be easily taken away, and should not be taken away simply by an administrative action by government. The Council noted that the requirement of conviction for an offence in relation to fraud or misrepresentation was important safeguard’ and recommended ‘an that it continue. The current procedure provides a balance between ensuring certainty of citizenship status while allowing serious cases of fraud and misrepresentation involved in the citizenship process to be prosecuted and result in a revocation of citizenship. It is a that has been used rarely, but is available in appropriate cases. The Australian Citizenship Council in its February 2000 report identified five cases where individuals had been convicted of making false statements in their applications for Australian Citizenship and had their citizenship revoked as a result. The Bill proposes to change the threshold for revocation in exactly the kind of way that the Council warned against. Proposed s 34AA would allow the Minister to revoke a person’s citizenship if the Minister was that the person obtained approval to become a ‘satisfied’ citizen as a result of fraud or misrepresentation connected with: the citizenship approval granted by the Minister; the person’s entry into Australia; the grant of any visa to the person prior to the approval to become a citizen. This would significantly decrease the degree of proof of fraud or misrepresentation required. There would no longer be any requirement for the allegations to be tested in court. The Minister’s satisfaction would be sufficient. Citizenship could be taken away by an administrative action by ‘simply government’. The person need not have engaged in any or misrepresentation themselves or even have known that there was any fraud or misrepresentation involved. For example, the Explanatory Memorandum suggests that a person’s citizenship could be revoked if the Minister becomes satisfied that a misrepresentation was made by a person’s migration agent of which the person was unaware. Given the grave consequences involved for an individual if citizenship is revoked, the Commission considers that any allegations of fraud or misrepresentation used as the basis for revoking citizenship should be established as a result of a fair and public hearing by a competent, independent and impartial tribunal established by law.
be easily taken away, and should not be taken away simply by an administrative action by government. The Council noted that the requirement of conviction for an offence in relation to fraud or misrepresentation was ‘an important safeguard’ and recommended that it continue. The current procedure provides a balance between ensuring certainty of citizenship status while allowing serious cases of fraud and misrepresentation involved in the citizenship process to be prosecuted and result in a revocation of citizenship. It is a that has been used rarely, but is available in appropriate cases. The Australian Citizenship Council in its February 2000 report identified five cases where individuals had been convicted of making false statements in their applications for Australian Citizenship and had their citizenship revoked as a result. The Bill proposes to change the threshold for revocation in exactly the kind of way that the Council warned against. Proposed s 34AA would allow the Minister to revoke a person’s citizenship if the Minister was ‘satisfied’ that the person obtained approval to become a citizen as a result of fraud or misrepresentation connected with: the citizenship approval granted by the Minister; the person’s entry into Australia; the grant of any visa to the person prior to the approval to become a citizen. This would significantly decrease the degree of proof of fraud or misrepresentation required. There would no longer be any requirement for the allegations to be tested in court. The Minister’s satisfaction would be sufficient. Citizenship could be taken away ‘simply by an administrative action by government’. The person need not have engaged in any or misrepresentation themselves or even have known that there was any fraud or misrepresentation involved. For example, the Explanatory Memorandum suggests that a person’s citizenship could be revoked if the Minister becomes satisfied that a misrepresentation was made by a person’s migration agent of which the person was unaware. Given the grave consequences involved for an individual if citizenship is revoked, the Commission considers that any allegations of fraud or misrepresentation used as the basis for revoking citizenship should be established as a result of a fair and public hearing by a competent, independent and impartial tribunal established by law.
AHRC_20170717_Submission_Citizenship_Strengthening_Requirements_Bill.docx