Stuart Robert (Fadden, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Defence Science, Technology and Personnel) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to lend the coalition's full support for the bill and to let the government know that we will be voting for the bill, as we always vote for good policy. In this case, good policy did not start with the government. The coalition strongly believes in supporting our ADF personnel and their families. Having been a serving member and having served overseas, and my wife having served at home, I understand full well the weight that sits on the shoulders of families—the wives and husbands, children, parents and grandparents, aunties and uncles, cousins, brothers and sisters. These are the enablers of our ADF personnel. They are the ones who in many ways have the biggest influence on our people remaining in the ADF. They are the ones who offer the greatest support to their serving family members. They experience the greatest hardships and endure sacrifices we will never know.

This bill seeks to look at the ADF lateral transfer members, those members who are transferring from other nations' militaries to move to Australia to join our military. They come from a variety of countries including New Zealand, South Africa, the US and are predominantly from the UK. Many lateral transfer members are from the UK Royal Navy, Marines, Army or Air Force. We have a long and proud history of recruiting members from the armed forces of other countries. We do so in order to fill gaps in our armed forces and in ways that suit the parent countries. For example, the Royal Australian Navy right now is taking advantage of the UK's Strategic Defence and Security Review which, amongst other things, is reducing the number of personnel across the UK's four services, a reduction which, may I say, is unfortunate. However, what is unfortunate for Britain is fortunate for Australia, for in this context the Royal Australian Navy is looking to increase its recruitment of Royal Navy personnel in order to fill capability gaps within critical skills areas.

ADF lateral recruits also bring a range of skills and experiences not only in foreign militaries but also in working with our allies and partners. They save the ADF an enormous amount of money and, more importantly, an enormous amount of time in training our own personnel. For example, if you consider the Royal Australian Air Force taking a Typhoon pilot who has been flying for upwards of 10 years and has absorbed millions and millions of pounds in flight training costs, the advantage to Australia from such an experienced pilot joining our Air Force is immeasurable.

It should be noted that the commensurate benefits that Australia gains from recruiting lateral recruits far exceeds, by an inordinate magnitude, any potential costs associated with bringing forward the citizenship status of the spouse or dependants. The ADF is looking to recruit 300 or more lateral transfer personnel each year in the coming years. It should be noted that about 90 per cent of lateral transfer members have families that they may wish to bring with them to Australia. I suggest most will. Noting the current recruitment environment in Australia and in places like the UK, it is timely to ensure those family members of lateral transfer members who are willing to serve in Australia and the ADF are afforded the same citizenship status as serving members. All lateral transfer members are required by law to qualify for permanent residency visas before the member can take up a position within the Australian Defence Force and subsequently move to Australia. This is necessary as all ADF members are required to be Australian citizens, and permanent residency is a prerequisite to citizenship. It is also important to note that spouses, partners and dependants of ADF lateral transfer members at the time of moving to Australia are afforded permanent residency but not citizenship.

Under the current Australian Citizenship Act 2007 that this bill seeks to amend, a permanent resident may be granted citizenship after completing 90 days permanent service in the ADF or 180 days in the Reserves. These sections are regularly used in support of lateral transfer members into the ADF. But this provision of early citizenship does not include the spouse or partner of the ADF member, hence this bill making changes.

This can and does lead to a range of discords within families of ADF lateral transferees. For example, Australia currently has ADF lateral transfer members deployed on operations. In MTF 3 in Afghanistan there were at least seven lateral transferees—citizens of Australia, wearing the Australian flag on their shoulders in combat operations—whose spouses or partners and children, at home, were not afforded the same citizenship as their husbands, in this case, who were fighting for Australia overseas. It is timely that such a situation be amended and the spouses or partners and dependants, of ADF lateral transferees who become citizens 90 days after joining the ADF, are afforded the same right.

In this case, the government enjoys the full support of the opposition. However, what the government is doing is particularly vexing and demeans it. The coalition put in a private member's bill on 21 May 2012 after extensive consultation with the sector—that is, with defence personnel, defence families and defence community organisations—to amend what it saw as an inadequacy in the act. The government at the time saw fit to oppose the private member's bill and the next day, on 22 May, introduced its own bill into the parliament. The Hon. Chris Bowen, the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship, wrote to Minister Snowdon, the Minister for Defence Science and Personnel, on 4 February 2011—15 months ago—to say to the minister, who was querying the capacity to make these legislative changes, that he would not do it.

I will read two pages of the letter. He went through a whole range of reasons for it not being important or appropriate for the government to do it. He said:

Taking all these factors into account, I do not consider it necessary to amend the citizenship legislation. I would, however, encourage our two departments to continue to liaise with one another on this issue.

So for 15 months it has not been necessary for the government to move on what are reasonably critical amendments, hence the coalition moved a private member's bill in this place. For 15 months it has not been necessary—the minister's own words were, 'I do not consider it necessary'. But the coalition put up a private member's bill to enact sensible legislation and suddenly, the next day, the government considered it necessary to put up almost a carbon copy of the coalition's private member's bill and widened it in some areas to look the same.

Forgive me for being deeply cynical about the motives of this government. If the motives were to repair, fix, close and address inadequacy, surely the government could have agreed with the coalition's private member's motion. If the government honestly thought there were areas that needed to be widened, I told them we would accept any of their amendments in good faith because we believe this is good policy. But no, the government spoke against and indicated they would vote against the private member's motion and then ensured that they put their bill rapidly up the list of the bills to be debated so that it would be debated and voted on prior to the opposition's private member's motion that would be voted on, possibly, this Thursday.

To say that this is disingenuous, to say that this is Labor spin at its most heinous and most base level, is to say the truth on this matter. It is good policy, do not get me wrong. The coalition will vote for it. But the idea that the government could not possibly support a coalition private member's bill and have to rush their own in the next day, with a widening of areas so it looks demonstrably different, is disappointing. It says something to those lateral transfer members currently serving and to their families. I know the minister wrote 15 months ago and said, 'I do not consider it necessary to amend the legislation,' but, goodness, the coalition is now putting a private member's bill because of rank political purpose and opportunism and saying, 'We now consider it necessary.' Let me say to the government, that is disingenuous. It is disrespectful to those who wear our uniform.

I note that Labor extends the provisions in its bill beyond spouses and dependent children to any dependant—for example, elderly parents or disabled dependants not considered children. The coalition accepts that. It reduces the relevant defence service criteria for reserve service from 180 days to 90 days. We accept that. We do not know how many times that may be used but we accept it. And in the event the member dies before attaining citizenship, their spouse and dependants remain eligible for fast-track citizenship and we accept that as well.

We support the changes above. We would have wished that the government had simply amended the opposition's private member's bill. Either way, good policy is good policy and it should stand on its own two feet. Right now, there are ADF lateral members who are citizens in combat operations in Afghanistan. If there are seven in MTF 3 I gather there are some there now whose spouses and children at home are not enjoying the fruits of citizenship. It is important that they are recognised and receive the assistance that changes in this bill will provide.

It is clear that the rushed introduction of this bill is in response to the coalition introducing its bill. However, the peace of mind of families of those currently serving and looking to serve in the ADF is more important than base political argument. It is more important than spill and it is more important than Labor's disingenuous attempt here to be seen as the one doing the legislative changes. Importantly, the policy is wholly welcomed and supported by Defence Families of Australia. Defence Families of Australia have been a wonderful advocate for defence families and across a wide range of issues, from defence housing and spousal support to the need to fix inequities in the families of ADF lateral transfer members. I thank Defence Families of Australia for their ongoing advocacy on behalf of ADF personnel right around the country. I am pleased that today and tonight we will debate and vote on the bill, and I am pleased that it will go to the Senate, where it can be assured a speedy vote from the coalition. I am pleased with the outcome. I am appalled at Labor's process.

Gai Brodtmann (Canberra, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is always a pleasure to speak on important bills that seek to improve the lives of our Australian Defence Force members. I say this particularly as the member for Canberra. The Australian Citizenship Amendment (Defence Families) Bill 2012 is important because, when it comes to recruitment from overseas, the ADF gets recruits that are technical specialists and have, as the member for Fadden has pointed out, previous experience in other defence forces, so their presence in our Defence Force greatly assists Australia to maintain its operational status and to train other ADF personnel. This bill may only impact on a small number of ADF members, but it is nonetheless an important amendment that will make life here in Australia much easier for current and future overseas lateral recruits.

When I think about the importance of this bill, I think about the time I spent in Afghanistan early last year with the member for Fadden. I have mentioned this story before when speaking on this issue. When we were flying between Kabul and Tarin Kowt, I met someone who had been with the German defence force and had since joined the ADF. We had a really long chat, and he said to me that in Germany, unfortunately, the defence forces were not well respected. He was a very proud member of the defence force and a very proud soldier, and the disrespect that he experienced in Germany put him off his countrymen and his country. So he is now a proud member of the ADF. He said that he had experienced quite significant discrimination in Germany as a result of his membership of the defence force there. It was really interesting to hear about his experiences in Germany and the fact that he had joined the Australian Defence Force. He is a great asset. In speaking on this bill, I think about what it will mean to him, to his family and to other ADF families.

I came to Canberra at the tender age of 18 to study at the ANU. I lived at Burgmann College, where a lot of ADF cadets who were studying at ADFA also stayed. We used to call them 'cordies' for some reason. I have no idea where that term originated, but I understand it was because they used to wear corduroy pants. Many of my girlfriends in their early 20s fell in love with cordies, married at that young age and headed off on grand adventures throughout Australia and the world supporting their husbands.

I know the trials and tribulations that my girlfriends and their friends have been through, particularly when their husbands have been deployed on operations overseas. One girlfriend, whose husband did quite a bit of work with the MFO, was based in Damascus. These are dangerous missions, during which these women are at home on their own for between three and six months, depending on the service that their husband is in. During this time they manage their day-to-day lives, look after the kids—quite often, at the moment particularly among my girlfriends, adolescent kids—and meet the challenges that that entails. These are extraordinary women. I take my hat off to the Navy, Army and Air Force wives, as I call them, who do extraordinary work in keeping their households together, supporting their children and, through that, supporting their husbands in their lives and career decisions. I take my hat off to ADF families and think that any support that we can provide to make their lives as easy as possible and to bring them together as much as possible is to be commended.

This bill seeks to enable the family members of current and future overseas lateral recruits to satisfy the residence requirements of Australian citizenship at the same time as their ADF enlisted family member. It is basically about ensuring all family members are treated equally. Currently the legislation states that an ADF member and any of their children who are under 16 are able to apply for Australian citizenship after they have completed 90 days of service in the permanent services or six months of service in the reserves. Meanwhile, spouses and other family members, such as children over 16 and elderly parents, do not receive the same concession. They must wait for at least four years to be eligible for citizenship. This means that, currently, members of the same family are treated differently from each other. For example, a serviceman father and his 14-year-old child could become citizens while the mother and their 17-year-old child had to wait up to four years. It is only fair that the government extends the same residence requirements to the spouses and family members of ADF personnel. It is fair and it is the right thing to do, because, when a family group migrate to Australia, they are all making a continuing commitment and contribution to Australia and they are all facing similar settlement challenges.

This bill will fast-track Australian citizenship for the family members of ADF personnel. As I have said before, it will allow all family members of current and future overseas lateral recruits to the ADF to satisfy the residence requirements for Australian citizenship at the same time—and this is really important—as the enlisted ADF member. Not only will this acknowledge the commitment they are making by migrating to Australia together as a group; it will also assist the families of recruits in accessing employment opportunities and education assistance to help them build a closer, continuing relationship with Australia. It will help them establish closer ties with their local community and make them feel as if Australia is their home.

