Lucy Wicks (Robertson, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise in strong support of the Australian Citizenship Amendment (Allegiance to Australia) Bill 2015. This bill is significant and timely in this government's approach to our national security and is part of our response to global terror threats. In particular, as we have been hearing on both sides of the House in this debate, the government's response includes amending the Australian Citizenship Act 2007. This aims to broaden powers in order to strip the citizenship of those engaged in terrorism, targeting those who are considered a serious threat to Australia without rendering them stateless. I will speak about this in more detail shortly.

But first I would like to discuss how this bill reflects the firm views of people in my electorate on the Central Coast. By standing in support of this legislation, I want to say to people on the Central Coast that the coalition government is taking your safety and your security seriously—for you, your family and your community. We want to ensure the community of Australian citizens, including the many smaller communities and suburbs that we love so much on the Central Coast, is made up of people whose loyalty and allegiance is to Australia. By doing this, it is important to emphasise that this bill enhances, not detracts from, the meaning of citizenship.

Citizenship is something that we all hold dear; it is something to be treasured. But, in discussing this with my community, I recognise that it is something that is not always articulated, because the meaning of citizenship is something that is assumed by most of us to be self-evident. It is about the values, principles and sense of pride in what it means to be Australian, but, more than this, citizenship involves an inherent allegiance to Australia. Whether we were born here or choose to make Australia our home, Australian citizenship involves a commitment to our nation, its people, its democratic rights and its privileges.

Yet, in this time of heightened concerns about our security, we are also confronted with some very real threats sprouting from a small number of people who are Australian citizens yet shun the values, principles and allegiances espoused by the acceptance of citizenship. That is why I endorse the intention behind this bill, which modernises provisions while also recognising the inherent values of citizenship, somewhat akin to a covenant that we enter into, that we vow to uphold.

I would like to acknowledge the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection for his important work on this legislation. In the minister's second reading speech, he said some words that resonated with me and that are helpful in defining our position. The minister said:

The intention of the changes is the protection of the community and the upholding of its values, rather than punishing people for terrorist or hostile acts.

As the minister goes on to say:

Allegiance is a duty owed by all citizens to their sovereign or state. A citizen's duty of allegiance to Australia is not created by the Citizenship Act, but it is recognised by it.

You can see this in action in my electorate, at one of our regular citizenship ceremonies held at Gosford City Council chambers. These are some of my favourite events and I attend as often as I can. Together, we gather with people from all different backgrounds, faiths and histories, who come together in Gosford on the Central Coast to take an oath to Australia and all that it represents. We hear the oath of allegiance, and every time I share this moment there is a real sense of occasion and importance. Our new citizens speak of pledging loyalty to Australia and its peoples, whose democratic beliefs they share, whose rights and liberties they will respect and whose laws they will uphold and obey. Then, at the end of the ceremony, of course, we also get to reaffirm the oath as well. Our new citizens, our new Aussies, are each presented with a flag and a small Australian native plant, which is a small symbol that reflects the rich history and culture of Australia, forged over thousands of years.

Another one of the aspects about these ceremonies that I love is that so many members of our local community come to support them. Family members and loved ones are there in support, of course, but so too are various representatives of our community—Rotary members, school principals, chamber of commerce presidents, RSL representatives, church leaders and many, many others. Together, we are able to draw the connection of what citizenship defines, reflects and stands for in our community.

It is not just in these ceremonies that my community have been asking themselves about what it means to be a citizen. We have been hearing these conversations and these questions in the daily heartbeat of life on the Central Coast. This is in part no doubt, because of some of the atrocities that we have seen abroad and, unfortunately and tragically, closer to home. That is why we invited to our electorate the government's Special Envoy for Citizenship and Community Engagement, the member for Berowra, Philip Ruddock.

We held a fantastic and important forum at the Gosford Golf Club recently, where a roomful of concerned local residents engaged in a very important discussion on what citizenship means and also on some of the more complex issues our world faces today. We also held a smaller roundtable luncheon at Gosford RSL Club with some church and community leaders to discuss these important matters. It was a very good day of discussion and engagement and an excellent opportunity to recognise that, while we are proud of having survived and thrived as a nation following the cruelty of world wars, depression, drought and flood, there are in 2015 fresh and pervading challenges we must adapt to and address.

