George Christensen (Dawson, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This is quite timely in light of the statement that has just been made by the Prime Minister and the response by the opposition leader on national security. We are talking about enemies outside of our borders who wish to do us as a nation and as a people harm. In rising to speak on the Australian Citizenship Amendment (Allegiance to Australia) Bill 2015 I want to talk about, sadly, those within our borders who also seek to do us harm. The purpose of this bill is to contain those people. It is to officially strip Australian citizenship from those people who, by their actions, have forfeited their right to be citizens of this great nation.

This amendment was announced in the national security statement by the then Prime Minister, the member for Warringah, in February of this year. But now the time has come to debate this bill and we must look at the times we are living in. The atrocities committed in Paris 11 days ago have rocked the world. But they are not isolated. There are terrorist threats and actions being committed in countries right around the world. We here in Australia are not immune.

Like many other countries, Australia has a heightened terror alert level. We have witnessed on our shores an attack on police officers at Endeavour Hills police station last year, the siege at Sydney's Martin Place which sadly resulted in the deaths of two Australians. And we witnessed the murder of civilian Curtis Cheng, who worked at the Parramatta police station. These deaths were all at the hands of terrorists.

This is not to mention acts that were prevented by the tremendous work of Australia's police forces and security services. I refer to the 'Sydney five', who attempted to commit acts of terrorism in the city of Sydney in 2005, and the Benbrika group who planned the bombing of several sporting events in 2005 and 2006 as well as plotted to assassinate former Prime Minister John Howard. There was also a plot to storm Holsworthy Barracks in Sydney in 2009.

According to The Australian newspaper yesterday:

Twelve men and boys living within the Australian community are capable of committing an act of terror such as killing a random member of the public, police say.

Yesterday's article says:

They are part of a larger group of 19 men and boys, seven of whom are in prison.

More than 30 people have been brought before the courts on terror-related charges since Operation Appleby launched in September last year—Australia's largest counter-terrorism raids to date.

Most of those people have been under investigation for more than a year.

That article goes on to say:

Counter-terrorism consultant Shandon Harris-Hogan told Four Corners the extreme ideology being embraced by the men can be connected back to historic terrorist plots in Australia, like Operation Pendennis.

"Overwhelmingly individuals have a familial or friendship connection," he said.

"There is an interconnected network of individuals who transcend operational cells, and within that group there is clear examples of ideology being passed on from father to son, mother to daughter and between spouses, cousins and siblings."

When an estimated 150 Australians have been, or are currently, overseas fighting with extremists in Iraq and Syria, members of the Islamic State, we have a problem. We have a problem right around the world and here in Australia—a problem made horribly graphic with the photograph of the seven-year-old son of Islamic State fighter Khaled Sharrouf holding a severed head aloft. Khaled Sharrouf, by his own actions, rejected Australian citizenship. In his case this legislation would be a mere formality. When Australians are fighting against their own country and the values that it stands for, they have signed their own ticket out of this country. This legislation, as far as I see it, is just stamping that ticket to make it official.

It is important to note that, when applying for a provisional, permanent, or sometimes even a temporary visa, an applicant must sign a statement that they have read and understand the following things about Australian values:

These are the rules of entry into our country. They are not just the rules of the game. They are the game. Like any other club, when you break the rules, you forfeit your membership. If you decide that you no longer want to adhere to the rules, then you have your membership revoked, or you hand it in.

When the then Prime Minister, the member for Warringah, delivered his national security statement back in February, he said:

It has long been the case that people who fight against Australia forfeit their citizenship.

Australians who take up arms with terrorist groups ... have sided against their country and should be treated accordingly.

He also considered—wisely, I believe—taking the issue a step further. As part of a war on domestic jihad and radical Islam at home, we are going to have to get tougher and make it apply to those without dual citizenship. We should be taking action against anyone who seeks to join foreign fighters and has the capacity to be a citizen of another country. If, for instance, a second-generation Australian can get citizenship of their parents' homeland and they seek to join a foreign fighting force such as Islamic State and take up arms against our country, our values or our allies, they should have their Australian citizenship revoked, because they have another place to go to.

But a further problem remains: what do you do with people who do not have a second country option? My view is still to strip them of citizenship. They should forfeit all rights of citizenship—an idea, again, which was floated by the then Prime Minister, the member for Warringah, when he suggested suspending some of the privileges of citizenship. We cannot make those people stateless, because that breaches international law, but we can downgrade their citizenship to a form of, perhaps, permanent residency, or something even less than that, where they would hold fewer rights than a citizen—for instance, we could say that they would not have the right to vote; their ability to leave or return to Australia would be restricted, maybe with the removal of their passport; their access to consular services would be revoked and their access to welfare payments would be revoked or reduced.

The member for Warringah said that no-one should live in Australia 'while denying our values and rejecting the very idea of a free and open society'. In his speech at the Australian Federal Police headquarters, he said: 'We cannot allow bad people to use our good nature against us.' There is a lot of wisdom in that. These measures—both the ones contained in this bill and the further measures outlined above—should not supplant the punishment of foreign fighters, those who are aiding and abetting the enemy, or those planning to commit acts of terrorism against Australians. It should be an add-on. They should still be punished to the full extent of the law and put in jail.