As the member for Canberra, as I have mentioned before, I have many Defence Force families living in my electorate. These families face unique challenges, particularly when their husband or partner is deployed. It is important that we provide them with as much support and stability as possible so that they can get some sort of continuity and calm in what can be a very disrupted life. It is really important that we try and make that a little bit easier. Issues for Defence Force families stretch from a lack of local services to mental health issues and from education to housing. We as a government should commit ourselves to do whatever we can to improve the health and wellbeing of our Defence Force members and their families. That is why I am so proud to support this bill tonight. The member for Fadden obviously believes in the policy; it is the process he has got concerns with. He talked about the private member's bill that he introduced in May. Our bill will go even further than that and make more substantial amendments to the legislation.

The member for Fadden's bill had some faults in some areas. It only sought to cover children between the age of 18 and 25 if they were students, which did not take into account the fact that there may be disabled children in the family. It did not cover a dependent parent, even though the parent may have migrated with the family. It did not clarify whether the family members needed to permanently migrate with the ADF member and did not allow for the family members to remain eligible for citizenship in the event that the ADF member dies before they become eligible for that citizenship.

Our amendments will provide more equitable treatment and greater certainty for ADF lateral recruits and their families. Of course, the concessional residence requirements we are debating do not preclude those people from meeting the other requirements for Australian citizenship, which relate to identity and character; an understanding of the nature of their application and the responsibilities and privileges associated with citizenship; sitting and passing the test; and, finally, making the very important pledge of commitment.

The bill includes two previously proposed technical amendments to more clearly specify the periods of relevant defence service and the ADF members who are eligible to apply for this residence requirement. It is proposed to amend the act to specify that relevant defence service includes required attendance of at least 90 paid service days in the Navy, Army or Air Force reserves instead of the current six-month service requirement. The proposed amendment will also clarify that defence service refers only to appointed and enlisted personnel in the ADF.

This bill is important because it will provide more equitable treatment and greater certainty to ADF overseas lateral recruits and their families, such as that German soldier I mentioned earlier. Our amendments will also assist Australia to attract personnel to highly specialised roles within the ADF. We need to think about how best to attract specialist defence personnel to our forces. I know that there are many, many wonderfully specialised experts in the ADF but, as with everything, there are skills shortages and skills gaps. I believe this bill will help to fill some of those gaps and keep families together.

Family is incredibly important. I have been to Afghanistan and I have many girlfriends whose husbands are in the ADF, so I know it is very important that we provide them with as much help as possible, particularly when their partners are posted overseas. Knowing that their loved ones are part of a community that cares and supports them would be of great comfort to our recruits.

Scott Morrison (Cook, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Immigration and Citizenship) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Australian Citizenship Amendment (Defence Families) Bill 2012. This is a worthy bill that deserves support. It is a shame, however, how this bill came to be before the House this evening. In his inaugural address the great President Ronald Reagan said, 'There is no limit to what a man can do or where he can go if he does not mind who gets the credit'. The government's introduction of this bill fails this test. Bipartisanship should never come at the price of bad policy. But where there is good policy on the table, brought with decent and honourable intentions, as was the case with my friend and colleague the member for Fadden's Australian Citizenship Amendment (Defence Service Requirement) Bill 2012 I think the Australian people have a right to expect that their representatives would work together in good faith on these matters. Instead this government opposed the bill brought forward by the member for Fadden and lodged a carbon copy bill of its own which we are looking at in this place this evening. Frankly, I think they refused to support the original out of spite—and then they tried to claim credit for a policy they had refused to embrace only last year. We will not be so small as to oppose this bill—as the government did with ours—as it is good policy. We will take President Reagan's advice and support this bill.

While it is true that imitation is often the highest form of flattery it is a shame that, in this instance, the government have allowed petty politics to be more important than supporting defence families. In recent weeks Labor have illustrated they are not walking the walk when it comes to understanding the simple needs of our service personnel and the pressures they and their families face. Recently Labor ended recreational leave for single members over 21, affecting 22,000 service men and women. Previously, Navy personnel could take two flights home a year if they were posted to another state, and Army and RAAF troops could take one flight per year to see their families. But now the government have gone back on their word and pulled service conditions that were promised at enlistment.

Our troops and families deserve better. My friend and colleague the member for Fadden put forward his bill to address an inequality, a discrepancy, that existed between the treatment of lateral transfer recruits and their families when it came to citizenship. The chief government whip noted last sitting week that the government's main reason for opposing the member for Fadden's bill is that its definition of 'family unit' is much more narrow in scope than the definition in the government's bill. If the government wished to improve the member for Fadden's legislation, they should have had the decency to come to the member for Fadden with suggested amendments in the spirit of goodwill.

The bill does extend the provisions of the coalition's bill beyond spouses and dependent children to any dependant—for example, elderly dependent parents. It also drops the fast-track citizenship criterion of relevant defence experience for reserve service from six months to 90 days. The coalition will not stand in the way of the government's bill because we have the best interests of service men and women at heart. We support good policy even if it is the result of a petty act of a reactionary government motivated by political self-interest.

Last year when this issue was broached by the Minister for Defence Science and Personnel the Minister for Immigration flatly ruled it out. He said he did not consider it necessary to amend the citizenship legislation. The only thing that has changed between then and now is that the member for Fadden brought in a bill to achieve the purposes that are by and large set out in this bill. This is another example of flip-flop policy from a government at war with itself. Whatever deceitful games it may seek to play, it cannot distract from the fact that this is a worthy initiative.

Australia is an immigrant nation and migrants have made an important contribution to our defence forces. Historian Charles Bean said:

ANZAC stood, and still stands, for reckless valour in a good cause, for enterprise, resourcefulness, fidelity, comradeship, and endurance that will never own defeat.

That spirit and those values are not determined by one's birthplace; they are values that bind us together as Australians; they are values that we share and have sought to entrench and uphold in our society. Migrants have stood with us, shoulder to shoulder, under our flag, as Australians and fought for our nation and its values in theatres across the world. They have given their lives in battle and purchased our freedom.

The first Australian soldier to receive the Victoria Cross was a doctor, Captain Neville Reginald Howse, who hailed originally from England. He is still the only member of the Australian forces medical corps to have been awarded that honour. In 1900, during the Boer War, he galloped out under heavy fire to rescue a wounded trumpeter on the front line. His horse was shot dead, but Captain Howse risked his own life and carried on by foot to rescue his mate.

Sergeant Samuel George Pearse was born in Wales and came to Victoria as a child. He won his VC in Russia in 1919 for his bravery, where he cleared a path for his troops through barbed wire under heavy fire and charged single-handedly at the nest of enemy gunmen, taking out the post with bombs. He was killed just minutes later.

Of the 64 Victoria Cross medals awarded in World War I, at least 13 recipients were born overseas. They came as migrants to the Lucky Country from England, Ireland, Wales, Denmark and New Zealand to seek a better life and were prepared to stake their lives for their new nation. There were men like Private Robert Matthew Beatham, who left England bound for Australia as a teenager. He was awarded the VC posthumously for most conspicuous bravery and self-sacrifice at Rosieres, France in 1918. He disabled four machine-gun crews, killed 10 enemy soldiers and captured 10 others, saving the lives of countless Australian troops. He died two days later as he rushed another machine gun and was wounded. Welsh born Second Lieutenant Frederick Birks was awarded the VC posthumously for his gallant actions in Belgium in 1917. As a stretcher bearer, he had borne wounded men from the ragged cliffs at Gallipoli, and at the First Battle of the Somme he was killed by a shell while defending his men.

There are similar stories of courage and sacrifice from World War II, including the tale of Richard Kelliher, who was born in Ballybeggan, County Kerry, Ireland and emigrated to Brisbane in 1929 with his sister. When war came, Richard enlisted in the Australian Imperial Force in 1941. He was assigned to the 2nd/25th Battalion and served in the Middle East before he was redeployed to Papua in 1942. He fought at Buna-Gona in New Guinea and in 1943, as the Allies pushed back along Black Cat Trail, Richard was with the 2nd/25th as they advanced towards Lae. In the Markham Valley, in the midst of dense jungle, Richard's platoon was halted by heavy fire from a concealed Japanese machine-gun post. Five of his colleagues were killed and three were wounded, including the section leader, Corporal Billy Richards. It soon became apparent that they could not advance without further losses. On his own initiative, Richard seized two grenades and a Bren gun, dashed out to within 30 metres of the post and took out the position, before then crawling under a hail of bullets to rescue his commanding officer. For his heroism, Richard was awarded the Victoria Cross and was presented the medal by King George VI himself.

They are but a small handful of examples that demonstrate the stellar service and sacrifice borne by Australians who have come to our shores and honoured us through their contribution to our defence forces. We are pleased to support this tradition as it continues today.

Each year, hundreds of people choose to migrate to Australia and take up positions in our defence forces. The bill before the House relates specifically to lateral transfer recruits. Where gaps open up within our own ranks, the Australian Defence Force often looks to fill the positions as quickly as possible with personnel recruited from overseas militaries. These positions often need to be filled swiftly. Having the ability to parachute in personnel who already have the necessary skills and knowledge saves the Commonwealth time and money. Lateral transfers are highly qualified and bring with them a level of skill that would take up to a decade for the ADF to match by recruiting, training or upskilling personnel. These recruits are typically from the United Kingdom but also come from South Africa, New Zealand and, more recently, the United States. Research by Defence Families of Australia suggests that overwhelmingly—in 90 per cent of cases—lateral transfers choose to resettle their families and dependants out here with them. The ADF is seeking to bring 300 lateral transfer members to Australia per year. While the Australian Citizenship Act contains some provision to accelerate citizenship for those transferees, parallel arrangements currently do not exist for their spouses or dependants.

Following widespread industry consultation in an effort to rectify this inequality, the coalition introduced the Australian Citizenship Amendment (Defence Service Requirement) Bill to create consistency. Under this bill, spouses and dependants of lateral transfer members will become eligible for citizenship at the same time as the ADF member—as proposed by the member for Fadden's bill and opposed by the government. This legislation provides a safety net by ensuring that the families and children of these troops will not suffer unduly in the terrible event that a transferee is killed, whether in combat, in training or on leave, or a family breaks down through divorce. It is a consolation, but we should do all we can to ensure that these moments of tragedy are not compounded by added and unnecessary angst such as financial worry or the fear of having to pack up and leave the family's new home in Australia.

Transfer members are willing to give up their lives in service to this nation and their families are willing to honour and support their loved one in that extraordinary commitment. The coalition believes it is only right that those families be afforded the same citizenship status as their serving member. These families make an important and selfless contribution in their own way. Their unique sacrifice should never be undervalued.

Under the Australian Citizenship Act 2007, a permanent resident may be granted citizenship after completing 90 days permanent service in the ADF or six months service in the reserves. These accelerated provisions do not apply to a person's spouse or dependant under 18, who currently must meet the residency requirement on their own to become eligible. This should not be the case. This legislative inconsistency is problematic. On a day-to-day basis it can restrict a spouse's ability to access welfare support. As a permanent residents, a member's spouse and dependants under 18 are required to reside in Australia for two years before they are entitled to the majority of social security payments. This includes things like unemployment assistance, sickness allowance, student assistance through Austudy or youth allowance as well as other benefits like a healthcare card.

In the bigger picture, it also adds another level of uncertainty. Lateral transfer members are deployed serving in theatres and operations around the world, and, if the unthinkable happens and a member dies, under current law there is no guarantee that their spouse and children are able to stay in Australia or to access the support that would normally be extended to the family of ADF personnel.

There has been unanimous support from stakeholders with whom the coalition spoke for the bill that we presented in this House through the member for Fadden, and I assume that this support extends equally to the bill we have before us tonight. Within my own electorate, the concerns of constituents have been communicated to me directly. One of my constituents is a lateral transfer member who came from the UK and settled with his family in the shire. I met with his wife recently, and she told me that she will not qualify for citizenship until January next year even though her husband and four children have already been granted citizenship under the accelerated provisions. This bill would make a significant difference to families such as hers, which make tremendous sacrifices and bear an enormous burden in enduring great separation. But they do this willingly to support their loved ones in their important work which they believe in, whether it be in our army, in our navy or in our air force.

