Bill
Australian Citizenship Amendment (Allegiance to Australia) Bill 2015
passed, as at 2015-12-11. Immigration and Border Protection portfolio.
- Sponsor
- Not recorded
- Portfolio
- Immigration and Border Protection
Recorded stages
- introduced — 2015-06-24
- second reading — 2015-06-24
- second reading — 2015-11-12
- second reading — 2015-11-23
- second reading — 2015-11-24
- second reading — 2015-11-30
- second reading — 2015-11-30
- committee — 2015-11-30
- third reading — 2015-11-30
- introduced — 2015-11-30
- second reading — 2015-11-30
- second reading — 2015-11-30
- second reading — 2015-12-01
- committee — 2015-12-01
- committee — 2015-12-02
- committee — 2015-12-03
- third reading — 2015-12-03
- third reading — 2015-12-03
- passed — 2015-12-03
- royal assent — 2015-12-11
Divisions
- The majority voted in favour of a [motion](http://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?gid=2015-11-30.176.1) introduced by Senator [Richard Colbeck](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/senate/tasmania/richard_colbeck), which means they were in favour of considering [the bill](http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id:legislation/billhome/r5507) quickly. In parliamentary language, the motion was: > *That the provisions of paragraphs (5) to (8) of [standing order 111](http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Chamber_documents/Senate_chamber_documents/standingorders/b00/b20) not apply to the bill, allowing it to be considered during this period of sittings.* [Standing orders](http://www.peo.gov.au/learning/fact-sheets/standing-orders.html) are the rules that are followed in parliament about when to speak, when to vote, when to adjourn etc. If this motion hadn't passed, the Senate would have had to wait until the next period of sittings before they could discuss whether to pass the bill. In this case, the next sitting period would've been next year in 2016 (see the [Sitting Calendar](http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Sitting_Calendar)). ### What is this bill about? **This bill relates to the policy "[For revoking citizenship of dual nationals involved with terrorism offences](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/policies/84)".** The purpose of the bill is to remove the Australian citizenship of a [dual national](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_citizenship) in certain situations, including if they fight for or serve a terrorist organisation (read more in the [bills digest](http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd1516a/16bd015) and [ABC News](http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-05-27/citizenship-stripped-under-new-laws-explainer/6500280)). — 2015-11-30, Senate: affirmative, ayes 40, noes 11
- Australian Citizenship Amendment (Allegiance to Australia) Bill 2015 - Second Reading - Agree with the bill's main idea — 2015-12-01, Senate: affirmative, ayes 33, noes 13
- The majority voted against an [amendment](http://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?gid=2015-12-03.271.1) introduced by Liberal Democratic Party Senator [David Leyonhjelm](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/senate/nsw/david_leyonhjelm). In other words, the majority did *not* want to add a new [sunset clause](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunset_provision) to the [bill](http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id:legislation/billhome/r5507). ### What is a sunset clause? A sunset clause puts a limit on how long parts of the bill (or maybe even the whole bill) can be in force without being considered again by Parliament. For example, Leyonhjelm's proposed sunset clause would have meant that the sections he mentioned would stop being law after ten years. At that point, if the Parliament wanted the sections to continue, they would have to re-introduce them. Read [Senator Leyonhjelm's speech](http://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?gid=2015-12-03.271.1) to learn why he thought a sunset clause was needed. ### What is this bill all about? The main idea of the bill is to remove the Australian citizenship of a [dual national](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_citizenship) in certain situations, including if they fight for or serve a terrorist organisation (read more in the [bills digest](http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd1516a/16bd015) and [ABC News](http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-05-27/citizenship-stripped-under-new-laws-explainer/6500280)). ### Wording of Leyonhjelm's amendment > *(1) Schedule 1, page 18 (after line 27), after item 7, insert:* > *7A After section 53* > *Insert:* >> *53A Sunset provision* >> *(1) Sections 33AA, 35, 35AA, 35AB, 35A, 35B and 36A cease to have effect at the end of 10 years after this section commences.* >> *(2) The regulations may prescribe matters of a transitional nature (including prescribing any saving or application provisions) arising out of the provisions mentioned in su — 2015-12-03, Senate: negative, ayes 16, noes 29
Plain-language summary
Written by a model from the explanatory memorandum; not the record, as at 2015-06-24.
The bill would let the government strip Australian citizenship from dual citizens who engage in terrorism-related conduct.
It creates three ways citizenship can cease: a person aged 14 or older renounces it by acting inconsistently with allegiance, loses it for fighting for a declared terrorist organisation, or the minister may determine it ceases after a terrorist-linked conviction with at least 6 years imprisonment.
The bill applies only to dual citizens to avoid statelessness, and the minister must give written notice (or try to) when citizenship ends, unless doing so could prejudice security.
- The bill broadens the grounds for citizenship cessation beyond requiring a conviction for a specified offence.
- It introduces a purpose clause setting out the principles behind the amendments.
- It requires the minister to report on and monitor the operation of the new arrangements.
Dual citizens who are nationals of another country and engage in terrorism-related conduct.
Sources
em
em supp
em revised
billhome
frl act