Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) Share this | Hansard source

We have already dealt with the government amendments, by leave, in total. I now seek leave to move amendments (1) to (8) and (11) on sheet 5172 together.

Leave granted.

I move:

(1)    Clause 19D, page 24 (line 6), omit “or a foreign law,”.

(2)    Clause 19D, page 24 (after line 10), after subclause (6), insert:

     (6A)    If the person is covered by subparagraph (7)(b)(i), and the person has been convicted of an offence against a foreign law for which the person has been sentenced to a period of imprisonment of at least 5 years, the Minister may grant the person citizenship.

      (6B)    If the Minister makes a decision under subsection (6A), the Minister must cause notice of the making of the decision and the reasons for the decision to be laid before each House of Parliament within 15 sitting days after the day on which the decision was made.

(3)    Clause 21, page 28 (line 32), after “17”, insert “or 18”.

(4)    Clause 22, page 30 (line 4), omit “4”, substitute “3”.

(5)    Clause 22, page 30 (line 8), omit “4”, substitute “3”.

(6)    Clause 22, page 30 (line 15), omit “4”, substitute “3”.

(7)    Clause 22, page 31 (line 3), omit “4”, substitute “3”.

(8)    Clause 24, page 34 (line 18), omit “or a foreign law,”.

(11)  Clause 30, page 43 (after line 24), after subclause (5), insert:

     (5A)    If the person is covered by subparagraph (6)(b)(i), and the person has been convicted of an offence against a foreign law for which the person has been sentenced to a period of imprisonment of at least 5 years, the Minister may grant the person citizenship.

  (5AB)    If the Minister makes a decision under subsection (5A), the Minister must cause notice of the making of the decision and the reasons for the decision to be laid before each House of Parliament within 15 sitting days after the day on which the decision was made.

These amendments are relatively self-explanatory, unless there is a great need to go into the detail of any one specifically. Half the difficulty here, of course, is that this is truncated from the original second reading debate we had. However, at that time I did foreshadow the amendments that Labor would be moving. They relate to the policies that this bill was to introduce. One was to render certain types of stateless persons ineligible for citizenship if they were convicted of an offence under a foreign law for which the sentence is five years imprisonment or more; the minister in such a case had to refuse citizenship.

There is in that instance a problem in the government allowing another country to determine our citizenship—it is a matter I raised during the second reading debate where I gave a range of examples. I will not go to those again but it would seem clear that in circumstances where other countries are used to determine the decision of the minister it is appalling and should not be countenanced in any way. It could get to a situation where countries that do not have our view of the world would be determining outcomes. It would be improper and wrong, under the government’s proposal, that somebody of the stature of a person such as Mahatma Gandhi would be refused citizenship to Australia if this were applicable. Yes, a conviction under a foreign law should definitely raise alarm bells. There is no argument about that. It should be a matter that the government should consider, but it should not determine our citizenship. That is where we fall out with the government’s view.

I take up what Senator Hurley said earlier—that this bill introduces many good measures. While the committee stage will focus on amendments to the bill, it is not the central thrust of the bill. The central thrust is to rewrite the citizenship legislation in such a way that it provides a significant improvement and that it has by and large cross-party and minor party support.

This is the time for debate on the particulars. We are seeking to ensure in this particular instance that other countries do not determine our citizenship laws. That would be wrong. The government should not outsource our citizenship to other regimes which do not have views similar to ours. The government did introduce an amendment to add a test of reasonableness, which Labor had been calling for. We are glad that the government paid attention to Labor’s concerns, but it was only after much argument. In this instance, we think our amendments should be supported and we commend them to the Senate.