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

In the very short time I've got available to me, I will just recap what we've seen from this government—the chaos, the dysfunction, the complete inability to act decisively on these issues, and the need for guidance from the opposition and particularly from the Leader of the Opposition, who is so experienced in these areas. I will go back to the words of the Minister for Home Affairs who said, on 16 November—not very many days ago—about the previous bill that went through this place, that the opposition 'never wrote laws as tough as this'. Then, a few hours later, they accepted all six amendments presented to them by Peter Dutton, the Leader of the Opposition. Once again, the opposition is having to help the government clean up its own mess—a mess caused by its own indecisive, confused response to the matters before the High Court, and its inability to recognise when it was making its arguments that there was a real risk of High Court decisions in this area and a real risk of a legislative response being required.

Instead of acting in the best interests of the Australian people, they chose to bury their heads in the sand and ignore the potential problem. As a result, we've had now weeks of indecisiveness, inaction, confusion, changed positions—'We don't need to legislate,' then suddenly, 'We do need to legislate.' 'The legislation is perfect,' but then, 'We accept six amendments from Peter Dutton.' The confusion, sadly, has put the Australian public at risk. That is a huge indictment of the government and something the Australia people will not forget.

David Shoebridge (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Australian Citizenship Amendment (Citizenship Repudiation) Bill 2023 entrenches two classes of citizens in Australia. It's remarkable seeing Labor so comfortable with that. Labor, which traditionally has celebrated being the party of multicultural Australia, is saying to the great bulk of multicultural Australia that their Australian citizenship is worth less than that of many others in this country. The Greens don't believe in two classes of citizen—a class of citizen that the government can move the courts to strip the citizenship of, simply because they have a citizenship of another country, and the rest of Australia. It's offensive to the concept of us all being equal. It's offensive to the concept of a vibrant, dynamic and equal multicultural Australia. To see the Labor Party pushing through this bill with a bunch of opposition amendments that make it even easier to strip people's citizenship off them is a pretty depressing spectacle. In fact, there has been a list of depressing spectacles from Labor in the last two weeks, and this just joins the list of political surrenders from Labor.

I just want to be absolutely clear: the Greens don't support two classes of Australian citizen—a class that can be marginalised, discriminated against and have their citizenship stripped off them by an angry government, which might be responding to a shock jock campaign, and the rest of Australia. In the Greens' view of this country, all citizens are equal and all citizens should have that fundamental right of citizenship. It should not be able to be stripped off them by a vindictive minister who brings an application in a court to strip that citizenship off them.

Labor's defence of this bill is: it's better having a minister bring an application and then a court adjudicating than just having the minister do it all. Well, what about we take a more principled approach, and we just say that Australian citizenship is not there to be stripped, and, if an Australian citizen commits a wrong, then we'll deal with them as an Australian citizen and we won't pretend to deal with people equally while holding the threat of stripping the citizenship off, potentially, millions of Australian citizens who fit into a class of citizen that the coalition thinks is lesser? We just fundamentally reject that, and that's why we reject this bill.

Gerard Rennick (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise today to speak on the Australian Citizenship Amendment (Citizenship Repudiation) Bill 2023. This is a result of Labor's mismanagement of immigration. This isn't anything new. We saw it under the previous Labor government, under Kevin Rudd, when Chris Bowen was the minister for immigration. We saw over a thousand people die at sea because of Labor's mismanagement of border protection issues. As a result of that, we also saw 50,000 people go through detention facilities. I'm not sure if there are still some of those people there now, but it took almost a decade to reduce that figure to less than a thousand.

This causes immense hardship, it causes immense tragedy and, of course, it wastes billions of dollars in taxpayers' funds. With this Labor government, this year we're on track to have almost 600,000. We're currently running at half a million, but we may very well end up in the next 12 months with 600,000 immigrants because Labor will not control the borders.

In relation to the High Court case, there was plenty of warning that the High Court could possibly make the decision that it did make, but what was the Labor Party doing? They were off virtue-signalling about the Voice. It was all feelings and not facts. The great disappointment of the Australian Labor Party under Anthony Albanese is that their first 18 months in government has been all about virtue-signalling and not dealing with the basics of running a government. It's very easy in opposition to cast slurs and mock people when they actually go into the detail, but, when you're in government, you've got to drill down into the detail. You've got to take the day-to-day concerns of people very, very seriously. Australians take their border protection and law and order very seriously. It is not a joke.

