Hansard ↗All speeches by bloc
1 speaker · 1 support
“So this bill is about stating the bleeding obvious. It's about saying that, if you hold dual citizenship... and your affection for Australia is in such a form that you have gone out to commit a terrorist act... then why on earth aren't we kicking you out of this country?”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
Record
House · Introduced and read a first time
Introduced
The bill was formally presented to the House of Representatives and read a first time.
House · Second reading moved
Second reading opened
Barnaby Joyce moved that the bill be read a second time, opening debate on the bill's purpose and principles.
