Claire Chandler (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Hansard source

I also rise to make a contribution of the Australian Citizenship Amendment (Citizenship Repudiation) Bill 2023. In making my contribution, I want to start by reflecting on some of the very good comments that my colleague Senator Scarr just made. When this government were elected back in May 2022 they said they would be a government of scrutiny and accountability. Eighteen months later we are seeing that the government hasn't kept its word to the Australian people that that is how it would behave, that that is how it would act. Because here we are today, rushing legislation through this place and denying the ability to scrutinise it appropriately. That is why, in making my initial comments on this legislation, I move, on behalf of my colleague Senator Paterson, the second reading amendment circulated in the chamber on sheet 2285:

At the end of the motion, add "and, following passage of the bill, the following matter be referred to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security for inquiry and report by 14 March 2024:

The operation, effectiveness and implications of the amendments made by the Australian Citizenship Amendment (Citizenship Repudiation) Bill 2023".

This amendment mirrors what was contained in general business notice motion No. 422, which didn't get voted on earlier today.

The Albanese government's multiple failures to keep Australian safe cannot go unchecked, and the coalition will do everything in our power to hold the government to account to fix the mess it has made. That is why we will be moving amendments to strengthen this bill, including by expanding serious offence provisions, which I'll go to later in my contribution. We will be moving those amendments in the committee stage. But the second reading amendment that I have just moved will also have the effect of referring this bill, following its passage, to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security to ensure it is appropriately scrutinised.

Like I say, this is a government that 18 months ago said to the Australian people it would be a government of scrutiny. It has not delivered on that, and that is why it is up to us in the opposition to ensure the legislation is appropriately scrutinised, albeit likely after its passage through this place. We are seeking, with this second reading amendment, to refer the legislation to the PJCIS to undertake that scrutiny and that investigation.

To now turn to the substance of the bill that we're debating here today, I've already talked about the expectations that Australians had of this government specifically when it was elected back in May 2022. Another more general expectation that Australians have of any government is that they take the safety of our community and our country very seriously and that they take our national security very seriously. But, once again, in this place this week we have seen a government that is incredibly slow to act on pressing national security matters.

For context, on 8 June the majority of the High Court of Australia invalidated the ability of the Minister for Home Affairs, under the Australian Citizenship Act, to determine a dual national that is engaging in terrorism related conduct is no longer an Australian citizen. This decision had significant consequences for this government's ability to revoke the citizenship of dual nationals who are alleged to have taken part in terrorism and terrorist related activities but who haven't yet been convicted of an offence.

Months later, with the end of the parliamentary year almost upon us, following the High Court's decision on the NZYQ case, the government is bringing this piece of legislation before the chamber and rushing to push this piece of legislation through. I have asked the question, as many of my colleagues have already asked in their contributions to this debate: Why couldn't this have been dealt with already? Why has it taken so long for the government to respond to the High Court's decision and introduce this legislation? And why all of a sudden on the Thursday of the second last Senate sitting week of the year are you rushing this through?

The simple fact here is that both the Minister for Home Affairs and the minister for immigration have left much to be desired when it comes to immigration and citizenship matters and keeping our country safe. This government has become distracted, and, like I say, it is not putting important issues like immigration and citizenship matters, like national security, at the top of its priority list. I think it is fair enough that Australians are disappointed. Australians elect governments to do many things, and, like I said, one of those things is to keep us safe. Australians are disappointed that this Labor government is not taking that priority seriously. The NZYQ High Court decision that was handed down has seen 141 hardened criminals released into the community and, like I said, Australians are rightly angry that this government has allowed that to happen and they are questioning the government over the risk that this has posed to the public.

It is probably important here to talk about why in some circumstances we need to revoke citizenship. It is admittedly quite a serious thing to do. At the height of the Islamic State threat we saw a number of Australians departing our shores to go and fight on the ground with Islamic State terrorist groups or sign up to support them. As we saw the spread of ISIS in Iraq and Syria, many countries witnessed a disturbing trend of radicalised individuals heading overseas to fight for that terrorist organisation and, sadly, that included a number of Australians. We know what kind of heinous activities those who fought and supported ISIS took part in. They took part in persecuting ethnic and religious minorities—Christians and Shiites—and engaged in a genocidal campaign against the Yazidi population in Iraq and Syria. They published videos of beheadings online, they carried out terror attacks and they massacred men, women and children. These people don't share our values; these people don't share our beliefs.