Some of these people who have been released are hardened criminals. It isn't a question of equal rights or anything like that; it is about applying law and order. Already, we've had one particular person involved in sexual allegations, and another person who is a convicted sex offender has been contacting juveniles on social media. That the Labor Party was asleep at the wheel when these people were released just isn't good enough. So we need to amend the legislation to correct the High Court's decision. I'm not sure why and how they come to these decisions. Heaven only knows, but I well remember that the Mabo decision was a 4-3 outcome. It is the highest court in the land, and it was a split decision. That's the problem with the courts. It's all very much based on feelings and not enough logic. I don't know how many times you've seen in the High Court major decisions split down the middle. You've just got to wonder sometimes how such important matters can be so divided amongst supposedly the best legal minds in the country.

I want to make one particular point about this bill. When someone who has a monitoring device removes their monitoring device, there is a carve-out in this particular legislation from treating that as a serious offence. I think that, if anyone is released on parole with a monitoring device, they should have to keep that monitoring device on. If they deliberately remove that device, that should be considered a serious offence. It's not unreasonable, especially when, as I've just pointed out, some of these people have already got convictions and have already engaged in misconduct since they've been released—

Nick McKim (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We've got a freedom problem in this country.

Gerard Rennick (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator McKim, I'll take that interjection because this isn't about freedom. This is about applying law and order.

It is about applying law and order so that Australian people feel safe in their own country.

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

Resume your seat, Senator Rennick. I do allow a little bit of leeway, but I would ask that senators just be heard in silence. Senator Rennick.

Gerard Rennick (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I commend this bill in the hope that it does improve the monitoring and treatment of dangerous detainees in detention and that it makes sure that we uphold law and order in this country and keep Australians safe.

Malcolm Roberts (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As a servant to the people of Queensland and Australia, I say that the Albanese Labor government's response to the High Court's decision of NZYQ v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs & Anor handed down on 8 November 2023 has been a debacle, actually, a dark humour catastrophe threatening Australians. It is clear the government was caught on the hop and totally unprepared for the decision that was openly predicted long before the High Court handed down its decision. The plaintiff's successful argument was based on a mainstream interpretation of the concept of the separation of powers that underpins and is part of our Constitution, the Australian Constitution. This principle, fundamental to the Australian system of government, ensures the power to make and manage laws should be shared between three groups—the parliament, the executive and the judiciary. This avoids one group having all the power. The first three chapters of the Australian Constitution define the parliament, the executive and the judiciary and the roles they each play in making and managing laws in Australia. Each group has its own area of responsibility and each keeps a check on the actions of the others.

The Australian parliament makes and changes the law. It consists of the Governor-General representing the King, the Senate and the House of Representatives. The executive implements the law. It is comprised of the Governor-General representing the King, the Prime Minister, other ministers and members of the Public Service generally. The judiciary interprets, makes judgements and rules on the law, comprising the court system, with the High Court of Australia as the highest court in our system. A feature of the judiciary is that it has the exclusive power to impose penalties or other punitive measures. No other body can impose penalties. The executive does not have this power. This means that even ministers do not have the power to impose punitive measures. The High Court confirmed this interpretation, affirming the separation of powers.

The logical conclusion was that the minister's decisions to detain indefinitely a large number of persons under ministerial direction was predictably struck down as unconstitutional. So what should the government have been doing in the interim? Has this Labor government ever thought of the concept of a plan B? I don't think it has a plan A. It was highly likely the High Court would apply the concept of the separation of powers. Wasn't it logical that what would follow on would be the release of detainees who had not lawfully been detained? If a law to detain is unlawful ab initio—from the beginning—it is as if the law never existed and the detaining would be considered unlawful. I wonder how many lawsuits are being prepared right now, as I speak, against the government for unlawful detention—more taxpayer money flushed down the toilet.

Let's consider what the government did as a response to the High Court decision. Firstly, after the initial stream of expletives, the government tried to put together a knee-jerk response by releasing some detainees under subsequent conditional visas. A condition of some of these visas was the requirement to attach electronic monitoring devices and comply with curfew obligations. Many in the community would consider the obligation to wear monitoring bracelets and to be subject to a corrective services curfew to be punitive. Did the judiciary or executive authorise this action? Did a judge authorise this? Does this all sound familiar? The executive is deciding punishment, again. How enforceable these conditions will be may well come before the High Court. Whether these conditions will be effective in protecting the community remains to be seen. One detainee absconded and was relocated soon after. Another four detainees initially declined to be monitored with bracelets, the number now being two. What other steps are being taken to ensure the safety of people in the community? Already media is reporting considerable fear within the community. We know of at least two assaults due to these people. Surely we're all entitled to live without fear of injury from violent offenders dumped the community without rehabilitation or proper planning.

