Steve Irons (Swan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to continue talking on the Australian Citizenship Amendment (Allegiance to Australia) Bill 2015. As I was saying earlier, before being interrupted by the 90 second members' statements, the number of Australians joining extremist groups is rising. The number of supporters of extremism and potential terrorists is rising. Despite our best efforts, the risk of a terrorist attack on home soil is rising. Now is the time to make sure we are doing all we can to preserve the safety of our citizens. Since 1945, 4.6 million people have become Australian citizens by conferral. In 2014-15 alone, we congratulated 136,000 people on becoming Australian citizens. Regardless of whether a person's Australian citizenship is due to birth in Australia or otherwise, it remains a privilege. It carries with it both rights and responsibilities. It gives you the rights to freedom of speech and religion, the right to equality, the right to a strong education and health system and the right to a welfare system, to name a few. It does not and will not give you the right to terrorise and impose fear.

Australia has long been a united and cohesive country built on a diversity of cultures, ethnicities and religions. It is something we pride ourselves on. In order to maintain this level of unity and cohesion, it is essential we continue to monitor, update and amend the way in which we deal with individuals and groups who threaten it. The counter-terrorism review released in February this year noted we, as a nation, have entered into a long-term era where the threat of terrorism is heightened, and the home-grown element of this is significant. As a government, we are committed to countering home-grown terrorism by investing in counter-terrorism capabilities and updating national security legislation such as the one we have before us today.

The bill amends the Australian Citizenship Act 2007 and outlines the circumstances in which dual citizens' Australian citizenship can be revoked through their engagement with terrorism or terrorist organisations. Both the UK and Canada have similar acts in place. In 2014, the UK passed similar laws allowing them to revoke the citizenship of a naturalised person in the case where that individual engaged in conduct or activity seen to be seriously prejudicial to the interests of the UK and they are able to gain citizenship elsewhere. Similarly, Canada passed legislation that came into effect earlier this year. Canada's laws now allow the citizenship and immigration minister to revoke citizenship of a dual national if they are convicted of a terrorism related offence.

For the benefit of the House, I would like to briefly explore the amendments being proposed. The amendment bill before us today details the terms through which the minister is able to class an individual as exempt from the operation of the bill and provides for monitoring and reporting on the bill's application. The bill was referred to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security on 24 June this year. The committee submitted its report, which included 27 recommendations for amendment to the original bill, on 4 September. The amendments in this bill are a direct response to the recommendations made by the committee.

Before going into the process for cessation of citizenship, I would like to explore the three elements of the amendment bill. The first deals with renunciation by conduct. It details that a citizen who is also a citizen of another country effectively renounces their Australian citizenship if they act inconsistently with their allegiance to Australia. There are a number of points which expand on the definition of conduct that would lead to this, all of which include engaging in, providing, directing, recruiting or financing terrorism or a terrorist organisation. Australian dual citizens who choose to assist and promote organisations whose primary aim is to inflict evil and impose fear now do so knowing that their right to remain an Australian citizen will be removed. The amendments to section 33AA provide that the conduct provisions are limited to individuals who engaged in relevant conduct offshore or who engaged in relevant conduct onshore but left Australia before being charged and brought to trial.

The second element of this amendment bill is the expansion of the original provision relating to loss of citizenship. Since 1949, Australian law has provided for automatic loss of citizenship in the case that an Australian citizen chooses to serve in the armed forces of a country at war with Australia. The amendments being proposed allow the same automatic loss of citizenship to occur to anyone choosing to serve and fight on behalf of a terrorist organisation. This would only apply to Australians with dual citizenship. The amendments follow all legal criteria, and terrorist organisations will be declared only when conforming to the Criminal Code. As we heard before, the member for Dawson said in his speech that it should also include a single state citizen who is eligible to hold citizenship in another country.

This amendment is of vital importance, effectively allowing the minister to assess and declare a terrorist organisation when it is directly or indirectly engaged in terrorism and is actively opposed to Australia's interests, values, beliefs and freedoms. Provisions have been made in this amendment to ensure the laws of this act do not apply to individuals under duress and forced to be in the service of a declared terrorist organisation. An important part of Australian law is its transparency and accountability—both of which ensure our freedoms as citizens are protected. I am glad to see that this amendment allows for any declaration of a terrorist organisation made by the minister to be open to review by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security. It is an example of how these amendments strive to deliver the best possible outcome for all parties involved and, again, to actively secure citizens' rights and safety.

I move now to the third section of the amendment bill—that is, conviction for terrorism and related offences. The addition to the bill, section 35A, provides the minister with the power of determination of citizenship status of an individual once convicted of a relevant offence and conforming to the criteria. The criteria for determination by the minister include, but are not limited to: the conduct through which the individual has repudiated their allegiance to Australia; the severity of their conduct; the degree of threat posed by the individual; Australia's current international relations; and the individual's connection to the country of which they also hold citizenship. The individual must also be sentenced to a minimum of six years imprisonment, as a whole or a number of periods totalling that time frame, for relevant offences such as treason, espionage and terrorism. Although the minister holds the power of determination, the minister is required by law to automatically revoke his or her determination in the case of the individual's conviction being overturned. Again, this highlights the government's commitment to provide individuals with a fair and just response to all accused.

In theory, these amendments are a strong improvement on the original bill, but the process of cessation of citizenship remains a critical aspect. Once the minister has received information from our intelligence or other associated agencies, the amended bill requires the individual to be given notice as soon as reasonably possible. Notice is required to include a description of the conduct leading to the decision and to inform the individual of their rights to have the decision reviewed. The only provision to this amendment is in the case where providing notice to the individual would fundamentally destabilise or weaken Australia's national security and defence. It also acts on the proviso that the minister, after making a determination not to give notice, should consider revocation of his decision no later than six months after making it and requires the minister to consider revocation of his determination at least every six months for a period of five years.

I note for the record that sections 33AA and 35, which I have just discussed, do not apply to any person working for, or under the direction of, an Australian intelligence or law enforcement agency. Unfortunately, in the current security climate, we must consider how to deal with minors linked to terrorist organisations. As you would know, Mr Deputy Speaker, last month in Parramatta we saw a 15-year-old boy shoot and kill a police worker. Although acting alone, it is believed the shooter was politically and religiously motivated and, therefore, linked to terrorism. Then, not even two weeks later, in a separate case, a 12-year-old boy was named in a court control order as being at risk of radicalisation and under the influence of multiple extremists willing to commit acts of terror in the name of the Islamic State. The conduct provisions listed in the amendments will not apply to any minor under 14 years of age. I note none of the amendments, conduct or criminal, will apply to a minor under 10 years of age. When discussing the conviction provisions, a child aged between 10 and 14 years will only be criminally responsible if they are aware that their conduct is indeed against the law. However, the burden of proving this remains on the prosecution. Each individual case with minors will be unique and will need to be treated accordingly. In the case where a child is deemed criminally responsible and subsequently convicted of a terrorism related offence, the minister is required to give serious consideration to the age and best interests of the future of the child. A revocation of a parent's citizenship will have no impact on a minor's citizenship status.

A key amendment of this bill, which I think is very important for its functioning as a whole, is that which brings transparency and accountability. Every six months, the minister is required by law to report on the number of notices given and unsuccessfully given and a statement on the basis of each notice. It is also required by the minister to report any unsuccessful attempts to give a notice to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security within 20 sitting days.