The coalition government, when in power, recognised the significant threat that these people posed and worked to pass laws to allow the government to strip terrorists of their Australian citizenship if hey held citizenship of another country. This included those engaged in terrorism related conduct, those who fight for a declared terrorist organisation outside Australia or those who were sentenced to at least three years for specified terrorism offences. Twenty-two individuals have lost their Australian citizenship through terrorism related actions. Like I said, these people are the worst of the worst. They are dangerous terrorists and they do not in any way reflect our Australian values, so, rightly, they should no longer have the privilege of being Australian citizens, because what kind of a monster do you have to be to think that you have the right to inflict death and destruction on innocent people?

Indeed, the coalition has a very strong track record when it comes to combating the threat posed by terrorism to keep Australians safe. We released a counter-terrorism strategy, which provided a comprehensive plan to counter violent extremism, equip our law enforcement and intelligence agencies, and ensured our laws and arrangements were fit for purpose—the purpose of keeping Australians safe. We delivered record funding to combat the terror threat, including an extra $1.3 billion for ASIO and for boosting the AFP's annual budget to more than $1.7 billion. We also strengthened laws to ensure our highest risk terrorists would remain behind bars and that terrorists would serve their full sentences. These are things that I am incredibly proud of, as I was a member of the previous government when we were introducing many of these initiatives, and I know my colleagues are incredibly proud of them. I also genuinely believe that Australians were proud of these changes as well because, at that time, they did have a government that took national security seriously. They did have a government that was keeping Australians safe.

The coalition considers there are clear gaps in the bill we are debating here today. As I foreshadowed, we will be making amendments to this legislation when it goes into committee. We believe one of these gaps is in the current definition of 'serious offence' under the bill and we believe that the following should be captured: offences against subdivision C of division 80 of the Criminal Code, including urging the overthrow of the government by force or violence, urging violence against groups and urging or advocating for terrorism offences which operate within circumstances when the person intends for the violence or terrorism to actually occur; offences against division 83 of the Criminal Code, including military style training with a foreign government; offences against division 270 of the Criminal Code—slavery and slavery like offences; offences against division 272 of the Criminal Code—child sex offences; offences against division 274—torture; offences against part 9.4 of the Criminal Code—dealing with dangerous weapons. These are all offences that we believe should be captured within the definition of 'serious offence' in the this bill and currently they are not. They are pretty significant gaps: we're talking about some very serious crimes here. But without that broader definition of serious offence as currently exists in this bill as put before us by this government, if you're a person who goes overseas with the intention of carrying out an attack to murder other Australians then that's not enough to cancel your citizenship. Or if you're a person who engages in the torture of others or who goes overseas specifically to commit some of the worst crimes imaginable—to rape an innocent child—then, again, those things are not enough to allow the minister to go to the court and say, 'We don't think this person should continue to enjoy the privilege of being an Australian.' The same goes for people who travel overseas to train with a foreign military or militia, or who engage in arms-trafficking across borders or who call for violence to be committed against Australians. These are all some of the clearest possible repudiations of a person's allegiance to this country. Under Labor's bill as it is currently, with these very clear gaps in the definition of serious offence, they'll be able to keep their citizenship—if they commit any of these crimes, they'll be able to keep their citizenship.

I think it's important to ask why this is the case: why has the government left this massive gap in the legislation that we're debating here today? The reality is that it's because they've rushed this bill. They've rushed this bill into this place; having had months to deal with the issue, all of a sudden they're rushing this through, like I said, on the Thursday of the second-last Senate sitting week of the year. They're not taking national security seriously and they're not taking seriously the duty that they owe to Australians to keep us safe. In previous contributions, my colleagues, including the shadow minister for home affairs, Senator Patterson, and the Shadow Attorney-General, Senator Cash, have outlined our proposed amendments to the bill. Indeed, I've listed off some of the offences that we think need to be included in the definition of serious offence. We want to improve this legislation to ensure that it can capture those individuals engaging in the most heinous actions and repudiate their citizenship. The amendments that we moved on the behalf of the opposition will ensure that this legislation will apply to those individuals who engage in child sex offences, torture, slavery and other truly horrendous activities.

As I said at the outset, I think that after 18 months of this government Australians are fast realising that they aren't taking seriously the issues that matter to them. We talk a lot in this place about the cost of living and about the economy. But we also talk a lot in this place about national security and keeping Australians safe, and this government is not doing that. They're creating policy on the run and rushing legislation through because they're not across the brief. And when that brief is national security, I think that's an absolute shame on the government. They are clearly not taking the issue seriously enough.