Tony Zappia (Makin, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Manufacturing) Share this | Hansard source

Initially, I was not intending to speak on the Australian Citizenship Amendment (Allegiance to Australia) Bill 2015, but having listened to the contributions of members during much of the debate, I thought I might make a brief contribution to it myself. Before I do so, I acknowledge the presence in the House of the member for Isaacs, who I believe played a significant role in reshaping the original legislation, which would otherwise have been put before the House. I also believe that the legislation that we have before us right now is much better legislation because of the member for Isaacs. His personal contribution to the work of the Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security and obviously his experience in law enabled us to come back to the House with legislation that now has the support of Labor.

In essence, this legislation is about Australian citizenship and the right of the government to take away the Australian citizenship of an individual with dual citizenship who has been convicted of a terrorism offence in Australia or of having engaged in terrorist activities overseas or collaborated with a declared terrorist organisation such as ISIS.

It is a sentiment that I believe has considerable support across the community. In my own discussions with people out there in my electorate when this legislation was originally mooted or proposed, the feedback I got was that it would be legislation that would be very widely supported throughout the electorate—albeit that at the time the detail was not out there.

I detected that it resonates particularly amongst early arrivals to Australia—that is, the post-World War II migrants who came to Australia immediately after World War II. I suspect that it resonates with them because, from my understanding of most of them, they were not demanding people when they came out here. They worked hard and they became loyal to a nation that welcomed them. They see that this is consistent with the loyalty that they showed to this nation in those early years after World War II.

I also note that there has been considerable criticism of the legislation by some sectors of the legal community. Some of the criticism that I have picked up on is worthy of consideration, I believe. I do not dismiss it and I believe that some of it is indeed arguable—in particular, issues relating to merit review, the appeals process that is available to people; the retrospectivity provisions; and the age of the person caught up by the provisions of this legislation all raise what I believe are fair and arguable legal matters.

What the legislation does do, however—and this is the point I want to focus on in my remarks on this legislation—is that it draws attention to citizenship and its relevance and place in today's society. Indeed, if nothing else, what this legislation has done in my view is to highlight the importance or otherwise of citizenship to today's society—not just here in Australia but indeed across the world. I recall discussing this legislation with a member of the British parliament only a year ago, before their legislation went through their house. He had similar concerns to those that were being raised in discussions that I was picking up on here in Australia. It is with that in mind that I want to focus my remarks.

Firstly, I note that there is no mention of citizenship in the Australian Constitution. I have not had time since I decided to speak on this legislation to do any research as to why that is the case. But I am a little surprised that there is no mention of the word 'citizenship' or reference to it in the Australian Constitution which, after all, forms the foundation of our laws in this country. Perhaps when I do have a little more time I might see if I can find out just why that is the case. Indeed, it was not until almost half a century later that citizenship became available in Australia under the Australian Citizenship Act 1948. That in itself is interesting, that it took us half a century before we as a nation acknowledged that perhaps we ought to have a provision whereby people who come to this country could become Australian citizens if they were not born here.

Since the 1948 act came into effect there have been some reviews of citizenship in this country and there have been some changes made to it. The point I want to make about that is this: much has been said about the importance of citizenship by many of the speakers who have contributed to this debate. By doing so, they have endeavoured to highlight the significance of citizenship and, in turn, by highlighting the importance of citizenship the perception is created that this legislation imposes a very severe penalty on those who offend, and that drastic action is being taken by the government of the day.

I am not so sure about that. Indeed, my view is that anyone who is prepared to risk their life and do what some of these offenders are doing is probably not going to consider whether they lose their citizenship and if that will determine which direction they are going to take and what they are going to do. Indeed, my view is that this legislation probably will not stop too many people or deter too many people who are contemplating joining an extremist group. But, having said that, I guess time will tell. I do not have a crystal ball, and that is just a personal view that I have.

But I want to make three observations in respect of citizenship. Firstly, this legislation does create two classes of citizens: that is, those who have dual citizenship and those who have Australian citizenship only. The fact that this legislation can only apply to dual citizens does that. It is my view that we have always had two classes of citizenship because we have allowed dual citizenship in this country, as have many others.

Dual citizenship has never sat comfortably with me. My view has always been that ultimately a person should choose which country their prime allegiance will be to, if they have to make that choice. I note that not all countries allow dual citizenship. I have a list of those that I understand do not, but I do not want to go through those. But I do note that not all countries allow dual citizenship. It seems to have been a trend more so in recent years, including here in Australia, in order to accommodate the globalisation that we have seen around the world.

The second observation I make is this: currently in Australia we have somewhere between four and five million dual citizens. I do not know what the exact figures are because they are not available, but at best estimates they are between four and five million. Those numbers speak for themselves, and people can make what they want of those numbers. The third observation I would make is this: since World War II around 7.5 million people have migrated to Australia. Somewhere in the order of five to 5½ or six million have become Australian citizens. Again, I do not have the actual numbers but from the best estimates of what I could put together it is somewhere between five and six million

Conversely, somewhere between 1½ and two million Australian residents have to date chosen not to become Australian citizens, even though they are eligible to do so. Again, those numbers speak for themselves—1½ to two million people have permanent residency in this country and for reasons known only to themselves have chosen not to apply to become Australian citizens. In other words, just how important is Australian citizenship to people in today's day and age? With between four to five million who are dual citizens and another 1½ to two million who are non-citizens and yet permanent residents, it really does beg the question: just how important is citizenship in the minds of people in today's society?

I just want to briefly turn to a few other matters that have also been raised. Firstly, there is the matter of the perhaps unconstitutionality of the legislation. Ultimately, that will be a matter that will be determined by the High Court of Australia. I do not offer a view about that. What I do envisage, however, is that there will be many drawn-out court challenges over the rights of spouses and children whose parents may have had their citizenship revoked under this legislation. What is the right of the child? What is the right of the spouse? Indeed, what happens to the assets of a person who is caught up by this legislation and who perhaps has substantial assets in this country? Who do they go to, particularly if that person has no family? I do not know. Those are the sorts of things I believe may well be matters that will arise in the future.

But I have also had some problem trying to understand how this legislation will deal with another matter. That is the question of a person who has permanent residency in this country. Let us assume that a person with permanent residency leaves Australia, has a visa to return to Australia in their hand at the time they leave and is then caught up by this legislation. Who makes the determination about that person's re-entry into Australia? That person is not a citizen. That person may simply be a permanent resident. Again, I do not know. What I do know is that, under current law, that person's re-entry would be assessed by the minister. Yet, in this legislation, there is an attempt to remove the minister's direct involvement in the process of re-entry for an Australian citizen. Again, I do not know how those kinds of differences will be dealt with. My view is that some of the people who may well be attracted to go overseas and do the wrong thing may well be people who are permanent residents but not necessarily Australian citizens. Again, perhaps that is food for thought for the minister and the government of the day that is introducing the legislation.

Having expressed those concerns, I accept that the legislation has been put together after considerable scrutiny by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security. I accept that the legislation that we have before the House today is much better than it otherwise would have been. I believe that it will be a matter of time before we can truly assess how well it has worked or, indeed, has not worked. I go back to my earlier comments on this. I believe there is an expectation from people around the country that Australia act in some way to try to deter people from joining extremist groups. If this legislation does that, it will have served its purpose. But only time will tell.

See this speech in context