Australian Citizenship Act Analysis

This assignment critically examines a proposed bill on security measures within the Australian Citizenship Act. It delves into the constitutionality of specific clauses, highlighting potential flaws such as non-refundable fees and mandatory DNA tests. The analysis also acknowledges valid provisions like candidate detail regulations and financial assistance to partner nations. Ultimately, it aims to assess the bill's effectiveness and suggest modifications for improvement.

Australian Constitutional Law

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Assessing the extent to which bill proposed by Senator Caesar is flawless................................3
REFERENCES..............................................................................................................................10

Assessing the extent to which bill proposed by Senator Caesar is flawless
The Australian constitution implies for the composition or structure of parliament and
presents the manner in which it works. Constitutional law of Australia clearly describes the way
on the basis of Federal and State parliament shares power with each other. As per the legal
aspects, authority of Federal parliament can made, modify and remove existing legislative
practices referring the Act of parliament. Under Australian constitution, federal parliament can
make or introduce laws regarding international trade, foreign affairs, insurance and banking
matters etc. The present report is based on the case scenario which will shed light on the laws
and aspects related to the validity of bill.
Given case scenario presents that Senator Caesar intends to examine or assess the validity
of proposed National Security Bill. Caesar presents that such proposed bill will serve legitimate
purpose and ensures that parliament is composed of real Australians. Hence, proposed bill will
exhibit that Australian government is supplied only through loyal businesses and individuals.
Under such bill, five parts have included by Senator Caesar that are highly associated with the
loyalty of aspect of suppliers or citizens. Along with this, from part 1 to 5, several legal aspects
have included by the Senator pertaining to national security. However, with the motive to assess
the extent to which proposed bill would be valid a valid law Senator Caesar had a discussion
with Attorney-General, Ms Drusilla Cato MP. In the context of bill, attorney general entailed that
it is faulty and contains several issues. Hence, in this, the main issue is to assess the level to
which proposed rules are valid.
Part 1
In accordance with the Australian laws and legislation, specific rules are mentioned in the
constitutional law regarding the disqualification of parliamentary member. Section 44 (1) and (2)
of Chapter 4 presents that citizen with foreign power and punished for the offences as
imprisonment shall be incapable in relation to becoming a member of the House of

Representatives. Referring the case of Sarina v O'Connor (1946)1, Free v Kelly (1996)2
and Crittenden v Anderson (1950)3 it can be depicted that a of Part 1 is appropriate and valid to
some extent. As per the constitutional law and relative cases rule pertaining to including
members in Parliament on the basis of their origin, citizenship and nationalities is valid.
Section 116 of Chapter 5 entails that commonwealth shall not make any law in relation to the
establishment of religion. In addition to this, constitutional law offers freedom to the member in
relation to communicating their views regarding political matters. Thus, two elements related to
political matters and religion are not highly valid.
Further, section 42 of Chapter 4 exhibits that that every senator and member pertaining to
House of Representatives must take an oath for allegiance or loyalty4. Hence, by taking into
account such aspect, it can be depicted that b sentence of Part A is appropriate.
On the other side, chapter 5, section 53, presents that Senate may not amend any law
which in turn impose charge or burden on people. In the context of given scenario, c sentence of
Part A, shows that every candidate needs to pay non-refundable fees of $5000 associated with
the checking aspect of origin, religion, citizenship, nationalities and political views. Hence, such
fees will impose burden on the members and thereby negatively impacts the compliance aspect
of constitutional rules.
Part 2
1 Dual .Citizenship, Foreign Allegiance and s.44(jJ ofthe Australian Constitution. 2017.
[Online]. Available through: <
https://www.aph.gov.au/binaries/library/pubs/bp/1992/92bp29.pdf>.
2 Free v Kelly and Australian Electoral Commission [1996] HCA 41
3 CRITTENDEN V. ANDERSON
4 Australia’s Constitution. n.d. [Online]. Available through:
<file:///C:/Users/karen/Downloads/2012_Australian_Constitution%20(1).pdf>.

