ABC under fire for including one-time terrorist suspect in panel discussion on moves to cancel citizenship
Legislation stripping terrorists with dual nationality of their Australian citizenship will be introduced into Parliament today, amid demands for a federal Government boycott of ABC TV's popular Q&A programme for including a one-time terror suspect in the studio audience.
The proposed new law represents a climbdown by Prime Minister Tony Abbott, who wanted his Immigration Minister, Peter Dutton, to be given the power to decide who should lose their citizenship. Instead, after widespread criticism by, among others, five Cabinet ministers, the existing Citizenship Act will be updated to penalise Australians who join foreign "terrorist armies".
The changes were announced as the Government sought confirmation of reports that two Australians fighting with Isis (Islamic State) were killed in an air strike last week on Mosul in Iraq.
Khaled Sharrouf and Mohamed Elomar became notorious after they posed on social media holding the severed heads of Syrian soldiers.
Foreign Affairs Minister Julie Bishop said verification of Elomar's death was "probably imminent". However, the fate of Sharrouf - who also posted a photo of his 7-year-old son holding a head - was less clear, she said. They travelled to Syria, then Iraq, in 2013.
Meanwhile, Abbott questioned "whose side" the ABC was on after it gave airtime on Monday night to Zaky Mallah, who was jailed for two years in 2005 for threatening to kill officials of the Department of Foreign Affairs and the domestic security agency, ASIO.
Mallah, who was acquitted of two terrorism charges relating to an alleged threat to mount a suicide attack on government offices in Sydney, said on Q&A he understood why "many Australian Muslims" would join Isis.
After the programme, which led to the national broadcaster acknowledging "an error in judgement", Mallah, 30, tweeted that "I would pay to see that Minister dumped on #ISIS territory in Iraq!" That was a reference to one of the Q&A panel members, Liberal MP Steve Ciobo.
He followed that up with a tweet yesterday in which he asked: "Australian Citizenship test: Question: Do you support the throat slash of Australia's first female prime minister? Please tick YES or NO?"
Under current laws, Australians who fight with a foreign army against Australia are considered to have automatically "renounced" their citizenship. Under the changes, that will be broadened to include dual nationals who join a terrorist force overseas or are convicted of terrorist activity.
Abbott signalled "further legislation" in the coming months to prevent Australians without dual nationality from returning after fighting abroad.
At a press conference, he also denounced the ABC, branding Q&A a "lefty lynch mob" and attacking it for "giving a platform to a convicted criminal and terrorist sympathiser". In doing so, Abbott said, "the national broadcaster has badly let us down".
The director of ABC TV, Richard Finlayson, said yesterday that Q&A "made an error in judgement in allowing Zaky Mallah to join the audience and ask a question", but vowed that it "will continue to raise issues that are provocative and controversial".
Mallah asked what would have happened to him if the Immigration Minister had been allowed to strip terrorism suspects of their citizenship. Ciobo retorted that he was "pleased to be part of the Government that would say that you were out of the country".
That prompted Mallah's comment about Australian Muslims joining Isis, which Q&A host Tony Jones ruled "totally out of order".
The Zaky Mallah question on Q&A
Zaky Mallah says he was treated like a convicted terrorist.
MALLAH:
"As the first man in Australia to be charged with terrorism under the harsh Liberal Howard Government in 2003, I was subject to solitary confinement, a 22- hour lockdown, dressed most times in an orange overall and treated like a convicted terrorist while under the presumption of innocence. I had done and said some stupid things including threatening to kidnap and kill but in 2005 I was acquitted of the terrorism charges. What would have happened if my case had been decided by the minister and not the courts?
PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY STEVE CIOBO: "I'm not familiar with the circumstances of your case, but from memory I thought you were acquitted on a technicality." MALLAH: "I was charged with planning a terrorist attack in Sydney in 2003 and was acquitted by the Supreme Court jury in 2005 of all those charges. However, as a plea bargain happened I pleaded guilty to threatening to kill ASIO officials."
CIOBO: "My understanding of your case is that you were acquitted because at that point in time the laws weren't retrospective. But I'm happy to look you straight in the eye and say that I'm be pleased to be part of a Government that would say you're out of the country."
MALLAH: "Rubbish, rubbish."
CIOBO: "I would sleep very soundly at night with that point of view."
MALLAH: "As an Australian I would be happy to see you out of this country." (Applause from audience)
CIOBO: "The difference is I haven't threatened to kill anybody, I haven't threatened to kill people that put their lives on the line for the values this country represents and so in that sense, with the greatest of respect to you -- and I don't apologise for this point of view -- my understanding is that the reason you got off terrorist offences was that they weren't retrospective in application ..."
MALLAH: "The Liberals now have justified to many Australian Muslims in the community tonight to leave and go to Syria and join [Isis] because of ministers like him.