A famous and incredibly moving letter was written in the throes of the American Civil War by a soldier named Sullivan Ballou to his wife Sarah. In it he acknowledges the difficulties his family endure in his absence and the sacrifices they make to enable him to fight for what he believes in. Sullivan writes to Sarah:

If it is necessary that I should fall on the battlefield for my country, I am ready. I am … perfectly willing … to lay down all my joys in this life … But, my dear wife … I know that with my … joys I lay down nearly all of yours, and replace them … with cares and sorrows …

The driving purpose behind the member for Fadden's bill was to better support, through citizenship measures, the families of lateral transfer recruits who serve in our defence force. The same purpose is served by this bill. It is fitting that we recognise in this place the contribution of these people and allow Australia to embrace the families of those who have demonstrated their love for their adopted country so dearly.

Julie Owens (Parramatta, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am very pleased to rise to speak on the Australian Citizenship Amendment (Defence Families) Bill 2012. It deals with a particular group in the Australian military who are known as lateral recruits. They are people who invariably have incredibly high skills in an area of the military where we are short and where training, because of the length of time it takes, cannot be undertaken to fill a vacancy. They are incredibly valuable members of our military. We recruit them from overseas, and they become very much a part of our military.

We have recognised, since we first started recruiting into the military people who we used to call 'aliens' back in 1952, that we should make extraordinary and specific arrangements to acknowledge the service of these people in our military by making specific arrangements for Australian citizenship. Whereas ordinary citizens, people who come to Australia under skilled migration, family reunion or the many other form of immigration and who wish to apply for Australian citizenship must satisfy a requirement of four years lawful stay, with the last 12 months as a permanent resident, immediately before they apply, we make special arrangements for lateral recruits. They can apply for citizenship after 90 days' service in the permanent forces of the Commonwealth; or at least six months' service in the Naval Reserve, the Army Reserve or the Air Force Reserve; or where they were discharged from that service as medically unfit for that service and became thus unfit because of that service. So we have made very special arrangements for these members of our military since 1952.

Currently, the person who joins our military and any children they have under the age of 16 are eligible to enjoy these special arrangements; however, other members of the person's family—their husband or wife, a 17-year-old child or maybe an older child who is dependent—are not entitled to enjoy the same special arrangements, and they have to meet the usual requirement of having been resident in Australia for four years' lawful stay. This bill extends the special conditions to the other members of the defence member's family, and that is a good thing. We all know that when a person commits to serve in the military of our country, whether they are an Australian by birth or an Australian by citizenship or a lateral recruit, they make an extraordinary contribution to our way of life. They contribute to our safety, and they put their very lives at risk. Their families also make extraordinary contributions. I worry about my partner when he rides his motorbike, so I cannot even begin to imagine what the families of defence force members go through when their loved ones are serving elsewhere.

This bill, which allows the families of people who serve us as lateral recruits to share in the citizenship of this nation, is part of the contribution we make to people who serve us in this way. The bill also provides assistance in finding work and education, so it also assists the family to settle in this country. It is an extremely important that, if we ask a person to serve in our military and risk their life, we also give them the security of knowing that their family here in this country share in their citizenship. You can imagine the circumstance if one of our lateral recruits was killed in action and their family were still not citizens. It would of course be an appalling circumstance for all. It would also be a dreadful circumstance for a person who was serving in the military in that way to worry that their family might find itself in such a circumstance. So, as said, I am very pleased to be speaking on this bill. It is surprising in many ways that it has taken this long, but it is quite a nice bill. The new discretion will cover people listed as family members on the recruit's permanent visa application. That will include their spouse; dependent children, regardless of age—as I said, currently it only applies to children under the age of 16; dependent children of dependent children; and relatives of the recruit who do not have spouses or partners, who are usually resident and dependent on the recruit. That might, for example, mean a dependent parent. So it recognises that when a person joins the Australian military their entire family effectively comes with them. This will cover current serving and future lateral recruits and non-historical cohorts. So it also applies to those who are currently serving.

The bill defines ADF personnel and family members consistently with the Migration Act, as current and future lateral recruits are sourced from overseas. Understandably, everyone covered by this will still have to meet the other requirements of Australian citizenship: identity; character; understanding the nature of the application; responsibilities and privileges associated with citizenship; sitting and passing the citizenship test; and making the pledge. But it makes it possible for family members of lateral recruits to make that decision at the same time as the recruit does.

With the agreement of the Department of Defence, it is also proposed to amend the act to specify that relevant defence service includes required attendance of at least 90 paid service days in the Navy, Army or Air Force reserves. Currently the requirement is six months service, but this recognises that reserves may not work a lot of days. In the six-month period the reduction from 130 days under policy to the proposed 90 days recognises that priority is given to members of the permanent forces over members of the Defence Reserves in relation to training, meaning that sometimes members of the Defence Reserves in practice may only spend a small number of days each month actually performing paid service. Again, this is a proposal. There still has to be agreement and discussion with the Department of Defence. The proposed amendment also clarifies that 'defence service' refers only to appointed and enlisted personnel in the Australian Defence Force.

There is currently an urgent need to attract personnel to specialist roles in the military as lateral transfers from overseas. The kinds of roles that you might see there are at the pointy end of technical expertise. There are positions on some of our ships, for example, where if we do not have a person to fill that role the ship cannot sail. And just as there are demands for skilled workers through areas like mining, there are also sometimes demands to take skilled workers from our military services into those areas as well. In fact, I welcomed the HMAS Parramatta back to the docks one time when they came back from the Gulf and there were recruiters standing at the front gate waiting for them to leave the ship. Our military are also in very high demand and we find ourselves sometimes with an unexpected shortage of those highly skilled roles that took years of training. It is important that we recognise the need to attract specialists from time to time from overseas.

The numbers that we are talking about are not great. Since 1 July 2007, citizenship has been granted to 536 applications in this lateral recruits group. That is—what?—107 a year since 1 July 2007: a significant number and an important number but not a large number. But I am sure that all those will be greatly relieved that their families will be entitled to the same citizenship rights that they are. Again, a nice bill.

Military service is dangerous and the families of military personnel bear a share of this danger. It is worthwhile us all remembering that, while we quite rightly honour the people who give their lives for our country, sometimes the cost is paid in a life lived. It is paid in a life lived with the memories of things you should not have to remember. It is life lived with wounds that you should not have had to bear. It can be a life lived without a loved one in your life or dealing day-to-day with what your partner carries following their years of service. So it is incredibly appropriate that we in this place recognise the contributions that families make and welcome them to our country in the same way that we welcome their partners when they choose to serve in our military. There are more ways to demonstrate your commitment to a country than the years that you spend in it, and there can be no greater demonstration of a commitment to a country than to agreeing to serve in its armed forces and moving your family here to fulfil that role.

I am very pleased to speak on this important bill. In many ways it is a small bill—it is a bill that corrects an inequity, if you like, for families of a certain group in our defence forces. I am pleased to speak on it. I commend it to the House. It is a great bill.

Jane Prentice (Ryan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Australian Citizenship Amendment (Defence Families) Bill 2012. I believe very strongly in supporting members of the Australian Defence Force. It is one of the fundamental roles of the Australian government to recognise and support the commitment that thousands of our service men and women making each year in the defence of liberty of our nations and its citizens.

For more than 100 years, beginning with Australia's involvement in the Boer War in South Africa under the auspices of the United Kingdom, tens of thousands of Australians have died to defend freedom in the world. Not only should their memory and honour be commemorated; we must continue to support in whatever way possible their ultimate contribution.

Today's bill supports those families of current and future service men and women who are lateral ADF transfer members—that is, members of a foreign defence force who undertake to serve with the Australian military and serve with the Australian flag on their shoulder. We must recognise their contribution, as it is often the families of Defence Force members—parents, partners and children—who serve as the internal support network for a soldier. They also experience the hardships and irregularities associated with living with a member of the ADF, such as the constant rotations and deployments. This bill will support them by amending their citizenship and permanent resident eligibility requirements. Under normal circumstances the residence requirement dictates an applicant for citizenship must have been a resident for a minimum period of four years. In the case where someone completes a minimum amount of time of service in the defence forces or reserves, a shorter period of time is required. That service currently stands at service of 90 days in the Army, Navy or Air Force which may be non-continuous, service of 180 days in the reserves which may also be non-continuous or if they were discharged as medically unfit while in the service of Australia. Today's amendments will extend those same residence requirements to the families of ADF lateral recruits. As the explanatory memorandum notes, this is being done to acknowledge that defence service can be dangerous and the families of ADF lateral recruits bear a share of this danger.

This bill also redresses a situation where the settlement circumstances considered by the Department of Immigration and Citizenship are different for lateral recruits and their families. For example, the current situation does not allow children or dependants over the age of 16 to be included on an ADF member's citizenship application. For a spouse and dependants of an ADF lateral transfer member the current situation can result in significant hardship. For example, while family members are granted only permanent residence they are not eligible to receive Centrelink benefits or university HELP based placement, which can put a significant financial strain on families should they choose to study and plan for their future life in Australia. In the event that the ADF member dies during operations where a lateral member was granted citizenship but their family was not, there is no guarantee that they would even be allowed to stay in Australia, much less access the same benefits and resources available to a spouse of a normal ADF member.

Australians are compassionate and would not like to see any of these situations occur. While the government has given an assurance that families of deceased lateral transfer members would be taken care of, today's bill provides a legislative basis for their care and support. Similarly, if the couple were to divorce prior to the spouse and any dependants becoming citizens, certainly many issues would arise as a result.

As the member for Fadden has previously informed the House, the ADF is presently looking to recruit as many as 300 lateral transfer personnel each year, 90 per cent of whom would have families also wanting to come to Australia. Ultimately, today's amendments will act as an incentive for foreign soldiers to apply to become lateral members and, as such, will assist Australia in attracting highly specialised personnel to all areas of the ADF. This will help Australia save an enormous amount of both time and money building our own defence capability gaps. These people have already been recruited, trained and skilled to very exceptional levels in other countries. It should be noted that the commensurate net benefit that Australia gains from recruiting a lateral transfer member far exceeds any potential costs associated with bringing forward the citizenship status of the spouse and dependants of a lateral transfer member. To provide one example: if Australia recruited a fully trained pilot, who cost approximately $1.5 million to $2 million to train in their country of origin, their recruitment would offset the entire worst-case cost for the proposed changes of either the coalition's or Labor's bills.

Our Defence Force, of course, during this process ensures that a transfer is also suitable for the country from which a new member originates. The Cameron government in the United Kingdom is undertaking a strategic defence and security review which resolves to cut personnel across all of the UK's four defence services. As a result, the Royal Australian Navy has increased its recruitment practices for members of the British navy. In the future I expect that the other two branches of our Defence Force may do the same.

The bill of the member for Fadden and this duplicate government bill, whichever is passed, will go a long way to making Australia a more attractive option for a lateral transfer. With only 300 personnel and their family members, we are not necessarily talking about a lot of people coming to Australia each year, but they do bring important benefits not just to the ADF but also to our economy and society. Defence Families of Australia has reported that the vast majority of personnel come from the United Kingdom but also from New Zealand, South Africa and the United States. While we currently have many lateral transfer members serving in places like Afghanistan and Iraq, their spouses and children are often posted in Darwin, Brisbane and other places along the eastern seaboard. These family members often live in a Defence Housing Authority property; possibly some live at the Gallipoli Barracks in the electorate of Ryan. They shop locally and send their children to community child care and schooling. While less than 50 per cent of families had visited Australia prior to a successful transfer application, they can become part of the local community very quickly.