According to the scenario, Senator Caesar is also concerned with the goods and services
suppliers to the Australian Government as they are not transparent to proprietors are also not
loyal to Australia. The Government cannot assure that it is taking deliveries of goods and
services from the Australian suppliers who are not involved in terroristic activities and foreign
adversaries. Senator is particularly concerned in this area and said that currently, government is
buying goods and services from the suppliers who are owned by criminals, terrorists and hostile
foreign governments as they are situated on Australia’s coasts. Australian Competition and
Consumer Commission (ACCC) enforce standard rules and regulations to assure national
security for the Australian. According to the currently applicable rules, suppliers need to register
themselves as a “responsible supplier” before supplies goods and services to the government for
Australia Communication and Media Authority (ACMA).
In order to resolve given magnitude of the problem, Senator opined that all the suppliers
must become a registered supplier by the end of 1 October 2018 by purchasing a National
Security Licence from National Security Department. The department owes central responsibility
for the national security against terrorism and other threatening events. However, if any member
did not register himself till the end of the mentioned date than, their business will be terminated
by the department order and their assets will be forfeited to the National Security Protection
Fund (NSPF). Australia is currently poses a significant risk of terrorism which threaten the safety
and wellbeing of citizens. Thus, the recommended plan of Senator will definitely safeguard the
government against the risk of obtaining goods and service from the parties who are involved in
terrorism. It will serve as a National Counter Terrorism Plan that enables Government to protect
all the citizens by obtaining supplies from only the suppliers registered as “truly Australians” and
their loyalty to the nation is unquestionable.
In order to register, suppliers need to provide their business details along with complete
biographical details of the workers, corporate officers, shareholders and partners. In this respect,
they need to disclose information including their name, gender, educational details, address, city,
nationality, and age and family details. All these information will be helpful for authentication of
the suppliers. The information will help Australian National Security Department to get enough
information about the suppliers and their working practices and license will be grant only to

those parties who found transparent without any suspicion and free from any involvement in
tourism activities.
Part 3
Part 3 of the proposed bill entails that every year suppliers need to pay annual national
security levy such as $2m. Under such part 2 subparts have been included by Senator. On the
basis of proposed bill levy charges will be applicable on the suppliers who are operating in the
special national security zones which are recognized by the minister under regulations. Along
with this, b part of proposed bill presents that levy charges of $2000000 will be imposed on
supplier who will sell products or services to the customer’s worth of $20 million. In such
proposal, Senator Caesar has mentioned that Sydney, Canberra, Brisbane, Darwin and Perth will
be considered as special security zones. The rationale behind the inclusion of all such areas is
that Australian government spends lots of money on national security matters associated with
such areas.
In the context of part 3 of proposed bill, section 112 of chapter 5 is highly suitable which
in turn presents that states may impose levy on imports or exports, or goods which are passing
into or out of the state. In accordance with the constitution law of Australia, levy charges are
required for implementing the inspection law of state. Along with this, section 112 of law
presents that net figure of charges that so levied shall be for the use of commonwealth. This
aspect clearly exhibits that all the levy charges needs to be used for the welfare of people
belonging from territory or regions such as New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia,
Queensland and Tasmania. Hence, referring section 112 of Australian constitution it can be
depicted that from the inspectional purpose it is highly appropriate for the Australian government
to impose levy on suppliers which provide Australian government with the products or services5.
As per the bill, such charge will not be imposed on the supplier who supplies products or
services to the customers less than worth of $20 million in the prior financial year. In addition to
5 Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act. 2017. [Online]. Available through:
<https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Senate/Powers_practice_n_procedures/
Constitution.aspx >.

this, as per the rules and regulations mentioned in constitutional law, Senator Caesar mentioned
that sum of levy charges will be used for special national security zones and thereby contributes
in the welfare of others. Hence, it can be depicted that Part of proposed bill is in line with the
Constitutional Act of Australia. However, in the constitution law there is no specific rules in
relation to imposing levy charges. Hence, for passing such part and covert the proposal in law
consensus from the majority of members are highly required.
Part 4
Section 96 of Australian Constitutional law, Parliament may grant financial assistance
to any state on the basis of terms and conditions that it assumes good. It is mentioned in the
concerned laws that after the establishment of Commonwealth financial assistance are offered by
the Parliament to states. Cited case situation presents that all the monies which are set out in Act
will be used to offer financial support regarding development projects in Broome, Port Hedland,
Jervis Bay, Canberra, Cairns, Townsville, and Darwin. Hence, considering such aspect, it can be
depicted that Part 4 of proposed bill is valid in accordance with the Constitutional law of
Australia.
Part 5
Given case situation presents that, part 5 of the proposed bill lays high level of emphasis
on imposing entry requirements and travel restrictions on individual visitors and Australian
immigrants. In the proposed bill, Senator Caesar has mentioned that individual and immigrants
to Australia needs to provide their fingerprints, DNA samples and other data that ensure proper
identification. Along with this, proposed bill entail that department officers will access their
social media account. Further, new rules which are mentioned in proposed bill, presents that after
arriving in Australia, they will reside in certain localities. By taking into account concern in
relation to the security aspects, it can be depicted that proposed rules regarding entry
requirements and travel restrictions are good to some extent. Moreover, DNA samples and
accessibility pertaining to their social sites closely influences the level of privacy6. Hence, by
taking into account such aspect, it can be mentioned that there is a need to specify rules in
6 Commonwealth of Australia constitution act - sect 51. 2017. [Online]. Available through: <
http://www5.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/coaca430/s51.html>.

