Andrew Laming (Bowman, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

Is there a more important debate than this debate about the provision of identity documents for Australian citizens in the current climate of international unrest and uncertainty. In particular, we have the battle against extremism and we have a significant number of Australians who are engaged in parts of the world and committing a criminal offence. For those reasons, we have a very rigorous debate about the integrity of the Australian passport system. While we have some of the best technology in the world, there is still no doubt that the issuance of identity documentation to Australian citizens remains a matter of great concern to the Australian people. Obviously, not everyone has a passport. Obviously, people who are single nationals may still find that, when they are travelling around the world, their passports can be cancelled. But our international agreements mandate that we issue identity documentation for those who wish to return to their nation of citizenship. That is probably the most controversial area that we are currently debating. The issue of dual citizenship has had plenty of ventilation. There is plenty of controversy in how we and other developed economies deal with dual citizens engaged in these types of activities. This debate brings us to the individual who has single citizenship, a single nationality, who is in possession of a passport that may well be cancelled for a number of reasons and to our obligations to bring them home. I would like to talk a little more about that later.

This bill has a few common-sense amendments, and one area of great interest to the Australian people is the issuance of a passport to children in situations where there are dual carers and people with dual responsibility but not travelling as a family. This has consistently been a problem. We need to identify who the primary carer is and whether the second parent has a legitimate caring role and whether they can refuse the issuance of a passport. This has been an area of great concern to families in my electorate, and I am glad to see that this bill starts to clarify the obligations to obtain parental consent for both parents, including the one who is not the principal carer. The bill also gives the minister increased powers to refuse to process a passport on the reasonable grounds of fraud. Those improvements have been vitally necessary.

I would like to move back to the issue of greatest concern, which is the proof of identity documentation that is currently issued. This is effectively a form of passport, but it is used for a single trip home for someone who has had a passport cancelled; it is often used where, for a range of offences, someone needs to be brought home to the country. We know that, right now, this is not an endemic problem around the world but one specifically pertaining to nations bordering Syria and right. We know that, even as we speak, there are people approaching consulates and embassies in those neighbouring countries seeking to return home but obviously also well aware that they may have contravened Australian law during their travels. Without going into individual cases, we know that these individual's number in the hundreds.

We have spoken before about the challenges for law enforcement officials and Border Force and border protection officials in being able to ascertain the degree of risk in bringing these individuals home. If you can mount a case prior to their return, it is a fairly simple matter. In those sorts of cases, you will often find that individual obtaining legal representation, approaching an embassy and dealing with Federal Police at the time. But the far greater concern, the much larger security concern, is Australian citizens who have travelled to these proscribed areas and are now attempting to return claiming that they have not been involved in anything that breaks Australian law. We have a significant risk of radicalisation in allowing these individuals to come home without every power being given to our Border Force officials to identify exactly what they have been doing. In many cases you simply need time. Proof of identity documentation is often provided a few days after a passport has expired and it is clear that a significant case cannot be mounted against these individuals.

But I think in these circumstances that we are facing it is a way more important issue than that: Australians should not have to move amongst those who have been radicalised if there is a way of further establishing exactly what they have been doing overseas. In many cases, that is going to require bilateral arrangements with neighbouring nations, most of whom are our allies in the fight against terror. We need to ensure that those Australians are fully investigated before they return home. It is a simple request. This is not a refusal to issue that documentation; it is merely a delay while adequate information is collected. In many cases, that does not involve going into a proscribed area and collecting that data. In many cases, it is going to require other refugees crossing the border into Turkey, Syria and other nations and providing some of that corroborating information or former combatants having their stories matched to make sure they are giving a full account of their time overseas. This will probably be the most significant challenge that we will face in passport and proof of identity legislation, and I hope that that will be looked at in the case of single citizens.

Going back to this bill, the highest integrity of the Australian passport system is absolutely vital. These legislative provisions have to meet the user and operational needs. They have to be of the highest quality—world standard—to reduce, where we can, the risk of forgery and make sure that outdated references are addressed and the policies are kept up to date.

See this speech in context