Some of these detainees are rapists, murderers, a contract killer, paedophiles—the worst scum of humanity unwanted in any country and plopped into our neighbourhoods. Most people, with the exception of the Greens, would be abhorrent to this. The worst of these is Mr Benbrika, a convicted terrorist who planned to murder thousands of Australians at large public gatherings. He will complete his prison sentence shortly and must be considered an undesirable resident of Australia and should be deported. Most people in Australia, apart from the Greens, would consider that true.

I certainly would wish to know what alternatives were considered to prevent circumventing the monitoring devices and committing an offence before action could be taken to intervene. Have victims' families been warned of the offending detainees' release? Amazingly, the latest government bills in this area do not include either compulsory reviews or considerations of the separation of powers principles. They do not. One Nation is placing before the Senate options to consider now that this bill is under consideration.

What's the cost of this government's hopeless management skills? The cost to taxpayers in terms of personal security is shot. The protection of a sound legal system has been abused. And there is an actual dollar cost. Labor has a well-deserved reputation for lousy money management and is now running for cover as its lack of foresight in managing predictable outcomes of poor political solutions emerges yet again. Bring on the next election so that Australians can bring on a better government for all Australians.

What's needed is transparency. In yet another embarrassing response from this lame-duck government, which has never shown leadership and has repeatedly failed to read the mood of the Australian public, how wrong could the Albanese government have been when promoting the catastrophic loss at the recent Voice referendum? It was completely out of touch. It relied on the vibe. It was not good governance.

The Labor government's policies on immigration and home security are woefully inadequate and are contributing to the high costs of living, high interest rates and waste of public funding, and they are now gutting home security. The heightened apparent antisemitism within Middle Eastern immigrant populations is on display for one and all to see. How shameful was the government response to the disgraceful demonstration on the Sydney Opera House steps? How many of the people demonstrating in support of the Hamas terrorists and Palestinian rights could be said to demonstrate or even pass the good character test required for many visas?

The rise of antisemitism, fear and hatred in the community is in many ways the result of a failure to exclude from Australia those who can never accept Australian standards, principles of equality and fairness, and abiding by the law. Letting anybody into Australia without conducting a genuine assessment of suitability is unacceptable. Issuing hundreds of visas to Palestinians without appropriate assessments immediately after the Hamas atrocities in October was a huge folly. There was stupidity, recklessness and irresponsibility.

We are concerned about two aspects of immigration: quantity—the number of people who are let in—and quality. Immigration numbers are currently absurd. One Nation wants to reduce immigration to net zero. That means only enough people being allowed in to equal the number of people who leave. This will reduce inflation, house prices, house rentals and pressure on infrastructure. It's what many people want. Quality of immigration needs to be raised so that only people who comply with Australian laws and fit in with our culture and values are admitted.

Who pays for this government's mismanagement and spin? As always, it is the people—today's Australians and future Australians not yet born—and that's a responsibility of today's government. The government needs to start with data and facts when developing its policies and legislation and put the needs of Australians first. It needs to get it right for national security.

As senators serving the Australian people, please remember that government has three roles: to protect life, to protect property and to protect freedom. Prime Minister Rudd opened the immigration and refugee floodgates. Pressure from the people and the polls forced him very quickly to reverse his policies, but the damage had been done. The Albanese Labor government has made an art form of blaming the coalition. Now it's becoming a joke. The Albanese slide in the polls looks steeper than the Gillard slide and even the Rudd slide as both previous governments fell into disarray and their leaders were found deficient.

Finally, the Labor government tells us this is a matter of urgency, and it is, yet the Albanese government in charge of the House of Representatives gave itself Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday off. Why didn't it call the House of Representatives back and get on with it? Don't just talk urgency; take urgent action. It's time for Labor to genuinely listen to the views of the community and to act quickly and accordingly to protect Australians and ensure justice.

Tim Ayres (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Trade) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I was listening to Senator Roberts and reflecting that, over in the House of Representatives, they have gathered today for a condolence resolution for my friend Peta Murphy. She came from one of Melbourne's great multicultural seats. I would very much have looked forward to what she, had she been here, would have said about the questions that have been in front of us yesterday and today and her reflections on those questions.

But I'm not in there listening to those condolences today; I'm in here talking about this proposition.

