Slade Brockman (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Home Affairs Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2018. I will start with a few points addressing the contributions that have been made so far. I think that the foreshadowed amendments that Senator Carr spoke about earlier—I believe Senator McKim touched on them as well—at best reflect tangentially on what is at issue before us today in this bill. Senator Carr stated that this could have been dealt with in non-controversial legislation later in the week. If that is the case, I say to those opposite: then treat this bill as it should be treated—look at it on its merits. Don't get dragged by the ears by the Greens because you're worried about inner-city electorates. Treat the bill on its merits, do what is right for Australia and continue to protect Australian citizens in the way this government has been doing now for five years.

This government has been taking action to make sure that Australians are kept safe. This is not a one-off process. This is not a change to the law that happens and then we can all go and congratulate ourselves, slap ourselves on the back and sit down and have a beer. This is something that you need to keep going back to again and again because methods change, methodologies change and the individuals involved change. It is a constantly changing environment. The technology of terror changes, and we need to be constantly on guard to make sure that our legal arrangements are the most effective they can be. That is why, on 28 November this year, the government introduced the Australian Citizenship Amendment (Strengthening the Citizenship Loss Provisions) Bill 2018.

This bill does a couple of things. Importantly, it amends the Citizenship Act so that dual citizens convicted of a terrorism offence in Australia are eligible to lose Australian citizenship, irrespective of the sentence. This removes the current requirement that a terrorist offender must be sentenced to at least six years imprisonment. The bill also adjusts the threshold for determining dual citizenship, a change aimed at improving the scope of determining a person's foreign citizenship status by the minister. Similar to the UK scheme, the government will also develop a temporary exclusion order scheme, so Australians involved in terrorism overseas would be legally unable to return to Australia for up to two years. These temporary exclusion orders would enable authorities to delay and then monitor and control the return and re-entry into our community of Australian foreign fighters.

Why is this important? It's important because the Australian national terrorism threat level is at 'probable'. This isn't something that is used to scare people; this is just a statement of reality. Since 2001, 56 people have been convicted—not charged; convicted—of terrorism related offences. Thirty-seven per cent of these people are currently serving custodial sentences. Thirty-nine people are currently before the courts on terrorism related offences. Since 12 September 2014, when the national terrorism threat level was raised, 93 people have been charged as a result of 41 counterterrorism related operations around Australia. There have been seven attacks and 15 major counterterrorism disruption operations in response to potential attacks. These are real statistics. These are the facts of what is happening in the Australian community. This is a set of circumstances which is extraordinarily regrettable. We wish it wasn't the case, but it is the reality that we are facing.

It is important for government to continue to examine the laws we have, to make sure those laws are fit for purpose, and to ensure we are doing everything to monitor, restrict, reduce the possibility of and disrupt potential terrorism activities before they occur. We've seen some episodes, quite publicly, in the last few months of what can happen. But I'd also point out that, for example, in the north of Western Australia, we have vast economic assets that would be relatively easy to disrupt with a terrorism incident. We need to be able to deter, disrupt, monitor and continue to effectively police potential terrorism activity in this country.

To continue, around 230 people in Australia are being investigated for providing support for individuals and groups in the Syria-Iraq conflict, including through funding and facilitation or seeking to travel to join these groups. Obviously the overwhelming majority of these people are young men and women. Some 230 Australians have travelled to Syria and Iraq to fight or support the groups involved with the conflict. Around 100 Australians are currently in Syria and Iraq and have fought for or otherwise supported Islamic extremist groups. Around half of the Australian travellers are still active in the conflict zone. The other side to this is that at least 90, and possibly as many as 94, Australians have been killed as a result of their involvement in the conflict. Around 40 people have returned to Australia after travelling to Syria and Iraq, having, unfortunately, joined groups involved in those conflicts. These Australians were part of some 40,000 foreign fighters, including 7½ thousand from Western countries, who have travelled to the region and participated in the conflict since it began. Obviously that is a large pool of individuals who do pose a certain level of risk to society.

Two hundred and forty Australians have had their passports cancelled or refused in relation to the Syria-Iraq conflict. The Australian Federal Police has obtained 26 arrest warrants relating to persons of interest to counterterrorism operations. Twelve people have been convicted of terrorism financing and a further five are currently before the courts on terrorism-financing charges. Again, this is the reality of the world we currently live in, and we have to, as a government, respond to that. I do very much encourage those opposite to consider this bill on its own merits. Don't allow yourselves to be distracted by amendments from the Greens; focus on this bill and what it is trying to achieve and support it on that basis. I won't say, 'Don't support it,' because I think that would be very unwise, but support it on that basis.

Just to go through a little more detail on the bill itself, schedule 1 contains amendments relating to removal. This amends the Migration Act to strengthen and clarify the legal framework to ensure that it will be interpreted consistently with the original policy intention. The amendments provide that, when an unlawful noncitizen's removal from Australia is aborted for any reason—for example, refusal of entry by a transit country—and the person needs to be returned to Australia, that person can re-enter Australia lawfully without a visa. The amendments will also make it clear that such a person will be taken to never have left the migration zone and will continue to be subject to visa application bars—that is, they cannot apply for certain visas in Australia.

