Michael McCormack (Riverina, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Our nation is forever indebted to Australian Defence Force families who make enormous sacrifices. Partners of serving personnel and children wave their loved ones off at airports and docks not knowing if they will ever see them again. We know a soldier killed on duty pays the supreme sacrifice for their country; so too does their family. All too often last year we acknowledged in this parliament and in moving ramp ceremonies the awful ultimate consequences of what can happen in combat situations as we paid our last respects to brave diggers fallen in Afghanistan.

My home town of Wagga Wagga in the Riverina is a triservice town, having bases for the Air Force and Navy at Forest Hill as well as the Army. The Kapooka Army Base is fittingly known as the home of the soldier, as every recruit does their initial training there. I see the number of new service men and women who arrive in Wagga Wagga with their families having moved from another part of the country, or indeed from overseas, to faithfully train and serve in the Australian Defence Force. They contribute mightily to the local economy and to the city's stature and social fabric.

This Australian Citizenship Amendment (Defence Families) Bill 2012 concerns the Australian citizenship residence requirement of families of overseas lateral recruits to the Australian Defence Force. A lateral recruit is a member who has served in another nation's military and has subsequently moved to Australia to serve in our Defence Force. These members come from a number of countries, including New Zealand, South Africa, the United Kingdom and the United States of America. The majority have come from the United Kingdom Royal Navy, marines, army or air force. They bring with them a raft of experience and skills, and they help fill capability and critical gaps which currently exist in the workforce of the Australian armed forces.

Australia takes members only where it suits the 'parent' country. An example of this is the Royal Australian Navy is presently taking advantage of the United Kingdom's Strategic Defence and Security Review, which amongst other things is reducing the number of personnel across the United Kingdom's four military services. This has allowed the Royal Australian Navy to increase its recruitment of Royal Navy personnel in order to fill capability gaps within their ranks. A lateral transfer also saves the Australia Defence Force a considerable amount of money and time in training our own personnel. The net benefit Australia receives from recruiting a lateral transfer member far exceeds any potential costs associated with bringing forward the citizenship status of the spouse and dependants of a lateral transfer member.

Due to the gaps which currently exist within the Australian Defence Force, it is looking to recruit up to about 300 lateral transfer personnel each year to fill these gaps. The number of lateral transfers recruited each year is entirely the prerogative of the Australian Defence Force. Of the overseas members who join the Australian Defence force, 90 per cent have families who move with them to Australia. Given the current recruitment environment in Australia and countries such as the United Kingdom, it is an appropriate time to ensure these families of lateral transfers are afforded the same citizenship status as the serving member.

Under the law all lateral transfer members are required to qualify for permanent residency visas before they can take up a position with the Australian Defence Force and before they relocate to Australia. This is a necessary measure as it is a requirement for all members of the Australian Defence Force to be Australian citizens. A prerequisite to citizenship is permanent residency. Currently, spouses or partners and dependants of lateral transfers are granted permanent residency but not citizenship. Under the Australian Citizenship Act 2007—section 21(2)(c) and section 23—a permanent resident may be granted citizenship after completing 90 days permanent service in the Australian Defence Force or 180 days service in the reserves. The provision of early citizenship does not allow for the inclusion of a spouse or partner, nor does it include dependants aged 16 years or over. This situation can, and does, lead to discord within families of Defence Force members who have transferred from overseas. For these families the lack of citizenship offers them lack of certainty of their right to remain in Australia should something happen to their spouse or parent who is deployed on military operations.

The government has made assurances that support would be provided to families should a deployed lateral transfer member be killed in the line of action, but this provides no comfort to the families of these members. Aside from losing a loved one and not being sure if you can remain in Australia, even if they could stay there is the very real possibility of hardship for these families as they lose an income and are not guaranteed financial assistance through government agencies such as Centrelink. The same issues are also faced by those who may separate and divorce from their spouse who is serving in the defence force. Additionally, children of a serving lateral transfer member cannot gain access to a university HELP based placement unless they are New Zealand citizens, and the cost of university without a Commonwealth placement can be financially crippling.

This bill will fast-track Australian citizenship for family members of Australian Defence Force personnel, and ensure partners and dependants will be eligible for citizenship at the same time as the serving member. The bill also extends the provisions for citizenship beyond only spouses and dependent children to allow, for example, elderly dependent parents, or disabled dependants who do not qualify as children. Members who join the Reserves will also have the relevant defence service criteria cut from 180 days to 90 days. It will also allow a spouse and dependants to remain eligible for citizenship in the event the member dies before attaining citizenship.