The other thing that I was reflecting upon when listening to Senator Roberts is that I do think that what this debate requires is precision. When it's a debate that goes to questions of citizenship, that goes to questions of multiculturalism, that goes to questions of migration, always, in the short term, the noisiest voices are the voices that are heard. But these debates—particularly when they go to questions of national security, citizenship and a range of these topics—require precision. Some of the loudest voices in this debate have no regard for the impact of their words. I say to people in this chamber: particularly if you aspire to be a party of government, you ought to be, on one side of this debate, keenly aware of the impact of your words. I don't say that to argue to get a soft run. There is politics in this, and it is always legitimate for people to pursue political ends. But those ends ought to stop where the national interest intrudes.

I also say to people who are concerned about this set of questions—and I've listened carefully to what Senator McKim and others have said about these questions—it is very important that there is precision here about what this piece of legislation is about and that we do not make wild claims. Whether it's in relation to the legislation that we dealt with yesterday, as the government dealt with the residual issues that flow from the High Court's decision on NZYQ, or the legislation we're dealing with today, where we are dealing with the questions that follow from the High Court's decision in relation to Benbrika et cetera, we should not conflate those issues with the issues of migration and multiculturalism more broadly and with the issues that go to asylum seekers and Australia's humanitarian program. No good will come of that. What is required here is clarity. What is required here is confidence from Australians that these schemes and the government are operating in the national interest.

I say, perhaps at the risk of being completely ignored, that there is a requirement for precision here. There is a requirement for a sober assessment of the national interest. I accept that there will be differences of views. It is possible to take an approach that's bounded by a philosophical view that ends up colliding with the government's set of objectives. Let's just be precise about what it is that we're talking about, and let's be precise about our language. There should be no conditionality where one group of Australians are told by people in the political system that they are somehow less Australian than others. That is the risk that arises from what Senator Roberts just said. I can tell you, as I move around Sydney's great multicultural suburbs, that there is so much to be defended and to be proud of in our great multicultural traditions.

It is also the case that over the course of the last decade there has been a great victory of form over substance. All of the tough words, all of the hot language and all of the declarations of the national interest—what has the last government left this government with? In both of these areas, they have left us with legislation that has been unconstitutional.

Nick McKim (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You supported it all.

Tim Ayres (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Trade) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator McKim says that we voted for it. In our view, the responsibility of a party of government is to make sure that we supply the best possible position in the national interest. We did that in opposition. That's why, in the last term of government, we voted for propositions in here and in the House of Representatives in relation to the government's response to COVID and to a series of other issues that we would not have designed ourselves. We see government not as being about T-shirts, memes, slogans, feelings and a post-truth approach to these issues but as actually being about making sure that we're acting in the national interest.

You've made a lot of noise, Senator McKim, and achieved very little on these questions. On this question—

Deborah O'Neill (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Senator McKim!

Tim Ayres (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Trade) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator McKim, if you're interested in our broad migration program and our humanitarian program, your approach is very unhelpful indeed.

What did the last government leave us with? It left us with unconstitutional legislation and a migration program that is broken. The position of many temporary visa workers has left them exposed, which has created problems in our labour market. It did not address the skills and productivity issues in the Australian economy in any serious way. The reason that we are here dealing with these issues is that the then minister for these questions, the now Leader of the Opposition, completely abrogated his responsibility. With the benefit of all of the advice and all of the machinery of government and all of the huffing and puffing that went on in that period, he completely left Australia and Australians exposed.

There was a victory of form over substance on national security, migration and citizenship questions, and that will always be the case with this crowd. They will posture for their friends in One Nation. They will make noise in the daily newspapers and on the radio. They will try to create an illusion that sound and fury and waving your arms around somehow assists in national security terms when what is actually required is a sober approach. It is making careful judgements in the national interest. It is dealing with issues on the basis of facts and on the evidence. It is making cold, clinical judgements that balance the national security questions and the legal and constitutional questions and make sure that we've got a migration and citizenship regime that Australians can be proud of as well as have confidence in, one that deals with the great human rights questions that are engaged here.

Citizenship, in global terms and in the terms in which we deal with citizenship questions, is not a straightforward, immutable concept.

In different jurisdictions, different meanings are attached to it. It is a legal construct and an administrative construct, but it is also absolutely vital in national identity terms, in cultural terms, in traditional terms, in historical terms and in community terms. It is, indeed, what binds Australians together, and it has to be a big enough idea in conceptual terms, as well as in legal and administrative terms, that it binds together First Nations Australians, rural and regional Australians, people in our cities, our multicultural communities from wherever they come, new citizens and people who were born here.

