PARLIAMENTARY REPORT
the executive to account. Government agencies are called to appear before various Senate Legislation Committees. In addition, parliamentary departments are also scrutinised. The Australian Parliament is supported by four parliamentary departments comprising the Department of Parliamentary Services (DPS), the Parliamentary Budget Office, the Department of the Senate and the Department of the House of Representatives. The Parliamentary Library is part of DPS and the
Parliamentary Education Office is part of the Department of the Senate. The Department of the House of Representatives does not appear before Senate Estimates Committees. During scrutiny of the Department of the Senate, the Clerk of the Senate, Dr Rosemary Laing, was scrutinised about the increasing workload of the Committee Office arising from the large number of inquiries. Dr Laing, during her opening statement to the Senate Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee, commented that “overall, the Senate Committee Office is currently supporting 83 separate inquiries, which is either a record or pretty near it. This number does not include the work of the legislative scrutiny committees or those joint committees whose secretariats are provided by the other side.” Dr Laing noted that “while the number of staff has increased because of temporary funding—for one year—provided in the last budget, the ultimate capacity of committees, measured by the number of senators available to serve on them, has not increased for over three decades and is not likely to for the foreseeable future. Frankly, I wonder where all
AUSTRALIA
this is heading. I conclude by saying that I sincerely hope that the thoroughness and credibility of Senate Committee inquiries, the willingness of witnesses to make submissions and keep coming back to give evidence, and the value of what is unique about Senate Committee inquiries, which are all the product of decades of sustained efforts by senators and staff, will survive the demands currently being placed on the system.” The Committee Chair, Senator Cory Bernardi, commented that “I would like to say that I share your sentiments and concerns about Senate inquiries. I wonder if you have any information, or whether you can provide it on notice, about senators who have supported the initiation of an inquiry— either sponsoring the inquiry or as a party to the motion— but who have then failed to participate in that inquiry?” Dr Laing responded that there was no information to hand but in any event “it is the Senate that makes decisions. One senator may put up a notice of motion for decision, but it is the Senate that makes the decision.” Senator Bernardi responded that “indeed that is true, but the inquiry is initiated at the instigation of the people named in the reference. It has been my experience, on some inquiries that I have participated in, that sometimes the people who have initiated the reference do not even turn up to it. It beggars belief that a senator wants to initiate an inquiry and then does not participate in it. It is extraordinary. We have to pick up the load and you guys have to pick up the load as well.” Dr Laing concluded that “as I said, it is a matter for senators and the Senate, but we will see if we can retrieve anything enlightening.”
86 | The Parliamentarian | 2016: Issue One
Australian Citizenship Amendment (Allegiance to Australia) Act 2015
The legislation provides explicit powers for the cessation of Australian citizenship in specified circumstances where a dual citizen engages in terrorism-related conduct. The Minister for Immigration and Border Protection, Hon. Peter Dutton MP, commented that the legislation “implements the commitment made by the Prime Minister, myself and the Australian Government to address the challenges posed by dual citizens who betray Australia by participating in serious terrorism related activities.” Mr Dutton commented that a purpose clause has been inserted into the legislation which “states that, by these amendments, the parliament recognises that Australian citizenship is a common bond, involving reciprocal rights and obligations, and that citizens may, through certain conduct incompatible with the safety and shared values of the Australian community demonstrate that they have severed that bond and renounced their allegiance to Australia.” Mr Dutton noted that “in accordance with Australia’s international law obligations, no-one will lose citizenship under any of these provisions unless they are a national of another country.” The new section of the legislation provides that a person who is a national or citizen of a country other than Australia renounces their Australian citizenship if they act inconsistently with their allegiance to Australia by engaging in specified conduct including: engaging in international terrorist activities using explosive or lethal devices; engaging in a terrorist act; providing or receiving training connected with preparation for, engagement in, or assistance in a terrorist act; directing the activities of a terrorist organisation; recruiting for a terrorist organisation; financing terrorism; financing a terrorist; and engaging in foreign incursions and recruitment.
Automatic loss of citizenship will be triggered whether the conduct takes place inside or outside Australia. The Minister must give notice that a person has ceased to be an Australian citizen once the Minister becomes aware of the person’s conduct giving rise to that outcome, but this notice does not affect when the loss of citizenship takes place.
In summing up debate on the legislation, Mr Dutton noted the work of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security in reviewing the Bill and making recommendations to include additional safeguards in the legislation which the government accepted.
During debate in the Senate, the Shadow Minister for Higher Education, Research, Innovation and Industry, Senator Hon. Kim Carr, commented that it “is one of the most controversial items of legislation to have arisen from the current concerns about global terrorism and the potential involvement of Australians.” Senator Carr noted that “this Bill contains many provisions intended to ensure that people cannot easily forfeit their citizenship and the right to call themselves Australian. This is important, particularly given what we have just heard: in respect of this Bill, it
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92