The coalition introduced a near-identical bill to this on 21 May 2012. It was put up by the shadow minister for defence science, technology and personnel—the member for Fadden—who had gone out, spoken to defence personnel and their families and, more importantly, listened to what they told him and formulated a view that we as a parliament and as a coalition needed to do something. His well-researched and clearly articulated bill was a result of his discussions and the result of what he heard. Labor introduced its bill the very next day. The introduction of this bill by Labor is purely political. Labor has done nothing while in office, yet suddenly after the coalition introduced a near-identical bill Labor thought it was time to do something. No-one will buy that spin—certainly not veterans, still wondering why their pensions and superannuation entitlements are not fairly indexed, and certainly not defence people still smarting from the $5.5 billion slashed from Defence in the 8 May budget. The cutbacks brought about by the budget will hurt the Riverina considerably, with construction of Kapooka's working accommodation delayed by three years and the officer and pilot training systems delayed by 12 months at RAAF Base Forest Hill. This at a time of great unease; this at a time of unrest and instability in the world. Now, as much as ever, we need a proper focus on defence, not a slash-and-burn approach by a government which says it wants to save the planet but is doing little to protect our nation.

Labor's additional amendments to this particular legislation are simply a political attempt to differentiate its bill from the coalition's. But it gets worse—far worse: Labor is on the record as being against the proposed measures. The Minister for Immigration and Citizenship wrote to the Minister for Defence Science and Personnel on 4 February 2011. Of the proposed changes contained in Labor's bill he said:

… I do not consider it necessary to amend the citizenship legislation.

While the coalition supports these changes over and above its own bill, Labor could easily have introduced them as amendments to the coalition's bill, rather than trying on this political stunt and introducing its own bill.

The coalition supports this bill, although it questions the intent and real motives of the Labor government. It is evident that the rushed introduction of Labor's bill is as a direct response to the coalition introducing an almost identical bill just the day before—an attempt to have its bill voted on first, prior to the coalition's bill. Only last year Labor believed it was unnecessary to make such legislative changes.

This legislation will provide families with peace of mind through legislative means. Importantly, it is a policy which is wholly welcomed and supported by Defence Families of Australia, those people who, as I said at the outset, give so much to our nation's security and to our nation's wellbeing. Defence Families of Australia have been marvellous advocates on behalf of defence families and defence personnel across a wide range of issues ranging from defence housing, spousal support and, of course, the need to fix the inequity in families of ADF lateral transfer members.

Finally, Defence Families of Australia ought to be acknowledged and thanked, now and always, for their ongoing advocacy on behalf of ADF personnel right across Australia.

Luke Simpkins (Cowan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I do welcome the opportunity to speak on the Australian Citizenship Amendment (Defence Families Bill) 2012. On Saturday I attended a gathering of veterans from the Vietnam war, both veterans from the Republic of Vietnam—the South Vietnamese veterans—and Australian Army service veterans and veterans from all the services. This took place at the Australia-Vietnam war memorial in Kings Park on 16 June. Essentially it was a commemoration of 50 years since the first deployment of troops to South Vietnam. That was in 1962, and as we would recall that was the first arrival of members of the Australian Army Training Team Vietnam, known as 'the team'. It was a good opportunity to hear from the training team veterans, veterans of the Vietnam War more widely and also those who actually fought against the communist north in the entire Vietnam war.

It was a moment where you could really look at the ramifications and impact on families that war brings. At the time when people were deployed—thousands of Australians were deployed—to Vietnam, whilst the contact through media was certainly there and bringing the war directly into the lounge rooms of Australian families, they were difficult times for those families. So, when we look at the sort of bill we are talking about today and how it relates to defence families, it is really one of those policy areas where we need to be always cognisant and aware. For those that wear our uniform, that pick up arms for our country, that do the bidding of this nation and try to do the right and the good things in the world, it is at exactly these times when, in comparison with the tragedies that happened to families from the Vietnam War, that we must always be aware of what we need to do. As a national parliament we need to ensure that the Australian families of servicemen are looked after.

As we know, this bill has wide support. It has the support, I hope, of every person in this chamber and later will have the support of the senators as well. From the coalition, the National and Liberal parties' side, that support is unequivocal and is absolutely clear. It is good that we have such policies and such legislation coming to this chamber. We have always made the point from the opposition that we support good policy. If it is right and is in the best interests of this nation then support is always there. The government like to spin their lines about the coalition and the opposition leader always saying no, but the reality is that when anyone cares to check the public record the vast majority of legislation that comes through here has the support of the opposition. As I said before, there is absolutely no doubt that, when we talk about what is good for the defence of this country and what is good for the families that provide a loved one to serve the national interest in uniform, the coalition, the Liberal and National parties, stand on the side of those families.