There were two very important developments in the introduction and passage of this bill today which again highlight the cynical politics and spin of this government. Unfortunately, the specific bills we see before us today are not the result of genuine concern but of the government's attempt to play a game of one-upmanship. Firstly, Defence has been undertaking a lot of good work in the area of lateral transfers and their family members, and I would like to express my gratitude to the organisation and membership of Defence Families of Australia, an independent advocacy group formed by the Department of Defence. This group not only consults and liaises with the Department of Defence but also provides information and guidance to families of Defence Force personnel. In 2009 the Defence Families of Australia conference gave in-principle support to approaching Defence and the government to seek an amendment to the Australian Citizenship Act 2007 to allow partners and older children to gain citizenship at the same time as the member.

The member for Fadden in his capacity as shadow minister for defence science, technology and personnel has worked closely with the defence community and was finally after a long time given the opportunity to introduce his private member's bill, the Australian Citizenship Amendment (Defence Service Requirement) Bill 2012, into the House on Monday, 21 May. The Labor government claim that there were broader considerations which needed to be included in the package, yet they decided not to follow Westminster tradition and introduce amendments to that effect. The coalition made it very clear throughout that process that we were more than willing to work with them if they had any concerns about the design of the bill or if there were any specific amendments they wished to offer. Instead they decided that the coalition's proposal was such a good idea that they would, effectively, copy the text of the bill of the member for Fadden, change a word here or there and try to pretend that it was the government's initiative. In fact, not only have they stolen the coalition's proposal and passed it off as their own; we had evidence of the real attitude of the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship to the bill when the idea was first proposed to him in a letter from the Minister for Defence Science and Personnel of 16 November 2010. The minister for immigration decided this issue was so important that he finally responded—87 days later—when he said, 'I do not consider it necessary to amend the citizenship legislation'.

Although it originally took the minister 87 days to respond to his own colleague, I am very appreciative that it only took the government three days—that is right: three days—to introduce today's bill into parliament following the member for Fadden's private member's bill. This is yet more evidence that this government are more than happy to publicly pretend that they care about our armed forces, but behind closed doors they are really abandoning moral and financial support. The budget announced by the Treasurer included $5.5 billion of cuts to the defence portfolio, bringing defence funding to its lowest level since 1938 as a share of GDP.

More details have emerged this week that recreational leave travel will cease for single members over the age of 21. Members of the Army and the Air Force were able to take one flight home per year, paid for by the government, and members of the Navy two flights. This will affect 22,000 people in the Defence Force, a significant number—and we are talking about individuals who just want to go home to see their family during Christmas or other significant times. These people were told when they signed up that if they were interstate and away from their families the government would support them. This is yet another deceit from the government, all for a measure that would cost the government only $15 million per year. Somehow, out of an annual defence budget of $24 billion, the government cannot find enough empathy in its ranks to say to defence personnel, 'You're supporting this country so we will support you'.

To conclude, the coalition's private member's bill was an opportunity to give families of lateral transfer members peace of mind. It was designed to send the message that we strongly support members of our Defence Force and that we also support their families. Consequently, these bills will act as an incentive to recruit the world's best-trained military personnel to come to this country and to serve under the Australian flag. While this Labor government has used this legislation as a cynical political manoeuvre, I welcome today's changes and I commend the bill to the House.

Alex Hawke (Mitchell, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is a pleasure to follow the member for Ryan's wise remarks about this matter, and I join her in supporting this bill, because the coalition is a group of parties committed to the personnel and families of our defence forces. That is why the member for Fadden introduced his private member's bill in the first place. As a person from a service personnel background, who has a long history of interest and involvement in policy making for defence, he saw the gap that had been created in legislation in Australia in relation to lateral transfers.

Defence in the future will require, when you look at the current white paper, a remarkable increase in the number of highly skilled and trained personnel that we will need to operate the equipment provided for in the white paper. For example, there will be 12 submarines at a cost of $37 billion. More importantly, we have to have available trained submariners to be able to man those pieces of equipment that we decide to go with. In the timeframes that we have been given, it is widely conceivable that we will use even more lateral transfers, to take advantage of the expertise of countries that we have interoperability with, such as the United States and other countries, depending on the systems that we eventually choose.

Given that, there was a big impetus for this legislation. The member for Fadden and the coalition understood that this was not a matter that could wait—that those service families who come here on lateral transfers could, of course, be adversely affected in a very substantial and quite serious way—and that a guarantee that the government would somehow simply take care of it, without the adequate legislation, was of course insufficient. We know, as the member for Ryan wisely pointed out, that the government's view was different prior to the introduction of the member for Fadden's private member's bill. That was, of course, that letter that she referred to from Chris Bowen to the then Minister for Defence Science and Personnel indicating that the government's view was that there was no need to amend the Citizenship Act in this regard.

In the view of the minister, his department and his officials, he had for some time considered this matter in detail. He had been written to by the Minister for Defence Science and Personnel. He had had the time to thoroughly examine the issues of lateral transfers, leading to his decision about the adequacy of the citizenship legislation and that, in Minister Bowen's view, there was no need to do anything about it. That was the view of this government. We know that in this government they do not have an instinct for defence forces—for our service personnel. Their instinct is not there. I think that is evidenced by the minister's letter. They are taking into account all of the factors, he wrote in his letter. He said, 'I do not consider it necessary to amend the citizenship legislation. However, I would encourage our two departments to continue to liaise with one another on this issue.'

I do not think it is odd that we are now in the situation today where, three days after we the coalition have introduced a bill on behalf of lateral transfers and service personnel and their families obtaining citizenship, the government duplicates the bill almost entirely except for a couple of amendments in relation to reserve service and a few other matters.

I just happen to have a copy of the changes here in front of me. I do not say that they are necessarily bad changes, but the only differences between the bill of the member for Fadden and the government's bill are, in essence, the reduction in the relevant defence criteria for service from 180 to 90 days. As a former reservist myself, I actually support this in ethos, and I support that reduction. In the event that the member dies before obtaining citizenship, their spouse and independents remain eligible for fast-tracked citizenship. Of course, that is an amendment this entire House would support.

Finally, the extension of the provisions beyond spouses and independent children to any dependent—for example, elderly dependent parents or disabled dependents not considered children—is, of course, another worthy amendment. But it begs the question: where was the government for the last four years in relation to this matter? This is the government. This is the government of Australia. It is its job to produce legislation of this nature in response to the worthy representations of so many groups including defence families of Australia.

Once again in our country it is left to the opposition—the so-called 'negative opposition', according to the government—to come forward with the actual legislative answer, which we have put together and put in a private member's bill in this chamber. The government might on this occasion want to thank the opposition for providing it with the legislative answer to this problem, for coming forward with a positive agenda on behalf of our Defence Force personnel and their families and for being very constructive in opposition in seeing the real needs of serving families and doing something about it. Of course, we will not hear anything from those opposite about the constructive approach taken by the member for Fadden in the opposition. It is really fleecing defence families and serving personnel in saying that it is doing this, but it is really the opposition's bill replicated by the government. It is important to expose that in this debate because we should always expose what governments of any calibre are doing and highlight to people what is really going on. It has been driven to do this out of desperation and embarrassment at the opposition bringing this forward to the parliament. I think that is a very important point for all service personnel and their families to understand, given the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship's earlier rejection of it as not necessary according to his own considered view.

This is a worthy piece of legislation, which is why we brought it forward. We all understand how serious service life is and how much of a sacrifice families make on our behalf for their service personnel, who are often deployed on the numerous operations we have around the world. Australia is probably directly involved in more overseas operations than at any other time in its history. That is set to continue given the changing nature of our region and the changing nature of our world.

As I have outlined, I do think lateral transfers will be a more heavily used mechanism by governments of all persuasions to meet the increasing capability that our Defence Force will have in the renewal outlined in the white paper. The majority of lateral transfers come in from the United Kingdom, the original source of the Australian colony, and today that remains the same. It is important to note that at the moment we are taking advantage of the RAN, the Royal Australian Navy, which is cutting back numbers due to cuts, and using those personnel to fill our capability gaps. I can also talk from experience, having visited RAAF Williamtown and having a senior Air Force officer attempt to explain the complexity of training pilots. I can tell you that any member of this House who pretends to understand the mathematical complexity involved in training fighter pilots would be fudging it. It is a very complex process; it is a very detailed process and it is a very mathematically heavy process. The cost of doing that can be prohibitive and sometimes we do not have the right systems in place to attain the goal that we are looking for. To gain a well-trained fighter pilot from overseas is sometimes the right way to go. It is, of course, of great value to our country to receive people of this calibre—highly-trained, professional people who can operate this equipment without having to incur the costs of training. Certainly, that was my experience at RAAF Williamtown. Given our experience coming up with Super Hornets and the Joint Strike Fighter, there may well be excuses and opportunities for us to use the lateral transfers in relation to pilots more often.

It is important to note that about 90 per cent of ADF lateral transfer members have families that they bring with them to Australia. That is the importance of this bill: 90 per cent of people do have family members that they bring. Given the dangerous environment that they are in, and the things that may or may not occur within 90 or 180 days, the provisions of the Citizenship Act are important here because if we do not change this legislation, then it is easy to foresee a time now and into the future when this may have an unusually punitive effect on these families and their dependents.

At the moment, the provision of early citizenship under the act does not include the spouse or partner of the ADF member, nor does it include dependants aged 16 or over—that is, those who cannot be included on the ADF member's citizenship application. This situation can and does upset the families of lateral transfers and create unnecessary tension, which is something we do not want to bring on people we have asked to come here and serve in our armed forces. Most seriously, we are also dealing with a potential situation of extreme injury or death resulting from this service to the ADF. We must take every measure possible in this chamber to ensure that families are looked after in these circumstances. That is why I am very comfortable in supporting this legislation. I am glad that the coalition developed legislation along these lines and put it forward to the House so that the government could replicate it and bring it in to the parliament.

I commend the shadow minister for defence science, technology and personnel, Stuart Robert, and his shadow parliamentary secretaries for designing this legislation, for understanding the need to amend the Citizenship Act and for understanding the needs of our service personnel and their families. They are worthy people to be ministers in a government that understands defence, that believes in the service ethos and that understands the families of those people and what they go through. I commend our shadow spokespeople for coming up with this quality set of proposals. Whichever bill ends up being voted on, which will be a decision of the government, we will be supporting it in recognition of how important this issue is. But I would go back and say to the government and to the party of government, the Labor Party in coalition with the Greens, that this constant assault on defence must simply stop—$5 billion of cuts.

In relation to this legislation, we heard from Minister Bowen that nothing needs to be done for these families for four years. We really need to do better than that for our service personnel and their families. That does not mean just getting up in this chamber and doing it, it means coming forward with the proposals and the legislation. That is why I am happy to support a bill that is a copy of the coalition's bill in all respects, except for some minor amendments. I am happy to support worthy proposals, even if we have to drive them from opposition. But just think what we could do if we were in government. We could certainly drive these proposals a lot faster and make things a lot better for our service personnel.

Nola Marino (Forrest, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

At the outset, like the member for Mitchell, I indicate my support for the Australian Citizenship Amendment (Defence Families) Bill 2012—and it is, as the member for Mitchell said, about time. I believe that we need to do whatever we can to support our defence personnel, the men and women who come from overseas and those who are from Australia who put their safety on the line to defend the interests of all Australians at home and abroad. As we have heard, the original bill was put together by the member for Fadden, the shadow minister, Stuart Robert, and I commend him for his efforts. He is unrelenting in his representation in this regard, and I echo his concerns about the $5 billion worth of cuts to defence in the current budget.