relation to such aspect. However, considering section 51 (23) of Australian Constitution Law
prohibits civil conscription in relation to the medical and dental services7. This aspect can clearly
be supported with the judgment found in the case of Plaintiff S4/2014 v Minister for Immigration
and Border Protection [2014] HCA 34.
As per the bill, individual visitors and immigrants to Australia need to satisfy certain specified
entry requirements and they are subject to several travelling restrictions to safeguard the country
against terroristic attacks. In this regards, the most important point is nationality set by
Australian constitution is different from citizenship in the Australian Citizenship Act 1948 that
sets rights and freedom, in which, parliament cannot interfere. Section 51(27) state power under
the constitution to frame laws regarding immigration. In the case law of Cole versus Whitfield, it
is clearly mentioned by the Constitutional framers that power to frame rules and regulations on
immigration means people who are coming from any other country or outside necessarily goes
beyond the power8.
No-doubt, individual visitors and migrants are subject to legal compulsion due to the
suspicion that they might be a tourist. However, there is no legal compulsion on the migrants and
visitors to stay in certainly defined localities, still, in practice, majority of the migrants lived in
Melbourne or Sydney. However, on the other side, people living in the country without a visa or
their visa have been expired or cancelled are subject to mandatory detention policy 9. It would
7 Australian Constitutional Court Cases in English. 2017. [Online]. Available through: <
https://www.loc.gov/law/help/constitutional-court-cases/australia.php>.
8 The Constitution and Deportation of Australian-born Children, 2013. [Online]. Available
through: < https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/
Parliamentary_Library/pubs/rp/rp0304/04RP03>.
9 Australia’s Immigration Detention Policy and Practice. n.d. [Online]. Available through:
https://www.humanrights.gov.au/publications/last-resort-national-inquiry-children-immigration-
detention/6-australias-immigration.

better to report Departmental with frequency of visit of outside visitors and immigrants to the
Australia, so that, suspected people can be inquire properly considering the national security
aspect. It will assist the officers to determine the reasons of their frequently visiting into the
country and any suspicion regarding the terrorist attack can be determined.
By summing up this report, it has been concluded that proposed bill presented by Senator
Caesar is not highly valid. It can be seen in the report that there are some flaws which take place
in such bill. From evaluation, it has been articulated that arrangement pertaining to non-
refundable fees is not valid. In addition to this, medical requirements related to DNA test are not
highly appropriate. Thus, for the development of flawless bill pertaining to security aspect
Senator Caesar needs to make some specific changes into it. Besides this, it can be inferred that
rules regarding candidate details, supplier’s selection, levy and offering of financial assistance to
the related nations are highly valid. This in turn helps entity or Senator Caesar in getting the
desired level of outcome for which bill is proposed.

REFERENCES
Online
Australia’s Constitution. n.d. [Online]. Available through:
<file:///C:/Users/karen/Downloads/2012_Australian_Constitution%20(1).pdf>.
Australia’s Immigration Detention Policy and Practice. n.d. [Online]. Available through:
<https://www.humanrights.gov.au/publications/last-resort-national-inquiry-children-
immigration-detention/6-australias-immigration>.
Australian Constitutional Court Cases in English. 2017. [Online]. Available through: <
https://www.loc.gov/law/help/constitutional-court-cases/australia.php>.
Commonwealth of Australia constitution act - sect 51. 2017. [Online]. Available through: <
http://www5.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/coaca430/s51.html>.
Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act. 2017. [Online]. Available through:
<https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Senate/Powers_practice_n_procedures/
Constitution.aspx >.
Dual .Citizenship, Foreign Allegiance and s.44(jJ ofthe Australian Constitution. 2017. [Online].
Available through: < https://www.aph.gov.au/binaries/library/pubs/bp/1992/92bp29.pdf>.
The Constitution and Deportation of Australian-born Children, 2013. [Online]. Available
through:<https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/
Parliamentary_Library/pubs/rp/rp0304/04RP03>.