When we look at the history of this bill, the way it developed and the involvement of the member for Fadden, the shadow minister, it is very clear that the coalition has stood on the side of defence families in this matter, as it does in all matters. As we know, this bill was introduced in this chamber on 22 May. It was a day after much telegraphing—obviously because a process needs to take place—and it was the day after the member for Fadden's private member's bill was introduced. It was surprising, I guess, after the question of the citizenship of families of those from other defence forces who joined the Australian Army, Navy or Air Force had been raised on many occasions. After these issues had been raised for so long, suddenly, following the member for Fadden's bill, we got a government bill.

Possibly in the minister's second reading speech we might find a little bit of a hint as to some history with regard to the government's motivation. In reading the minister's second reading speech it says very nice things about what the bill will do—and as I said we will support the bill, there is no doubt about that—but what I did note in the second reading speech of Minister Snowdon was that at no point did it mention the build-up to the requirement for this bill. It did not mention the way the minister had written to the immigration minister and been rebuffed at the start of last year. At no point did the second reading speech mention that. It did not actually mention the shadow minister's, the member for Fadden's, bill that was introduced the day before either.

In this place we are used to seeing this government's bills brought in where they attempt to blame the last government. Before 2007 apparently everything the government did in those days was terrible. We are used to seeing that put into a second reading speech in the introduction of bills by the government. We are used to seeing the blaming of everybody else by this government. In this second reading speech that was not there, I guess, because they had to rush this bill into the House. They had to come up with it quickly, with only a couple of weeks notice, so there was not a whole lot of room to fire the shots. There was not a whole lot of opportunity to fire the shots when the government was embarrassed by the fact that a policy initiative that needed to get done, that needed to be brought into this place and needed to be fixed, was actually initiated by the opposition.

There is a little bit of embarrassment, clearly evident in the minister's second reading speech, because they did not talk about all the great work they had done in the lead-up to this bill and they did not talk about how it had been planned for ages. When they finally introduced the bill it was all just purely about what is going to take place as a result of this bill. I suspect that it was really all about the embarrassment, and that is why there were not the negative shots that are normally fired when the government bring legislation into the chamber. As I said before, the government are used to trying to blame everybody else for any issue that takes place.

Let us get to what is really important about this bill, which is the importance of the policy itself. It is the importance of looking after the families of those who have come to Australia to join our defence forces. I think that, given the operational tempo of the Australian Army particularly, and the Navy and the Air Force to a degree, and the way that so many of our soldiers are serving overseas and are, on any day, out on operations, out on patrols, the last thing that that soldier, sailor or airman needs is to be worried about what may happen to their family if something should happen to them. The reality is that when you pick up a weapon and you are out on patrol, lives can be lost. A person might have come from the army, navy or air force of the UK or somewhere else in the world, and the reality is that ultimately their life could be lost in the conflict or on patrol. The last thing we want is for that person, as they are standing in their arcs of fire, as they are out on patrol, to be thinking about anything but identification of the enemy, defending themselves and protecting their mates. The last thing we want is for that person to be worrying: 'What's going to happen to my family? What's going to happen to my kids? What's going to happen to my dependants if this all goes pear-shaped?' So it is right, and certainly overdue, that we should get to this point, with this legislation, where the service person—man or woman—does not need to worry anymore about that aspect of the future should something happen to them.

The reason we recruit people from other defence forces is to fill the capability gaps that we might have. Much has been said about recent rationalisations and cutbacks to the UK defence forces and that that has been an opportunity for us. We are used to seeing reports in newspapers about how difficult it has been to staff the submarine fleet. I guess the UK's austerity package does give us an opportunity to enhance our own capability, and more and more of these lateral transfers can be expected in the future. Obviously they add great value. And when we ask someone if they are willing to lay down their life for our country, it is right that we say to them: 'Great, and you're going to become a citizen now. We will give you citizenship and your family, your dependants, your children, will get the same opportunity.' As other speakers in this debate this morning and last night have said, the full range of opportunities that citizenship allows will immediately be available to the families of the service person, and it is right that that should occur. It is not just a matter of the person who is out on patrol or in the aircraft or on the ship, serving within the particular service; we have to see beyond that and ensure that their family—who have also given up so much to join them in Australia and to allow them to serve in our national interest—are fully supported and have all the benefits that citizenship provides.