This is a very important issue. It is very important that faster access to Australian citizenship be extended to the families of those personnel who have completed the relevant defence service. The personnel involved have access but their families do not. This bill seeks to change that. As we have heard, 90 per cent of those who come here in that form do bring their families. So the merit of extending this privilege to foreign nationals who are willing to serve directly in our armed services should really be obvious to us all and should not have taken so long. That is why the coalition, through the member for Fadden, previously introduced the Australian Citizenship Amendment (Defence Service Requirement) Bill back in May of this year.

I would like to see the men and women who are responsible for our defence having a stronger bond to the country they are defending, and I think this is an important way that we can recognise the contribution they make to this nation. It is entirely appropriate that those who serve should be fast-tracked into Australian citizenship and so should their families, so that a new bond of national pride and appreciation cements the relationship that these people and these personnel have with the communities that ultimately they protect. That is what they are doing—they are protecting our communities.

It is not a great step forward to acknowledge that when such personnel align their loyalties to our nation through citizenship it is actually contradictory to deny their immediate family that same honour, opportunity and privilege, as we see it. This simple step, as previously proposed by the coalition, was delayed by Labor just to save political face—though I am not sure why. The legislation put forward previously by the member for Fadden was a very worthy piece of legislation, and I do not understand why the government did not support it, particularly given that the piece of legislation we see before us now is very similar to that. Unfortunately, it represents one more example of the political meanness of this government. I do not appreciate that approach to the members of our military.

Labor came into power promising a three per cent real increase in the defence budget and a white paper that was supposed to structure the force for the next 20 years. This is where we see this ongoing attack on defence—another promise from the Gillard government that, in defence terms, could be described as firing blanks. The government's promised three per cent real growth was actually only 1.3 per cent as at the end of last year—which represents the smallest increase in defence funding since 1938. The government appears to be ignoring the fact that our forces are actively engaged around the world. We are engaged in conflicts and in peacekeeping roles, and ongoing funding of defence is critical. It is obviously a surprise to the government to know that in practical terms these cuts mean additional demands and pressure on defence, not less.

The defence budget under Labor has now dropped to 1.6 per cent of GDP, just above the 1.55 per cent it was in the year before World War II—a period in which the world largely knew it was inevitably headed to the battlefield. Members would be shocked to hear that the defence budget has been slashed by around $18 billion over the last four years, and I have real concerns about this. This includes $5.5 billion worth of cuts under the most recent budget—with $960 million coming from next financial year alone. That lack of support for defence really does concern me. It has meant that significant defence projects have had to be pushed to the out years—and some beyond the out years—and probably will not ever be committed to under this government.

Andrew Leigh (Fraser, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! I have given the member for Forrest considerable latitude, but I would ask that she return to the subject of the bill, the Australian Citizenship Amendment (Defence Families) Bill 2012.

Nola Marino (Forrest, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am speaking up for the families and the members of the defence forces in all its forms, and I see this as part and parcel of that. As I said when I first started my speech, I certainly do support the Australian Citizenship Amendment (Defence Families) Bill. It will be obvious to observers that the military security of the world has not altered. That is why we certainly need the types of people who are coming here to serve in our defence forces and why we need to support their families in the same way and offer them the same opportunity. We also need to acknowledge that global financial uncertainty does not decrease global defence demands; it actually increases the need.

This debate is very important. The bill before the House seeks to support the families of those foreign nationals who seek to serve Australia in our armed forces, and I commend them for wanting to be part of this nation and its defence capacity. It is important that, as a parliament, we seek to support all those 50,000 men and women who serve, including the new recruits.

As we know, decisions in defence taken today do take a long time to actually result in actions, and the results of decisions can take years to become obvious. One of the things that has concerned me—and I will touch on this—is the decision to remove the recreation leave travel for single members. This has caused major concern in my electorate and certainly for defence force personnel and their families. I want to mention here tonight a gentleman by the name of Dave, who indicated that he is a returned veteran on a TPI and service pension whose eldest son is now a member of the regular Army. The Defence cutbacks are going to take away the free return travel to next of kin or home address once a year. This gentleman who has served and whose son is serving finds this, in his own words, 'abhorrent'. He said he believes it is a recognition of service given to the country that they do get a free trip home each year. He said, 'I believe this is one area that should remain clear of any budget cutbacks. My son will be posted to Darwin and the only safe way and quickest way is to fly to that destination.' He said this will take away his free flight as a condition of living in a remote location. He will have no alternative but to drive home, which will take three to four days. This will lead to a fatigue management issue, which will then become a duty of care and safety issue. He said young people giving their service to the country need this valued condition to be able to maintain links to their home. I think this is really important.

The gentleman went on to say Defence has had to make some decisions on cutbacks due to the government demands that they return to surplus. He expressed genuine concerns about the safety of his son. The member for Fadden identified in this House a range of Defence programs that have been deferred or cut completely. We have heard frequently about those from the member for Fadden.

In concluding, I do support the government in its efforts in this bill. I recognise and strongly support the efforts by the member for Fadden, who originally brought this to the parliament and, but for a few minor amendments, we see that effort reflected in this bill here tonight.

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

I rise today to support the Australian Citizenship Amendment (Defence Families) Bill 2012, which will fast track Australian citizenship for family members of Australian Defence Force personnel who have transferred from the military of another country. I do this because, like the coalition, I believe strongly in supporting our ADF personnel, their families, spouses and dependents. This bill will ensure that partners and dependents of Australian Defence Force transfer members will be eligible for Australian citizenship at the same time as the serving member.

An ADF lateral transfer member is a member of the Defence Force who has served on another nation's military and has subsequently moved to Australia to serve in our Defence Force. They come from different countries around the world including New Zealand, South Africa, the UK and the US. The ADF has a proud history of recruiting members from the armed forces of other countries. These members help to fill critical gaps in our Defence workforce and bring skills and experience to help improve the ADF's understanding of critical issues. I am sure most would agree that if the skills of these transfer members add to the capability of our Defence Force then we should do everything we can to support these serving members and their families.

As a child of an Australian soldier, I understand the importance of this bill for our Defence Force personnel and their families. My mum worried enough about my dad when he was serving overseas; I cannot imagine how distressing it would have been for our family if Dad was considered an Australian citizen and we were not. What would happen to my mum and her children if Dad was killed overseas in the line of duty? I would hate to think of the emotional and financial hardships that would follow. We all know that the spouses of ADF members and their dependents give so much to our nation. Without the full support of their families, many of our frontline soldiers would not continue to serve in the ADF. Not only do the families of our soldiers offer a great amount of support to the serving family member but they are the ones that experience all the hardships associated with being a Defence family.

I know all too well about the regular rotation of the deployments, which are just one of the many stresses placed on ADF families. During my childhood, my dad was stationed at North Head, Sydney; Wacol in Queensland; Malaya and Holsworthy. I was three years old when we moved to Malaya after dad was deployed there in 1961. He served at Terendak Camp Malacca from 1961 to 1963. My younger sister Kerry was born in Kuala Lumpur. Things could not have been easy for my mum bringing up two small children in a foreign country without the support of her family and friends. In 1963, dad was transferred to Holsworthy army barracks where we stayed until the end of his career. With each move we had to start over and build a new life. But I consider us to be the lucky ones. Some members of the Defence Force move around on a regular basis, and this can be a great strain on their families.

I have also experienced the hardship that families go through when a serving member returns from war with post-traumatic stress syndrome. I was a young child when my dad returned from Vietnam. He fought in the Battle of Long Tan. I remember going into his bedroom to wake him up one morning and he jumped up and nearly strangled me. He was still in battle mode in the war zone. He slept with his eyes open and relived the horrors of Vietnam in his sleep. To this day, my dad still relives those terrible memories in his dreams. I know all too well that it is not easy to be a family member of ADF personnel. But it is the love and support of these family members that help our soldiers through the tough times. I love my dad and I would support him through anything. I know that without the love and support he received from my mum and his children he could not have served his country so courageously for all those years. This is why if we want to keep these soldiers in our Defence Force we must look after their families too. I am sure this bill will be a great comfort to many families of those serving our country or currently living in Australia.

So many families would benefit from these changes. The research carried out by the Defence Families of Australia showed that 90 per cent of ADF lateral transfer members have families they bring with them to live in our country. I cannot stress enough how important it is that we support these families and give them the same citizenship status as serving members. As it stands now, all lateral transfer members are required by law to qualify for permanent residency visas before they can take up a position with the ADF and move to Australia. This is necessary because all ADF members are required to be Australian citizens and permanent residency is a prerequisite to citizenship. Under the Australian Citizenship Act 2007 a permanent resident may be granted citizenship after completing 90 days permanent service in the ADF or 180 days service in the reserves. The provision of early citizenship under the act does not include the spouse or partner of the ADF member and it does not include their children aged 16 or over, because they cannot be included on the ADF member's citizenship application. While the partners and dependents of these ADF members are given permanent residency, when they move to Australia they are not offered citizenship.

This situation is simply not fair on these families, especially not in a country which values the family unit so much and understands its importance. Australia currently has ADF lateral transfer members deployed on operations. If one of these members is killed, there is no legislation or guarantee that would allow their families to stay in Australia or have access to the benefits normally received by the spouse and dependants of an ADF member.

I think we need to ask this one simple question: why should these brave men and women join the Australian Defence Force and support our troops serving overseas if their families are not going to be looked after in the case of a tragedy? Yes, in the past the government has made assurances that support would be provided for these families, but there is no reason why these assurances cannot be turned into legislation.

The children of these soldiers also deserve government support for things like their education. Under the current system these young people are not eligible for university HELP based placement, which puts significant financial strain on families. I believe that if a family moves to Australia so one of its members can serve in our Defence Force then that family should be looked after and treated like any other family of an Australian soldier. It is also important to note that the net benefit that Australia gains from recruiting a lateral transfer member exceeds any potential costs associated with bringing forward the citizenship status of the member's family.

The ADF is looking to recruit up to approximately 300 lateral transfer personnel each year, but I can tell you now: this will not be an easy thing to do if we are not offering a fair citizenship process to the families of these personnel. This legislation will provide families of our Defence Force members with peace of mind. It is a policy that is supported by Defence Families of Australia who have been fantastic advocates of our serving men and women.

It is a shame that party politics must be brought into such an important issue, but I question the motives of the government to rush the bill before parliament, especially when it is so similar to the coalition's bill that we introduced on May 21. I would hate to think that our Defence Force personnel are being used by this government to play political games. The Labor government has done nothing in the past four years with regard to this issue; in fact, their own minister for immigration is on the record saying that he did not consider it necessary to amend the citizenship legislation for family members of our lateral transfer personnel. Yet, one day after the coalition introduces its bill, the government introduces a bill that is almost a carbon copy with some additional changes

These changes extend the legislation to include family members beyond partners and dependent children to any dependant, including elderly parents or disabled dependants who are not considered children. It also reduces the relevant defence service criteria for reserve service from 180 days to 90 days and, in the event the member dies before attaining citizenship, their spouse and dependants remain eligible for fast-tracked citizenship.

While the coalition supports these changes in addition to its own bill, the government could have easily introduced them as amendments to the coalition's bill, rather than playing political games and introducing its own bill. But, while I question the motives of the government, this will not stop me from supporting such an important bill for our transfer defence personnel and their families. I believe that anyone who is prepared to sacrifice their life for this country is worth all the support we can give them, as are their families, without whom the courageous men and women in our armed forces would not be able to do the fantastic job they do for this country. It is for this reason that I commend this bill to the House, and I commend the member for Fadden for initiating and bringing this legislation before the parliament today.

Natasha Griggs (Solomon, Country Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak to Australian Citizenship Amendment (Defence Families) Bill 2012, a bill which seeks to recognise the partners and dependants of those members of our Australian Defence Force—or the ADF, as we know it—enlisted through lateral transfer measures in terms of their eligibility for Australian citizenship.

