Andrew Bartlett (Queensland, Australian Democrats) Share this | Hansard source

I move Australian Democrat amendment (2) on sheet 4868:

(2)    Page 12 (after line 31), after clause 10, insert:

10A  Best interests of a child

        (1)    Whenever a decision is taken under this Act in relation to a child, the best interests of the child must be the paramount consideration.

        (2)    For the purposes of this section, best interests of the child include:

             (a)    a child’s right to stability, security and adequate and responsible care; and

             (b)    a child’s own social networks and his or her ongoing ability to maintain such networks; and

             (c)    a child’s school, sporting and other leisure activities; and

             (d)    any other special needs of the child.

This amendment details, as its heading suggests, an insertion to be added to the legislation to detail the best interests of the child and to specifically state that, when a decision is taken under the Citizenship Act in relation to a child, the best interests of the child must be the paramount consideration. That does not mean the only, sole, single consideration; it means the paramount consideration. The best interests of the child include their right to stability, security, adequate and responsible care, a child’s own social networks and his or her ongoing ability to maintain such networks, their school, and sporting or other leisure activities.

I am on record in this chamber, from the many times when I have spoken on immigration issues and citizenship issues, acknowledging that these are difficult areas of law, that you do, from time to time, come up against specific circumstances that present very difficult decisions because they are decisions that affect people’s lives. A decision about whether or not someone has citizenship obviously can relate—and when it is being contended it often does relate—to whether or not they are able to remain in the country, whether or not they have the security of being able to stay in that country.

Obviously a decision around that, in many circumstances, can be a hugely significant decision about the path that person’s life goes down. Often some of the more difficult ones are the ones where children are involved. They are not particularly common, but they do happen. There have certainly been cases in the past where decisions have been made that I believe would be immensely harmful to the child’s long-term interests. As the amendment suggests, some of this can go to stability, security and adequate and responsible care, particularly whether or not they would be in a position to be able to receive the best care. Often it can relate to whether or not they would be torn away from a very secure environment—one where they have lots of networks of support, adequate educational assistance and other sorts of things that are crucial for their development—and moved to somewhere where those things are either absent or far weaker.

I believe that it is of merit to specifically detail that when those sorts of factors come into play the best interests of the child are made paramount. As I said, that does not mean overriding absolutely everything else completely so that nothing else gets taken into account, but it does indicate that the interests of the child do not get pushed below other matters. Too often that happens, particularly when, in some cases, these decisions do have a political atmosphere about them, regardless of which party is in government. In those circumstances it is often quite easy to let the politics of the day dictate something and use that to cull the various factors that are taken into account rather than take into account the things that I believe should be given primacy. The best interests of the child or children is one of those factors. It does not negate other things completely, but it does mean that it should be given the primacy that it deserves.