Michael Danby (Melbourne Ports, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Way back in 1948, the Australian parliament passed the Nationality and Citizenship Act. A clause, which its authors correctly thought would rarely be used, allowed the immigration minister to cancel Australian citizenship if a person were found to have acquired it fraudulently. In the case of an individual fighting in the army of an enemy of this country, citizenship was automatically cancelled.

We live in a world that has changed unrecognisably over the past 67 years. One of the changes is the fact that, as with other countries, Australia's enemies do not always fight in uniforms of another country's military. Indeed in recent decades we have witnessed the rise of non-state militias fighting—and I appreciate the irony of the bureaucratese—transnational non-international armed conflicts. The way the Syrian civil war has spilled over into northern Iraq through the spread of Daesh—originally sponsored by Assad to supress the democratic opposition in Syria—is a textbook example.

In 1948, the drafters of the citizenship law knew Australia was a safe haven where thousands of refugees from war ravaged lands, and migrants from everywhere on earth, would make a home and build a new future. My own father was amongst many who did just that. Indeed we are a nation of immigrants. There are few here today, including in the vast crowd in the gallery, who cannot trace their ancestors to far off lands.

Australia remains a place where you can build a safe and prosperous future. That has not changed for the overwhelming majority of immigrants, including thousands who have come here on humanitarian grounds—and including people from the Middle East. Recently, some have been inveigled into a phenomenon I call 'Facebook jihadism', inveigled to kill other Australians. This is something that no-one who helped author the 1948 Nationality and Citizenship Act could have predicted. It is on the back of these two fundamental changes to Australia's reality—that our enemies are not always in the form of regular armies and that a tiny fraction of immigrants will plot to kill their fellow Australians—that the opposition has engaged with the government on this issue and has agreed to some changes of relevant Australian laws.

As the member for Isaacs recounted, the government in its original bill cast the net too widely and, as with other antiterrorist legislation, it had to be sent back to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security for refinement—because there were people whom the bill was not meant to be targeting who might have been caught by it. People convicted, as the member for Isaacs said, for damaging or destroying Commonwealth property, including a post box, might have had their citizenship stripped. People convicted of seducing a person serving in the Queen's Forces from his or her duty and allegiance—that is a bit obscure—could also have lost their citizenship this way. Likewise, there was a danger that children could have lost their citizenship because of the conduct of their parents.

Originally the draft bill allowed for an Australian citizen resident in Australia but convicted of no crime to lose their citizenship if a security agency issued an adverse finding about them. This provision has now been removed. No-one in Australia will lose their citizenship on the untested suspicion that they are involved in terrorism. Only those individuals who are to be jailed for serious offences with sentences in excess of six years or, retrospectively, those terrible people who have already been sentenced for over ten years; those who have committed an offence in Australia but fled the country before arrest; or those who are fighting in a terrorist force like Daesh can lose their citizenship under this law. The number of proto-terrorists facing Australia has actually dropped in the last few months, as many of them have been killed fighting for their terrorist masters.

What has also been strengthened in this legislation is access to natural justice. It is democracy 101 that everyone affected by these laws has the right to appeal in a court any determination by a minister. Another important addition to the bill is that the National Security Legislation Monitor will be commissioned to review the revocation of citizenship provisions by no later than 1 December 2018. The intelligence and security committee will conduct its own review, which is due exactly 12 months later. I might add that I was involved originally with a then key leader of the opposition in seeing that it was the parliament, not the Attorney-General, that classified terrorist groups. This has always come before the PJCIS at the recommendation of the Attorney-General, and that is a very good process that we have here in this country. The parliament is involved. It is not just at the whim of a particular minister at the time.

These changes from the original draft were put in place because of the work of the intelligence and security committee. More specifically, it was the work of the Labor members of this committee that significantly refined the scope of the original language so only those who are meant to be affected are so affected. I want to pay my respects to my colleagues Anthony Byrne, the deputy chair of that committee; the shadow Attorney-General, Mark Dreyfus; the shadow immigration minister, Richard Marles; and the opposition leader, Bill Shorten—all of whom have worked tirelessly to improve this legislation so that it both protects the security of the Australian people and does not have legislative effects on dual citizens not involved in terrorism.

Eventually we have seen an amended bill and that nearly all the amendments match the changes recommended by the intelligence committee. This is exactly the process that I predicted on Sky News way back in July at the height of the former Prime Minister's rhetoric which absurdly accused the shadow Attorney-General of being soft on terrorism. The man against whom this desperate and false allegation was made is the very person who has done more than anyone else in this parliament to produce effective legislation that will actually do something about this new multifaceted threat affecting Australia.

The opposition has maintained a sensible, bipartisan approach to national security through two previous tranches of national security legislation, through the passage of the metadata legislation and now through this important citizenship legislation. Throughout we were vociferously opposed by the Greens political party, whom the Liberals in Victoria and New South Wales are now proposing giving preferences to at the next election. We will see about that. Let's come back to that story in further speeches and op-ed articles we will see before the next election.

The opposition's mindset is the traditional Labor paradigm. We have improved this legislation out of sight because we insisted on and fought for and won the right balance between security and individual rights, just as in the metadata debate a few months ago, where we argued for and won a balance between security and privacy. This legislation, I am proud to say, has a real Labor stamp on it.