I must say that in these forums there was almost universal support for the concept of the loss of citizenship for dual citizens engaging in terrorist activities. This was built on a discussion about how we as a nation can more clearly articulate and cultivate the shared values of citizenship for our next generation and beyond. In the forum, we grappled with the notion that the world is more closely connected than ever before, with ease of travel and the connections now made possible by technology just two obvious examples.

In answering these questions today, I think it is appropriate that we look at some of the more specific mechanisms in this legislation. One fundamental of this bill is to recognise that allegiance to Australia is a duty owed by all citizens within the state and recognised in law by the Citizenship Act. This bill seeks to propose distinct mechanisms for automatic loss of citizenship. The first is a new provision where a person renounces their citizenship if they act inconsistently and in conflict with their allegiance to Australia because they have engaged in certain terrorist conduct. This can include engaging in international terrorist activities using explosive or lethal devices; engaging in a terrorist attack; providing or receiving training connected with preparation for, engagement in or assistance in a terrorist act; directing the activities of a terrorist organisation; recruiting for a terrorist organisation; or financing terrorism. The bill also expands on the current 'loss of citizenship provision' for a person fighting in the armed forces of a country at war with Australia. This holds that a person ceases to be recognised as a citizen if they fight for, or are effectively in the service of, a declared terrorist organisation overseas. The third new provision says that a person ceases to be an Australian citizen if the person is convicted of a specified terrorism offence as prescribed in the Criminal Code.

I wish to underline that the operation of the bill will not render a person stateless. The bill only applies to those who have citizenship not only in Australia but also in another country. This is in line with and upholds Australia's international legal obligations. The operation of the bill will not apply to children if they are under 10 years of age, and the conduct provisions outlined in the bill will not apply to children if they are under 14 years of age. Judicial review is also available to persons who are affected by the bill, leading to loss of citizenship.

It is important to note that we are not the only Western country to amend citizenship legislation with the growing threat of global terrorism. In the United Kingdom, legislation has been passed which expands the government's power to revoke the citizenship of a naturalised person. A person in the United Kingdom can now be deprived of citizenship if the Home Secretary is satisfied they meet the new requirements. This, as well as other global examples, reflects the context in which we are having this debate.

Unfortunately, in 2015 and in the wake of terrorist attacks taking place around the world, the amendments outlined in this bill are crucial and necessary. Global terrorism has the potential to become local terrorism, and we must act to prevent this and ensure our safety is paramount. A recent review into Australia's counter-terrorism machinery found that the terrorist threat in Australia is rising in three distinct ways. Firstly, the number of Australians choosing to join known extremist groups overseas is increasing. Secondly, the number of known sympathisers and supporters of extremists and extremist groups is rising. And, thirdly, there are more potential terrorists locally in Australia. This requires a detailed, coordinated national security approach, and I recognise that our Prime Minister will shortly update the House on what the government is doing in this area. I would like to end on a personal note of reflection.

I remain shocked at the brutal and horrific events that unfolded in Paris on Friday, 13 November, when 130 citizens of France and 18 other countries were brutally murdered and many more were injured, in what was a coordinated attack from ISIL involving eight killers across six locations. This was indeed an attack on all humanity, on our freedom to gather and to celebrate, on our freedom to share time with our family and friends, on our freedom to walk our streets without fear.

I express my deepest sympathy to the people of France. And with a heavy heart I also extend my thoughts and prayers to those impacted by suicide bombings in Beirut, Ankara, Tunisia and Nigeria. Add to this the murder of hundreds of innocent civilians in a Russian airliner flying over the Sinai, the attack of a hotel in Mali, and ongoing extremist violence and killings in the Middle East and South Asia, and I find myself somewhat lost for words, unable to comprehend how a group of people could even begin to contemplate such barbaric acts.

