Dutton’s talk about a citizenship referendum is personal over-reach and political folly

Peter Dutton, when he gets on his favoured ground of security, too often goes for the quick hit, and frequently over-reaches.

His suggestion of running a possible referendum to facilitate the removal of bad eggs who are dual citizens is a prime example.

Apart from the substance of the proposal, why would an aspiring prime minister be talking about a referendum after the experience of the Voice?

As Dutton knows very well – and to his advantage in that case – referendums don’t succeed without bipartisan support, and this one certainly wouldn’t get backing from a Labor opposition. They cost a fortune, and they distract prime ministers. Dutton would have enough to do in government without going down this side track to a predictable dead end.

Although this focus on booting people out of the country sounds Trumpian, it has long been a preoccupation of Dutton’s – something he pushed in the Coalition years.

The Coalition amended the Citizenship Act, enabling a minister to revoke the Australian citizenship of dual nationals (so depriving them of the protection from removal that citizenship affords).

But the High Court in 2022 struck this down, so a minister has to apply to a court in the course of a trial relating to a listed offence. The court makes the decision on citizenship as part of sentencing the person.

Fast forward to the present, and Dutton sees advantage in any issues that go to security, of individuals or the country. Hence his talk of attempted constitutional change if the objective can’t be achieved by legislation.

On morning TV on Tuesday he kept repeating that he wanted to keep people safe.

He told Seven, “I want to keep our country safe […] it’s the first responsibility of any prime minister, and at the moment we’ve got people in our country 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.”

“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. I think there are a lot of Australians at the moment who are worried about the rise of antisemitism and what we’ve seen in our country, and elsewhere, which just doesn’t reflect the values that we’ve fought for over many generations.”

Apart from the fact a referendum would fail, the proposal itself has no obvious benefit. It is out of proportion to the problem it is supposed to be addressing, would be unlikely to act as a deterrent, and would stir a divisive debate. On Tuesday Dutton’s senior colleagues Michaelia Cash, who is shadow attorney-general, and Angus Taylor sounded less then enthusiastic about the move.

For Dutton’s campaign, it carries a special danger. It gives the impression of a leader who comes up with extreme proposals. If he is suggesting this today, what will be think of tomorrow? More to the point, what might he suddenly propose when in government?

This close to an election, Dutton needs to give voters the feeling he is predictable, that they know him, not that he produces ideas out of left field (or right field, in this case).

Former Liberal attorney-general George Brandis, who was around for the earlier debate, summed up the situation succinctly, when he wrote in the Nine papers, “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.”