The evolution of this legislation, like the metadata legislation before it, shows the value of the committee system and the increasing influence of the PJCIS. We do not believe that leaving important issues like this to the hysteria of press commentary, particularly commentary in social media, is the way to deal with these things. Committees might be seen as too slow for the 24/7 news cycle and the Twitterati, but the result is a pragmatic solution that is best for the Australian people—as it is in this case—and it shows that we parliamentarians are doing our job.

In conclusion, I turn to some of the people who will be affected by these laws. Take, for instance, Abdul Benbrika. Here was a man who came to Australia in 1989, originally from Algeria, who overstayed his visa and then fought through the Australian judicial system for the right to stay in this country. He won that right and was granted residence in 1996, followed by citizenship two years later. And what did he do with that citizenship? He plotted to kill his fellow Australians.

That goes to the heart of this legislation. Benbrika is not in danger of losing his citizenship because he described Osama bin Laden as a great man, which he did on national television in August 2005. He is not in danger of losing his citizenship because of petty criminal behaviour, such as when he used at least 10 different mobile phones that were registered under false names and addresses. No, Benbrika is in danger of losing his citizenship under this legislation because, in September 2008, he was found guilty by an Australian court of intentionally being the leader of a terrorist group and being a member of a terrorist organisation. He was jailed for 15 years. Benbrika's group wanted to attack the MCG on grand final day and other sporting centres so as to cause a mass casualty attack. Supreme Court Justice, the great judge, Bernard Bongiorno said, 'Benbrika was still committed to violent jihad, had shown no contrition for his offences and had talked about continuing the group's activities behind bars if its members were jailed.'

There are, I believe, a further 12 other dual citizens in Australian prisons who have been sentenced for terrorism offences to over 10 years jail within the last 10 years and who might lose their citizenship under this law. These are people seriously determined to cause Australia and Australians ill and who, under this legislation, as dual citizens will lose their right to Australian citizenship. They include Mohammad Ali Elomar, who was convicted alongside Benbrika and who is the uncle of Australian jihadi Mohammad Elomar. This ingrate moved from sleazy criminality in Sydney to join Daesh in Syria. He horrified the world with the disgusting abuse of his own sons, pictured on front pages of newspapers all around the world holding up a severed head. What an ingrate for all the rights of citizenship and the benefits of this country given to him. Elomar achieved his goal of death. But there is a merciful but just god and Elomar will see that he will not go to the celestial heights that he hoped for.

Rather than focus on legal sophistry or arcane debates about whether the Lindt Cafe murderer was a terrorist, let us support these laws which will minimise the evil of some depraved dual citizen currently fighting for terrorist organisations in Syria. Fancy the destruction of ancient cities like Palmyra; the blowing up of the millennia-old Temple of Jonah in Nineveh; the desecration of cathedrals; the digging up of the bones of priests; some of the worst crimes described by The New York Times as the 'theology of rape', where the sexual slavery of women is thought of as a good thing by these people; the crucifixions and the other acts of depraved violence such as the slitting of throats of innocent Coptic Christians captured in Libya and forced stand at the coast facing Italy. Their intent to bring death upon all who disagree with them disgusts all Australians.

There are approximately 120 Australians fighting with Daesh, of which up to half are thought to be dual citizens. I know I stand with every Australian who knows that their expectations are being met with this bill, that these foreign fighters have, by their shamefulness, abandoned any claim to dual Australian citizenship. They should and will lose it under this legislation.

Before I commend this bill to the House, I must conclude by saying we have an assurance from the government that this bill and all of its amendments are constitutional. In fact, the Prime Minister said that just yesterday on radio and was very ably cited by the member for Isaacs. It is in the government's court, having given the opposition the assurance that this legislation is constitutional. We understand its purpose and we support its purpose, but the government are responsible for its constitutionality.

Karen Andrews (McPherson, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am pleased to speak in strong support of the Australian Citizenship Amendment (Allegiance to Australia) Bill 2015, which will help strengthen our ability to counter home-grown terrorism activity and make our community safer. This bill essentially provides for the cessation of Australian citizenship, including that obtained at birth, of a dual national where that person has been engaged in terrorist activities whether here and/or overseas. This, of course, is a very simplified summary and I will go into much more detail on some of the specific aspects of this bill.

I note the outstanding work done by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, chaired by my colleague and friend the member for Wannon. After extensive consideration, the bipartisan committee recommended that this legislation be passed, with finetuning of some aspects of the bill and a number of recommendations regarding reporting and enhancing transparency. I note that in the concluding statement of the report, it was stated:

The Committee supports the policy intention of the Bill to help protect the community from persons who have clearly renounced their allegiance to Australia by engaging in serious terrorism-related acts that harm Australians or Australian interests.

This statement goes to the heart of this legislation and really articulates why there is a strong degree of community support for this bill.

The feedback that I have had from my constituents is very clear—that those who engage in serious terrorism-related activities have, indeed, renounced their allegiance to Australia and, therefore, in the case of dual nationals, we have not only a right but a responsibility to revoke citizenship and deport or refuse re-entry to our country of anyone found to be engaged in such activity.

For many Australians the concept of 'allegiance to our nation' is something we rarely stop to consider. We are, by and large, a nation of fairly relaxed patriots and we live in a society where free speech is valued and where our rights and obligations are certainly not codified. Having a tilt at authority, questioning the government of the day—these are rights that are quintessentially Australian. I would certainly not support any legislation that diminished those rights.

Debate interrupted.