Glenn Sterle (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I wish to make my contribution to the debate on the Australian Citizenship Amendment (Citizenship Repudiation) Bill 2023, but if the Senate could just indulge me—through you, Acting Deputy President—I will note that I have been sitting through the Senate proceedings in the last couple of weeks, when we have been debating this terrible situation that has occurred because of what the High Court dropped on Australia, and I will say, as someone who's been here for a number of years—and I don't look at any senator in particular—that the quality of the debate in this chamber—I'm trying to find words I wouldn't use in my trucking vernacular—is, to say the least, in the sewer when we start talking about immigrants.

I'm not talking about the 148 criminals who were released. I'd have to say that that shocked Australia, and they deserve to be put away. There is no way known I would ever stand here and support paedophiles, rapists and contract killers. Obviously they're locked up for a reason. If anyone thinks they are going to jump up and have a cheap crack, I just want to lay that out. I know this chamber can be animated. A lot of us come here from previous lives where we had a passion in some industry or some form of service. The majority of people in this building and the other building are here for a very good reason: to try to improve the lot of Australians and our future generations. But, when I sat here quietly up the back—and for me to sit quietly is no mean feat, but I sat quietly—and witnessed the screaming, the yelling and some of the performances in front of children in the gallery and the public sitting in the gallery, where there are two fine people sitting now, I could not feel any more embarrassed by the standard of representation of some of our people in this Senate.

We have got some terrible issues going on. I will get to the bill, but I have to get this out. We've seen Russia's illegal invasion of Ukraine. We saw the terrible events in Israel on 7 October and the subsequent loss of life since. None of us sit here and think that it's a good idea to make a mishmash of everything, and then we start talking about cessation of citizenship. One Nation can't help but throw in the Voice argument. They can't help but throw in: 'We've got too many illegal immigrants. We mustn't let anyone else in.' Well, someone who is first generation Australian—some of the members in this parliament have to really seriously look at themselves in the chamber. They need to sit there and think: what image are we portraying to the greater Australian public? Debates and second reading contributions will always be far ranging. It's not a problem. I've heard our leader, the Honourable Senator Penny Wong, our foreign minister and Leader of the Government in the Senate, plead with senators in this room to carefully consider their thoughts and their words.

I have to get that out because, after 18 years—and I can't count how many question times I have sat in here for—I was so embarrassed yesterday, and it was all around citizenship. I really hope that, as we slide into the most wonderful time of the year to be with our families and celebrate Christmas, senators on that side seriously give thought to Senator Wong's words. Carefully measure what you're saying, because everything we do and say in this room and in this building is out there. It's out there on the internet and on social media. I plead with senators to carefully measure their comments.

I want to contribute to this situation that we find ourselves in. As I said, when the High Court dumped this on us a couple of weeks ago, it did shock a lot of us. I also say this. I know the opposition will scream at me and carry on. I'm one of those who believe that, when we're talking about serious issues of national security and what's best for our nation, we should be doing this in the best interests of our nation together. We should absolutely be consulting each other, we should absolutely be listening to different voices and other voices and we should respect the views of others. Unfortunately, there has been a law in place for 20 years, whether we like it or not. It doesn't matter which minister it was. Previously it was Mr Dutton, but there were other ministers before him. We've had this law for 20 years, and the High Court changed it. I know we've sat here late at night trying to get the new laws through, working together. Unfortunately, our opponents see this as an opportunity. I can't honestly say that I'm convinced that it's to improve the quality of people who are coming into this nation but rather to politicise it in social media, to fight us and then, when we put up bills, to vote against us.

So let's say it as it is. You can talk tough. You can have all the 'big man, strong man' rhetoric you want. We inherited bad laws, and they needed to be changed, like the system that we got from the coalition, which was confirmed by the High Court decision on Benbrika—I'm going to say 'Benbrika' because I can't bring myself to say 'Mr Benbrika'; I should be able to, but I can't—on 1 November 2023. There was Alexander on 8 June 2022.

Mr Dutton introduced these laws after ignoring multiple warnings from Labor and other legal experts that they were likely to be unconstitutional. It's the case. The warnings were there. In 2019, the now Attorney-General, Mr Dreyfus, warned:

Peter Dutton and Scott Morrison are trying to rush legislation through the parliament that could result in terrorists taking the Australian Government to the High Court and winning.