The amendments being proposed are essential. Despite our best efforts, terrorism remains at large. We as a nation need to continue to put the safety and security of this beautiful country at the top of our priority list. We have seen the devastation and heartbreak caused by terrorism. In our own backyard, we have seen lone actors commit terror related offences. This bill shows we are tough on terrorism. We will not stand idly by and watch our citizens fall victim to it. As I said before, being an Australian is a privilege. If an individual chooses to engage in terrorism related activity, they now do so knowing they forfeit their right to be an Australian citizen. I commend the minister and his department for their work in developing these amendments. I commend the bill to the House.

Tony Zappia (Makin, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Manufacturing) Share this | Link to 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.

Russell Matheson (Macarthur, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Today I rise to speak on the Australian Citizenship Amendment (Allegiance to Australia) Bill 2015. This bill, above all else, is about ensuring the safety of all Australians, including those I represent in Macarthur. Put simply, this bill ensures that terrorists convicted here in Australia can be removed and dual nationals committing terrorist atrocities overseas cannot return to Australian soil. The government believe that taking away a person's citizenship is the appropriate action to reduce the possibility of them taking part in conduct that could harm Australians or Australian interests. We believe that a person who chooses to be part of a terrorist organisation is demonstrating an ultimate rejection of their allegiance to Australia.

Residents in my electorate know that Australian citizenship is something to be treasured. Every month I witness hundreds of locals becoming Australian citizens in special ceremonies across Campbelltown, Camden, Wollondilly and Liverpool councils. It is something that is highly valued in my community and an honour for those becoming citizens and their families. By becoming Australian citizens, those residents in Macarthur are making a strong commitment to this country, its people and the democratic rights and privileges that come with being an Australian citizen. In my 20 years on Campbelltown Council and my time as the member for Macarthur I have been to hundreds of these ceremonies, and I can tell you the decision to become an Australian citizen is held in very high regard in my community and is not something that is taken lightly. Macarthur has a rich migrant history, one that we are very proud of. My community has embraced families from all over the world, and we celebrate those who make the decision to make Macarthur their new home and become Australian citizens.

Dual citizens are highly respected and valued in our community and can be found teaching in our local schools, working in local hospitals and universities, studying at the University of Western Sydney medical campus, working tirelessly in our disability sector and as the owners of many successful small businesses in my electorate. These are good, hardworking people who respect and embrace the rights and responsibilities that come with being an Australian citizen.

The people of Macarthur understand and appreciate the responsibility of this parliament to ensure the safety of our nation and to protect its citizens. The majority of people I have spoken to understand why these laws need to be changed to respond to the emerging threat of terrorism in this country and around the world. It is the responsibility of this government to ensure that terrorists who are dual nationals are prevented from returning to Australia. It is also our responsibility to ensure dual nationals who engage in terrorism on Australian soil can be removed where possible. As stated by the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection, the intention of this bill is to ensure the protection of the Australian community and the upholding of its values, rather than punishing people for terrorist or hostile acts.

Currently under the Citizenship Act a conviction for a specified offence is required before a person's citizenship can be revoked. The power to revoke only arises if the offence was committed prior to the minister giving the approval for the citizenship application or the offence was committed in relation to the person's application to become an Australian citizen. These existing revocation powers are inadequate to address concerns in regards to persons who have acted contrary to their allegiance to Australia through their engagement in terrorism related conduct.

Sadly, the world has become a very different place to the one we once knew. Recently, we have watched on in horror as innocent people have lost their lives under the most horrific circumstances both here in Australia and abroad. Australians now face a heightened and complex security environment and it is a sad fact that some of the most imminent threats to the security of our nation and the safety of the Australian people come from citizens engaged in terrorism.

The Review of Australia's counter-terrorism machinery for a safer Australia, published in January this year, states that the threat of terrorism in Australia is rising and is becoming harder to combat. The document also states that there is an increasing number of Australians joining extremist groups overseas; there is an increasing number of potential terrorist supporters and sympathisers in our community; there is now an intergenerational dimension, with the families of known terrorists increasingly radicalised and involved; the international forces driving terrorist ideology and capabilities are stronger; and extremist narratives have increasing appeal in the Australian community. These alarming facts are just some of the reasons why it has become the responsibility of this parliament to change these laws and respond to current threats. The world has changed, so our laws should change accordingly.

I believe that this bill highlights the rights and responsibilities that come with dual citizenship. Those who do not respect these rights and responsibilities and choose to take part in conduct that is incompatible with the safety and values of the Australian people will be affected by this bill and the amendments. The bill ensures that terrorists convicted here in Australia can be removed and dual nationals who have committed terrorist atrocities overseas cannot come back.

Many stakeholders were consulted on the measures in this bill, including the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, the Attorney-General's Department, the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation, the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, the Australian Federal Police and the Australian Defence Force. A range of organisations and individuals also provided submissions to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security inquiry. I would like to thank this bipartisan committee and its chair, the member for Wannon, for the hard work on its report, which made 27 recommendations for amendments to the bill and the explanatory memorandum. I also welcome the member for Makin's comments in relation to the member for Isaacs' significant contribution. The committee recommended that this legislation be passed, and stated at the end of its report:

The Committee supports the policy intention of the Bill to help protect the community from persons who have clearly renounced their allegiance to Australia by engaging in serious terrorism-related acts that harm Australians or Australian interests.

Ultimately this bill will help strengthen our ability to counter home-grown terrorist activity and make our communities safer.

This bill applies to dual citizens regardless of how a person became an Australian citizen, including a person who is an Australian citizen by birth. It only applies to dual citizens who are nationals or citizens of a country other than Australia, so they will not be rendered stateless if their Australian citizenship were to cease. The bill provides three ways in which a person who is a national or a citizen of a country other than Australia can cease to be an Australian citizen. These include renunciation by conduct under proposed section 33AA, service outside Australia in the armed forces of an enemy country or a declared terrorist organisation, and conviction for terrorism offences and certain other terrorist-related offences.

As part of this bill, a person who is aged 14 years or older who is a national or citizen of a country other than Australia will renounce their Australian citizenship if they act inconsistently with their allegiance to Australia by engaging in specified terrorist-related conduct. Terrorist-related conduct includes engaging in international terrorist activities, using explosive 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 a terrorist organisation; recruiting for a terrorist organisation; financing terrorism or a terrorist; or engaging in foreign invasions and recruitment. A person who renounces their Australian citizenship under this section will cease to be an Australian citizen immediately they engage in such conduct. Also, as part of this bill, those who serve in the armed forces of an enemy country or declared terrorist organisation will also be stripped of their citizenship. This will take place immediately a person begins to serve in the armed forces or fights as part of a declared terrorist organisation.

It is important to note that a person will not be considered part of a declared terrorist organisation if their actions are unintentional, they are acting under duress or force, or they are providing neutral and independent humanitarian assistance. Also, before the minister declares an organisation to be a terrorist organisation, the organisation must be listed by the Australian government under the Criminal Code regulations. The minister must be satisfied on reasonable grounds that the organisation is directly or indirectly engaged in preparing, planning, assisting in or fostering a terrorist act, or that it supports a terrorist act and is opposed to Australia or Australia's interests, values, democratic beliefs, rights and liberties. If a person were to be in the service of such an organisation, they would be acting inconsistently with their allegiance to Australia. A declaration by the minister of a declared terrorist organisation is also reviewable by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security. The conduct provisions outlined in the bill do not apply to Australian law enforcement or intelligence bodies, or the Australian Defence Force in the proper performance of the functions of those organisations.

