How hard would it have been for Mr Walker to clearly recommend 'the Minister be given the authority to cancel citizenship of dual nationals convicted of terrorism or treason" if that's what he believed. Lawmakers and lawyers thrive on crossing the T's and dotting the I's.

Since he didn't say a conviction was a prerequisite and the Minister already has the delegated authority to intervene, its not a big stretch for the Government to interpret his recommendation as the cancelation of the right to Australian citizenship held by a dual citizen be at the discretion of the Minister.

I suspect Mr Walker totally bungled his recommendation and is swimming upstream to defend himself rather than admit his error. Fortunately for Mr Walker, Poirot and the crew of the ABC are diving in to save him.

Nice to read your views, o sung wu.

CH,

Of course, Mr Walker should have taken into account both the penchant of this govt to misrepresent and deceive - and the chance they they really are as dumb as they present.

I'm quite tickled by the fact that you appear to be running with "they're all thick as bricks" option, so that they deduced Walker's recommendations were "not" couched "as an extension of existing powers".

The other option is that Abbott and his star chamber are a select coterie of tricksters.

Don't get me wrong, I think they're a dopey, none too bright bunch - which is why their misrepresentations and deceptions are always unravelling.

Stopping the boats was competent and he stuck to his promise. Full marks. But, he has broken promises - no more taxes and he reneged on abolishing Sec. 18C. It was not the work of a competent PM to try to force enormous budget reforms through a hostile Senate. It is not competent to be aloof from the plebs and put his hands deeper into their pockets while leaving the rich alone.

Devisive? Yes he is. Sucking up to Muslims who laugh at him. Attempting to divide Australians for professional aboriginals by fiddling the Constitution. Ordinary aborigines will cop the flack, but receive no benifit, on behalf of self-appointed leaders.

As someone who has voted Liberal for years, it's bye bye from me, Tony. I am extremely disappointed in you.

ttbn,

"As someone who has voted Liberal for years, it's bye bye from me, Tony. I am extremely disappointed in you."

Not surprising at all....we've never seen anything like the current PM and his cohorts. For the first time, we're confronted with an executive that is threatening the rule of law - first and foremost, to wedge the Opposition - and secondly to tow the population along by seeking to alarm them.

http://www.theage.com.au/comment/the-age-editorial/by-this-law-abbott-stands-condemned-20150620-ghsda5

"It is extraordinary what the Prime Minister has been arguing for in recent weeks. The proposal he has pushed for with Dutton is a shameful exercise in manipulation. It uses fear as the foundation for an extension of ministerial power that would trample on the rights of citizens and trash the distinction between the judicial system and ministers.

Furthermore, as is clear from a leaked internal briefing paper, a big part of the government's plan has simply been to wedge Opposition Leader Bill Shorten. To portray him, and Labor, as weak on terrorism. The four-page briefing instructs ministers on how to argue for the plan for stripping citizenship. It says that limiting citizenship cancellation only to those people already convicted of terrorism-related crimes by courts would render the change "toothless". "Why should this power be exercised by a minister and not the courts?" the briefing note asks. "A law requiring a terrorist conviction would be toothless ... Does Bill Shorten want a toothless law or one that actually protects the community?"

So Mr Abbott would trample on our political system, on the separation of powers in the constitution, on the rule of law, all to score a political point? What an arrogant abasement of power for short-term, political gain. What an abrogation of principle. It reeks of cynicism."

Dear Poirot,

Interestingly I have just re-read David Marr's
"Political Animal: The Maing of Tony Abbott,"
in the Quarterly Essay.

I highly recommend it for anyone wanting
a further glimpse of the man behind the facade.

Marr ends the essay with some observations:

"The Abbott that matters is Politics Abbott.
That's the one who got him where he is today:
an aggressive populist with a sharp tongue; a
political animal - a born protege with
ambitions to lead; a big brain but no intellect,
a bluff guy ... a politician with little idea what he
might do if he ever got to the top; a man profoundly
wary of change. His values have never stood in his way."

And finally Marr says - "The point of it all is power. Without
power it's been a waste of time."

Poirot,

All politicians are 'wedgers'. They all blag the the other side instead of doing what they are paid to do. I'm giving Abbott the flick because his is a wild man. We never know what he will do next.

I appreciate your concerns about Ministerial citizenship stripping. This hitherto undreamed of power could be misused. Not that I am concerned about terrorists, mind. Any Australian citizen leaving to fight a jihad anywhere does not merit the benefit of laws made by those he is fighting against. That is my OPINION and I realise that that sort of treatment would not be generally acceptable. However, once a law like the proposed one is enacted it could be used against anyone at all if a single man or woman decided to exercise a Ministerial right.

On the other hand, our experience with activist judges hardly gives us hope that they would handle the matter properly either.
The best thing is for the terrorist never to return to Australia. The Government made a hairy-chested announcement about that. but I believe that people are still going, and coming back,at will.

I don't usually listen to ex-politicians, but I should have read what Amanda Vanstone meant when she publicly deemed the changes to citizenship law as "lazy". I will now follow it up. If there are sufficient laws available now to deal with the situation - and I understand that it is already illegal for Australian citizens to engage in foreign wars, why aren't those laws used? Some legalese about the definition of war?

It seems that that this government, like the last, just wants to make tough new laws and be seen to be 'tough' rather than simply enforcing those already available. The last instance was discrimination law and the insertion of Sec 18C. Totally unnecessary under existing law.