Luke Simpkins (Cowan, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I very much embrace the opportunity to speak on the Australian Citizenship Amendment (Allegiance to Australia) Bill 2015. This is a serious bill and this is a bill that many of us have wanted for a long time. It was initiated entirely from this side of the House, from the government, and was not proposed by anyone else in this parliament. It is my view, and that of many here in the Parliament of Australia, indeed of many across the country, that citizenship has meaning and that, whilst there are rights involved, it is the responsibilities that come with citizenship that are most important, and that matter is what this bill addresses.

It is right that for those who engage in such despicable behaviour and anti-Australian criminality related to terrorism we should have the ability to withdraw citizenship. What we know is that the number of Australians joining extremist groups overseas is increasing, as are the number of sympathisers and supporters of such extremists. This means that the pool of potential terrorists is getting larger. I know that even in Perth there are those active in talking up the cause of jihad, and I thank the AFP and ASIO for their superb work in countering this threat to the nation.

As has been said, there are currently more than 400 high priority counter-terrorism investigations, a number that has doubled since early 2014. In the last 14 months, 26 people have been charged from 10 counter-terrorism operations. The numbers are increasing, and those who deny the threat are extremely foolish. It is also known that more than 100 Australians are currently fighting or engaged with terrorist groups in Syria and Iraq. It has been said that there are around 190 people in Australia who are supporting terrorism in the Syrian or Iraqi conflicts through financing and recruitment or who are seeking to travel to engage in those conflicts.

Unfortunately, not all of the traitors to this great country, who fight for Daesh and other extremist terrorist groups, die pointlessly and before they cause harm to the people they persecute and brutalise. For those who do not die, earlier this year we, the government, started developing amendments to the Australian Citizenship Act 2007 in order to provide for the loss of citizenship in the case of dual nationals engaged in terrorism related conduct. It is the view of the government that some citizens have taken action, and some will take action in the future, that is not compatible with the common values of our society and that those actions are fundamentally at odds with the Australian community and, therefore, they have broken faith with the nation.

The original bill has been looked at by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security and, on 4 September, 27 recommendations have been proposed. These will be coming and there will be further action on two additional points. The bill contains a number of elements. The first element is renunciation of citizenship by conduct. This renunciation by conduct is provided for under section 33AA. It provides:

… 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—

specified conduct. That conduct includes overseas terrorist activities 'using explosive or lethal devices' and committing a 'terrorist act'. It also includes an involvement in training:

… connected with preparation for, engagement in, or assistance in a terrorist act;

(d) directing the activities of a terrorist organisation;

(e) recruiting …;

(f) financing terrorism;

        …         …         …

(h) engaging in foreign incursions and recruitment.

Obviously, the conduct provisions in this element are limited to individuals who have engaged in the conduct offshore or engaged in relevant conduct onshore and left Australia before being charged and brought to trial in respect of that conduct.

The second element extends the law that already allows for the automatic loss of citizenship where a person serves in the armed forces of a country that is at war with Australia. The extension applies to a person who is also a citizen of another country, who is overseas and fights for or is in the service of a declared terrorist organisation. Obviously the provisions do not apply to acts that are unintentional, under duress, or for the purposes of independent humanitarian assistance.

The third element of this bill includes a new section, section 35A, which provides a power to the minister to determine a person's citizenship has been lost once they have been convicted of a relevant offence. It should be noted that the loss of citizenship is not automatic upon the conviction. Where a person is convicted of treason, espionage, terrorism or international terrorist activities using lethal devices et cetera, provided that the person has received an overall sentence of at least six years for an offence with a maximum penalty of 10 years or more, a determination is made by the minister provided that the minister is satisfied that the conviction demonstrates that the person has repudiated their allegiance to Australia and that it is not in the public interest for the person to remain an Australian citizen. I would also say that judicial review is available to persons affected by the provisions for loss of citizenship in this bill. Of course the Federal Court and the High Court have jurisdiction.

With regard to retrospectivity, I absolutely support the need for this to be part of this bill. The parliamentary joint committee recommended that conviction based provisions apply retrospectively for relevant offences that occurred prior to the commencement of the bill. That is good, and this provides the opportunity to deal with terrorists such as Abdul Benbrika for his 2009 conviction regarding his leadership of a terrorist group that planned attacks in 2005 against Crown casino and the MCG.

I find the progress of this bill, and what appears to be its imminent passing, particularly satisfying. This is very much the sort of critical legislation for national security and safety that we need to advance. I have long believed this to be required. Personally, I first raised this issue in the parliament on 26 October 2009 when I said:

I think it is also very sad that there are some people in this country that have taken up citizenship and seek to change this country in a fundamental way. By that I mean those who have recently been convicted in the Sydney terrorist trial are from families that have come to this country and used the superior freedoms and liberties of this country while finding fault with this country and seeking to change it with their extremism and fundamentalism. I think it is all very well that we have the ability to grant citizenship, but what we should have is the ability to withdraw that citizenship from those who seek to betray this nation with acts of murder and terror.