As part of these amendments the minister may also determine in writing that a person ceases to be an Australian citizen if they have been convicted of a specified terrorist-related offence and the person is sentenced to at least six years imprisonment. Before the minister can make this determination, he or she must be satisfied that the conduct of the person to which the conviction relates demonstrates that the person has rejected their allegiance to Australia and that it is not in the public interest for the person to remain an Australian citizen. The minister must also take into account the severity of the conduct that was the basis of the conviction or sentence, the degree of threat posed by the person to the Australian community, the person's connection to the other country that they are a citizen of and their rights in that country, Australia's international relations and any other matters of public interest. The age of the person will also be taken into account, with the best interests of a child under 18 being a primary consideration. No part of the bill applies to a child aged less than 10 years. The conduct based provisions of the bill also do not apply to conduct by a child aged over 10 years and under the age of 14 years. In relation to the conviction based provisions of the bill, a child over the age of 10 years and under the age of 14 years can only be criminally responsible for an offence if the child knows that his or her conduct is wrong.

As part of this bill, notice will be given to the person losing their citizenship as soon as practicably possible, except where the minister believes that giving notice could affect the security, defence or international relations of Australia. In this case the minister will have regard to the severity of the matter, the degree of the threat this person poses to the Australian community, the person's age, the likelihood of persecution, the person's connection to the other country of which they are a citizen and their rights in that country, and Australia's international relations. This bill also prevents a person from reobtaining Australian citizenship unless the minister revokes the notice, or the loss of citizenship is overturned by a court. In such cases it will be as if the person had never lost their citizenship in the first place.

This bill is an important aspect of this government's multifaceted approach to threats to national security. We recognise that Australia is not exempt from the emerging threat of terrorism that we have seen in recent weeks across the globe. We are working closely with the Australian Federal Police and the state and territory police forces to ensure the safety of all Australians. Counter-terrorism units have prevented several potential terrorist attacks on Australia in recent times. The New South Wales police have also upgraded their response policy to 'shoot first' from 'contain and negotiate'.

I was in the New South Wales Police Force for nearly 25 years. While I understand the daily risks taken by men and women in our police force, I cannot comprehend the new risks that these brave men and women must face with the emerging terror threat in our country. It is important that this parliament does everything that it can to not only support the police force in their battle on the ground against terror but also update our laws and legislation, to stop those involved in these horrific acts and protect our communities. We must modernise our current laws to recognise that threats to our country and democratic values are no longer just from other nation states. These new powers will apply to dual citizens who fight on behalf of, or are in the service of, groups such as ISIL and Daesh.

It is so important to reiterate that this bill, more than anything, is about making the Australian community safer. It achieves that by ensuring that terrorists convicted here can be removed and that dual nationals committing terrorist atrocities overseas cannot come back. To be a citizen of this country is a privilege not a right. The explanatory memorandum for this bill states that:

Australia's values, democratic beliefs, rights or liberties are the uniting characteristics for Australian citizenship. These characteristics are expressly included in the pledge of commitment as citizen of Australia. Therefore, where a person fights with a terrorist organisation that is opposed to Australia or to any of Australia's values, democratic beliefs, rights or liberties, the person has evidently repudiated their allegiance to Australia.

I wholeheartedly agree. That is why I stand here today—because the people of Macarthur and the people of Australia need a government that will take responsibility for their safety. We must ensure that our laws and legislation change to keep up with the risks and changes happening in the world today.

I am deeply saddened whenever I hear the news of terrorist attacks on innocent human lives. I would like to extend my condolences to all who have lost loved ones as a result of terrorism in this country and overseas. The people of Macarthur stand united in their prayers for humanity and their prayers for peace. They do not want to see any more lives lost at the hands of these terrorists and neither do I. That is why the work of this government, our law enforcement agencies and the Australian Defence Force is more important than ever to stop such atrocities on Australian soil and to ensure a safe environment for our communities.

I have two lovely daughters. I hope that one day soon I will have some grandchildren. I want them to grow up in a country that is safe from the threat of terrorism and the barbaric actions of these terrorist organisations. I know that there are many individuals and families across Macarthur who feel the same way. Now more than ever we need action; we need to do everything in our power to protect our communities and the Australian way of life. That is why I stand here today and commend this bill to the House.

Sarah Henderson (Corangamite, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is my great pleasure to rise and speak on the Australian Citizenship Amendment (Allegiance to Australia) Bill 2015. Just 11 days ago, we saw the most shocking of attacks on innocent civilians in Paris—the dreaded Friday the 13th. One hundred and thirty people died at the hands of terrorists and many more have been critically injured and are in a critical or serious condition in hospital. The horror of this tragedy is overwhelming; let us not forget that it is the latest in a series of terrible terrorism attacks. The sheer brutality and the coordination of these attacks have, I think it is fair to say, left every Australian, and nations around the world, in utter shock.

A couple of days after the event, in Geelong I worked with other members of the local community to organise a candlelight vigil to honour those who had died and to send a signal to our region and Australia that in Geelong and Corangamite we deeply care about what had happened. It was a multifaith service. I was joined by members of the Anglican and Wesley churches and also by Mohammad Ramzan, who is the imam of the Geelong mosque. Together, all members of the clergy spoke with great unison condemning these dreadful attacks, and I was very proud to call myself a member of the Corangamite community on this occasion, joined by a number of community leaders, including the member for Corio.

There is no doubt that, as a nation, we have moved quickly to combat the rising risk of terrorism. I want to reflect very briefly on the words of the imam, who spoke with incredible force in his condemnation of Daesh or ISIS. He reminded everyone there that Daesh has also killed half a million Muslims. I have to say that his condemnation was complete and he spoke with great conviction about what had occurred. He is a great member of our community and a very fine example of a Muslim man in our community who is speaking out in utter condemnation against what is occurring by this absolute horror—this death cult—that we are seeing at work all around the world.

This bill is an important part of the response to the heightened increase of terrorism. Australia citizenship involves fundamental responsibilities. Our values unite all Australians while respecting their diversity. The bill provides explicit powers for the cessation of Australian citizenship where a dual citizen engages in support of terrorism. We have seen a number of instances where Australian citizens have been involved in terrorist-related conduct, including some very dramatic recent incidents. What we have with this bill is a bill which revokes Australian citizenship for those dual citizens who fight for a declared terrorist organisation. Being an Australian citizen is not a right but a privilege, and this bill recognises that. As the bill states:

… Parliament recognises that Australian citizenship is a common bond, involving reciprocal rights and obligations, and that citizens may, through certain conduct incompatible with the shared values of the Australian community, demonstrate that they have severed that bond and repudiated their allegiance to Australia.

The new powers in this bill are a necessary and appropriate response to the evolution of the terrorist threat. As we have heard in this debate, since September last year, when the National Terrorism Public Alert Level was raised to high, there have been some 26 people who have been charged as a result of 10 counter-terrorism operations. That is more than one-third of all terrorism-related charges since 2001, so we are seeing an increasing number of Australians joining extremist groups. We are seeing known sympathisers and supporters of this extremist terrorist activity increasing, and we are also seeing the number of potential terrorists rising. It is pretty horrifying to consider that 110 Australians are currently fighting or engaged with terrorist groups in Syria and Iraq. Around 190 people in Australia are providing support to individuals and groups in the Syria-Iraq conflicts through financing and recruitment, or are seeking to travel. With the elevation of the terrorism threat in Australia we need to do everything we can as a government to ensure that Australians are safe and that we do everything that we can to keep our community safe.

This bill amends the Australian Citizenship Act 2007 to insert a purpose clause which sets out the fundamental principles upon which the amendments are based. It outlines the circumstances in which a dual citizen ceases to be an Australian citizen through their engagement in terrorism-related activities. It outlines the circumstances in which the minister may exempt a person from the operation of the bill. It provides for reporting on and monitoring of the operation of the arrangements in the bill. It provides for the protection of sensitive or prejudicial information in relation to that reporting and monitoring, and it also includes a number of related matters.