Lateral transfer members help to fill critical gaps within the ADF workforce. They bring skills and experience, enabling them to hit the ground running and thus afford the ADF an opportunity to utilise these skills and experience without the cost and delay of training an individual from scratch.

Lateral transfers and the practice of recruiting experience is not a new phenomenon: in this day and age it is just one avenue or tool to which any employer organisation may access when looking to recruit new staff. In the case of our ADF, they seek to recruit up to 300 lateral transfer personnel each year. This number is entirely the prerogative of the ADF but, importantly, it must be noted that 90 per cent of the ADF lateral transfer members have families who also move to Australia.

The Australian Citizenship Act requires that all lateral transfer members must qualify for permanent residency visas before they can take up a position with the ADF and therefore move to Australia. Simply, this ensures permanent residency is in place, a prerequisite to citizenship and compliance with section 21(2)(c) and section 23 of the Australian Citizenship Act 2007, where a permanent resident may be granted citizenship after completing 90 days permanent service in the ADF or 180 days service in the reserves. Sadly, at present, the provisions for early citizenship as outlined in the act do not include the spouse or partner of an ADF member.

Amendments to this act, designed to bring reassurance to those who may be a spouse or partner in terms of citizenship, are welcomed and supported. Let me quantify the importance of these amendments. I referred to our Australian Defence Force in my opening comments—Australian defence personnel: personnel who, as military representatives of this country are at times deployed offshore in response to the needs of Australia and broader global military representation. We expect that those people serving within the ranks of the ADF, and who undertake the rigours and dangers associated with that calling are Australian by law; yet, in the same breath, we have been unwilling to afford that same level of acceptance and compliance to citizenship responsibilities for partners, spouses and immediate families of these members.

Darwin is home to an extensive number of ADF personnel, including their partners, spouses and families. It is my experience that those partners, spouses and families underpin and provide a solid foundation—a foundation which supports and enables the very efforts we as Australians expect from those within our ADF ranks. In many respects, those who partner and are family to serving ADF members are not acknowledged when we talk of the ADF. We forget the significant impost on them. We forget the emptiness they feel.

We do not see the loneliness they endure, nor do we see the significant impact on families of all that is required of those who fill our ADF's ranks. We do not see the pain when ADF members are injured or killed in the line of duty. Yes, we see the media reports; yes, we see the pain for a fleeting moment as we watch television coverage of a grieving family, but we do not see the depth or extent of that pain. We do not see what happens to the family—to the spouse or dependant—beyond what is evident in that fleeting TV coverage of loss.

There are ADF lateral transfer members on deployment. Sadly, under the Australian Citizenship Act as it stands, if one such member should be killed there is no guarantee that their spouses or dependants would be able to stay in Australia or have access to the benefits normally payable to the spouse and dependants of an ADF member. That, of course, is the worst case. I acknowledge the government has made assurances to provide support in such circumstances; however, this is of little comfort to families without the surety of legislative compliance.

Beyond the worst case, we fail to acknowledge the importance of the support provided to a member of the ADF by their spouse and dependants. We do not take for granted the importance that our own families have for us against the backdrop of a life in politics. We in this place are subject to the rigours of parliamentary obligations, be they sitting days, committee obligations or travel within our own electorates. Our own dependants are left to deal with many of the day-to-day obstacles of life without immediate access to us. We identify and acknowledge the additional pressures on our loved ones as a result of the roads we travel—yet the lives of the dependants of many ADF personnel are far more complicated and impacted and there is often little support for access to family and friends. Long periods of deployment, regular moves and transfers around the country, and irregularity in schooling and access to government services and entitlements are just some of the difficulties they face. More fundamentally, the ability for a spouse or dependent to share those important and life-giving moments—the development of a relationship or a family or the capacity to provide some balance and normality to a child's life—is compromised. To quantify further, the spouse and dependants of ADF lateral transfer members have the additional disadvantage of being away from the country that was once their home and where they had familiarity, stability and networks of friends, family and services to tap into.

I witness these issues on a daily basis. I feel for those partners and dependants left behind and I see the impacts. Currently, as permanent residents, dependants of ADF lateral transfer members are not eligible for university FEE-HELP placement—an additional financial impost. Divorce rates and family breakdowns within the ADF are above the national average, which is not surprising given the realities of life as an ADF spouse, partner or dependant. The current act provides no security of citizenship or access to government support to the spouse of an ADF lateral transfer member in the event of divorce. I highlight the value of the amendments in this bill and support the amendments to the Australian Citizenship Act. Ensuring that partners and dependants of ADF lateral transfer members are eligible for Australian citizenship at the same time as the serving member is, in my mind, clear recognition at last of the true value that should have been afforded to these people when the act was originally progressed. Yet, despite the support I verbalise, I am unable now to simply fold my speech up and sit down without addressing a couple of issues which remain outstanding in my mind.

I remain a little perplexed that, on 21 May this year, the coalition introduced a nearly identical bill. This Australian Citizenship Amendment (Defence Families) Bill, aside from a few minor changes, remains essentially the same. I am unclear why the coalition bill could not simply have been agreed to in a bipartisan manner with the inclusion of the amendments contained in this bill, unless it was political point scoring by the government. Additionally, the introduction of this bill on 22 May comes some 12 months after the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship, Chris Bowen, wrote to the Minister for Defence Science and Personnel, Warren Snowdon, on 4 February 2011, stating in the second-last paragraph of his letter:

I do not consider it necessary to amend the citizenship legislation.

The introduction of the bill on 22 May comes one day after the coalition bill was introduced.

It is clear that the spirit underlying these amendments demonstrate that both sides of this House recognise the legislation's current limitations and have sought, in an almost identical manner, to address them. It is a pity a more direct and cohesive parliamentary process could not have been achieved, and that is very disappointing. I commend the bill to the House. I would also like to acknowledge the work of the member for Fadden in bringing his bill to this House.

Harry Jenkins (Scullin, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I start with the finishing point of the member for Solomon. I have been a little disappointed throughout this debate on the Australian Citizenship Amendment (Defence Families) Bill 2012 that we have not celebrated that the two major sides of this chamber have come to similar conclusions. We should celebrate that because it indicates the importance of the amendments that are included in this legislation.

I first became aware of this two years ago when the wife of a lateral transfer British serviceman came to me. When she mentioned 'lateral transfer' I thought: 'What is it? Is it some sort of condition?' I had to start from the basics. Defence personnel matters are not matters that I get many questions on in the electorate of Scullin. I do not have any defence housing, and I am wedged between Maygar Barracks at Broadmeadows, which now has other uses, and Watsonia Barracks in the electorate of Jagajaga, which is a very important defence installation.

It seemed to me that there was a degree of absolute inconsistency that defied explanation. I am not going to go into this because I do not want to deflect into the partisan debate, but I assume that it had been a problem for quite some time, and the fact that during this period of the Labor government it has been highlighted to a conclusion is something that, as I have said from the outset, I am pleased about. The fact that a year ago in discussions between ministers it did not appear that we were going to get the progress of this amending legislation again gives us all strength as members of parliament that, by due consideration, by advocacy from members of parliament on behalf of those who come to people with a problem, and by the lobbying of interested outside groups government and oppositions in formulating policy can come to conclusions that find solutions.

Eerily, the example that was used by the minister in his second reading speech covers the family constellation of the lady who came to see me, because it absolutely highlighted our inconsistent approach to the defence family unit. Here, we brought to Australia a person who had skills that were required by our defence forces, and because of that employment there was a system that allowed a fast-tracking of that person's Australian citizenship. In the case of the spouse, however, it is business as usual with no fast-tracking. Without going into full details, the unfortunate thing for Australia was that this woman that approached me certainly had, in her employment in Great Britain, skills that could have been used by Australia as a nation, but they were skills in an area which requires the people employed in that sector to be Australian citizens. Not only was there the frustration of not being able, as the spouse of a person who was in the Australian Defence Force and who had become an Australian citizen, to also become an Australian citizen but also this limited this woman's employment opportunities.

Then we had the two children. I recollect that they were two boys: one 14 and one 19 or 20. The 14-year-old was covered; dad became an Australian citizen and the 14-year-old became an Australian citizen. The older lad was approaching the end of schooling and was from a family that had a tradition in the military with, as I recollect, a grandfather who was a serviceman in the British defence forces, and a father who had made a lateral transfer from the British forces to the Australian forces based on skills required by the Australian Defence Force. This young fellow wanted to join the defence forces, but he was not an Australian citizen. He had to wait around, do his time and become an Australian citizen, because he was not covered by the fast track. Again, I note that the minister in his second reading speech makes note of an example very similar to this case that was brought to me.

I pay great tribute to those organisations that represent defence personnel and to the individuals involved. This particular family was transferred from Melbourne to New South Wales, so I lost continuous contact, but this lady, upon first knowledge of the member for Fadden's approach and proposed legislation, sent me an email asking me to support the legislation that the member for Fadden was proposing. I hope she will excuse that I have chosen to give my full support to the government's initiative. At the end of the day there are a couple of differences—and I admit that they might be minor—between the two pieces of legislation, but the people who would find themselves in the circumstances outlined in the minister's second reading speech would not think that they were minor. I think that these differences make things more equitable.

If, for instance, we are talking not only about generations going downwards but about generations above—if grandparents are involved—these are improvements. I have to admit that if we have two similar pieces of legislation—and this is in no way a comment on the ability of the drafters that put together private members' bills, and is no criticism of them—this is something that, once the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship was convinced in liaison with the cases that had been brought to the defence ministers, the whole resources of government could be put behind in a piece of legislation. I think it is really a good thing for it to come before this House so that we remedy something that was obviously unintended. I think that everybody would agree and understand the reason for the fast-tracking of the lateral transferee but, on simple and first blush investigation of the circumstances of family members, it did not seem to be logical. These are special cases and, as other members in this debate have indicated, we should be placing on record our acknowledgement of the support that men and women in the Australian Defence Force get from their families. To think that families do not have to confront hardship when the men and women of the Australian defence forces, for instance, are on deployment overseas would be to not understand human nature and the way that things are in reality.

This is not only the case when family members are deployed overseas. The Australian Defence Force is characterised by a very skilled workforce and those skills are not gathered by people just working nine to five in an office somewhere. They often involve exercises and time away for training. So we should not just think that families have to put up with the loss of the contribution that can be made by the Defence Force family member being around all the time. The fact that this piece of legislation in an indirect way gives recognition to all family members of Defence Force personnel is also important because, in coming to a whole-of-government conclusion, it is really those notions of looking after Defence Force families that have won through. We are left with an inconsistency in citizenship legislation but this has been seen as such a special case that it is worthy of having the amendments.

As I said in response to the conclusion of the member for Solomon and to some of the comments that have been made to deflect and defend against those who have decided to make partisan comments, I think that the House should celebrate this point that we are in. To the degree that the member for Fadden and the people that he worked with deserve credit, let us share the credit around. When you get to the stage where ministers are having exchange of letters and they are in disagreement—and those exchanges of letters are public because they are things that we are using to try to explain the position to our constituents—it is very important to have got to the stage where there is a whole-of-government position. It is a little unfortunate to use debates like this to talk about our partisan views about the funding of defence, post the last debate.

I would welcome us having that full debate because I welcome leaders of political parties on both sides—those that have the interests of the economic management on behalf of those forces—entering the debate. Some well-meaning people on the other side of the chamber have said about the reductions, 'This is another one of those things. It is the end of the world; the sky will fall in.' I would be interested to witness the debate with their economic management shadow ministers to see where things are really going. These are the types of debates that we really should have in totality and try to step back from the politics of the day. Let us really be fair dinkum with each other. For those who see the importance of maintenance of the resourcing of defence forces, especially in a troubled world, let us have the discussion with those that want to return budgets to surplus by three years ago if they could do it retrospectively. These are the debates that we do not have enough of here. We have the absolute use of a piece of really good legislation that we all should be celebrating because it is something that we actually agree on. The differences are at the margins. We have one proposition that we are discussing tonight that has a couple of things that just push it further over the line. Let us celebrate that we have got to this point. Let us say to those that lobbied us, 'This is an example of the way to go about your work, to stick in there even when it seems that nothing is going to change.'