In my address in reply speech on 18 October 2013, I also said:

On a related point, all would be aware of recent commentary in the media about persons holding Australian citizenship going to train for war and fighting as a mercenary or volunteer in Syria. Several years ago I spoke in parliament with reference to those who had been granted Australian citizenship as refugees only to travel to places like Yemen to undertake terrorist training. Those people represent a great threat to the security of this country. Similarly, we should view anyone who travels to Syria to take up arms with great suspicion. When people raise their right hand and make the oath or affirmation of citizenship it does actually mean something. When they pledge their loyalty to Australia and its people and that they will uphold and obey our laws, their pledge to this nation is broken when they take up arms and attribute that to some religious authority. I therefore encourage the immigration minister to examine the options of the withdrawal of citizenship for those who break their pledge to Australia. I appreciate the difficulties in ascertaining the facts, but those who already hold the citizenship of another nation and who break faith with this country through crime should be held accountable, and the withdrawal of citizenship should be an option. I supported this option before I was elected and I support it now.

Since then I raised the issue with the former Prime Minister Mr Abbott on 12 September 2014, 16 July 2014 and on 15 February 2015. I also spoke in our party room about this in March 2014 and May 2014. On 16 June 2014, I also spoke about Islamic State and said:

What also concerns me is that there are likely to be Australians who have signed up to be part of such an evil organisation, and I certainly commend the government on their attempts to stop people leaving this country by cancelling passports to stop their involvement. I would also say that where such people have dual citizenship they are exactly the sort of people from whom we should remove Australian citizenship. We do not want them in this country in the future.

On 3 September 2014, I said:

The truth remains that we do have traitors in this country. They are Australians who believe in Islamic State and in violent Wahhabism. These people, and their supporters, must be stopped and prosecuted before they leave Australia or provide support. Dual citizens must have their citizenship revoked. Terrorists are traitors to this nation, they are a threat to this nation and they must be dealt with very firmly in order to protect this nation from terrorism.

Similarly, I also spoke on this topic on 14 July 2014 when I moved a motion on this specific subject. I thank Minister O'Dwyer for her speech on that motion as well. That motion read:

I move:

That this House:

(1)   notes the increasing instances of Australian citizens taking up arms for foreign military and extremist causes including, but not limited to, the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, representing a threat to good order in international affairs and the safety of Australian citizens;

(2)   acknowledges:

(a)   that by taking up arms or supporting such causes, those citizens have failed to comply with the pledge they made when they became an Australian citizen, to uphold the laws of Australia; and

(b)   those who have taken up arms or supported such causes, and

were born Australian citizens but have a second also repudiated their allegiance to Australia; and

(3) urges the Government to amend the Australian have Citizenship Act ' to allow the revocation of the status of citizen for those who take up arms, or provide material and/or financial support for military/extremist causes, except where such action is at the direction of the Government.

I also specifically spoke on the issue on 16 July 2014, 1 October 2014, 5 March 2015, 24 March 2015 and on 26 July 2015.

So it is with a significant background that I wholeheartedly endorse this bill. But before I conclude I would also make mention of another proposal I put to the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection some time ago. My proposal was about a new preamble for citizenship ceremonies, and I put it forward because it is my view that the current preamble to the pledge of Australian citizenship is too much like the oath or the affirmation itself. What it needs to be is a fundamental statement that makes very clear what new citizens are committing to. I therefore reiterate the preamble that I think should be stated before anyone takes the pledge. The proposal reads: Australian citizenship represents full and formal membership of the community of the Commonwealth of Australia. Every Australian citizen has rights and protections, but also serious responsibilities. Persons on whom Australian citizenship is conferred accept these obligations: (a) loyalty to Australia, its people and laws above all other nations, peoples and laws; (b) commitment to the Australian democratic model of government and renouncing all other systems, be they political or religious; and (c) to respect the rights and liberties, of all people regardless of gender, race or religion, as all are equal before the law as Australians.

To conclude, I say that this country has been successful because of the fundamentals upon which it was founded and the fundamentals that continue to guide us. This cannot be the subject of any form of compromise in the form of an apologist approach for political correctness. We should be proud of this country. It is a great country which has always stood up for the weak, the defenceless and the besieged. The strength of our country is in our traditions, our institutions and our values. The will of our country to act when the hard decisions need to be made comes from the collective faith of the great Australian culture, which is the culture of the majority forever grounded in the belief of the supremacy of the democratic tradition; a majority culture that will forever be guided by the one and only set of secular laws; a majority culture that supports those who aspire to improve themselves, while also being there to support those who need it and cannot provide for themselves. This is a majority culture that has a strong belief in the principle of personal responsibility. It has a strong belief that all citizens and residents have rights, but never without responsibilities. This country has a majority culture of Judeo-Christian values, and there is nothing wrong with that and nothing to be apologised for.

This bill is about accountability. When it comes to citizenship, those who take up that citizenship are responsible for their actions, and there is a consequence for their lack of loyalty to this great country. I therefore commend the bill to the House.

See this speech in context