The bill applies to a person who is a dual national regardless of how the person became an Australian citizen, including a person who became an Australian citizen upon birth. There is no discrimination. The object of the bill is clear. We will not, as a nation, tolerate Australian citizens who are dual citizens engaging in this sort of activity—they will be stripped of their citizenship.

I want to commend the work of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, which I know has worked very hard in a bipartisan way. The committee made 27 recommendations for amendments. In response to the recommendations, government amendments to the bill are proposed and an explanatory memorandum is provided. I want to briefly mention the elements of the bill. Section 33AA provides that:

… a person who is a national or citizen of a country other than Australia renounces their Australian citizenship if the person acts inconsistently with their allegiance to Australia by engaging in conduct specified in subsection (2).

The relevant conduct is:

(a)    engaging in international terrorist activities using explosive or lethal devices;

(b) engaging in a terrorist act;

(c)    providing or receiving training connected with preparation for, engagement in, or assistance in a terrorist act

(d)    directing the activities of a terrorist organisation;

(e) recruiting for a terrorist organisation;

(f) financing terrorism;

(g)    financing a terrorist;

(h)    engaging in foreign incursions and recruitment.

Another key element of the bill is that the law has provided for the automatic loss of citizenship where a person serves in the armed forces of a country at war with Australia. That has been in force since 1949. What this bill does is to expand the section to provide for automatic cessation of citizenship if a person is also a citizen of another country, is overseas and

… fights for, or is in the service of, a declared terrorist organisation …

So there is a fundamental basis on which this bill sits, in that we already have in the law an automatic loss of citizenship where a person serves in the armed forces of a country at war with Australia. A declared terrorist organisation will be a subset of those which are listed for the purposes of terrorism offences under the Criminal Code.

The bill provides that the minister, by legislative instrument, may declare a terrorist organisation for the purposes of this section, where the organisation is directly or indirectly engaged in preparing, planning, assisting or fostering the doing of a terrorist act, or advocates the doing of a terrorist act, and where the terrorist organisation is opposed to Australia or Australia's interests, its democratic beliefs, its rights and its liberties. This bill will very comprehensively attack the very heart of those who seek not just to undermine Australian values, our great country and everything that we stand for, but to destroy the fabric of our nation.

Another key element is section 35A. Section 35A provides a power for the minister to determine a person's citizenship has been lost once they have been convicted of a relevant offence, and upon consideration of relevant criteria. Following the recommendations of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, the list of offences is limited to the most relevant terrorism-related offences with a maximum penalty of 10 years or more. Offences of incursions into foreign states with intention of engaging in hostile activities have also been included through these amendments. This replicates provisions under the repealed Crimes (Foreign Incursions and Recruitment) Act 1978 and is important in ensuring that the bill is as effective as possible, given the activities of terrorists overseas. To be considered under this section, a person must be sentenced to at least six years imprisonment or to periods of imprisonment that total at least six years.

A key element of the consideration by the minister is that the minister must be satisfied that the conduct of the person to which the conviction or convictions relates demonstrates that the person has 'repudiated their allegiance to Australia'. And that is what this bill is all about. This goes to the heart of those who repudiate their allegiance to Australia by seeking to destroy the fabric of our society.

The minister must have regard to a range of factors: the severity of the conduct that was the basis of the conviction, the degree of threat posed by the person to the Australian community, the age of the person, the person's connection to the other country of which the person is a national or citizen, Australia's international relations, and any other matters of public interest. So the bill is very comprehensive in ensuring that the minister considers all relevant matters before making a decision to strip citizenship from a dual national.

This is a very important part of the government's response to the terrorism threat. We have seen some terrible incidents here—the terrible shooting at the Lindt cafe in Sydney recently. I have to say that I am very proud to be an Australian. I am very proud to be part of a government which values Australian citizenship so much and which is doing so much as a leader in this world to attack terrorism. ISIS, or Daesh, wants us to be afraid. As a member of my own community who stood at the candlelit vigil, I can say that we stood there in defiance. We will not be afraid. We will calmly and rationally deal with this threat. We will take on the dreaded scourge of ISIS. We are determined to do whatever we can to destroy this terrible threat to our freedom and to our nation and nations around the world. It is my great pleasure to commend this bill to the House.

Warren Entsch (Leichhardt, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On 29 October I attended a citizenship ceremony hosted by Cairns Regional Council, where 83 people officially received their Australian citizenship. As someone who, like many others, takes their own citizenship as a given, it was an inspiring experience. From all around the world the new migrants came—a total of 20 countries—from Argentina to the Philippines, Ireland to Laos, New Zealand to France. Individuals, couples and families stood at the front of the room with a look of pride and achievement on their faces, dressed in formal suits, colourful national dress or the more casual attire of their newly adopted country. They beamed as they received their certificates and shook hands with the deputy mayor for the cameras.

I also visited our Australian service men and women on rotation in the Middle East earlier this year. In extreme temperatures and gruelling conditions, against a foe whose barbarianism is to be feared, they put their lives on the line every day for their country. They flew eight- to 12-hour sorties into enemy territory, refuelling mid-air multiple times, knowing that, if they went down, they would be in the hands of a brutal force.

When I asked them, 'Do you think Australia should be here? Do you agree with what we are doing and the values we are fighting for?' their emphatic answer, as young men and women in the service of their country, was absolutely 'yes'. I could not help but contrast these situations with the shooting of police accountant Curtis Cheng by a 15-year-old as Mr Cheng left work for the day to head home to his family; or the stabbing of two counter-terrorism officers in Melbourne by an 18-year-old whose passport had been cancelled because of fears he would join Daesh; or the holding of 18 people in the Lindt cafe in Sydney as a crazed hostage-taker played cat and mouse with their lives, resulting in two deaths; or the luring of Melbourne teenager Jake Bilardi to extremism, courting him to travel to Syria and fight with—and eventually die with—ISIL. Do the actions of these perpetrators, themselves Australian citizens, bear any commonality with the values held by the new citizens in Cairns or the members of our Defence Force? No they do not, and that is why we are here.

The reality is that the Australian social landscape is changing and the terrorist threat is rising. The number of Australians joining extremist groups overseas is increasing; the number of known sympathisers and supporters of extremists is increasing; and the number of potential terrorists is certainly rising. Our security agencies are currently managing over 400 high-priority counter-terrorism investigations. This number has more than doubled since early 2014. Around 110 Australians are currently fighting or engaged with terrorist groups in Syria and Iraq. About 190 people in Australia are providing support to individuals and groups in the Syria/Iraq conflicts through financing and recruitment, or are trying to travel there themselves.

The bill we are debating today states:

… the Parliament recognises that Australian citizenship is a common bond, involving reciprocal rights and obligations, and that citizens may, through certain conduct incompatible with the shared values of the Australian community, demonstrate that they have severed that bond and repudiated their allegiance to Australia.

We announced our plans earlier this year to amend the Australian Citizenship Act 2007 to provide for the loss of Australian citizenship in the case of dual nationals engaged in terrorism related conduct. Supporting and engaging in terrorist activities against Australia's interests is a breach of a person's commitment and allegiance to our country, a bond that should unite all citizens. These new powers in the bill are, I believe, a highly necessary and appropriate response to the evolution of the terrorist threat.

