Tony Pasin (Barker, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak today on the Australian Citizenship and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2014. I will begin by acknowledging that this year is the 65th anniversary of Australian citizenship. The bill is an omnibus bill, but I want to focus, in my contribution, on one part of the bill and also make some general remarks about the work of the minister in this crucial area.

The bill has a range of amendments grouped broadly into three themes: firstly, strengthening program integrity; secondly, underlying the importance of connection to Australia; and, thirdly, improving decision making. I cannot stress strongly enough the degree to which I agree with the minister's remarks that Australian citizenship is something to be treasured. It is the common bond that unites all of us, whether we are born here or have chosen to make this our home.

Australian citizenship involves a commitment to this country and to its people. It is a privilege; it is not a right. We should only bestow it on those people who honour and accept the values of our society and meet our community expectations. Currently, under the citizenship act, revocation may be considered in cases where a person has acquired Australian citizenship by application and has been convicted of making a false representation in relation to a migration and citizenship application that resulted in them becoming an Australian citizen; or, alternatively, has committed a serious criminal offence prior to becoming an Australian citizen and failed to disclose that in respect to the application; or is convicted of an offence after making an application to become an Australian citizen.

A serious offence is one where a person was sentenced to a term exceeding 12 months. This provision applies to serious criminal offences committed in Australia or overseas, or alternatively where an individual has acquired citizenship since 1 July 2007 as a result of a third-party fraud where the third party who committed the offence has been convicted of the offence.

After one or more of these criteria have been met, the minister must then be satisfied that it would be contrary to the public interest for the person to remain as an Australian citizen. The minister can revoke Australian citizenship where a person acquires it 'by application'. This means through conferral, descent, or adoption in accordance with the Hague Convention on Intercountry Adoption. The bill expands the minister's power to revoke citizenship when the minister is satisfied that the person became a citizen as a result of fraud or misrepresentation by allowing revocation without a prior criminal conviction or fraud.

Law enforcement agencies and courts have limited capacity to prosecute all cases of fraud, or any other type of criminal behaviour, thereby reducing the ability of government to ensure that high community behavioural expectations are maintained with respect to those that have obtained Australian citizenship. In line with other revocation provisions, it is intended that the minister must be satisfied that it would be contrary to the public interest for a person to remain a citizen.

The citizenship act has two mechanisms for assessing the character of an applicant. There is the good character requirement, which extends to everyone aged 18 and over who applies to become a citizen. The bill amends these provisions to require applicants aged under 18 also to be of good character. I can cite a number of recent examples for the House's benefit, where people who are under the age of 18 would not meet the good character test. They are of poor character—from a national security perspective or another perspective—are living in our community and have undertaken acts of violence.

I had the privilege of having had a professional life before coming to this place. As many have heard, it was a professional life that involved representing individuals who found themselves in criminal strife. I am probably best positioned to make the assertion that I have come across very many people who are under the age of 18 and have committed offences which would make them not of good character. I am pleased to see that this act strengthens the powers of the minister to deal with individuals in that circumstance.

Secondly, the act currently prevents a minister from approving a person becoming a citizen by conferral in circumstances related to criminal offences. In addition, the bill amends the offence provisions to reflect modern sentencing practices—including where a person is subject to a court order or a home detention, or where they have not been sentenced to prison but nonetheless are under an obligation to the court. Sentencing flexibility, I am sure that the Minister for Justice would agree with me, has seen a blossoming of alternative sentencing options for judges and magistrates. The traditional sentencing matrix of a term of imprisonment or no term of imprisonment, no longer applies. We now have in almost every jurisdiction in this country situations where you can have what I have come to term 'fused penalties'—a combination of terms of imprisonment and non-custodial sentences. These changes effectively acknowledge that change and provide the minister with some flexibility around various sentencing regimes so that the minister is no longer stuck in the situation where, if an individual is not sentenced to a term of imprisonment, he cannot activate the relevant arm of the test.

The bill further provides that the minister may cancel approval if satisfied that the person no longer meets other eligibility requirements. The bill extends the maximum period of time when the minister can delay an applicant making the pledge of commitment from 12 months to two years, recognising, most importantly, that investigations of this nature are sometimes complex and require longer than 12 months to be undertaken. The bill introduces safeguards to the provision giving automatic citizenship to those whose adoptions are finalised in Australia, by requiring such adoptions to be commenced before the applicant turns 18. This amendment is concerned with preventing individuals seeking adoption as adults to avoid being removed from Australia after their visas are cancelled under the Migration Act because they are no longer of good character.

These amendments in just one section of the large bill are common-sense and are consistent with the government's strong stand to protect our communities from the introduced threat from foreign lands of criminal acts and terror related activities. I make the observation that this is very much a measure aimed at further enhancing our sovereign right to control our borders. I commend the minister for his leadership in recent months in this space.

The various sections of the community who are opposed to the government's position are amongst some of the most persistent in our national discourse. This is truly an area where often difficult and unpalatable decisions are required in order to protect not only our lives but also our way of life. The minister has been stoic in his defence of these policies and, I must say, vindicated by events. I imagine it would not be easy to make these tough decisions and I do not envy the minister for the abuse that is often directed at him or at his department. It is important that we have a minister who has the intestinal fortitude to make these often unpalatable and difficult decisions.

If Australia were to lose control of its borders, it would become a magnet for a number of undesirables across the world who would seek to either gain entry into our country for nefarious purposes themselves or exploit those same weaknesses for personal profit and, in the process, lead hundreds to their deaths. Some on the left—and we heard some across the chamber this morning—would suggest that this approach is inhumane or indeed barbaric, but the simple fact is that, when we strengthen our moral resolve and remove the incentives from the hands of those who seek to threaten our society, we also reduce their power over their victims.

There is nothing humane about empowering criminals. It is an insidious trade and there is absolutely nothing powerful about empowering those who seek to profit from that. You have heard in this place, Mr Deputy Speaker, as I have, many times about those who are encouraged to make the dangerous journey by the very criminals I have mentioned. You have heard, as I have, sadly and tragically of the estimated 1,200 people who we expect lost their lives in the course of making that treacherous and dangerous journey. There is absolutely nothing humane about a regime that encourages that outcome. I am sure this is certainly not anyone's aim in this place but, if you establish an architecture and a regime and allow a matrix of events to present themselves so as to weaken our resolve, you effectively create an asset for those who seek to profit from this insidious trade. Importantly, we need to ensure that in the matrix we do not create a situation where we are in some way encouraging that insidious trade.

I began by noting the importance of citizenship. It is ultimately the grand prize that this nation offers and we need at every opportunity to ensure that the structures around its grant are of the highest quality and ensure that the grant is not made in circumstances where misinformation was provided to those making the decision. To the extent that this bill strengthens that framework, I commend it to the House. It is critical to not just securing our borders but the order and good governance of our nation. We need the best-quality citizens and they should only be entitled to the grand prize that we offer—citizenship—in the most appropriate of circumstances.

My parents have lived this journey. I am grateful for the opportunities that this nation has given them and thereby given me. It is a mutual obligation, if you like. We need to make sure that those who do not want to buy into that mutual obligation are not entitled to the grand prize of citizenship. I commend the bill to the House. I am conscious that we have not heard the position that those opposite will take in the other place. I encourage them to think seriously about how important and integral they are to the ongoing good governance of this country.

See this speech in context