There is no downside to this bill. These changes are well regarded and welcomed by the coalition of the Liberal and National parties. As a former serving member of the defence forces I would like to pay tribute to the member for Fadden, himself a former commissioned officer in the Army, for the way he has reached out and provided support and initiatives and worked to make the public policy debate on matters affecting the best interests of defence families one of his finest priorities. Following on from the private member's bill introduced by the member for Fadden, this bill we are debating has been initiated. The upsides are complete now for the families that need to be supported, so I welcome this bill. (Time expired)

Don Randall (Canning, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Local Government) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am pleased to speak on the Australian Citizenship Amendment (Defence Families) Bill 2012. The coalition understand the importance of our service men and women to the security and, indeed, the identity of our nation. We honour and respect the sacrifices of our defence personnel, not only those serving but also their partners and families, and this includes both Australian born personnel and those who have transferred from another country. Family members support and encourage our Australian Defence Force personnel and spend untold months worrying about their loved ones when they go overseas. As we have seen over the past 10 years in Afghanistan and Iraq, many families have been left to mourn the loss of a fallen Australian soldier and the wounding of Australian soldiers. As a nation we should be prepared to do all we can to support our ADF personnel, their spouses and dependants, given that they are willing to pay the ultimate sacrifice to serve our country.

ADF lateral transfers facilitate an arrangement which allows those serving in another nation—for example, the UK, New Zealand, South Africa—to move to Australia and serve in our ADF. This is to be encouraged as we are able to fill critical gaps in the ADF's workforce and Australia receives skilled and trained personnel, thereby saving significant time and money. The saving obtained by recruiting personnel who are already trained easily offsets any costs in making the recruitments, and their families also make a great contribution as citizens of Australia. For example, it is estimated that it costs Australia up to $2 million to train a fully qualified pilot, so to acquire such personnel from overseas obviously denotes a saving of $2 million per person. The ADF is looking to recruit up to 300 lateral transfer personnel annually and it is expected that 90 per cent of these will have families who will join them in Australia. Transfer applicants must qualify for permanent residency as PR is a prerequisite for citizenship. Once in Australia, ADF lateral transfer members may be granted Australian citizenship after completing 90 days of permanent service or 180 days service in the reserves. Their dependants and spouses, however, are not offered the same pathway to citizenship and have a four-year pathway to Australian citizenship. This sometimes leads to disharmony in the family, and it is an anomalous situation that could be and should be addressed.

The example is that there are lateral transfer members currently serving in the ADF posted overseas. Under the current legislation, if they were to be killed in action today—God forbid—the service man or woman's partner and children would not be able to access the same benefits available to the spouses and dependants of ADF personnel. Moreover, there would be no legislative guarantee that the family members could remain in Australia, as they would not have reached automatic citizenship entitlements. While I would like to think the Australian government would accommodate such individuals, they ought to have the security of having this entitlement protected through this legislative amendment.

The same difficult situation would be faced if a lateral transfer member divorced his or her spouse. The serving member would be afforded citizenship while the spouse and the dependants would not, leading to a problematic situation which could become quite emotional, I dare say. This could be avoided through this legislation. All of the assistance entitlements and privileges that go with Australian citizenship should be provided to these spouses and family members of lateral transfer personnel willing to move their lives to Australia and serve in our Australian defence forces. We should afford the same citizenship rights to family members of lateral transfer members that the personnel themselves currently receive—in other words, the fast-tracking of citizenship.

The Australian Citizenship Amendment (Defence Families) Bill that we speak on today is supported by the coalition largely because we presented a near identical bill on 21 May this year, one day before this bill was introduced. I heard the member for Cowan, a former serving officer, talk much about this, so I will not go into much detail. Rather than make amendments to the bill that was introduced by the member for Fadden, Labor has shamelessly presented a carbon copy of the coalition's bill introduced just one day prior to this one before us today. I know that imitation is the highest form of flattery, but it really does stretch the envelope of credibility when they claim it as their own.

As I said, the coalition presented a similar bill on 21 May. Labor presented their bill on 22 May. Not only has Labor done nothing to address this situation since taking power in 2007; immigration minister Chris Bowen even wrote to the Minister for Defence Science and Personnel, the Hon. Warren Snowdon, on 4 February 2011 to say they would not. He clearly stated in the last paragraph of his letter to Minister Snowdon:

... I do not consider it necessary to amend the citizenship legislation.

Here it is in the letter, in the last paragraph:

Taking all these factors into account, I do not consider it necessary to amend the citizenship legislation.

So what happens just over a year later? They copy our bill. Has the minister changed his mind in the past 12 months or was it altered because he was in fear of being embarrassed by the coalition's bill to address this anomalous situation regarding lateral transfer members, presented just one day before their bill came on?

Defence Families of Australia wholeheartedly support this bill, as I do, as I believe it will provide security and confidence to lateral transfer members and their families, which is the least we can do as a nation for those who are willing to put their lives on hold to serve in our Australian Defence Force.

