Laws to strip terrorists of Australian citizenship need to be amended so they don’t unfairly target graffiti artists, the head of the immigration department says.

The legislation includes a range of terrorist crimes which could result in loss of citizenship, including damaging Commonwealth property.

If it was made retrospective – which the parliamentary intelligence committee is considering – elderly activist Gareth Smith, a dual Australian-British national, could face deportation.

• Citizenship bill set to fail: top lawyer
• Dual nationals ‘could lose citizenship for graffiti’
• Why Australia is obsessed with anti-terror laws

Smith, 72, of Byron Bay, a serial protester for multiple leftist causes, was fined $16,335 in April 2000 for spray-painting “Shame, Australia, shame” in bright pink across the front of federal parliament in a protest against Australia’s role in East Timor.

Mike Pezzullo, secretary of the Department of Immigration and Border Protection, said the point about graffiti was understood and the committee should consider how it could be rectified in the draft bill.

Constitutional lawyer George Williams said the legislation could be struck down in the High Court. Photo: Twitter

He said the provision relating to damaging Commonwealth property was aimed at someone who, for example, attacked parliament or some other significant building.

“Spray painting is certainly a different category from blowing things up,” he said.

The bill extends provisions of the Citizenship Act, which already strips citizenship from someone who fights for a foreign army against Australia, to include convicted terrorists and others who engaged in terror-related conduct.

This would apply only to dual nationals, though that could include people born in Australia who had never lived elsewhere.

In hearings over the last two days, the parliamentary joint committee on intelligence and security has heard evidence from a number of top lawyers and human rights groups highly critical of the legislation.

In evidence on Tuesday, constitutional lawyer George Williams said it contained a number of measures which could be struck down by the High Court.

That prompted committee members to request access to the government’s own legal advice on the bill’s constitutionality.
Liberal committee member Philip Ruddock said some very distinguished academics and others had expressed strong views.

“I would like to have some indication as to why we think the proposed way we have dealt with this does achieve it lawfully,” he said.

Labor member Anthony Byrne said he would like the federal solicitor-general or his representative to brief the committee to satisfy them it was constitutional.

Mr Pezzullo said the government believed the bill was constitutionally sound and defensible.

– AAP