It is important to note that we already have the ability to cancel a person's citizenship if a dual citizen serves in the armed forces of a country at war with Australia. What we are doing now is updating our laws so that they better reflect current threats to our country and our values through terrorism related activity. The bill applies to a person who is a dual national, regardless of how the person became an Australian citizen, including a person who became an Australian citizen upon birth.

I am pleased that the bill has been thoroughly scrutinised since the amendments were proposed. The parliamentary joint committee for intelligence and security reported back in September with 27 recommendations, which have been taken into account. The list of conducts that will lead to a person losing their Australian citizenship is comprehensive: it includes engaging in international terrorism activities, using explosive or lethal devices, engaging in an act of terrorism, providing or receiving training connected with preparation for, engagement in or assistance in a terrorist act, directing the activities of terrorist organisation, recruiting for terrorist organisations, financing terrorism or financing a terrorist and engaging in foreign incursions and recruitment. These may be carried out offshore or in Australia, where the person has then fled the country before being charged. The actions must also be carried out with specific intention, which could be to advance a political, religious or ideological cause or to support, promote or engage in a hostile activity in another country or it could be on the instructions of a declared terrorist organisation.

Since 1949 we have been able to cancel someone's citizenship if they fight on the side of the country that is at war with Australia. Now the bill extends the right to cancel somebody's Australian citizenship if they are also a citizen of another country, are overseas and fight for, or are in the service of, a declared terrorist organisation. A terrorist organisation becomes 'declared' when it is directly or indirectly engaged in, preparing, planning, assisting in or fostering the doing of a terrorist act or advocates the doing of a terrorist act and is opposed to Australia or to Australia's interests, values, democratic beliefs, rights or liberties, so that if a person were to fight for, or be in the service of, such an organisation the person would be acting inconsistently with their allegiance to Australia.

There are safeguards in place, because we are dealing with a highly complex situation. People will not be deemed to be in the service of a declared terrorist organisation if their actions are not intentional or if they are forced to do them under duress or if they are doing them for the purposes of independent humanitarian assistance. They also cannot have their Australian citizenship revoked if it would render them stateless, in keeping with Australia's international obligations.

Following the recommendations of the PJCIS, the list of offences is limited to the most relevant terrorism related offences with a maximum penalty of 10 years or more. It has also been extended to include offences by people who travel to foreign countries with the intention of engaging in hostile activities. This is important, as we need to make sure the bill is as effective as possible, given the activities of terrorists overseas and the actions that we have seen taken by Australians who have travelled overseas to fight.

To be considered under section 35A, a person must be sentenced to at least six years' imprisonment for treason, espionage, terrorism, international terrorist activities using explosive or lethal devices, treachery, sabotage and foreign incursions and recruitment. The person ceases to be an Australian citizen at the time a determination is made by the minister. Our law enforcement and intelligence agencies operate with professionalism, thoroughness and integrity. It is these agencies that will provide the minister with information relating to a person's conduct or conviction. Again, there is a set process and time frame as to how someone's cancellation of citizenship can happen. The minister must consider a number of factors, such as the severity of the actions, the degree of threat posed to the Australian community, the person's age and their connection to the other country of citizenship. If a decision to revoke citizenship is made, then there is of course capacity for a judicial review. If this is successful and a person loses their citizenship under the bill, they cannot get it back again unless the minister revokes the notice or the loss of citizenship is overturned by a court or the declaration of a terrorist organisation is disallowed by the parliament. In such cases, it is as if the person never lost their citizenship in the first place.

For people who are found to be still in Australia when they lose their Australian citizenship, the process of actually returning them to the country of their other nationality or citizenship would be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. This is already done regularly with people who have had visas cancelled, including permanent visa holders who may have been here for a significant amount of time. The amended bill makes sure that people who are carrying out conduct because of their role with Australian law enforcement or intelligence agencies are not impacted. In addition, no part of the amended bill will apply to a child aged under 10 years, and the conduct based provisions of the bill will not apply to a child under 14. The minister must take the age and the best interests of a child into account when considering whether to revoke citizenship following conviction. The bill will also not allow the minister to revoke a child's citizenship following revocation of a parent's citizenship.

Every six months, the minister must table in each house of the parliament a report that sets out: the number of notices given by the minister; the number of notices the minister unsuccessfully attempted to give; and for each notice given or attempted to be given, there must be a brief statement of the matters that are the basis for the notice. This will help to ensure accountability and transparency in the process.

Australia is not acting alone internationally in taking these steps to remove citizenship. In 2014 the UK passed legislation which expanded the government's power to revoke the citizenship of a naturalised person. Canada has also recently passed legislation expanding the basis on which citizenship may be revoked and the process by which this may happen. On November 11 we commemorated Remembrance Day and paid tribute to those who made the ultimate sacrifice for their country in all wars and armed conflicts. It is timely that we debate this legislation which will reinforce the value of Australian citizenship. This bill provides our agencies and authorities with appropriate measures to penalise people who treat their Australian citizenship with contempt. These are people who enjoy the rights and privileges of Australian citizenship, including freedom of speech and the ability to travel to many countries, yet who actively speak out or fight against the very system that has enabled these freedoms. It clearly does not make sense to allow these people to continue to remain a part of our society. It is important that we send a very strong message to those individuals who are contemplating these sorts of actions that they are not welcome—that is not part of who we are in this country—and if they take these actions there will be very serious and lasting consequences. I commend the bill to the House.

David Gillespie (Lyne, National Party) Share this | Link to 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.

Michael McCormack (Riverina, National Party, Assistant Minister to the Deputy Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Australian Citizenship Amendment (Allegiance to Australia) Bill 2015 is very important in the context of making our country safe—making our country safer—and ensuring that it is the safest place in which to live. Certainly the Review of Australia's Counter-Terrorism Machinery found that the terrorist threat in Australia is, worryingly, increasing. The review mentions specifically that the number of Australians joining extremist groups overseas is on the rise. It found that the number of known sympathisers and supporters of extremists is also, sadly, disturbingly, increasing. It also found that the number of potential terrorists is rising, and we have seen in recent days just how dreadful people who wish to do bad to those of goodwill are causing their dreadful terrorism acts across the world in Beirut, in Paris and in other places. We must make sure that our first priority of government is to make our nation safer, and that is what I believe, and the government believes, that this particular amendment is achieving.

Our security agencies are presently managing more than 400 high-priority counter-terrorism investigations. This number has more than doubled since 2014. That is a sad state of affairs and it is one that obviously we, as a government and as a parliament, need to act upon, and that is what we are doing with this amendment. Since September last year, when the National Terrorism Public Alert Level was raised to high—and it has not been any lower since—26 people have been charged as a result of 10 counter-terrorism operations. Unbelievably, that is more than one-third of terrorism-related charges since 2001, 14 years ago. Around 110 Australians are currently fighting or engaged with terrorist groups in Syria and Northern Iraq. That angers me because, as the federal member for Riverina, my hometown is Wagga Wagga, and just south-west of Wagga Wagga is the Army Recruit Training Centre at Kapooka. The Blamey Barracks there turn out each and every one of the recruits, some young and some not so young, men and women, the best and bravest, who receive their basic training, undergo a rigorous assessment and march out of Kapooka to join that long tradition of khaki—that long line which has stretched from the Anzac tradition, way back at Gallipoli, forward to today. It angers me to think that those good people—who are willing to serve their country, who are willing to be put in harm's way and who are willing to risk their lives—may well be sent overseas, as many of them are, and that they may come up against fellow citizens carrying dual citizenship, who do not deserve to be called Australians. Those who are holding dual citizenship and who want to fight against our brave soldiers, our brave Air Force personnel and our wonderful sailors in the Navy do not deserve to be called Australian if they want to take up arms against their fellow citizens. You only have to read the affirmation of allegiance at any citizenship ceremony, where the words are stated:

From this time forward—

in some cases 'under God' is submitted—

I pledge my loyalty to Australia and its people, whose democratic beliefs I share, whose rights and liberties I respect, and whose laws I will uphold and obey.