The coalition government and its allies are united in our condemnation of these acts of terrorism and our commitment to defeating those who carry out these terrorist acts. As the member for Robertson on the Central Coast, may I reaffirm the commitment of the coalition government to do everything possible to keep people safe at home and, so far as possible, abroad. For this reason, I stand in very strong support of the measures outlined in this legislation. I commend the bill to the House.

John Cobb (Calare, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Australian Citizenship Amendment (Allegiance to Australia) Bill 2015. Unfortunately, this legislation is necessary, as the terrorist threat in Australia is rising. Australians are no strangers to war; Australians have been involved in conflict around the world for well over 100 years—in every conflict from the Boer War on. It is only in quite recent times that we have allowed dual citizenship—in fact, it may have even happened under the tenure of the member for Berowra when he was the Minister for Immigration, though I could be wrong on that. In the current circumstances it is as well that we did allow dual citizenship because otherwise most of those people to whom this legislation refers would hold only Australian citizenship.

I cannot think of a more sombre or grievous procedure for us to put into place than to take away Australian citizenship from someone who was born in Australia, like myself. You cannot imagine it, but it is a very necessary though serious step. The Bali bombing got rid of any naivety or innocence we had left. That a 15-year-old could shoot a member of the police administration only a few short weeks ago in our own country made us face the reality that we must do whatever we have to do to protect Australians.

As a government we have a necessary responsibility to ensure the safety of every Australian as far as possible, and this legislation is about stripping Australian citizenship from those who have engaged in specific conduct. Those whose actions are inconsistent with their allegiance to this country should not have the privilege of being an Australian citizen. The bill brings in a number of measures to ensure that those people who are not upholding Australian values and way of life can no longer call our nation home. The measures include amending the Australian Citizenship Act 2007 to insert a purpose clause outlining the fundamental principles upon which the amendments are based. It outlines the circumstances under which a dual citizen ceases to be an Australian citizen through their engagement in terrorism related activities. It outlines the circumstances in which the minister may exempt a person from the operation of the bill. It provides for the reporting and monitoring of the operation and the arrangement of the bill. It provides for the protection of sensitive or prejudicial information in relation to that reporting and monitoring.

Section 33A provides that a person who is a national or a citizen of a country other than Australia renounces their Australian citizenship if they act inconsistently with their allegiance to Australia by engaging in specified conduct, and obviously that revolves around terrorism. The conduct includes engaging in a terrorist act or international terrorist activities using explosives or lethal devices, providing or receiving training, financing terrorism or a terrorist. Individuals who will be subject to these provisions include those engaged in this conduct offshore and in relevant conduct onshore and who left Australia before being charged and brought to trial in respect of that conduct.

The bill provides automatic loss of citizenship where a person serves in the armed forces of a country at war with Australia—that provision came into force in 1949. The bill builds on this by providing automatic cessation of citizenship if a person is also a citizen of another country and is overseas fighting for, or in the service of, a declared terrorist organisation. The bill will allow for the minister by legislative instrument to declare a terrorist organisation for the purposes of this section where the organisation is directly or indirectly involved in preparing, assisting or fostering a terrorist attack or advocating an attack. Organisations opposed to Australian interests, values and democratic beliefs, rights or liberties will also be targeted.

Once a person has been convicted of a relevant offence, the minister will have the power to determine if the persons citizenship has been lost. Loss of citizenship is not automatic upon conviction. The list of offences is limited to the most relevant terrorism related offences with a maximum penalty of 10 years or more. Offences of incursions into foreign states with the intention of engaging in hostile activities have also been included through the amendment. To be considered under this section a person must be sentenced to at least six years' imprisonment. The provision relies upon a court having determined criminal guilt. Relevant offences include convictions the treason, espionage, terrorism, international terrorist activities using explosive lethal devices, treachery, sabotage and foreign incursions and recruitment.