The Committee heard expert evidence that the proposed legislation was likely unconstitutional, would not survive a High Court challenge, and risked completely destroying the Government's ability to revoke the citizenship of any terrorist.

Hello! Doesn't that sound familiar?

This vanity project, which was designed to make Mr Dutton look like he was tough and standing up, unfortunately has backfired. The High Court has now overturned not one but both of those citizenship laws that we inherited, just as Mr Dreyfus had warned. The High Court's decision means that convicted terrorists like Benbrika never ceased to be Australian citizens under the previous government's laws. He's still an Australian citizen. You've got to do the work. You've got to stand up. You have to be counted. Talking tough, as I said, doesn't keep people safe. Unconstitutional laws do not keep Australians safe.

I just want to touch quickly, while I can, on the current government's record. I want to send this message out loud and clear: Australians can be confident that the Albanese government is doing the work to keep our community safe. That is what we would expect it to do. The Albanese government is committed to cleaning up the mess that was left to us. We have developed new laws. We've developed them carefully and quickly, in consultation with legal experts. Labor's laws will keep people safe because, unlike the previous government, we have listened to the experts and drafted laws that are robust and constitutionally sound. What could possibly be wrong with that? We are restoring a citizenship-loss regime for those who have been convicted of more egregious crimes in our country—I'd just have said 'shocking'—including terrorism, treason, espionage and foreign interference. It sounds like a Hollywood movie.

The purpose of the bill is to amend the Australian Citizenship Act 2007 to repeal the current citizenship cessation provisions, which were found to be invalid by the High Court of Australia in the matters of Alexander v Minister for Home Affairs and Benbrika v Minister for Home Affairs. The High Court held these provisions were contrary to chapter III of the Constitution, which provides that the judicial power of the Commonwealth will be vested in the courts. The bill will introduce new provisions allowing the minister to make an application to request that a court exercise its powers to make an order to cease a dual citizen's Australian citizenship, where the person has been convicted of a serious offence or offences.

Provisions allowing for the termination of citizenship on terrorism related grounds were first introduced by the Turnbull government, with the support of the opposition, in the Australian Citizenship Amendment (Allegiance to Australia) Act 2015. These provisions were controversial and resulted in an Australian dual citizen automatically ceasing to be an Australian citizen on the basis of certain conduct. In response to a review by the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor, the then Morrison government, with the support of the opposition—being the ALP—passed the Australian Citizenship Amendment (Citizenship Cessation) Act 2020.

These amendments replaced the provisions in which Australian citizenship was automatically renounced on the basis of certain conduct with a ministerial-decision model for citizenship cessation. Stakeholders have previously raised substantial concerns regarding citizenship revocation provisions, including that they are not effective in addressing national security concerns, may be contrary to Australia's international law obligations and create a risk of rendering a person stateless.

The opposition has previously indicated that it will support legislation in response to the High Court's judgements, with shadow minister for immigration and citizenship, Mr Dan Tehan, stating that as 'the court has made the decision we now have to make sure that that legislation can now address the problems the courts have created—and we want to do that'.

The only group standing in the way of this important legislation that will protect Australians and make our community safer, unfortunately, is the Greens party, and I, for the life of me, cannot understand why. The bill provides an appropriate mechanism to deal with dual Australian citizens who have committed crimes that are so serious and so significant that they demonstrate the repudiation of their allegiance to Australia. The bill promotes the value and integrity of Australian citizenship and the ongoing commitment to Australia and its shared values, while also contributing to the protection of the Australian community.

Under the bill, the power to make a citizenship cessation order is vested in the courts and is an appropriate exercise of judicial rather than executive power. Having regard to the High Court's decisions in Alexander and Benbrika, the bill provides that, where a person has been convicted of a specified offence or offences, and the court has decided to sentence that person to a term or terms of imprisonment for those serious offences totalling at least three years, the court may order, as part of the sentence, that the person ceases to be an Australian citizen. The specified offences include terrorist offences, including the offence that applies to terrorist offenders who have breached an extended supervision order or interim supervision order; treason; advocating mutiny; espionage; foreign interference; foreign incursions and recruitment; and certain offences relating to explosives and lethal devices.

To make a citizenship cessation order, the court must be satisfied that the person is aged 14 years or older and is an Australian citizen. The court must also be satisfied that the conduct to which the conviction or convictions relate is so serious and significant that it demonstrates that they have repudiated their allegiance to Australia. On that, I commend the bill to the Senate.