What is required here is to make sure that we provide a definition of citizenship and a clarity around these ideas that means, in a national sense, that citizenship is a construct that brings Australians together and improves social cohesion, and this measure is pretty fundamental to that idea, because if you are a dual citizen and you commit a series of offences that break your citizenship tie then citizenship must mean something. But there is a gravity around these questions that ought to be treated seriously and ought not to be the focus of the sort of puerile politics that we've seen on display this week. That does mean getting these measures right.

The legislation that's in front of the Senate today achieves that balance, I think, in a way that Australians can have confidence in. It means there is a proper legal process for dealing with an individual who through their own conduct has severed their connection with Australians. Our nationality and citizenship act has been in place since 1948, only 47 years after Federation. The legislation in place now, the Australian Citizenship Act 2007, is a new iteration of that. Many of us in this chamber, of course, when considering the status of our own citizenship and/or dual citizenship in the run-up to running for preselection or for election to this place, have had to have a close look at the interaction of this set of laws with the laws of other countries and their approach to these questions. So senators and members have more knowledge about the interaction of citizenship of other countries with their own citizenship. Many of us in this room have navigated the travails of making sure that we have only one citizenship in place. But, for the small cohort—people like Mr Benbrika and others—who have committed offences that are described and set out in legislation, I think all Australians would be united in a view that we need a legally robust, defendable citizenship regime that makes sure that, when someone severs the bonds of citizenship with Australia, we have a practical way of dealing with it. I commend the legislation to the Senate.

Glenn Sterle (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to 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.

Anne Ruston (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Health and Aged Care) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm standing to speak to the Australian Citizenship Amendment (Citizenship Repudiation) Bill 2023. What are we seeing here today? We're seeing a bill again being brought into this place, as we saw yesterday with a bill being brought into this place, that continues to highlight the fact that this government was asleep at the wheel when it came to protecting Australians—completely asleep at the wheel. Whilst the opposition is more than happy to facilitate the passage of legislation that will assist in making sure that Australians are kept safer, I think that the Australian public needs to be really aware of the fact that much of this didn't need to happen in the way that it's happened. If we actually had a government that was in control of the situation, we would have had this done well before the decision of the High Court in the NZYQ case came down, which has now facilitated the need for this particular legislation to occur.

On 8 June 2022 the majority of the High Court of Australia invalidated the ability of the Minister for Home Affairs under the Citizenship Act to determine that a dual national who had engaged in terrorism related activity or conduct is no longer an Australian citizen. It had pretty significant implications for the government and the ability of the government to be able to revoke the citizenship of a dual national who had been alleged to have engaged in terrorism activity. We're not talking about some small, insignificant breach of Australian law. We're talking about terrorism related conduct. If the government had actually acted more quickly at the time and responded to the decisions, then we would not be standing here today, with this continuing some 17 to 18 months later, having this conversation. I think a lot of what we're talking about today actually points to the credibility of the government to actually be able to govern this country.

If you look at the Minister for Home Affairs and the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs, they have both been caught flat-footed when it comes to issues of citizenship, which we're discussing today, and in terms of migration and, particularly, the continuing, ongoing detention of somebody who presents a significant safety risk to the Australian public. A government's first responsibility is always to its own people and its own nation. Whilst this extraordinary situation has been playing out, we have seen the Prime Minister spending more of his time overseas than in this country. He's got a couple of ministers that have shown a level of incompetence that is almost eye watering, yet he's left them here.

Over the previous few days we've seen a number of instances where people who have been let out of detention, and we now know from the decisions and the ruling from the High Court that they did not need to have been let out of detention, because the ruling of the High Court related only to NZYQ and the specifics of that particular case. There have been over 140 detainees with various previous convictions let out into the community, from rapists and paedophiles to murderers and even a contract killer. It's just extraordinary. We've seen that all happen when it actually didn't need to happen. We've seen two ministers showing great incompetence, but, at the same time, we've got a Prime Minister who seems to think that it's more important for him to be overseas on the international stage than actually being in the country and making sure that the people that he has delegated responsibility to, to keep Australians safe in regard to immigration and home affairs, are actually doing their job of keeping Australians safe. Clearly over the last few days we have seen that that has not been the case.

