David Gillespie (Lyne, National Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak in favour of the Australian Citizenship Amendment (Allegiance to Australia) Bill 2015. The recent terrorism events in Australia and overseas have made these changes obvious and necessary. I do not think anyone can fault the logic of the intent behind this bill. For those who were born here, Australian citizenship is treasured. Those of us who have come from another country have been welcomed with open arms—and that has been the case for more than a century. Since World War II we have accepted over 850,000 refugees from around the world, and we have resettled them—we have not just offered temporary refuge like countries in Europe have done; we have resettled them. The vast majority of these people have flourished in Australia, because we have rule of law, freedom of association and movement, freedom of speech and a liberal democracy with all the traditions and institutions that make liberal democracies strong. That is what many of the people who have come here and taken up Australian citizenship have been attracted to. It is the ultimate act of contempt, and in fact treason, if someone undertakes terrorism against Australian citizens while being a citizen themselves.

The intent of this legislation is not to render people stateless. There are various special subsections which define new terrorism conduct, and if you engage in this conduct you will lose your Australian citizenship if you retain citizenship of another country. Basically, you cannot have it both ways. You cannot treat the nation and the privileges you have been given with contempt yet at the same time expect to stay here and be welcomed. Many of the people who have committed serious terrorism fit that description. In fact, other nations have been faster to realise this and have acted on it appropriately—the UK, for instance, and I understand Canada, according to the member for Leichhardt. It seems reasonable that if someone is not owing allegiance and is in fact battling against Australia, either on our shores or overseas for ISIS or al-Qaeda or any of the terrorist groups around the world—at the moment they are predominantly Islamic, but this would apply if it were any other ideologically inspired terrorism, not just radical Islamic terrorism—that they should sacrifice their Australian citizenship.

The new ways in which a person would renounce their citizenship would be if they were not acting consistently with their allegiance to Australia by engaging in specified terrorist related conduct, including engaging in international terrorist activities using explosives or lethal devices; engaging in a terrorist act; providing or receiving training connected with preparation for, engagement in, or assistance in a terrorist act; directing the activities of terrorist organisations, whether the person is directing them from Australia or here in Australia; recruiting people for terrorism; financing terrorism and financing someone to go overseas and become an active terrorist; and engaging in foreign incursions and foreign recruitment. It is pretty clear-cut—that person, by their actions, declares themselves to be not respecting the rights and privileges of Australian citizenship.

I cannot see how anyone could argue against this. I can see the potential for arguing against it if you were going to render someone stateless. If they are an Australian citizen and they turn out to be a bad and evil person, it is our duty to fix them up, but if they are having a bet each way and are relying on the comfort and security of Australia being a port of convenience and a safe house while they plan, finance, commit and encourage terrorism, all bets are off—you have renounced your Australian citizenship and there is the exit. There is an extensive list of what criminal offences would lead to this outcome. It is plain for all to see—there is no subtlety in it. It is an open and shut case of applying good national common sense. I commend this bill to the House.

See this speech in context