Australian Citizenship Amendment (Stripping Terrorists of Australian Citizenship) Bill 2026 explained

The short answer

Australian Citizenship Amendment (Stripping Terrorists of Australian Citizenship) Bill 2026 explained

The Australian Citizenship Amendment (Stripping Terrorists of Australian Citizenship) Bill 2026 is a private member's bill introduced by Barnaby Joyce MP (Nationals, New England) on 30 March 2026. It amends the Australian Citizenship Act 2007 to allow a court to order the cessation of Australian citizenship for a dual national convicted of a terrorism offence. The bill is before the House of Representatives and has not been debated beyond the second reading speech, and if passed would take effect as drafted.

This is a federal system guide. State constitutions, parliaments and local-government laws can allocate comparable functions differently.

The useful question is not only “what is the rule?” but also “who administers it, which document controls it, and when might it change?” That distinction prevents an accurate general explanation from becoming wrong advice in a particular election, chamber or policy setting.

Evidence review

What the bill proposes

The bill amends the Australian Citizenship Act 2007 to introduce a new mechanism: where a person holds Australian citizenship and at least one other citizenship (a dual national), and that person is convicted of a terrorism offence, a court may order the cessation of their Australian citizenship. The person would then be liable for deportation to their other country of citizenship.

The bill applies only to dual nationals. International law — specifically the 1961 Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness, to which Australia is a party — prohibits making a person stateless. The bill's design reflects this constraint: a sole Australian citizen cannot have their citizenship removed under this mechanism.

The bill places the decision with a court rather than a minister. This is a notable design choice. Existing citizenship cessation powers in the Citizenship Act rely on ministerial discretion. A judicial process provides greater procedural protections but also raises questions about the appropriate role of courts in what is traditionally an executive function.

Evidence review

The sponsor's argument

In his second reading speech on 30 March 2026, Barnaby Joyce framed the bill through his own experience with section 44 of the Constitution. Joyce was disqualified from Parliament in 2017 because he held New Zealand citizenship by descent — a fact he had not been aware of. He argued that if dual citizenship disqualifies someone from sitting in Parliament, then dual nationals who commit terrorist acts against Australia should similarly lose their Australian citizenship.

Joyce described the bill as "the bleeding obvious" — a measure the Australian people would overwhelmingly support. He argued that dual nationals who demonstrate "affection for another nation" through terrorism should be "booted out" to that country. He noted that jailing a terrorist in Australia costs more than a first-class hotel room in Sydney, and that deportation shifts that cost to the other country.

Joyce acknowledged the potential for bipartisan support and noted that the member for Flynn supported the bill. His speech did not address constitutional questions, potential High Court challenges, or the bill's interaction with international law beyond the statelessness constraint.

Evidence review

Legal and constitutional questions

The bill raises significant constitutional questions. The High Court's decision in Alexander v Minister for Home Affairs (2022) established limits on the citizenship cessation power, finding that the separation of judicial power under Chapter III of the Constitution prevents the executive from punishing citizens through citizenship stripping — that function belongs to courts. This bill's use of a judicial mechanism may be designed to address that concern.

However, the bill goes further than existing law by making cessation available for a broader category of offences. Existing provisions target involvement with declared terrorist organisations or fighting for foreign armed forces. This bill would apply to any terrorism conviction — a potentially broader scope.

Whether the bill would survive High Court challenge is uncertain. The Court has not ruled on the constitutionality of court-ordered citizenship cessation for dual nationals convicted of terrorism. Legal scholars have raised questions about proportionality, retrospective application, and whether citizenship can be made conditional on conduct after naturalisation or birthright acquisition.

Evidence review

Parliamentary status

The bill was introduced on 30 March 2026, with the second reading moved the same day. Debate was adjourned and resumption was made an order of the day for the next sitting. As of 17 July 2026, the bill had not been debated. No committee referral has been made.

As a private member's bill introduced by a Nationals MP in opposition, the bill's prospects depend on whether the Coalition adopts it as opposition policy and whether it attracts support from the government or the crossbench. Private members' bills on citizenship and national security face a particularly high bar because of the constitutional complexity and the government's near-exclusive control over the legislative agenda in these areas.

The bill has an Explanatory Memorandum — unlike some other private members' bills — which provides some detail on its operation. However, no Bills Digest, committee inquiry, or independent constitutional analysis has been published.

Evidence review

International context and comparison

Australia is not alone in debating citizenship cessation for terrorism offences. The United Kingdom, Canada, France, the Netherlands and other countries have enacted or debated similar measures. The UK's provisions have been subject to extensive litigation and multiple legislative amendments.

International law permits citizenship deprivation in limited circumstances — the statelessness constraint is the most recognised limit. However, UN human rights bodies have raised concerns about due process, proportionality, and the risk of rendering people stateless in practice even where a second nationality exists on paper. Dual nationals may have citizenship of countries where they have never lived, do not speak the language, or face persecution.

The bill does not address these concerns. Its rationale is primarily political — framed around reciprocity, cost and public sentiment — rather than a detailed legal analysis of how cessation would operate in practice or interact with Australia's treaty obligations.

Common questions

Before you rely on the answer