I hate to tell the people from the opposite side of the chamber that have been worried and concerned and wrung their hands in this debate that I have a feeling that, if the coalition had been in power, we would have had the immigration minister saying one thing and a defence personnel minister saying another thing. Hopefully we would have got around, down the track, to everybody agreeing. Let us not hear that this has taken four years. The thing is that it has been done. It is a very good piece of policy that has been achieved as a result of the democratic processes of a nation that is well defended by its defence forces. I celebrate that. I fully support the legislation before the House tonight.

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

I rise to speak on and support the Australian Citizenship Amendment (Defence Families) Bill 2012. I thank the member for Scullin for his contribution and the fact that he wishes to celebrate this issue. It is a pity that, with his celebration—his passionate and genuine contribution—there are not more government members joining with him to speak on this bill and join in celebrating with the member for Scullin.

Australia has a proud military history. Values of mateship, sacrifice and courage underscore that history and are a deep source of pride for many Australians. We are incredibly fortunate to live in a country where stability is the norm and where citizens have the freedom to pursue their aspirations in a peaceful and secure environment. There are many places across the globe which are less fortunate, where security is not the norm and where lawlessness leads to poverty and widespread devastation of communities. I often mention this to immigrants at citizenship ceremonies I attend, when comparing where immigrants may have come from to their new country, Australia. We should never take for granted the benefits we receive from the heroic efforts of the many men and women who serve and have served our great nation with courage and honour.

There are numerous elements that contribute to a successful nation. One that is undeniable is a strong and stable defence force. You cannot build a prosperous economy, you cannot continue to innovate and grow and you cannot develop a strong and confident country without security. I share in the disappointment of many Australians —and, I am sure, of the member for Scullin—at the Labor government's recent cuts to defence announced in this year's budget. The devaluation of our defence priorities by the government shows a Treasurer and a Prime Minister obsessed with political survival even at the expense of national security. This is a trend I am sure a coalition government would reverse. I attended a number of Anzac Day services in my electorate this year, as I do each year, and each year I am reminded of the huge sacrifices made by our Defence Force members and their families. Where we can, the government and coalition should support these families. They demonstrate great commitment to Australia, and their service provides immense benefits to the millions of Australians who inhabit this country.

As previous coalition speakers have outlined, the bill currently before the House is very similar to the private member's bill introduced by the member for Fadden on 21 May, the Australian Citizenship Amendment (Defence Service Requirement) Bill 2012. We heard the member for Fadden speak at length tonight about the insincerity of the minister and about the process of this bill reaching the House, but I will speak on that issue further on in my speech. Also, the phrase 'imitation is the sincerest form of flattery' comes to mind. But the fact is that the coalition strongly believes in supporting not only our ADF personnel but also their families. It is important that we support the personnel's spouses and also their dependants.

In all walks of life, spouses or partners play a very important role. The spouses and partners of ADF members and their dependants have to give so much more, just because of the very nature of the work that the ADF member does. Without the support of their spouses or partners, many ADF members would not stay in the role or even initially be drawn to the role of being an ADF member. The commitment and sacrifices made by families of ADF members are ones we will never know, unless we have had the fortunate experience of serving our country. As the member for Fadden said when he tabled his bill:

They are the ones who so often experience the greater hardships, greater stresses, constant rotations, in many cases constant deployments and certainly constant training schedules. They are the ones who know so many sacrifices that so few of us ever will.

As has been mentioned by previous speakers, this bill is designed to assist lateral transfer members who are members of the ADF and have gained entry based on prior experience in foreign defence forces. The various countries from which lateral transfer members arrive are South Africa, New Zealand, the United States and the United Kingdom. The majority of lateral transfer members have come from the United Kingdom's Royal Navy, Royal Marines, army or Air Force, and we welcome those transferees to our ADF. They save our country many, many dollars by bring their particular skills learned in different countries. Also the ADF has a need to fill capability gaps in our armed forces and, therefore, those lateral transferees bringing the necessary skills and experience from their overseas forces help improve our ADF's capability while also improving the understanding of critical issues around the globe. The ADF has a long and proud history of recruiting members from the armed forces of other countries.

The purpose of this bill is to enable the spouses and dependants of ADF lateral transfer members—those serving members from other countries' militaries who seek to come and serve under our country's flag—to gain Australian citizenship at the same time as their serving ADF member. For a lateral transfer member to take up a position with the ADF and move to Australia, they are legally required to qualify for permanent residency visas, and this is necessary because all ADF members are required to be Australian citizens. Ninety per cent of ADF lateral transfer members have families that they bring to Australia with them, and this bill is about affording them not just permanent residency but also citizenship, which will confer on them the same status as their serving ADF partner or spouse who has come to Australia as a lateral transfer member. Again, I quote the member for Fadden's speech on his private member's bill:

It is the right and fair thing to do. It is just. It honours those who honour us. ADF lateral transfers are members who have served in another nation's military and have subsequently moved to Australia to serve in our Australian Defence Force.

When a soldier moves to Australia to serve in the ADF, they and their families are making an ongoing commitment to Australia. They are making a commitment to what this country stands for. Assisting them to additionally become citizens is also the beginning of a formal membership of the Australian community for these servicemen and their families. That is a step that will enable them to not just support our Defence Force personnel but to say, 'I am Australian.' Australia's culture and our laws have been shaped by our history. By enabling them to become citizens we are allowing these servicemen and their families to inherit this history and to be in a position to be a part of it. We are allowing them not just to enjoy the benefits of our free and democratic country but to further contribute to it.

There are many benefits of citizenship. Once citizens, these servicemen and their families gain the right to vote in federal and state or territory elections and in a referendum once of legal age. They will gain the benefit of being able to apply for work in the Australian Public Service, to apply for an Australian passport and re-enter Australia freely, to receive help from Australian officials while overseas and even to seek election to parliament. Becoming an Australian citizen is a great privilege and one that, as this bill promotes, should be extended to the spouses and families of those servicemen.

If we look at 21(2)(c) and section 23 of the Australian Citizenship Act 2007, the early citizenship provisions do not include the spouse or partner of an ADF member, nor do they include dependants aged 16 years or over. An ADF lateral transfer member or a permanent resident may be granted citizenship after completing 90 days permanent service in the ADF, or 180 days in the reserve, and it is these provisions that this bill seeks to pass on to the spouses, partners and dependents of the transferees.

We do it only where it suits the parent country. For example, the Royal Australian Navy is presently taking advantage of the United Kingdom's strategic defence and security review which is, amongst other things, reducing the number of personnel across the UK's four services. It is in the context of this move by the Cameron government that the Royal Australian Navy is increasing its recruitment of Royal Navy personnel in order to fill the capability gaps within our own ranks. It could take over a decade to recruit, train and skill engineers, pilots or other personnel with exceptionally high levels of skill. Having these personnel with these skills transfer from other militaries into ours saves the Commonwealth enormous time and enormous money. The ADF is presently looking to recruit, on their own numbers, approximately 300 lateral transfer personnel each year.

As I have said, under the Australian Citizenship Act a permanent resident may be granted citizenship after completing the 90 days service. The legislation in its current form can and does cause discord within lateral transfer members' families. Australia currently has ADF lateral transfer members deployed on combat operations. One of the issues that can arise is that if a member is killed in training or in operations, there is no legislative basis or guarantee that their spouse or dependants will be able to stay in Australia or have access to the benefits normally payable to the spouse and dependants of an ADF member. I note the government has made assurances that support should be provided; however, this is little comfort to the families and dependants. There is no reason why such assurances should not be put in legislation. The bill will provide certainty to those families considering a lateral transfer to the ADF and it will aid the ADF in its recruitment efforts. It will give peace of mind to the 300 lateral recruits and their families who will be anticipating the transfer to Australia in the next 12 months.

There are also issues for dependants. Whilst currently they gain permanent residency, without citizenship they miss out on important benefits, such as university HELP based placements. This can lead to financial strain on families and makes the transfer to the ADF less attractive for those important recruits.

The bill removes provisions in the Australian Citizenship Act 2007 that result in citizenship being granted to ADF members years in advance of their partner and dependants over certain ages. Behind every serving member is a support network. If we want these individuals to join the ADF we need to support these networks, whether they are a family, a spouse or a dependant. Family members of ADF personnel are the ones who, ultimately, offer the greatest support to those serving ADF personnel. Family members also experience the stresses and hardships associated with the role. This bill seeks to achieve that support, by removing discrimination and treating family members equally.

As I noted earlier today, the coalition introduced its bill on 21 May 2012. Labor introduced its near identical bill on 22 May 2012, despite saying in 2011 that it did not support the fast-tracking of citizenship for defence families. Labor made the decision to avoid a vote on the coalition bill by introducing a near carbon copy of the coalition's bill. Previous speakers have also pointed to the fact that the bill currently before the House is an almost exact copy of the coalition's bill introduced on 21 May. I will be supporting the bill, and I note the bill does propose some good changes, but those changes could easily have been introduced as amendments to the coalition's bill, rather than the government playing political games and introducing its own bill—when the government rejected these changes only last year.

The reality is, Labor has done nothing over the past four years and now, suddenly,when the coalition puts up the bill, Labor decides within 24 hours it is time to act. It appears to be a case of more spin from a government motivated purely by political survival rather than by a concern for the welfare of these families. The minister should apologise to the affected families for ignoring the need to act and then, instead of supporting the coalition's bill, resorting to political games. Given the actions of the minister and the government, you cannot help but question the motives of the government. But, as the member for Scullin said, we should now move on from there and celebrate the fact that this has bipartisan support.

This legislation will provide families with peace of mind. It is a policy wholly welcomed by Defence Families of Australia, which has been lobbying the government on this issue since 2010. DFA should be congratulated on its wonderful advocacy on behalf of these families on a wide range of issues ranging from defence housing to spousal support. It has been strong advocates for fixing the inequality for families of ADF lateral transfer members. I thank Defence Families of Australia for its ongoing advocacy and support of the ADF personnel. It does great work. Along with the coalition, I support this bill.

John Alexander (Bennelong, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Again we find ourselves in this position. The coalition, with the limited resources we have in opposition, identify a policy gap that the government refuses to address. We develop a bill and present it to parliament. The government reject the bill purely because they did not think of it themselves and because they could not possibly support something that comes from the coalition. Then the government introduces an imitation bill because it actually was a good idea in the first place.

We saw this earlier in the year with the Assisting Victims of Overseas Terrorism Bill introduced by the Leader of the Opposition, which was not worthy of government support. It was retitled to the Social Security Amendment (Supporting Australian Victims of Terrorism Overseas) Bill and, suddenly, it was a government-led initiative. Too many times to count, in this parliament the coalition have suggested variations to government bills through the proper process—we write an amendment and submit it during the second reading. Mostly these amendments are rejected by the government, but most observers would surely think that all legislators have since learned that the most suitable way to progress is to make an amendment to a bill, not to rewrite it from scratch.

The Australian Citizenship Amendment (Defence Service Requirement) Bill, introduced by my colleague the member for Fadden, is a good bill supporting good policy. Yet the government have stated they cannot support it, instead choosing to introduce this, the Australian Citizenship Amendment (Defence Families) Bill 2012, because of a key difference: a definition. I quote the second reading speech of the government's first speaker on the original bill, the member for Chifley:

The government's main reason for opposing this bill is that the bill's definition of a 'family unit' is much more narrow in scope than that in the government's bill.

