Alannah Mactiernan (Perth, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

Why did it happen? We had a war. When we have a war, do we say, 'If you have got an ancestor that comes from a country that we are having a war with, you are automatically an enemy'? We are talking about people who in many instances were second and third generation Australians, who were subjects of Australia, and they were absolutely dumbfounded. They wanted to go and fight for Australia. After the war, after the Treaty of Versailles—after it all finished—these people, often second generation Australians, were deported. The determinations of the minister of the day, dealing with why people of German ancestry were interned, state not that these people were a threat but that the British-born people in the area were not comfortable with them and that it would be really good example to intern them; it would make the British-born people feel much more comfortable in their community. I say this just as an example of what happens when you have unfettered ministerial control.

I support us having the provision to strip of their dual citizenship people who have another nationality and who have in some way behaved appallingly and have not valued those fundamental principles that are important in Australia. But this is never a decision that should be made by a minister. This is always a decision that should be made by the court. I am entirely comfortable with those parts of this legislation that require there to be a proper intervention of the judiciary, a proper examination of the facts, a proper examination of whether or not those facts constitute a breach of law. But I am not comfortable with putting ministers in the position where they can play with this thing that is our most precious birthright—our citizenship—and make political judgements on that.

I hope there is an early High Court challenge to this, because it is not just a technical matter. It is not one of those section 51 matters: have we crossed the boundary of the carve-up of state and federal power? It is not one of those dry provisions. This goes to the fundamental nature of our society and of justice, where we believe that we have to have a separation of powers to ensure that that great force of the state that is there to protect us is not used at the political whim of a minister.

The way this debate has emerged has really been very sad. I am reluctantly supporting this legislation because it constitutes a great improvement on a deeply flawed piece of legislation. I will certainly be supporting anyone who finds themselves on the receiving end of a ministerial decision and who feels that that is something that should be challenged in the court. That is not because I do not believe that we should be able to say, 'If you do not value Australian rights, you lose your citizenship,' but it should be the job— (Time expired)

See this speech in context