Julian Leeser (Berowra, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On behalf of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, I present the committee's advisory report, incorporating a dissenting report, on the Australian Citizenship Amendment (Citizenship Cessation) Bill 2019.

Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e).

by leave—I am pleased to present the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security's advisory report on the Australian Citizenship Amendment (Citizenship Cessation) Bill 2019. This vital reform will be undertaken through the bill, which the committee reviewed in tandem with the statutory review.

When introducing the bill, the Minister for Home Affairs, the Hon. Peter Dutton, said:

The Australian Citizenship Amendment (Citizenship Cessation) Bill 2019 continues the coalition government's effort to address the threat of terrorism and to deliver on our commitment to keep the Australian community safe. It's central reform and it provides for ministerial decision-making with respect to the cessation of Australian citizenship, replacing the current automatic operation of law provisions. Under this model, the Minister for Home Affairs can cease a person's Australian citizenship if satisfied that their conduct demonstrates a repudiation of their allegiance to Australia and that it is not in the public interest for the person to remain an Australian citizen.

The committee welcomes the introduction of the ministerial decision-making model and the associated increase in the opportunity for persons affected by citizenship cessation provisions to seek judicial review and, in relation to an ASIO-qualified security assessment, merits review. The committee has recommended that the bill be passed and has made a series of recommendations to amend the bill and explanatory memorandum, which provides for further safeguards. These recommendations are: (1) the explanatory memorandum clarify that the proposed section 36B of the bill require the minister to be reasonably satisfied of the matters listed proposed in subsection 36B(1); (2) the explanatory memorandum of the bill clarify that under the proposed section 36E(2) of the bill the minister must take into account the following matters—the likely effects of citizenship cessation on any dependants of the person whose citizenship the minister is proposing to cancel, a person's connection to Australia, and conduct that would be captured by chapter 8 of the Criminal Code; and (3) a requirement for the PJCIS to commence a review of the bill's functioning three years after the bill's assent. Following the implementation of these recommendations, the committee recommends that the bill be passed.

These recommendations are the result of the committee's comprehensive analysis of the bill and are reflective of the seriousness with which both sides of parliament approach citizenship cessation. Citizenship cessation is effectively a form of modern exile, and the committee has ensured that any decision to remove a dual national's Australian citizenship is undertaken with care and with regard to all relevant factors in each individual's case. Some people may ask why this power is necessary. It's true that this is a tough bill, but it's also a necessary bill. If a dual national Australian citizen plans and acts to harm, maim and kill their fellow citizens through acts of terror then we must be prepared to impose costs for such behaviour. The offences for which a dual citizen may lose their citizenship include terrorist activities using explosive or lethal devices, treason, sabotage, espionage, foreign interference and offences associated with the planning, preparation and carrying out of terrorism. The lowest penalty for these offences is 10 years imprisonment, with most attracting imprisonment of 25 years to life.

Those who choose the dark path of terrorism reject the gift and responsibilities of Australian citizenship. In answer to this behaviour, the Australian people, through this parliament, provide the ultimate sanction in stripping them of their Australian citizenship. We are a liberal society founded on the values of freedom and community. These are protected and upheld by the law. If some people are so hateful of these things that they use terror and violence to destroy them, then we want no part of them. The Australian people have standards for membership of the community, and this bill upholds those standards when challenged by extremist and violent behaviour. I commend the report to the House.

Mark Dreyfus (Isaacs, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Attorney General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

[by video link] by leave—I'll have a further opportunity to speak about the Australian Citizenship Amendment (Citizenship Cessation) Bill 2019 when it is brought on for debate, so I'll be brief. The intelligence and security committee has today unanimously welcomed the government's proposal to replace the existing operation of law citizenship loss provisions sections 33AA and 35 of the Australian Citizenship Act 2007 with a new ministerial decision-making model of citizenship cessation.

In the course of its inquiry into the operation and effectiveness of the existing terrorism related citizenship loss provisions last year, the committee received concerning evidence from ASIO about the operation of sections 33AA and 35 of the Australian Citizenship Act 2007. Under those provisions, any dual national citizen of Australia loses their Australian citizenship automatically, if they engage in proscribed terrorism-related conduct that repudiates their allegiance to Australia. ASIO told the committee that the fact that those two provisions operate automatically may lead to unintended or unforeseen adverse security outcomes. As ASIO explained:

In some instances, citizenship cessation will curtail the range of threat mitigation capabilities available to Australian authorities. It may also have unintended or unforeseen adverse security outcomes—potentially including reducing one manifestation of the terrorist threat while exacerbating another. There may be occasions where the better security outcome would be that citizenship is retained, despite a person meeting the legislative criteria for citizenship cessation—for example, where the Australian Federal Police has criminal charges that could be pursued if the person were to remain an Australian citizen.

By contrast, a ministerial decision-making model of citizenship cessation would allow those potential adverse security outcomes to be better managed or avoided completely. As ASIO also told the committee:

A ministerial decision-making model of cessation would allow ASIO and other relevant agencies scope to advise against citizenship cessation in circumstances where the outcome would be prejudicial to security or where the security risk could be better managed utilising other options. At present, the current operation of law provision does not provide operational agencies with the flexibility required to utilise citizenship cessation to maximum effect.

Like ASIO, the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor found that sections 33AA and 35 of the Australian Citizenship Act operated in an uncontrolled and uncertain manner. In August 2019 the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor recommended that those provisions be repealed urgently and replaced with a ministerial decision-making model of citizenship cessation. Fundamentally, that is what the citizenship cessation bill would do and that is why Labor members support it.

But the ministerial decision-making model introduced by the citizenship cessation bill can be improved. For starters, the government has failed, without adequate explanation, to implement a number of the monitor's other key recommendations, such as the monitor's proposal in relation to the availability of merits review.

Labor members have tabled a detailed additional comment to the committee's report, setting out our concerns with the bill and our concerns with the committee's report. The committee has made three modest recommendations, none of which would require amendments to the citizenship cessation bill. Labor members urge the government to adopt all three of these very modest recommendations, and in particular recommendation 3, which would give the committee a further opportunity to review the terrorism related citizenship cessation provisions in three years time.

In the additional comment, Labor members have urged the government to make a number of significant amendments to the citizenship cessation bill itself, including the implementation of a number of the other key recommendations by the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor. However, given the importance and urgency of repealing and replacing sections 33AA and 35 of the Australian Citizenship Act, Labor members have also stated that the adoption of our suggested amendments is not a condition of our support for the bill. We urge the government to expedite the passage of the citizenship cessation bill, so that two dangerous provisions of the Australian Citizenship Act can be immediately repealed and replaced with a more sensible model of citizenship cessation.