Taking up arms against your fellow men and women, who are from your own nation, is not respecting Australia's democratic beliefs; it is not upholding this great nation's laws.

I want to read in the parliament a speech given by Arora Kiddle from Yenda Public School. She was just 10 years of age when she presented this speech in a multicultural competition in 2014. I visited the school last year and I heard this fine young lady read this speech to her school. It is entitled, What makes a community?I think if a 10-year-old girl can understand what makes a community, particularly a multicultural community such as Yenda, then most other people should be able to. And anybody who wants to criticise this particular bill should get it as well—that we are a very multicultural nation; we are a very welcoming country. But we do not deserve to be a safe haven for people who come under dual citizenship and wish to do their fellow citizens harm. Yenda is a little town with a population of just over 1,500 people, according to the 2011 census, and it is 16 kilometres east of Griffith. In March 2012 it was flooded by Mirrool Creek, and I say that because, in the context of Arora's speech, that is necessary to know. Arora, in her wonderful and eloquent words, said this:

What makes a community?

We all know that the answer to this question is people: their relationships, their diversity and the spaces that they share.

My community is just like this. It has a post office, tennis courts, a football team, an awesome soccer club, a (not so) super market, a park, two schools, a pizza shop and a couple of churches (take your pick), a busy hairdresser and, as Dad reminds me, a pub! Not to mention all the nice people. Like Peter at the servo, he's a second generation Italian migrant. Mum asks him about the weather and gardening. There's Tappy the Butcher. He gives us lollipops and mum always gets stuck talking to him for ages! There is George our Egyptian chemist. He gives us chocolate if we're lucky. He and mum love to chat. Oh and there's the new bloke at the shop, he's Indian. I think he's nice. Mum is trying to talk him into getting takeaway Indian food in the shop on Friday nights because by the time we get home from school (after all that talking) she doesn't feel like cooking dinner! These people are all an important part of our community, but there is something deeper too. A feeling that can only be described with a story. May I tell you a story?

Once upon a time, not so long ago, there was a little town in the middle of nowhere. Actually to be more accurate it was slightly to the left of the middle of nowhere. And this town was not so different from any small town. But in this little town something incredibly unusual happened …You see one night it rained. And it rained hard. The rain thumped the towns roofs all through the night and made birds' nests into swimming pools. It flooded the yards and streets and fish actually swam up and down the roads the next day. It was kind of magical that day, but the next day things changed. We were ordered to evacuate! And our town went underwater for the next three days in a giant flood.

This is where our story becomes a little sad. The flood destroyed lots of possessions, it severely damaged buildings and it even drowned many pets. It meant that our little community had to live in emergency accommodation while their houses were being fixed. This took a long time. For my house over a year, and for others even longer. Some houses were demolished altogether. Yenda became a ghost town!

But something else happened too. Our community grew closer. Here we were, no longer in our homes, or our schools, not eating our local pizza, but we were still a community.

Whenever we crossed each other's paths at the Emergency Centre, outside the temporary school, or anywhere else, we stopped to talk to one another. Our parents shared stories, cried together, and helped one another. Us kids played—as usual. We all got to know each other a little bit more as we shared each other's lives in ways that we would not have done otherwise.

We were a townspeople—without a town. But we were still a community.

You see, what makes a community is not simply a gathering of buildings that people live and work in. That's just bricks, blocks and mortar.

A community is a group of people with a shared experience and who help one another when it's needed, who share in each others ups and downs

A community is its people. Each and every one of them.

If little Arora Kiddle from Yenda Public School, aged 10, can get it, then so should all of us. We should all understand what a community is, what multiculturalism is.

There is no greater example of multiculturalism than the Riverina. In Griffith, when South Sudan became an independent nation, the community flew 99 flags, and I was asked to provide a flag for their Australia Day ceremony because they wanted to fly the flag of the new nation, which meant that there were 100 flags flown at the Griffith Australia Day ceremony. Griffith is the multicultural cradle of Australia. The Griffith community has people from all corners of the world as well as a large Indigenous population, but they get on remarkably well. It is a melting pot of multiculturalism. The community is remarkable, and I invite the member for Chifley, who is in the chamber, if he has nothing better to do one day, to come out to experience the wonderful community that is Griffith, because it is remarkable. They get on so well. They are very resilient.

Mr Husic interjecting—

What was that?

Ed Husic (Chifley, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary to the Shadow Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What are the lattes like?

Michael McCormack (Riverina, National Party, Assistant Minister to the Deputy Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What are the lattes like? I do not drink lattes! But they do grow and provide the very best food that you could ever hope for, Member for Chifley.

Russell Broadbent (McMillan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

They do have white coffee.

Michael McCormack (Riverina, National Party, Assistant Minister to the Deputy Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There is no better place to enjoy a meal than in Griffith, and it is all home-grown food. You would love it, Member for Chifley; trust me.

I say that in the context of this bill because Griffith understands about providing a safe haven for migrants. My goodness, they were flooded with migrants just after World War I, and our returning soldiers from that deadly conflict were offered soldier settler blocks. But the flood of migrants after World War II was quite remarkable. Persecuted people from war-ravaged Europe, including Italians, all descended on Griffith to eke out a very tough existence in what was an unforgiving plain; but they turned into a fertile garden of Eden.

I say all that because they understand what it means to be a multicultural community, and they also understand what it means to be an Australian citizen. I know, from talking to the many Indians, the many Fijians and, as I said before, the many Italians and others from all countries and all walks of life who are in Griffith, that they get what it means to be an Australian. Many of them have not been here for many generations, but they are certainly very proud of their community. Many are very proud of their roots, but they also understand that being an Australian means fighting very hard to protect the ideals, the high qualities and the preferences that our nation has provided, and they understand that it is absolutely criminal to rise up and oppose those high ideals, that very high calibre of being an Australian.

This bill goes to the fact that citizenship should be respected and never, ever taken for granted. As this bill states:

… Parliament recognises that Australian citizenship is a common bond, involving reciprocal rights and obligations, and that citizens may, through certain conduct incompatible with the shared values of the Australian community, demonstrate that they have severed that bond and repudiated their allegiance to Australia.

We get that. The new powers in the bill are necessary. They are an appropriate response to the evolution of the terrorist threat—the hatred that lingers in the hearts and minds, sadly, of the people who wave that terrible black flag, who call themselves Islamic State. They are not a state. A state builds things. A state looks after its people. A state understands the freedom to express different religious beliefs and faiths. A state understands that there ought to be fairness; there ought to be equality. A state does not tear down. A state does not destroy. A state does not kill. That is why this Australian citizenship amendment bill is so important.

As I said, Arora gets it. I think her words depict beautifully what it means to be an Australian. They eloquently describe what it means to be a citizen of this great nation. She and all her Yenda Public School mates, and, I would suggest, every kid who is in a Riverina school, understand how great it is to live in this nation. The passage of this bill also means that this nation will be a safer place and that we will not tolerate people who want to kill and destroy in the name of religion, in the name of terrorism. Those children understand that it is important that this nation is the safest of all in which to live, and that is why I commend this bill to the House.

