House debates

Thursday, 12 November 2015

Bills

Australian Citizenship Amendment (Allegiance to Australia) Bill 2015; Second Reading

1:14 pm

Photo of Natasha GriggsNatasha Griggs (Solomon, Country Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

A few months ago, our colleague the member for Berowra visited the electorate of Solomon as part of the coalition government's consultation process on Australia citizenship. I would like to place on record my thanks to Mr Ruddock for taking the time to come up north, to make sure that my constituents had their voices heard on this very important subject. I often say that anyone who can get themselves to Darwin in the build-up season is a true friend of the north. So, Mr Ruddock, thank you very much for coming when it was not the dry season.

I also wanted to raise Mr Ruddock's visit to Solomon for a couple of reasons. Firstly, I want to illustrate that the laws before the parliament today are the product of a thorough and genuine consultation process. I understand that sessions similar to the one that was held in Solomon occurred over all parts of the country and that all sections of the community were involved in this whole process. Certainly the sessions in Darwin were well attended by a good cross-section of the community. There were representatives from many of Darwin's multicultural and religious groups at the sessions. There were also several people with no direct or personal involvement in this law, but they had some concerns about some of the scare campaigns that were being put out in the media and so they wanted to make sure that they got their questions answered. The member for Berowra did a great job and he certainly alleviated many of the concerns. So I should thank him again for taking the time to speak to everybody that attended the session. Certainly the feedback that I received after the session was that they felt their concerns were listened to and, even where their views were different, the member for Berowra took the time to listen and work them through.

I also wanted to share this story because the measures we are discussing today should not be controversial measures. The laws before the parliament are amendments to the Australian Citizenship Act 2007. They apply the principle—long accepted and already enshrined in legislation—that, if any Australian citizen breaks the vow that they make in accepting citizenship or if they act against Australia through committing acts of terrorism or joining a terrorist organisation, they will forfeit their citizenship.

As I said from the outset, the bill provisions will only apply to dual nationals. The Commonwealth of Australia will not render anyone stateless. Currently, anyone engaged in combat with the armed forces of the country at war with Australia can forfeit their citizenship. The legislation before us today works within that principle, but applies it to the diverse range of threats that we as a nation now face. A person will forfeit citizenship if they engage in terrorist activities; or if they fight for the armed forces of a nation at war with Australia or on behalf of a terrorist organisation; or if they are convicted of a specified terrorism or related offence by an Australian court. They are the boundaries in which their Australian citizenship will be forfeited. The key theme, the guiding principle that ties these three points together is that we are updating the legislation to reflect the changing nature of the threats to Australia and to other nations.

As I said, let us not forget that it has been long enshrined in law that if you are an Australian citizen and you take up arms against Australia you can forfeit your citizenship. However, the legislation that enables that to happen is set up around the idea that our enemies were the military units of nations we were at war with. So if you serve with the army of a nation at war with Australia you can lose your citizenship. The bill that we are considering here today allows that principle to apply not just to war but to acts of terrorism. It also expands to include service in a specified terrorist organisation.

In considering whether we should pass this legislation to my mind it comes down to two key questions. Firstly, do we agree with the principle long established in law that someone who actively tries to destroy and undermine our community should not be afforded the rights and privileges of citizenship? Secondly, if we agree with that principle, do we want to update it to deal with the unconventional threats such as the terrorism activities that we face today?

This bill will update existing law to reflect the changing nature of threats that Australia and indeed the world face because the enemies of Australia are not necessarily countries anymore. In 1942, my electorate was bombed by aircraft of the imperial Japanese military. Nowadays, a bomb on Australian soil is far more likely to be concealed in a backpack, or hidden under a car, and delivered by a terrorist rather than dropped from the air.

What we are seeing around the world, particularly in the Middle East and Central Asia, is the emergence of several non-national groups who are forming armies, conducting rebellions, committing acts of terrorism and working against the principles and freedoms that Australia as a nation holds so dear. By way of illustration, let us consider what is currently happening in northern Iraq and Syria. Australian armed forces are in combat against the so-called Islamic State, which is clearly not a state by any measure. As things stand, an Australian citizen holding dual citizenship who travels to that area and fights against Australia will retain their Australian citizenship on a technicality that the Islamic State is not a nation. In the early 1990s, when war was taking place in exactly the same area against the nation of Iraq, an Australian who travelled to serve in the armed forces of Iraq, fighting against Australia and our allies, could have lost their citizenship.

In both situations, the crime is the same. Should we as a nation stand back and allow the person in the first example to return to Australia, live free in the community and enjoy all the rights and benefits of Australian citizenship solely because they were fighting for a terrorist insurgency as opposed to a nation? Again, let me stress, what we are doing here today is applying a principle already in place to non-national threats, including terrorism.

This amendment is merely reflecting that our enemies are not always nations and extending the principle that someone who works against us as a nation is not worthy of protection. I am relieved to see some safeguards within this legislation. I mentioned earlier, but it bears repeating, that we will not be rendering people stateless. I also note that anyone affected by this legislation will have an avenue for judicial review through the Federal Court and the High Court, and that the minister will have power to exempt a person from this legislation where it is in the national interest to do so. When a person chooses to take up Australian citizenship, they take a short, simple oath like this: 'From this time forward, 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.'

Whether someone has taken the oath and chosen to break it or whether someone was born into Australian citizenship as a dual national and has chosen not just to turn their back on this country but to attack it, then we as a nation should have no obligations towards them. The oath which I referred to a moment ago underpins our success and coherence as a nation. We are a peaceful and open society and we value our freedom. To anyone who comes to Australia through the right circumstances and chooses to share those values and live alongside us, we extend a very warm welcome. It is vital that everyone who lives in Australia, whether they were born here or whether they chose this as their home, respects the law of the land.

In conclusion, we will not shelter someone who is attacking us. We will not protect someone who takes up arms against Australia and her allies. And it should not matter whether they have taken up those arms here or abroad, under the flag of an enemy nation or under the banner of a terrorist organisation. I commend this bill to the House.

Comments

No comments