Schedule 2 makes some changes to the handling of documents. These changes broaden the channels by which the department can provide documents to people. The law will now allow the department to communicate directly via an online account. Obviously this is a relatively straightforward technical change that is keeping the method of communication up to date. Though the change adds a new delivery method to the list of delivery methods available, it does not limit or remove any of the existing methods. This is a key component in permitting the department to move most of their communications onto the same online system as currently used by clients when applying for visas and allows them to provide information to the department online, and I think we all know the potential that has for making things more straightforward. These amendments are in keeping with the government's overall Digital Transformation Agenda. The legislation, as currently enacted, does not cover the use of the department's online account system as a method of providing documents. This amendment adds a new method of giving a document to a person that will capture that system and should be sufficiently inclusive to encompass any future systems the department may implement.

Schedule 3 covers recoverable payments. This inserts a new power into the Customs Act to enable the department to refund duty or drawback of duty in circumstances where a person has been paid a refund or drawback that they were not entitled to. Obviously, again, this is a relatively straightforward technical amendment that allows the refunds and drawbacks to be recovered in certain circumstances.

Schedule 4 covers changes to the passenger movement charge. The passenger movement charge is the charge that is imposed on persons seeking to depart from Australia for either another country or an external territory. The objective of the charge is to offset the cost of the provisions of customs, immigration and quarantine services, and short-term visitor visa processing. The charge is a flat rate of $55. It's included in the price of a ticket charge by certain airline carriers or cruise liners and is collected by those airline carriers or cruise liners at the time the person purchases a ticket. The charge is normally collected in the ticketing price by the carriers and then deposited into the department's account. Where the person purchases a ticket from an airline carrier or a cruise liner that has not entered into a special arrangement with the minister, the charge is not part of the ticket price. In these circumstances, an officer in the Australian Border Force collects the charge from the relevant person at the place of departure. If the person elects to pay with a credit card, the merchant fee is charged to the department by the banking institution. Where the person pays with a debit card, a merchant fee is not charged. While the department encourages clients to use electronic or online systems and facilities for the payment of charges, fees duties, taxes et cetera, there is a real need for the department to manage the cost of merchant fees charged on these fees.

The department currently recovers merchant fees associated with credit card payment under citizenship, customs and migration legislation. The head of power to prescribe regulation for the recovery of fees associated with the charge would be consistent with the recovery of merchant fees for other portfolio payments. In schedule 5 there are some minor amendments, some technical changes to the wording of some provisions in the Customs Act. Again, these are relatively straightforward, minor proposals.

I just want to go into a little more detail on the temporary exclusion orders and the provisions of the bill itself. On 22 November, the Prime Minister announced that a temporary exclusion order scheme, similar to the UK scheme, would be introduced. The TEO scheme will enable Australian authorities to delay and then monitor and control the return and re-entry into our community of Australians who have been in conflict zones like Iraq and Syria. I think some of the statistics I read out earlier reveal why that is so important to ensuring that our society is kept safe.

Under the TEO scheme, the Minister for Home Affairs will be able to impose a temporary exclusion order for up to two years on an Australian citizen of counterterrorism interest located offshore. The TEO will make it a criminal offence to return to Australia unless a permit is granted that would manage their return. Once the person is back in Australia, the permit may also impose controls on the individual, such as reporting to police, curfews and restrictions on technology use. It is very important to get the balance of this right. It needs to be workable and it needs to be operationally effective, but it is also a very important part of ensuring that, when people do come back to Australia from exclusion zones, they do so on terms where the Australian government can manage the process effectively. In general, this is a bill that is designed to make sure we deter would-be terrorists and to support our police and security agency in the face of those evolving terrorism threats.

Conviction for a terrorist offence is a very strong statement that someone does not share the values that have made this such a good place to live and such an attractive place for so many migrants. Senator Carr spoke about the importance of migration to Australia, and I absolutely agree with him. Migrants, for many, many years—and my family came from the UK many, many years ago now—over the course of Australia's history have strengthened our nation, have brought us economic prosperity and have played a vital role in what a wonderful country we have, and those on this side certainly agree with those sentiments. However, conviction for terrorism is a statement of repudiation of many or most of the values that we all hold dear.

Where a convicted terrorist would not become stateless, it is appropriate to reassess whether they should or should not be able to remain an Australian citizen. The bill protects Australians and Australians' interests from further harmful acts and maintains the integrity of the Australian citizenship frameworks. It does remove the requirement for a person to be sentenced to at least six years imprisonment to be eligible to lose their citizenship; all that is required is a conviction for a terrorist offence—although it should always be noted that a conviction for a terrorist offence is a high bar. It has occurred—and, as I've described, there have been a number of convictions for terrorist offences over the last decade—but to be convicted of a terrorist offence is a very high bar. So this will not, in any sense, be an easy step, but it recognises the fact that, if you are convicted of a terrorism offence, there must be consequences beyond the prison sentence.

Secondly, it adjusts the threshold for determining dual citizenship. The legislation currently requires that a person is a national or citizen of another country, other than Australia. The bill provides that the minister must be satisfied that the person will not become stateless if their Australian citizenship ceases. This is an appropriate and proportional response in light of evolving threats. As I opened today, I think it is very important that the parliament continues to evolve our legal framework dealing with terrorism offences to make sure that our legal system is capable of deterring, but also identifying and prosecuting, those who are seeking to do our nation harm. These laws are proportionate; they are reasonable. I certainly urge those opposite to treat them on their own merits and not be dragged somewhere they do not want to go by the Greens. It's very important that this bill continues the strong record of bipartisanship on this issue. I commend the bill to the chamber.