Ken Wyatt (Hasluck, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Health) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is with a great sense of duty that I rise to speak in support of the Australian Citizenship Amendment (Allegiance to Australia) Bill 2015. This is a very important piece of legislation. Citizenship goes to the heart of the Australian social contract. The values which define what it means to be a citizen are the bedrock on which our society is structured. Equality of men and women under the law, regardless of race, religion or ethnic background; freedom of speech, association and religion; and support for parliamentary democracy and the rule of law are what have made Australia the shining beacon that it is in the world today. These values—and, thus, citizenship—are things which we should always treasure.

There are, however, some amongst us—fellow citizens—who disagree with these values and seek to take up arms at home and abroad against us. It is these few that this amendment seeks to address. We live in a world much changed from that of 1948, when the Australian parliament first promulgated the Nationality and Citizenship Act, including within it a clause cancelling the citizenship of any person fighting in the service of an enemy of this country. In 2015, many of our enemies do not wear uniforms or fight under the flag of anything which we would recognise as a nation state. The ongoing conflicts which we have been engaged in over the past decade and a half—first against al-Qaeda and now against ISIS—are testament to that. Instead, today we face a threat that transcends borders and threatens to affect us here at home and abroad, as seen, tragically, in France two weeks ago. The threat from terrorism in Australia is rising. Our security agencies are currently dealing with over 400 high-priority counter-terrorism investigations—a doubling since early 2014. In just the last 14 months, 26 people have been charged with terrorist offences—more than one-third of all charges since 2001. It saddens me to say that there are currently more than 100 Australians fighting or serving in terrorist groups in Syria or Iraq. Like any military force, they have an even larger logistics network, with over 200 people in Australia enabling the work of ISIS and al-Qaeda in Syria and Iraq by either financing and recruitment or seeking to travel there.

There is a longstanding provision in the act that someone who serves as part of an armed force of an enemy state and takes up arms against Australia could lose their citizenship. In a modern world, where the wars we fight are no longer between states, this provision needs updating. It must be said that supporting and engaging in terrorist activities against Australia's interests is a breach of a person's commitment and allegiance to our country, which is no different to taking up arms in the service of a country at war with our own. In this light, the new powers in this bill are a necessary, measured and appropriate response to the terrorist threat. More than anything, this bill is about making the Australian community safer. It is achieving that by ensuring that terrorists who are convicted here can be removed and terrorists who commit atrocities overseas cannot return to do the same here. I, for one, will never apologise for putting the security and safety of the people of my electorate, and of all fellow Australians, first.

This bill comes as part of a long line of legislation this government has introduced to parliament to ensure the safety of Australian citizens. Last year, we introduced the Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment (Foreign Fighters) Bill 2014, which has allowed us to curb the flow of fighters from Australia to Iraq and Syria and has strengthened our ability to combat terrorism at home. Another example is the Migration and Maritime Powers Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2015, through which we have revoked the visas of hardened criminals and bikie gang associates—people who, by their own actions, have lost the privilege of being part of Australian society.

As such, this legislation provides three ways in which a dual national can cease to be an Australian citizen. The first, section 33AA, is a new provision whereby a person aged 14 or older renounces their citizenship if they act inconsistently with their allegiance to Australia by engaging in specified terrorist related conduct. Such conduct includes: engaging in international terrorist activities using explosive or lethal devices; engaging in a terrorist act; providing or receiving training connected with the preparation for, engagement in or assistance with a terrorist act; directing the activities of a terrorist organisation; recruiting for a terrorist organisation; financing terrorism; financing a terrorist; and engaging in foreign incursions and recruitment. The second element extends the provision that already permits the automatic loss of citizenship for a person serving in the armed forces of a country at war with Australia to include those persons fighting for, or in the service of, a declared terrorist organisation. This provision has been in force since 1949. Under the third element of the bill, a person ceases to be an Australian citizen if they have been convicted of a specified terrorist related offence and are sentenced to a period or periods of imprisonment that total at least six years. This provision is not automatic, and recourse to judicial review is available for those determined to have engaged in the conduct that repudiates their allegiance to Australia.

As stated, these provisions will only apply to those who are dual nationals and meet Australia's international obligations not to render a person stateless. Those who engage in terrorism are betraying their allegiance to this country and do not deserve to count themselves as some of its citizens. This bill is also retrospective in nature, which I strongly support. As my colleague the member for Cowan has noted, by applying these laws to those who have been convicted of terrorist acts over the previous decade, it provides the opportunity to deal with terrorists such as Abdul Benbrika. For the benefit of the House, Mr Benbrika was convicted in 2008 for leading a terrorist group that planned attacks in Melbourne, targeting the Crown casino and the MCG. This was someone who was granted the privilege of Australian citizenship in 1998, only to turn around a decade later and plot to murder his fellow citizens in the most horrific manner possible. This is someone who, by his own actions, has lost the right to call himself Australian.

I have often wondered at those who have come to Australia—a country which is one of the happiest, healthiest and most productive in the world, in no small part due to the values on which it is based—and wish to change those values to be more akin to those with which they are familiar. As Prime Minister Turnbull has said, there is a great, glorious world out there. If    you have made the decision that you prefer another part of it then that is your decision. Having made that decision, however, you must be willing to live with the consequences. Any person willing to go and fight for an organisation like ISIS, who bears our great nation ill will, should understand that doing so will cost them the right to call themselves Australian.

The people of Hasluck—some of whom are recent arrivals to this country, who have come here seeking a better life for themselves and for their families—certainly understand what that right is to call themselves Australian and what it is worth.    They understand the need to keep Australia safe from those who would do us harm. Equally, these new citizens, migrants from all over the world who have chosen to become part of our great country, understand the obligations that come with being an Australian citizen. They understand that becoming part of the Australian nation involves adopting our values and that with the rights and privileges afforded to citizens come reciprocal bonds and obligations as well.

This bill is just one of many efforts the coalition has made since coming into office two years ago to counter the threat of violent extremism and to ensure our law enforcement, security and intelligence agencies have the tools they need to disrupt and respond to the terrorist threat.    In the last year alone, the government has invested an additional $1.3 billion to support Australia's efforts in combating terrorism, including $450 million to strengthen intelligence capabilities and counter extremist messaging and $152 million to strengthen our border security against terrorism and criminal networks.

Equally, however, we are focusing on the root of the problem, not just its enforcement. We are putting huge resources into combating violent extremism and trying to prevent extremist groups from targeting young Australians for recruitment. We have a four-pronged approach. First, we are working to maintain the strong, multicultural society which we have built as a community and as a nation. Second, we are helping community institutions combat violent extremist ideology where it emerges. Third, we are challenging and undermining the appeal of terrorist propaganda, especially online.    And, lastly, we are directly intervening to divert individuals away from violent extremist views. These are not just words. We are backing them with real action. The Australian government has committed $660 million over four years in the 2015-16 federal budget for initiatives that encourage positive settlement, social harmony and integration in our multicultural communities. These include the government's combating terrorist propaganda online initiative, which is receiving almost $22 million over four years to challenge extremist narratives and reduce access to extremist material online. We are working in partnership with private sector companies such as Facebook, Twitter and Google, on whose platforms these terrorists depend. The coalition makes no apology for taking a hardline stance when it comes to the safety and security of Australians.

This government is determined to protect Australians from those who choose to fight, at home or abroad, in the service of terrorist organisations who wish to extinguish the values on which this country was founded. We make no apologies for that. We will not provide succour or refuge to those who wish us harm. We will not defend those who have taken up arms against us. And I personally make no apologies for taking a hardline stance when it comes to the safety and security of constituents in my electorate of Hasluck. When I reflect on the postwar periods of World War I and World War II, I see the incredible contribution that so many people from across the seas have made to developing what we value—the values of this nation—and the communities that hold us in good stead. They have contributed to building a nation that is strong and that has prospered. They have contributed to the wealth of food and the diversity of ideas and thinking.

