David Leyonhjelm (NSW, Liberal Democratic Party) Share this | Hansard source

What is in a name? Well, according to the foreign minister, quite a bit. If she or her underlings find your name unacceptable, inappropriate or offensive, you might have to change it if you want a passport. This power to refuse a name in a passport application is included in the Passports Legislation Amendment (Integrity) Bill 2015 and, because of this inclusion, I oppose the bill.

Australians have a right to freedom of movement, to leave and re-enter the country as they please. In the absence of criminal considerations, like outstanding bail conditions and arrest warrants, Australians have a right to a passport, but the government clearly do not agree. The government think that a passport is their document. So, if ministers or public servants do not like your name, they can withhold a passport from you and violate your freedom of movement. What would they think if Minister Greg Hunt had a previously unknown sister, Kerry Hunt?

The government believes that the restriction on our names is reasonable and necessary because passports are documents which are presented to officials in other countries. This is the most sycophantic instance of cultural cringe I can remember. It is not the role of our government to make sure we present a nice name to customs officials at foreign airports. Equally, it not our government's role to make sure that, when we go through customs at foreign airports, we have nicely brushed hair, neat clothes and a nice smelling deodorant. Our government is not our mother. The idea of restricting the individual to bolster the pride and status of the nation has a name in political theory. It is called fascism. This provision amounts to an officious preoccupation with trivia. It indicates a failure to recognise that offence is taken, not given. It is overkill, given that state law already bans the adoption of names that are considered obscene, offensive or otherwise contrary to the public interest.

The name-banning provision is not the only egregious provision in this bill. For instance, the bill allows the minister to issue a travel related document to facilitate a person's departure from Australia, even when an Australian court has declared that the person should not travel internationally and should not be issued a passport in light of an arrest warrant, law court order or bail condition. This either represents sloppy drafting or executive contempt for the judiciary.

This is a poorly thought through bill. It has received minimal scrutiny, and it is about to be waved into law in this empty chamber. This bill, and this process, should be condemned.