I saw this myself when I had the honour to go on one of our Collins class submarines, the Dechaineux. We went off Rottnest. I met a number of lateral transfer people, mainly from the United Kingdom, who had come over to help man our subs. I must admit they were very happy in their job. We just have not got enough of them. As we know, we barely have enough people to man our subs as it is. It is obviously not a huge attraction to work on submarines because of the antisocial nature of being a submariner. You spend many days and months below the ocean surface and away from your family. The husband of one of my staff was a submariner, and I must admit she spent many lonely weeks and months on her own while he was at some secret location somewhere in the world. That is why, if we can get people from other nations that are willing to transfer here, we should do so. I must also add that the submariners that had come from the UK told us that there would be more of them if we could make some adjustments to the superannuation and taxation regimes that they face on leaving the British defence forces. So that is something we need to take into account.

I wish to raise the issue, in relation to this bill, of one of my constituents. Last year I was approached by my constituent Mr Chris Keay of Kelmscott, who was inquiring about the possibility of his son Phillip transferring from the British army to serve in our defence forces. Sadly, upon making inquiries with Minister Snowdon's office, I was informed that Mr Keay's son Phillip would be ineligible to transfer as he did not have the required minimum rank, which is sergeant. Phillip currently holds the rank of corporal in the British army. He has completed all the necessary training and assessments to hold the rank of sergeant. He has not yet been promoted, due to the budgetary cutbacks in the UK as a result of the austerity measures being imposed over the past several years, largely due to the huge spending of the previous Labour government and the global financial crisis. So it is not the fault of Phillip Keay that he is not a sergeant. He is just not in a position to be promoted due to the austerity cutbacks on the British armed forces.

As a young, enthusiastic and well-qualified man, Phillip Keay is exactly the person who we as a nation need and who we should be looking to recruit. While the UK may not like the fact that we are effectively poaching talented and fully trained recruits such as Phillip, if he is willing to move his life to Australia and serve in the ADF, I believe we must do more to accommodate and be more obliging when it comes to facilitating such transfers. In other words, we should be flexible and understanding in applying the rules to his case particularly as his father is living here in Australia.

Phillip has served in the British Army for almost 11 years. He has participated in five operational tours including tours in Iraq, Afghanistan and Cyprus. He is an infantry section commander so he is obviously able to lead up to 10 soldiers into combat. Phillip has the skill sets that are required, however, through no fault of his own he is yet to receive the official ranking from the British Army. We should be more willing to consider accepting recruits such as Phillip, because as a nation we are the beneficiary of such transfers. It just seems obvious to me. Opportunities such as this may not remain as attractive as they currently are and Australia should take advantage of this good fortune—and misfortune for the British—while we can.

As I have said, Phillip also has family-related reasons for requesting a transfer to Australia, including the recent birth of his nephew and the fact that a short time ago his father suffered a heart attack, placing greater importance on Phillip's need to be closer to his family in Australia. So for these commonsense reasons we support this bill. We just seek greater understanding from those who make the decisions in this area. I support this bill before the parliament as it is simply the right thing to do. I would suggest to those opposite that in future, instead of wasting the parliament's time with duplicate bills, the government support good legislation that has been created and brought to this parliament by the coalition.

Craig Kelly (Hughes, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Australian Citizenship Amendment (Defence Families) Bill 2012 and to support the comments of my coalition colleagues who have spoken in favour of this bill. Firstly, I would like to congratulate the member for Fadden for his important work in this area. The member for Fadden is a good man—someone I greatly respect—and one who strongly advocates for the men and women whom he bravely served alongside. If I were in the trenches, I would want a man like the member for Fadden standing alongside me.

However, the bill we are debating here today is not his, though it certainly appears to be remarkably similar to the Australian Citizenship Amendment (Defence Service Requirement) Bill that was introduced to the chamber as a private member's bill last month by the member for Fadden. In fact in this debate we find the government introducing a bill to do exactly what the private member's bill introduced by the member for Fadden proposed to do.

So why do we have a government bill that appears to have been taken directly—it was a cut-and-paste job—from the private member's bill of the member for Fadden but included some minor administrative amendments? This bill is being presented as a government initiative when it is quite clearly an initiative of the opposition. But as the old saying goes: imitation is the highest form of flattery. So here we find two near-identical bills which are designed to respond to an issue previously ignored, where the government and this minister have been forced to finally act in response to the strong efforts of the member for Fadden.

This government has been dragged to this issue kicking and screaming, and I know other speakers have pointed out the government's immigration minister's opposition to this bill. In fact, in a letter to the Minister for Defence Science and Defence Personnel, the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship, the member for McMahon, said of the fast-tracking of citizenship for defence families,'I do not consider it necessary to amend the citizenship legislation.' Clearly, this letter from the minister for immigration, dated 4 February 2011, made it crystal clear that the Labor government did not support the fast-tracking of citizenship for Australian Defence Force personnel and their families.

