The most important part of ensuring that individuals and communities are not radicalised is Australia’s social cohesion, which has rightly been in the spotlight of what we’re seeing in the Israel-Hamas conflict. Rhetoric that pits Australians against each other can only be of harm and increase the risk of terrorism and radicalisation. All of us in this place should be mindful of that at all times, not just when discussing a bill such as this one but in our role as leaders. We need to put a stop to this constant race and the use of othering of people in our communities.
Senator DAVID POCOCK (Australian Capital Territory) (12:17): The Australian Citizenship Amendment (Citizenship Repudiation) Bill 2023 is a significant improvement on the previous version of these laws, which did not respect the separation of powers and the role of the courts in meting out punishment. I believe it is important to protect Australians from terrorist acts by those who have been so radicalised that they seek to harm Australians. Those who have rejected Australian values to such a degree that they have been engaged in terrorist acts absolutely should not retain the privilege of Australian citizenship.
However, I have some serious concerns about this bill. It has been rushed through, and it has not been subject to the ordinary Senate committee scrutiny. That is troubling and pretty scary for such laws, which have serious implications for the safety of Australians and huge implications for individuals. These laws don’t only have implications for the safety of Australians; they have implications for Australians overseas, for Australia’s important international relationships and for our allies.
Australia has a great program for deradicalisation. It’s a commendable, collaborative effort between Commonwealth, state and territory governments. The countering violent extremism program has been extremely successful. It has reduced the risk of the radicalisation of Australians and works well for individuals’ deradicalisation where that is necessary. What has become clear, though, is that this program works by intervening early, supporting at-risk youth and building resilience to all forms of violent extremism in partnership with communities. It is communities who are best placed to identify those at risk of radicalisation—whether politically, religiously or racially motivated—and they need the support of government to do this.
The most important part of ensuring that individuals and communities are not radicalised is Australia’s social cohesion, which has rightly been in the spotlight of what we’re seeing in the Israel-Hamas conflict. Rhetoric that pits Australians against each other can only be of harm and increase the risk of terrorism and radicalisation. All of us in this place should be mindful of that at all times, not just when discussing a bill such as this one but in our role as leaders. We need to put a stop to this constant race and the use of othering of people in our communities.
I will be circulating a number of amendments that address concerns I have. Firstly, I know that this bill applies to persons aged 14 years and older. I simply cannot fathom that a young person of that age could commit or plan an act so horrendous that they would be deserving of the repudiation of their citizenship. I would suggest that if this has happened it is a failure that results from our lack of intervention, and as a society, we should take responsibility for that. Why would such young people feel so alienated, so alone and so angry and separate from the rest of our society that they would be so radicalised that they would plan a terrorist act? If that has happened, it is a failure of our mental health systems, our early intervention programs, our child protection systems and our support for new and emerging communities. Surely a child does not come up with these ideas in a vacuum. It is the responsibility of the adults around them to protect them from indoctrination. It is not that child who deserves to be punished. They certainly deserve access to our deradicalisation programs. They deserve a chance to be rehabilitated. To address this, I will move an amendment to raise the age in this bill, and I note this amendment was moved in the lower house by the crossbench, by Independents.
I also do not believe that if a person has citizenship because they were born in Australia their citizenship should be subject to cancellation. If you were born here and have lived here long enough to become a citizen, you are Australian—you are part of us—and it is up to Australia and the various systems that we have in place to deradicalise you, not to jettison you off to another country where you may or may not continue to cause harm, be it to Australians overseas or to the people of other nations.
It’s up to us to punish people for these offences, to supervise them and to rehabilitate and deradicalise them to protect communities across the country and to strengthen our social cohesion. We would not expect another country to deport back to us people who have been radicalised there. How can we expect to disregard our responsibilities in this way and ship off problems to other countries? If we put ourselves in other countries’ shoes, I would argue, we would not look favourably on this sort of legislation.
Finally, this bill raises concerns, when you look at the recent cases of Daniel Love and Brendan Thoms, that Australia has been holding a number of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in immigration detention. Because of a trick of circumstances, this group of people did not hold Australian citizenship and had their visas cancelled under section 501 of the Migration Act. How on earth can a country like Australia treat Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, this continent’s First Peoples, as aliens in their own nation? Along with many, I am deeply troubled that this can happen. In absolute terms: this bill must never, ever apply to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, and I will be circulating an amendment to this effect.
We’ve seen this again highlighted with the terror attacks on 7 October. Terrorism is a truly awful act, and everyone in our communities has a right to feel safe. This is something that we value as a society. Elected representatives at all levels work towards ensuring that the people that they represent feel safe. Governments rightly have a right and a responsibility to prioritise this issue and to take all steps necessary to ensure that Australia is a safe place for all of us to live. But we need a comprehensive approach to countering radicalisation; one that is risk based. Any blanket approach that is punitive towards low-risk individuals risks further alienation of the very people that are susceptible to radicalisation. We must work with communities to identify those at risk, to intervene early and to ensure that we are prioritising programs that support social cohesion, integration and community safety.
Terrorism is unacceptable, and I will always support measures that keep Australians safe. But I would urge all in this place to take very seriously our obligation to respect the human rights of people and to take an approach that is going to enhance social cohesion; that is aimed at early intervention; and that doesn’t go down the road that we have seen some politicians heading down, where we are willing to ‘other’ people in our communities and to ‘other’ people for political advantage. That is not the way to continue to build on this great multicultural society that we all live in.