As I said, whilst the opposition is going to support actions that are taken that are going to toughen the laws in Australia around making sure that Australians are able to be kept safe, particularly from some of the most unsavoury characters that you could possibly imagine, we still stand here today with a great inadequacy in the response that the government has provided. We see people talking about Benbrika. This doesn't even impact Benbrika, because of the inability to draft things from a retrospective perspective. I condemn the government for their lack of action, but we will be supporting this bill. (Time expired)

Deborah O'Neill (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I want to take this opportunity, since this is the first time I have risen to speak since the passing of the member for Dunkley, to acknowledge the profound contribution, the amazing mind and the generous heart of Peta Murphy to the best interests of this nation.

I address the matters before us. I note that at the end of her contribution Senator Ruston indicated support for this legislation but you'd never ever know it from the deeply personal attack that preceded her exception to the reality that this legislation is good legislation and of sufficient goodness that, despite all of the clamouring, all of the loudness, all of the screeching and carry on that we have seen, it is coming before this parliament and it is going to be supported.

Why are we in this situation? I just want to counter one absolutely false claim that has been repeated here again by Senator Ruston, who really should know better. Having gone through the robodebt debacle, which absolutely revealed the moral deficits of the former government, Senator Ruston should well and truly know the value of telling the truth in this place, especially this place where the laws of the nation are made. Governments are required to abide by the law. When Senator Ruston makes the false claim that the matter of NZYQ was a matter that related to a single individual, that is absolutely and totally incorrect.

When the High Court makes a decision and hands down that decision, the government of the day, whatever colour it may be, is required to accept that decision of the High Court. If we don't, we descend into anarchy. The law is the law. The courts make the law. The government is required to abide by the law. All of us, whether it's Senator Ruston, the government, the Liberal Party, the National Party, even members of the crossbench—the Greens, One Nation, the Jacqui Lambie Network, Senator Van, Senator Thorpe, Senator Babet—are on a unity ticket to prevent rapists, murderers, contract killers, paedophiles. There is not a single person in this building, there is not a single decent Australian that wants these people out, but every Australian and every government that accedes to the way the law works in this country would have to deal with the fact that the people who are in the same situation as NZYQ had to be released, and that is why this careful, considered legislation that the opposition is going to support, because it is the best response to the reality that we confront, should be passed today. The mischief making, the misinformation that has so characterised the public commentary of the opposition needs to stop in the national interest. (Time expired)

Murray Watt (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I seek leave to move an amendment to the second reading amendment previously moved by Senator Cash. For those trying to follow the debate, the second reading amendment circulated by Senator Cash essentially seeks to refer the bill in its entirety to the Parliament Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security. I might point out that my understanding is that the Senate earlier this week moved a motion to that effect, so the Senate has already moved and passed a motion referring this bill to the parliamentary joint committee. My amendment not only seeks to move the bill in the form that it's been introduced but also seeks to refer any amendments to the bill which have been circulated, including of course those amendments that the opposition has circulated. Would it be appropriate for me to talk to that now?

Andrew McLachlan (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You don't talk to it now.

Deborah O'Neill (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Cash, are you seeking clarification?

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am. Are you seeking leave to move your amendment? We're denying leave.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Pursuant to contingent notice, I move:

That so much of standing orders be suspended as to enable me to move a motion in relation to an amendment to the second reading amendment.

And I move:

That the question be now put.

Deborah O'Neill (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

For clarity, this is the procedural motion being put.

A division having been called and the bells having rung—

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is—Senator Wong?

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm going to ask you to make a ruling, President. The advice from the deputy clerk is that 39 votes are required because there is no relevant contingent notice. We dispute that and we have asked for the clerk to attend to—I appreciate that that's the deputy clerk's advice. I've asked for the clerk to attend in order to consider that, because we will ask the President to rule on this. I'm in the Senate's hands. We can vote, but the effect of that will obviously depend on whether or not the 39 requirement is required.

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My view is that we proceed with the count. That gives me the opportunity then to seek fulsome advice.

The question is that the question be put.

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The motion is that the motion moved by Senator Wong, to suspend standing orders, be agreed to.

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There being 31 ayes and 28 noes, there is not an absolute majority of the whole number of senators in favour of the motion, as required by standing order 209. The question is resolved in the negative. The question now is that the second reading amendment moved by Senator Chandler be agreed to.

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In relation to the amendment in the name of Senator Paterson, moved by Senator Chandler, I seek leave to withdraw the amendment on the basis that the Senate has already agreed to this.

Leave not granted.

Question agreed to.

Original question, as amended, agreed to.

Bill read a second time.