And yet, for the sake of a definition, we need a new bill. A cynic might think the government is actually playing politics with this issue; somebody who is not a cynic might think the same. The coalition will support this government bill because it is good policy. We support all good policy. As a matter of fact, last year the coalition supported 87 per cent of the legislation submitted to the House by the government. As opposition it is our job to identify bad policy and to oppose it, as we did for the other 13 per cent of the time. On the other side of the scale, when the government have agreed with a coalition initiative so expressly they want to attach their own name to the policy, they have still voted against the coalition policy every single time. The reason I am harping on this issue is that these figures, and the reality of actions in this parliament, show that it is the government which always say no. They often accuse us of relentless negativity. They use this term incessantly, obviously thinking that if they say it often enough people will start believing it. Yet, whilst they are spending all their time attacking us, we are identifying policy gaps and writing new pieces of legislation.

The great irony of this bill is that not only did the government do nothing on this issue for four years but, when the Minister for Defence Science and Personnel wrote to the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship suggesting this exact change in November 2010, Minister Bowen wrote back on 11 February 2011: 'I do not consider it necessary to amend the citizenship legislation.' It seems it was only when the coalition's shadow minister for defence science and personnel wrote his private member's bill that Minister Bowen suddenly realised that if the coalition is suggesting it then it must be a good idea—and here we are back again.

This bill highlights the coalition's strong support not only for our ADF personnel but also for their families. Spouses and dependants of ADF members make just as many sacrifices for our nation as the members themselves. They experience the hardships, the constant rotations and deployments and the stresses placed on ADF families. This bill supports the families of lateral transfer members who have chosen to help defend our nation, bringing unique skills and experience.

The ADF has a long and strong record of recruiting lateral transfer members, as is currently happening in response to the UK's Strategic Defence and Security Review, which is reducing the number of personnel, providing the Royal Australian Navy with a great opportunity to fill capability gaps within its own ranks. The net benefit that Australia gains from lateral transfer recruitment and the associated savings in training costs far exceed the short-term costs of fast-tracking the citizenship status of the spouse and dependants. Ninety per cent of ADF lateral transfer members have families who they bring with them to Australia, and it is timely to ensure that the families of those willing to serve Australia in the ADF are provided the same citizenship status as the serving member.

I note that both the coalition's and the government's bills include the support of Defence Families Australia. A new development by Defence Housing Australia in the suburb of Ermington, in my electorate of Bennelong, will provide a lot of housing for defence families, and our local community warmly looks forward to their arrival. We look forward to the families in this new community that have joined our nation through the lateral transfers scheme being provided with fast-tracked access to citizenship and all the rights and protections shared by other family members of ADF personnel as their loved ones serve overseas in the defence of our nation.

I applaud the government for this bill. The process to get here may have been purely political, but the end result is a good policy written by the coalition to which the government are affixing their label. There is an old saying that imitation is the most sincere form of flattery. This bill, just like the Assisting Victims of Overseas Terrorism Bill I mentioned earlier, must make the coalition blush. We often get attacked by the government with the claim that we are not announcing all our policies. This bill highlights the real reason why—the government are so busy attacking us that they are stumped for ideas and they want to steal more from the coalition.

Many commentators have referred to the very effective tactics of the member for Griffith in the lead-up to the 2007 election in copying Prime Minister Howard's policies. Some even referred to him as 'Howard Lite', but felt this tactic was somewhat justified due to the minimal resources afforded to opposition members in comparison to the huge government bureaucracies. Now it seems they are back to the same old tricks, but this time from government they are copying the coalition in opposition. I thought I had seen it all. I commend the coalition's policies and this bill to the House.

Josh Frydenberg (Kooyong, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Australian Citizenship Amendment (Defence Families) Bill 2012 and in doing so support many of my colleagues in this House, including the last speaker, the member for Bennelong. This bill will amend the Australian Citizenship Act 2007 to fast-track citizenship for family members of defence personnel who are lateral recruits to the Australian Defence Force.

As the law currently stands, a member of the Australian Defence Force and their children under the age of 16 years can apply for citizenship after that member has completed 90 days of service in the permanent forces or six months in the reserves. Family members who do not fall within this category, including children who are over the age of 16 years, have to wait for at least four years before applying for citizenship. They can get permanent residency but not citizenship. However, under the changes being proposed in this legislation, spouses and dependants will be deemed eligible to apply for citizenship after 90 days of the ADF member's service, which could be the equivalent of 90 days of paid service in the reserves, not the 180-day requirement as currently stands.

There is a strong rationale for this bill. The Australian Defence Force already recruits up to about 300 defence personnel from abroad coming from a range of countries that includes New Zealand, the United Kingdom, South Africa and the United States. Often these recruits come to Australia with the support of their original country. Importantly, 90 per cent of these lateral recruits have families and bring them with them. These lateral recruits fill important US capability gaps in our service. We are providing them with a job in our first-class Australian Defence Force, and in return Australia gets a skilled and highly trained military person who adds to our country's defence force's professionalism and skill set. It is in reality a win-win for both sides.

This legislative change before the House tonight enhances the Australian Defence Force's ability to recruit the best on offer. It also recognises that we support not just the ADF personnel themselves but their families as well—the ones who provide the support, who live with the hardships while the Defence Force members are away and whose sacrifice is not necessarily with their own lives but often with their livelihoods, which are interrupted significantly by long periods away for ADF personnel.

Be under no illusions; we need these lateral recruits. If one goes to the Army's online recruitment centre, as I did prior to coming into this House, there is a section for overseas applicants where it lists the positions for which the Australian Defence Force is looking for officers and soldiers. Applications, ironically, closed on 15 June this year, which has just gone, but there is a long list of positions for which the Australian Defence Force is seeking commissioned officers. It includes, in aviation, rotary wing pilots; in artillery, officers with surveillance and target acquisition and offensive support specialisation; in dental, specialised officers who are qualified dentists; in the nursing corps, qualified nurses; in engineering, aeronautical, electrical and mechanical engineers; in the intelligence corps, qualified intelligence corps officers; in transport, officers with amphibious experience in particular; in ordnance, logistics officers; in military police, qualified military police officers; in signals, officers with electronic warfare or cyberwarfare experience; and the list goes on. This shows the capability gaps which we need filled.

This legislation cannot wait, as the opportunities to recruit these laterals and take advantage of, for example, what is happening in the United Kingdom with their significant reduction in military personnel numbers, is right now. In fact, if we act now and lift the incentives for the best and the brightest from overseas to come to our defence forces, we stand best positioned to meet some of these strategic challenges ahead. I remember my trip to Afghanistan last year to meet with some of the more than 1,500 men and women of the Australian Defence Force who are serving our country so bravely in that difficult warzone. I heard from both Australian soldiers and some British troops about the significant changes taking place in the UK military scene, where tough economic conditions had led to a reassessment of priorities by government there and a number of senior military personnel were going to be without jobs.

It is also important to note that, for every one of these lateral recruits that Australia does attract, we do save some of the financial expense that otherwise would have been incurred in training that person up. For example, a fully trained pilot will cost the taxpayer between $1½ million and $2 million. Should you be able to recruit somebody with that skill set, you are saving the taxpayer an equivalent amount.

One of the other important flow-on effects from this legislation is that it helps mitigate the likelihood of, in the terrible event that an ADF member is killed, the dependants being unable to stay in Australia or access benefits because they are not citizens—benefits that may otherwise be payable to an Australian spouse. Now we have lateral recruits who are serving in ADF combat operations in Afghanistan. It is personnel like these whose spouses and family members will get real benefit from this legislation, because fast-tracking citizenship for them could mean that they are also going to be able to access benefits which otherwise might not be available.

I want to say that this legislation introduced by the government is virtually identical to that which was introduced by my friend and colleague the coalition shadow minister, the member for Fadden. He took the initiative when the government did not. He got the support of Defence Families of Australia. He advocated for change because he was in touch with the needs of Australian defence personnel and their families. His bill was introduced first and the government shamelessly followed. I do welcome the government's bill before the House tonight, but I acknowledge that it took them a long time to change heart. In fact, the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship, Chris Bowen, in a letter dated 4 February 2011, specifically rebuffed the Minister for Defence Science and Personnel, Warren Snowdon, on this point when he said, 'I do not consider it necessary to amend the citizenship legislation.'

Now we have the government backflipping yet again—and don't we get used to it. However, this time, fortunately, it is in pursuit of a good cause, and I support the bill before the House. But I acknowledge that it was the member for Fadden and our shadow minister in this portfolio who took the initiative, who led the charge and who shone a light on this government's deficiencies. It is because of his effort that the government has followed with its own bill, and it is because of his effort that we are now seeing a change for the better for the Defence Families of Australia, who deserve our support.

The world is unstable. We are seeing the economic crisis in Europe. We are seeing the United States in an election year galvanised by $14 trillion of debt. We are seeing a rising China, a rising India, and we are seeing tensions in our own region in the South China Sea which is leading to some countries—Vietnam, the Philippines, Singapore and others—balancing against what they see as an increased power play by China. In fact, we in Australia have seen that the US Marines are going to rotate through Darwin and perhaps elsewhere. They are all significant changes that reflect the sense of instability in our region.

During this period of instability there is no more important Australian institution than our Defence Force. The men and women of our Australian Defence Force are our last line of defence. They uphold our values and help ensure that the world and our region is a better place. That has been the role played for more than a century by our Australian Defence Force. That is why it is unconscionable that so much of the defence budget has been ripped out by this government. According to ASPI, it has been more than $20 billion in the last few years alone.

Mr Sidebottom interjecting—

It is not a laughing matter.

Mr McCormack interjecting—

Yes.

Bruce Scott (Maranoa, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Riverina, the member for Kooyong has the call.

Josh Frydenberg (Kooyong, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is not a laughing matter, as Sid Sidebottom is having—

Bruce Scott (Maranoa, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Kooyong will refer to members by their title or their electorate.

Josh Frydenberg (Kooyong, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Braddon, may I say, from Tasmania. Can I say that he should not be laughing at what is a very serious point, which is actually this government's undermining of defence.

I want to finish here, because we are talking about a bill which will enhance Australia's strategic depth and ensure that we can continue to attract the best and brightest from overseas. That is what this bill is about. I commend this bill, but I acknowledge that it is in the context of following the initiative of the member for Fadden and it is in the context of this government ripping billions of dollars out of a crucial defence budget at a time when our region is unstable and when we are seeing heightened tensions. I do support this bill. I think that giving lateral recruits fast access to citizenship for their families, for their spouses, for their dependents and for their children over the age of 16 is a very positive initiative.

With 300-plus lateral recruits coming to this country every year, absolutely critical positions, as I outlined, in aviation, in the nursing corps, in engineers, in the intelligence corps, in ordinance, in military police, in signals, in artillery and in a lot more of these critical areas, enhancing these lateral recruits' and their families' ability to access citizenship is a positive development. But I say to this government, 'Don't play the politics of defence', because in this climate our Australian Defence Force deserve all the moral and financial support that this parliament can muster. I pay tribute to the legacy of the Howard government in defence and to the efforts of my colleague the member for Fadden in taking the initiative on this bill.

Michael McCormack (Riverina, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Australian Defence Force personnel play an important role, whether they are contributing to the rebuilding of Iraq, partaking in various United Nations peacekeeping operations or involved in multinational exercises within Australia or overseas. However, it is not just our military men and women who are serving our nation. So too are the spouses and partners of Australian Defence Force personnel and their dependants. The families of military personnel are their great enablers, their devoted supporters and play the largest role in influencing whether someone remains a member of the Defence Force. The families are also the ones who experience the reality of living with a member of the Defence Force. As their partner is moved around the country and the world to different rotations and deployment, they too get moved around and shuffled about. Many a Defence Force family has superb skills at packing and starting life again in a new town.

Bruce Scott (Maranoa, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 34. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting and the member for Riverina will have leave to continue speaking when the debate is resumed.