So why the backflip? I suggest the government's backflip on this position is related to the rundown in defence spending that we have seen under this government whereby our nation's defence spending has been reduced to the lowest level of GDP since that fateful year of 1938. The cuts have included the punitive and penny-pinching axing of the recreational leave travel entitlement for single Defence Force personnel. And after finally being forced to act on this issue, this government have returned to their default position of playing politics. One might ask why we have two bills when the government could have simply shown a positive and constructive approach and amended the private member's bill. We all know that it is simply not in their DNA.

Fifteen months ago the immigration minister outlined his opposition to acting on what most observers would accurately describe as a 'gap' in the legislative framework supporting Defence Force personnel and their families, and we all know that there would have been no action on this issue had the member for Fadden not taken the initiative and introduced a private member's bill. This is yet another example where the coalition is providing the leadership this country so desperately needs, and is doing so from the opposition benches. The member for Fadden has stepped into the breach that has been left by this divided and dysfunctional government. He has stepped in to fill the breach for something that this government has deserted, and I applaud him for that.

This is an important bill. It is a bill that allows those who come from other countries to serve in our armed forces to bring their families here to Australia and to join our population with full citizenship rights. If these men and women are allowed to serve in our Defence Force, why are their families not allowed to benefit from the very freedoms that we ask them to protect? Australian citizenship is one of the most treasured gifts someone living in this country can have. In ordinary circumstances an application for citizenship requires a minimum period of four years residence in the country. The act makes special provision for someone serving in the Defence Force where a much shorter time is required if the candidate for citizenship completes a certain period of service. As the law currently stands, lateral transfer members of the Australian Defence Force—those serving in other countries' militaries who seek to come here and serve our country—are given a fast track to citizenship after serving this required period in our armed forces. However, shamefully, no such provision is given to the families who give the love and support that is so essential in the life of a soldier, a life that is not easy, with endless rotations and isolation from loved ones. How much harder this would be in the case of a lateral transfer soldier, transferring from across the world to serve in the military of a new homeland, with his family being such a critical support base able to endure those challenges alongside the soldier, if they are not given the same rights to citizenship. This bill enables spouses and dependants of ADF lateral transfer members to gain citizenship at the same time as their partner serving in the Australian Defence Force. This is entirely appropriate when you consider the importance of the family support base that goes along with a lateral transfer to our military services. It is unsurprising that 90 per cent of the lateral transfer recruits to the Australian defence forces have families they seek to bring to Australia with them.

In the past, we have sometimes been far too eager to hand out citizenship to individuals which have no respect for our nation, and in fact some who have been prepared to intentionally harm it. It was only a little over six months ago, back in December 2011, that Justice Betty King sentenced three men to 18 years in prison for their part in a terrorist plot against the Holsworthy Barracks in the electorate of Hughes, which I represent. They aimed to infiltrate the Holsworthy base and shoot as many Army personnel and others as they possibly could until they were killed or captured. In sentencing, Justice King said:

The fact that Australia welcomed all of you, and nurtured you and your families, is something that should cause you all to hang your heads in shame That this was the way you planned to show your thanks for that support …

She added that all three were unrepentant radical Muslims who would remain a great threat to the public while they held their extremist views. But, of the three, only one terrorist can actually be deported on his release from jail. The other two have Australian citizenship.

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Hughes I think is drawing a long bow in terms of the bill before us. I would ask him to come back to the bill before the House.

Craig Kelly (Hughes, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will come back, because this bill is about Australian citizenship and the importance of it. If we are looking for what qualifications we would seek for someone to become an Australian citizen, then what higher standard, what better applicants could we find than the families of defence force members from countries such as England, New Zealand, Canada, South Africa and the USA who are prepared to fight under the Australia flag to protect our way of life? The Australian Defence Force has a longstanding practice of recruiting members from the armed services of compatible countries, and it is one that in the past has served our nation well. It is a practice that is necessary in order to fill the capability gaps in our own armed forces and is obviously important as new equipment is introduced into each of the services in our Australian defence forces.

Currently, the Australian Defence Force seek to recruit 300 lateral transfer personnel per annum—which may well increase as, among other examples, our ageing Collins class of submarines is phased out. Of importance to this debate, 90 per cent of possible lateral transfer recruits have families they would seek to bring with them if they came to fight under the Australian flag. It should be noted that, just as Australia seeks to supplement our military capabilities by lateral transfer, so do many other comparable nations. Simply put, unless we make the changes brought forward by the member for Fadden and replicated by the relevant minister we will make ourselves a less attractive option for these defence force personnel that Australia seeks to recruit.

