As previously reported on Lawyers Weekly’s sister brand, HR Leader, Ahmad Rashad Nadir and Sarah Abu Lebdeh – both nurses at a Bankstown Hospital – were seen launching comments that were described as “dehumanising and unacceptable” towards Israeli content creator Max Veifer.

The pair subsequently had their registrations suspended, reprimanding them from practising nursing across Australia.

Despite these swift consequences, Coalition party leader Peter Dutton sprang into action, connecting the dots between this incident and what he deems as “inadequacies” in Australia’s migration system.

“When we have somebody like this who gets through the net, obviously has breached his obligation about a loyalty to our country when he became an Australian citizen, and yet he has the ability to stay in our country, it should be of deep concern to every Australian,” Dutton told 2GB.

VIEW ALL

“[It is] about how we can say to these people, ‘if you don’t share our values, if you’re here and you’re enjoying the welfare system and you’re enjoying free health and free education, then at the same time you hate our country, well, I don’t think you’ve got a place here’.”

Immigration lawyer, accredited specialist, and Crossover Law Group founder Marial Lewis expressed that Dutton’s conflating of this anti-Semitic incident and Australia’s migration and citizenship system “risks undermining key legal principles”.

“Peter Dutton’s recent call for a ‘national conversation’ on Australia’s migration and citizenship system brings up some serious legal and ethical questions, especially when it comes to giving the government more power to revoke citizenship,” Lewis said.

“The situation with the Bankstown Hospital nurse is, obviously, concerning, but using one shocking case to push for sweeping legal changes isn’t the right approach – it risks undermining key legal principles.

“A more effective response lies in strengthening our legal and professional accountability systems. Addressing misconduct through the criminal justice system and enforcing ethical standards within professional fields ensures that individuals are held responsible for their actions without resorting to excessive measures that threaten fundamental rights.”

Lewis touched on how current legislation surrounding citizenship revocation only occurs if perpetrators commit serious crimes.

“Right now, under the Australian Citizenship Act 2007, citizenship can only be revoked in rare cases – like fraud or serious criminal offences. Up until December 2021, only 59 people had their citizenship revoked – 58 under the current act and one under the old Citizenship Act 1948.

“Sections 34 and 34A deal with fraud-related revocation, while sections 36A-D and 36L cover terrorism-related cases. In my opinion, expanding these powers to revoke citizenship based on someone’s opinions or actions that aren’t criminal is a slippery slope. It changes what citizenship really means and could easily cross the line into breaching fundamental rights,” Lewis said.

“The government’s recent attempts to cease citizenships due to terrorism was deemed unconstitutional. The High Court has made it clear that revoking citizenship should be a legal decision, not a political one. In cases like Alexander v Minister for Home Affairs (2022) and Benbrika v Minister for Home Affairs (2023), the court shut down the government’s attempts to use broad discretion, recognising that stripping someone of their citizenship is a serious punishment that requires due process.”

At its core, Lewis questioned the results that harsher revocation laws would produce – arguing that impulsive actions could foster unintended consequences.

“From what I’ve seen as an immigration lawyer, I’m also really sceptical that harsher revocation laws actually make Australia safer. The way visa cancellations are handled already shows how easily things can go wrong – long-term residents, people with families and jobs here, have had their visas cancelled based on bureaucratic discretion rather than any real security threat,” she said.

“The government often cancels visas under the banner of ‘national interest’, even overturning tribunal decisions. If that kind of unchecked power is extended to citizenship revocations, we’re in dangerous territory.

“Giving the government more power to strip citizenship risks creating a system where naturalised Australians are treated like second-class citizens, always at risk of losing their status.

“Citizenship is a privilege, sure – but it’s also a fundamental part of belonging to a country, and it shouldn’t be taken away arbitrarily. In my view, we need to focus on fair and transparent legal processes, not impulsive reactions that could have huge unintended consequences.”