The minister must be satisfied the person has repudiated their allegiance to Australia and the minister must determine whether it is within the public interest for the person to remain an Australian citizen. The minister must revoke a determination if a conviction is overturned. Law enforcement and intelligence agencies will play a vital role in collecting the relevant information and will provide it to the minister. The minister will then give a person notice as soon as practicable or reasonable. The notice will include a description of the persons conduct and a person's rights of review. This does not apply to a child under the age of 10 and the conduct based on provisions of the bill will not apply to conduct by a child under 14 years. Under the Criminal Code Act 1995, if a child over 10 but younger than 14 knows that his or her conduct is wrong, they can be held responsible.

I find very strong support in the community for this measure. I am not sure there would have been once but today, in the world we live in, unfortunately, people understand the need for legislation such as this. We need a strong support from all sections of the community, and we do have that support. I commend the bill to the House.

Philip Ruddock (Berowra, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am pleased to speak on the Australian Citizenship Amendment (Allegiance to Australia) Bill. Many Australians do not understand that there has always been the possibility of people losing their citizenship if they lack commitment to this nation and its future. The circumstance in which this traditionally could occur—and the ability has been there since enactment in 1949—was when people might elect to fight with a foreign army against Australia. I have had the opportunity in recent months to talk to many people about this issue of citizenship deprivation in the context that the law already allows for citizenship deprivation. The test is whether you are, by your conduct, electing to demonstrate that you have no commitment to this nation first and foremost. When people elect to fight with a foreign army against Australia, that is the decision they are taking. If somebody is fighting with a foreign army against Australia, should we say 'You are still welcome as part of our family'? I do make the point, and I have had to make it to many audiences I have spoken to before, that I cannot imagine anything more heinous than a person electing not to fight with a foreign army but to fight with a terrorist organisation against Australia's interests. The point I make is that if you are fighting with a foreign army you are fighting with people who ostensibly will tell us they believe in appropriate conduct, they observe the rules of war. Nobody can assure me that terrorists, by the way in which they are behaving, are observing the rules of war. When we know there are some amongst our number who demonstrate very clearly that they have no commitment to this nation and its future first and foremost, it seems to me we are entitled to make that call.

This legislation is about how we go about that. It is legislation that has been considered in comprehensive detail by this parliament's Joint Standing Committee on Intelligence and Security. It is supported by members of that committee right across the political spectrum of this parliament. Its report reflects a very careful analysis to try to ensure that you get the balance right, making sure that when decisions are taken they are taken in a way which demonstrates our determination to be satisfied that those people who have behaved inappropriately have been properly identified and that there is a process to test those matters. I think the legislation is warranted. I have had to speak to many people of many different backgrounds, races, cultures, religions, and I make the point every time I work with them that Australia is a country that has welcomed people from all over the world. We have done it more successfully than I think any other country. When I talk about these issues I make the point that Australia has one of the highest proportions of population overseas-born that you will find anywhere in the world. The only two countries that proportionately exceed ours are Israel and Luxembourg. When people look at various countries in Europe and look at the United States of America, New Zealand and Canada, they assume that they may have greater proportions of their population overseas-born than we have. Nothing could be further from the truth. If cultural diversity is a problem, we should have the most significant problems in the world. But we do not.

I think we do this exceptionally well through the programs that have been put in place over many decades to teach people English, to help ensure that they have recognised skills, to identify those who may come from a refugee and humanitarian experience and focus on the fact that they may have been tortured and traumatised and how are you going to deal with those sorts of issues, to provide welfare to people who may not be able to get employment, and to assist them in obtaining housing. If you look at the range of programs that we have put in place over a long period, we are a welcoming society, a welcoming community. We welcome people from all four corners of the earth, of every race, of every culture, of every religion. I make the point that as a welcoming society we do expect that people will have a commitment to this nation and its future. We invite them to come and be part of our society but we expect them to be as welcoming of all other Australians as we are welcoming of them.

This legislation, which does deal with the issue of citizenship deprivation, should not be seen as legislation that is in any way identifying or undermining our integrity as a welcoming nation for people of every religion, every culture, every race. It is about identifying properly those people who lack that commitment and ensuring that, where it is appropriate, we can withdraw the citizenship that we bestow so generously. I conclude my remarks by saying I think this bill as it has been amended is worthy legislation and legislation that we should all be very keen to support.

Debate adjourned.