Both pieces of legislation also aim to address the legislative vacuum that exists in relation to the lateral transfer system. The member for Fadden indicated that there are currently seven soldiers serving in combat operations on the front line in Afghanistan that have joined the Australian Defence Force through lateral transfer. But, at present, there is no requirement for the government to afford their families the same level of support in terms of benefits normally payable to the spouses and dependants of Defence Force members killed on duty. In fact, currently there appears to be no legislative basis or guarantee that a spouse or the dependants of a lateral transfer member of the Australian Defence Force would even be able to stay in Australia should that serving member be killed in training or in a combat operation. It is all well and good for a government to say, 'Don't worry; we'll make it happen,' but with this government's long list of broken promises that is not very reassuring. A far better approach would be to correct the legislative settings and give peace of mind to soldiers and their families considering coming to Australia under the lateral transfer system.

The coalition will be supporting this bill because it is based on sound policy and, more so, because it is the right thing to do. As we have always been, we will be the party that supports our defence forces. We will continue to support our soldiers—those brave men and women who give so much of themselves to our nation. We will also support their families, who provide our soldiers with much support. The circumstances surrounding the development of this bill, however, are concerning, and they reflect the disappointing attitude of this Labor-Greens government towards our Australian defence forces. The people of the seat of Hughes have a strong connection with the Australian military that has been developed over generations. The seat of Hughes is the home of a major Defence Force base in Holsworthy, and we are proud to have previously been represented by the Minister for Veterans Affairs and assistant Minister for Defence in the Howard government. But in 2012-13 the current Gillard Labor government has slashed defence funding. I take the opportunity to raise this point because it goes to the attitude the government has toward our defence forces. The recent raft of defence cuts has caused significant disquiet in my community, ranging from annoyance to anger, especially regarding the targeted cuts, the punitive cuts and the mean axing of the recreational defence leave travel entitlements. This important program was very much about the health and wellbeing of our soldiers, who spend so much time away from their families and support networks. Only this government—the same government that thought fixing the legislative gap we are now considering was not necessary—would think many soldiers being left camped in their barracks was a good policy approach. The people of Hughes recognise that this measure is both unfair and will save this government less money than it intends.

When given the choice between implementing good public policy and playing politics, it is unfortunate that this government is choosing the latter. That is what we see in their actions on this bill. Nonetheless, I support this bill and commend it to the House.

Warren Snowdon (Lingiari, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Defence Science and Personnel) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

First let me say how pleased I am to be able to do the summing up of this piece of legislation, the Australian Citizenship Amendment (Defence Families) Bill 2012, as important as it is, and to acknowledge the contributions of all of those members who have spoken to the second reading. Whilst I acknowledge I do not necessarily support everything that has been said, particularly by the opposition members and most particularly by the member for Hughes, whom I have just had the misfortunate to hear. Never mind the facts getting in the way of a good story, which is what has happened in this case. But I will not dwell on that, because I think this piece of legislation is far too important for that sort of petty nonsense. I am heartened that the opposition, despite its protestations, is actually supporting the legislation.

I want to remind the House what this is about. The object of the bill is to enable family members of current and future lateral recruits to the Australian Defence Force to be eligible for conferral of Australian citizenship at the same time as the lateral recruit: 90 days service in either the permanent or reserve forces of the Army, Navy or Air Force. This bill is unquestionably about families and fairness. It is an important amendment that acknowledges the fundamental place families have in the ADF and in Australian society more generally. Currently—and unfortunately—the families of lateral recruits are required to spend up to four years in Australia as lawful noncitizens before being eligible for full citizenship and the associated benefits that are derived from that citizenship. The inconsistent approach to the treatment of members of a family unit that migrated together can only add to the upheaval and uncertainty experienced by lateral recruits in their move to the ADF and to Australia.

The bill acknowledges that defence service can be dangerous, that family members of lateral recruits bear a share of this danger and that they make significant sacrifices to support the serving member. More specifically, it recognises that families of lateral recruits migrate to Australia as a family unit and all face similar settlement challenges. Families have always played a central role in the defence community, and it is only fair that they should be extended the same legal status as the recruited member.

The bill addresses a long-term gap that has existed in our immigration and defence policies. While not trying to be too cute, I will make this observation. During the whole 11 years of the Howard government there was nothing done to address this anomalous situation. In a practical sense—what all good policy should be based upon—the amendments in this bill will assist families with the actual mechanics of settling in Australia, including accessing employment opportunities and educational assistance. It also, importantly, assists these new citizens in building a close and continuing relationship to Australia.