The whole idea of stripping citizenship is a key plank in a strategy outlined by the Center for Security Policy, an organisation based in the United States. I have been reading their publication, The secure freedom strategy: a plan for victory over the global jihad movement, at length. It makes very interesting reading. They outline a plan for the United States:

The US must revoke the citizenship of naturalised Americans who, in seeking to insinuate shariah-compliant norms into civil society have violated their oath of naturalization and allegiance—

and, therefore, should be deported. I have to say that there is also wisdom in that. There is wisdom in that because, when you are fundamentally arguing for something such as sharia law, which is the antithesis of Australian society and the values that you signed up to when you took out that visa or declared you were going to be an Australian citizen, you are writing your ticket out of this country yourself.

There are other measures suggested by the Center for Security Policy that are worthy of consideration when the stakes are so high, and I will talk about them in a second. But, firstly, I want to congratulate the contribution of Queensland LNP MP Christian Rowan, who echoed my call from some time ago to take a serious look at the reinstatement of capital punishment for those who commit terrorist acts on Australian shores that result in the death of Australian citizens. It is something that seriously needs to be considered.

Going back to the Centre for Security Policy and their particular approach about those who advocate for sharia law in Australia, I have a question that we need to consider in the context of this bill: what is the difference between the views of a member of a group like, say, Hizb ut-Tahrir and someone who goes off to fight for Islamic State? Both hold the same view of Australian society, and my view is that both of them should be expelled from Australian society. If you believe we are in the midst of a war—and we have probably been in it for about 15 years now—against radical Islam, then you must take the necessary steps to ensure that radical Islam, the ideology of Islamism and domestic jihad are controlled and contained at home. You do not want to have to fight the enemy at home as well. We do have people in Australia who do not believe that we are at war, and I have to say that some of them are in this place. It is a bit like saying that you are not in a fight while you are getting punched in the face by someone. Islamic State have said they are at war with us. The radical Islamists have said that they are at war with us. They have declared it a war. We are at war. If another country declared war on us, we would accept without question that we were at war.

Australians, like all other freedom-loving people, love freedom, liberty and democracy, but those radical Islamists consider us we are Dar al-Harb, the house of war, because we are in a country where sharia is not enforced. The world, according to their world view, is divided into two houses: Dar al-Islam, the house of Islam, and Dar al-Harb, the house of war. The parts of the world that are not yet subjugated to sharia are called the house of war, where it is deemed that there is a perpetual state of jihad, or holy war, going on until it is subjugated and comes under sharia rule. There is no question that we are at war with radical Islam. Our enemies have declared it so. They have told us it in black and white.

Under these circumstances, it is appropriate we take whatever steps are necessary to protect Australians, to protect our citizens. That is the first duty and the primary duty of national government—to protect your nation, to defend your nation and to ensure that its citizens are secure. I do believe that this bill and the measures outlined within it are a key part of that—to expel individuals from this nation who have dual citizenship and can somewhere else, and who seek to fight against here at home and seek to kill people in this country, motivated by a desire to commit a terrorist atrocity, or who go overseas and fight for extremist foreign forces, such as Islamic state, which are against the very values which this nation stands for. I commend this bill. I am glad that it has support of both sides of the House. But I think that this bill is only the beginning of what needs to be done. It is certainly not the end. We are in a long war here with radical Islam, and it is only through measures that are tough and measures that strike at the heart of the enemy that we will be able to win this war.

Steve Irons (Swan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise today to publicly support the Australian Citizenship Amendment (Allegiance to Australia) Bill 2015. The amendments being made to this bill are necessary adjustments, particularly in light of recent events. It is always a pleasure to follow the member for Dawson on issues of national security. I know that he is passionate and diligent and very committed to seeing the security and safety of all Australians, as we should. His speech was very good to hear. It is a pleasure to follow him and other colleagues who have supported this bill.

On Friday, 13 November, France was the victim of a malicious, extreme and what I would call cowardly terrorist attack, which stole the lives of at least 130 people and injured more than 350 others. I would like to add to the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition and all my colleagues in personally extending my condolences to the people of Paris and the families and friends of those killed. No country should have to go through what France is going through. Australia stands solemnly with you in this time of grieving, and we remain united in our battle against terrorism.

The highly organised attacks saw gunmen and suicide bombers target the Parisian way of life—bars, restaurants and a sports stadium. The attacks stole innocent lives and imposed immense fear and suffering not only in Paris but around the world. The attacks were against freedom, as we all understand it to be, and what that freedom means for each of us as individuals. Like France, we too, will not stand for terrorism. We refuse to let terror win. The Australian Citizenship Amendment (Allegiance to Australia) Bill 2015 presents imperative amendments to further secure the safety of Australia and its citizens, by taking a strong stance on terrorism and terrorist organisations.

I would like to provide some context for the House. In September of last year, our national terrorism public alert level was raised to the status of high. Since then, there have been 26 people charged, resulting from 10 counter-terrorism operations and there are currently more than 400 high-priority counter-terrorism ongoing investigations being managed by our security agencies. We just heard the member for Dawson talk about the fact that we are at war. An article that was written in the paper on the weekend, also talked about the fact that we are at war and that France's President has also declared that we are at war. Over 1,000 people have died at the hands of terrorists this year around the world. So, as the member for Dawson said, we are definitely at war.

To provide some perspective and understanding of how serious this threat is, those 400 investigations work out to an average of 2.6 high priority counter-terrorism cases across each Australian electorate. This figure has doubled from what it was only one year ago. In terms of individual involvement, there are currently 110 Australians known to our security agencies to be either fighting with or engaged with terrorist groups in Syria or Iraq. The number of Australians joining extremist groups is rising. The number of supporters of extremism and potential terrorists is rising.

Ross Vasta (Bonner, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate may be resumed at a later hour.