The contributions that so many have made to making this nation great is always valued, and what we value we do not wish to lose. Therefore, it is important that, in our deliberations and considerations in this chamber and in the other, we ensure that the safety of all Australians is paramount in our minds. The way of life that we have enjoyed over the building of this great country will always be cherished, and we should never diminish its opportunity to continue to expand and grow and to welcome those who come from overseas to become part of the family. When you marry into a family you become as one. You share common values. You work to make it a greater partnership. You build on the firmness of the foundation that is there and you welcome those who come within your sphere of influence. In that context, I commend the bill to the House.

Bert Van Manen (Forde, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is always a pleasure to rise in this place, following the wise words of the member for Hasluck. Today, I rise in support of the Australian Citizenship Amendment (Allegiance to Australia) Bill 2015. Every Australian who watches or reads the news knows that the threat of terrorism has been increasing around the world. The tragic and senseless attacks on the people of France last week and the people of Mali this week have made it abundantly clear to many of us that the threat is high. In the wake of the attacks that our country has faced in the past 12 months, the support of Australians for a strong approach to the threat of terrorism in our country has grown stronger.

I think it is wise to reflect sometimes that we are indeed the land of opportunity. It is disappointing to see that there are those who have come to this country and who we have let into this country in good faith who seem to take advantage of that. Since September last year, when the National Terrorism Public Alert Level was raised to 'high', it is disappointing to note that we have seen 26 people charged as a result of 10 counterterrorism operations. That is more than one-third of all terrorism related charges since 2001. Currently, around 110 Australians are fighting or engaged with terrorist groups in Syria and Iraq, and about 190 people in Australia are providing support to these individuals or groups in the Syria-Iraq conflicts through financing, recruitment or seeking to travel.

Sometimes I think it is worth us taking the opportunity to understand a little more about some of the issues we face. Again, it is important to reflect that this is about a minority. As I will touch on a little later, the majority who I have come across in my community genuinely want to be part of the Australian community. Roger Scruton, in the forward to Robert Reilley's book, The Closing of the Muslim Mind, puts it very well and I think it is important for us to reflect on these comments:

Policy makers beware: unless you are ready to admit that you are facing an essentially theological problem in the Middle East, do not go about prescribing solutions, for you may actually make matters worse – particularly by creating the false impression that economic, sociological or political programs can fix what is, in fact, a delusion of faith. They cannot.

He goes on to talk about the need for a reformation that the Islamic world needs to face and which the Christian world dealt with several centuries ago.

Earlier this year the government announced that it would develop amendments to the Australian Citizenship Act 2007 to provide for the removal of Australian citizenship in the case of dual nationals engaged in terrorism related conflict, a measure that is backed by the broader community and by many residents in my electorate of Forde. I think that in this regard it is worth considering what the pledge of allegiance says in the Australian Citizenship Act. Obviously, there are two. The first one reads, 'From this time forward, under God,' and the second one reads, 'From this time forward'. But the rest of it is the same:

I pledge my loyalty to Australia and its people, whose democratic beliefs I share, whose rights and liberties I respect, and whose laws I will uphold and obey.

At the end of the day, that is what we are asking these people to do. We have, in good faith, allowed them to come to settle in Australia. They have sought refuge from the difficulties and vicissitudes of life in the Middle East, and we have opened our doors to allow them safe passage and residence here in Australia. I think, given the words in the pledge of allegiance, that it is more than fair that we expect those people to live up to those words.

Therefore, supporting and engaging in terrorist activities are against Australia's interests, and they are a break of that person's commitment and allegiance to our country. If that is the choice they make then I wholeheartedly agree that they no longer deserve to retain their Australian citizenship. It is our citizenship which is the bond that unites us all. It should be respected and not taken for granted.

A review of Australia's counterterrorism machinery has found that the terrorist threat is rising in Australia—specifically, the number of Australians joining extremist groups overseas and the number of known sympathisers and supporters of extremism, as well as the number of potential terrorists. Therefore, this government is taking national security seriously, and this bill is part of that reassessment of our national security position. It looks at the citizenship side of the equation.

It inserts a 'purpose clause', setting out the fundamental principles upon which the amendments are based; it outlines circumstances in which a dual citizen ceases to be an Australian citizen through their engagement in terrorism related activities; it outlines circumstances in which the minister may exempt a person from the operation of the bill; it provides for reporting on and monitoring of the operation of the arrangements in the bill; and it provides for the protection of sensitive or prejudicial information in relation to that reporting and monitoring. The bill applies to a person who is a dual national, regardless of how that person became an Australian citizen and including a person who became an Australian citizen upon birth.

I think it is important to note that our security agencies are currently managing over 400 high-priority counterterrorism investigations, and that this number has more than doubled since early 2014. As stated in the bill, parliament recognises that Australian citizenship is a common bond, involving reciprocal rights and obligations, and that citizens may, through certain conduct incompatible with the shared values of the Australian community, demonstrate that they have severed that bond and repudiated their allegiance to Australia. The new powers in the bill are a necessary and appropriate response to the evolution of this terrorist threat. As the Prime Minister pointed out in his statement today, I think it is evident that as a government we have taken a calm, professional and effective approach to this matter.

Since the commencement of the Nationality and Citizenship Act in 1949, there have been provisions for the automatic loss of citizenship in cases where a dual citizen serves in the armed forces of a country at war with Australia. It is important that our laws are updated to reflect current threats to our country and our values through terrorism related activity.

I would like to take this opportunity to reflect on the nature of our multicultural community. The community that I represent in part is in Logan but also in the northern part of the Gold Coast. Particularly in Logan we have a community that has people of some 215 cultures who live and work together in peace and harmony. In the past week, many of us in this place would have taken the opportunity to visit many of our local high schools as they had their graduation ceremonies for this year's grade 12 graduating class. One of the things that struck me in visiting many of those ceremonies was the changing face of the students in our schools reflecting increasingly the multicultural nature of our communities.

I remember at a number of schools young ladies from Sudanese or other African backgrounds who were able to come up on stage and hold their heads high because they were being presented with academic or sporting awards and receiving recognition for their efforts at school. I think it is wise to reflect that in their home countries it is highly unlikely they would have reached grade 12 let alone, if they had, been on stage receiving awards for academic or sporting prowess and, in a number of cases, receiving bursaries to attend university.

I think we as a nation should be very proud of ourselves that we have been able to accept a range of people from the four corners of the globe. As I stand in this place, I am an example of this. My parents arrived from Holland in the mid-1960s. I am a first-generation child of immigrants. I have the honour of representing in this place a community I grew up in as the son of migrants from Europe in the 1960s.

We as a country should not be afraid to stand on the values and ethos on which this country has been built. We should not be afraid to defend those values. We will continue to have open doors to welcome people from the four corners of the world who are seeking to come to Australia and create a better life for themselves and their families. In that regard I strongly support the measures in this bill as we seek to strengthen Australia's anti-terrorism measures. People who disrespect our country, our citizenship and our culture do not deserve to remain here. The Australian way of life is about celebrating our multiculturalism; it is not about segregation. The Australian way of life celebrates freedom, mateship and democracy, not fear, dictatorship or oppression. We will protect the Australian way of life and revoke the Australian citizenship of those who fight against our values. I commend this bill to the House.

Debate adjourned.