32 Melbourne University Law Review [Vol 41(2):Adv there were ‘over 400 high-priority counter-terrorism investigations’ on foot,166 and that ‘all too often the threat comes from someone who has enjoyed the hospitality and generosity of the Australian people’.167 Mirroring the UK and Canadian experience, the security justification for the Allegiance to Australia Act was framed in fairly general terms. For instance, in his second reading speech for the legislation, Dutton said: Regrettably, some of the most pressing threats to the security of the nation and the safety of the Australian community come from citizens engaged in terrorism. It is now appropriate to modernise provisions concerning loss of citizenship to respond to current terrorist threats. The world has changed, so our laws should change accordingly.168 No attempt was made, however, to justify how the legislation would assist in mitigating terrorist threats or securing community safety, or how it would fill a gap in the existing law. Notably, even when purporting to speak directly to the necessity of the legislation as a security measure in parliamentary debates, proponents tended to invoke symbolic and rhetorical justifications, rather than providing any reasoned case for how the changes would improve public safety. For instance, in the context of explaining why the legislation was ‘prudent and pragmatic’ in ‘targeting [the threat of] resurgent terrorism’,169 Andrew Nikolic, a member of the Joint Parliamentary Committee on Intelligence and Security, drew on the symbolic rationale that non-allegiant citizens deserve to be denationalised: Around 110 Australians are currently fighting or are engaged with terrorist groups in Syria and Iraq. And almost 200 people in Australia are enabling terrorism in the Syria-Iraq conflict through financing and recruitment or are seeking to travel there. Supporting and engaging in terrorist activities against Australia’s interests is a clear breach of a person’s commitment and allegiance to our country — a bond that should unite all citizens. So the new powers in this bill are a necessary, measured and appropriate response.170 In the Senate debate, Attorney-General George Brandis also appealed to rhetoric as a means of justifying the national security value of the laws. In response 166 Abbott (n 7). 167 Ibid. 168 Commonwealth, Parliamentary Debates, House of Representatives, 24 June 2015, 7369. 169 Commonwealth, Parliamentary Debates, House of Representatives, 12 November 2015, 13034 (Andrew Nikolic). 170 Ibid. Advance Copy