The scope of the bill extends to family members at the time the lateral recruit was granted their visa who hold the same kind of visa as the lateral recruit and who hold that visa because they are a member of the family unit. The amendments will apply to family members who hold a prescribed visa granted on or after 1 July 2007 and for all applications following the bill's assent. These family members may include the spouse or de facto partner of a lateral recruit and, importantly, dependent children of any age and a dependent parent. The bill also provides a pathway for family members to be eligible for citizenship in the very sad event that the ADF lateral recruit dies while undertaking service. In this instance the family member will be treated as if the ADF member had completed their relevant defence service.

The ADF is highly skilled, highly capable and a very formidable force. Its people are its strength, as my good friend the member for Eden-Monaro can attest as a distinguished former serving officer himself. To continue to maintain a leading capability edge we must do all that is necessary to recruit, train and sustain the best possible people locally and, where required, abroad. The amendments in this bill will assist Australia in attracting personnel to highly specialist roles in the ADF as they will provide tangible benefits to the migrating family and make the decision to transfer all the more straightforward and, indeed, a great deal easier. It is an equitable amendment to the act and one that the government has been proud to introduce into this place.

To provide a sense of some of the numbers and how many families this will impact, the labour agreement in place between the Department of Immigration and Citizenship and the Department of Defence imposes a cap of 510 overseas lateral recruits per year. In the period 2008 to 2011, there were a total of 573 lateral recruits—far below the cap that is being imposed as a result of the agreement between the Department of Defence and the Department of Immigration and Citizenship. So far this year, to 31 March, defence has recruited 23 Navy, one Army and three Air Force members as lateral recruits, and 603 dependent family members have migrated alongside lateral recruits over that period. That is 603 new Australians that will have the certainty and stability in their legal status that comes with being a citizen of this great country.

Before I turn to some points in the debate, I make an observation. I have met a large number of these lateral recruits in various spots around the country, including at HMAS Stirling and at 1 Brigade in Darwin. For example, I had the privilege to meet Commander Rick Westoby from the Royal Australian Navy. He is a Royal Marines Major who was working on exchange at the ADF Warfare Centre at RAAF Williamtown. He is due for compulsory retirement at age 50 from the Royal Marines and wanted to stay within his field of expertise. He was approached by the RAN to transfer, and he now works towards improving the ADF's amphibious and joint operations capability. He transferred to the ADF in 2004. He is one example from a large number of lateral recruits who have come to Australia, particularly from Great Britain. We are very pleased at the services they provide.

I turn now to make some comments on why this bill is more comprehensive than the bill which was proposed by the member for Fadden. Whilst there has been bluff and bluster from many on the opposition benches, the member for Fadden will know that this bill is better than the bill he proposed in a number of ways, and I thank him for his support. Also, I point out that this bill has not come along as recently as the last month; it has been under discussion in one form or another by me inside the government since October or November 2010. Whilst we did not have the best response in the first instance, we have been able to repechage the response and, to his credit, the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship has sponsored this legislation through the parliament. I am very pleased by and thank him for that.

This bill will extend the reduced residency requirement to all migrating children—not just to those who are aged under 18 years or to students under the age of 25—of the ADF lateral recruit. Disabled children and children who are not students but who are wholly or substantively dependent on the ADF parent and who have migrated with the ADF parent will also be eligible for Australian citizenship under this bill. Unlike the private member's bill, the government's bill will not discriminate against the disabled or those who are physically dependent upon the lateral recruit but older than an arbitrary age limit. The private member's bill did not allow family members of lateral recruits to satisfy the relevant defence service requirement and obtain Australian citizenship in circumstances where the lateral recruit died before he or she had completed the relevant defence service to meet the residency requirements for citizenship. The government's bill will extend citizenship to family members of lateral recruits in the way that I described earlier. It is important that we acknowledge that the differences between this bill and the private member's bill are positive. I accept that the member for Fadden has acknowledged this, and I thank him again for his support.

I said earlier that the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship, Mr Bowen, after my initial correspondence to him, wrote to me last year encouraging further liaison on the issues covered by the bill. I am very pleased that we now have a comprehensive set of amendments, which were recognised as necessary as a result of the representations we made, to the Citizenship Act. This bill is not about politics. I acknowledge that people should have the opportunity to express their thoughts in this debate—and some have expressed views which go well beyond the ambit of the debate. Nevertheless I am encouraged by the fact that, despite the bluff and bluster of the opposition, they are supporting this legislation, and I thank them for it. This bill is not about point-scoring, and it is not about politics; it is about the ADF, it is about families and it is about fairness. I commend the bill to the House.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.