CHAPTER 2
INTERNATIONAL CONSULAR ARRANGEMENTS
Introduction
2.1 In this chapter the Committee sets out the international framework
within which Australia provides consular services and the international
consular practices to which Australia conforms.
The Vienna Convention on Consular Relations
2.2 The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT) submitted that:
The right to afford protection to its citizens in another country
has been regarded for centuries as an important attribute of state sovereignty.
The provision of such protection has been at the heart of relations
between states and has been the cause of the establishment of many diplomatic
and consular missions. The provision of such assistance is generally
referred to as 'diplomatic protection' or 'consular protection'. [1]
2.3 Various attempts were made to codify international consular law in
the first half of the twentieth century. In 1961, the Vienna Convention
on Diplomatic Relations was concluded, which was followed in 1963 with
the conclusion of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations (referred
to as the 'Vienna Convention' in this report). Australia has signed and
ratified the Vienna Convention, which came into force in Australia in
1973. DFAT submitted that the Vienna Convention:
affirms that 'the rules of customary international law continue
to govern matters not expressly regulated by the provisions of the present
Convention'. It also states that it will not affect 'other international
agreements', whether these existed at the time or were developed later.
Thus, while the [Vienna Convention] is the basis of international
law governing consular relations it is not, and does not purport to
be, the sole determinant of that law. Other determinants include: bilateral
consular relations agreements, other multilateral agreements of relevance
(such as the European Convention on the Transfer of Sentenced Persons),
and the body of international practice. [2]
The Hague Conventions
2.4 There are two Hague Conventions relating to consular work: the Convention
on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction and the Convention
on Certain Questions Relating to the Conflict of Nationality Laws.
Convention on Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction
2.5 The Convention on Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction
ensures that governments will take action on behalf of parents in Convention
countries who seek the return of children abducted to other Convention
countries. The Convention applies to any child who was habitually resident
in a Convention country immediately before any breach of custody or access
right occurred. The Convention only applies to children under the age
of 16 years. Once a child is returned, it is for the appropriate
authority in that country to decide on disputed questions of custody.
2.6 The Department told the Committee that if the country to which an
abducted child has been taken is a party to the Convention, the Australian
Government can insist that the provisions of the Convention be upheld.
In its submission, the Department also stated that the advantage of the
Convention is that 'Central Authorities are established in each member
country to take responsibility for returning children. This removes the
need for parents to engage local lawyers and the problems of attempting
to resolve custody disputes by representations through diplomatic channels.'
[3] If the country to which a child is
abducted is not a party, then it is necessary for a parent to go to that
country to fight custody proceedings. This may involve parents in lengthy
and costly domestic proceedings in the country to which the child has
been taken.
2.7 Each year approximately 100 abductions to and from Australia are
dealt with under the Convention. Where a child is abducted from Australia
to a Convention country, the Convention has proved to be effective, with
a high rate of return of children to Australia. [4]
However, a major weakness lies in the limited number of countries which
have acceded to it. At present, there are 45 parties to the Convention.
Australia has acceded to The Hague Convention, the provisions of which
became effective in Australia on 1 January 1987. New Zealand is the only
other country in the Asia Pacific region to have acceded to the Convention.
Other parties are countries of Europe and the Americas.
2.8 The Australian Government has been encouraging regional countries
and major migrant source countries to accede to the Convention. Sri Lanka
and South Africa have indicated that they will sign the Convention once
they have enacted implementing legislation. Although Fiji, Papua New Guinea
and the Philippines have indicated that they are considering such a move,
the response generally to date has been disappointing. Some countries
have not been willing to allow the future of children to be decided on
the basis of civil law proceedings rather than on a religious basis. Other
countries, such as Indonesia and Japan, do not see any benefit for their
children as the removal of children from those countries is not currently
a problem. The Attorney-General's Department indicated that this might
change with increased overseas travel and increased abduction of children
to overseas destinations. In other words, the motivation to accede to
the Convention would occur when countries believe it is in their interests
to be a party to the Convention. [5]
2.9 On 17 to 21 March 1997 the third Special Commission meeting was held
at The Hague. The purpose of the meeting was to review the operation of
the Child Abduction Convention amongst those countries which are Contracting
States to the Convention. An officer of the Attorney-General's Department
attended the meeting as Australia's delegate.
2.10 At the meeting South Africa, Belgium and the Czech Republic announced
that they expected to ratify the Convention by the end of 1997. The matters
raised at the meeting are discussed in Chapter 9.
Convention on Certain Questions Relating to Conflict of Nationality
Laws
2.11 A number of countries, including Australia, signed the Convention
in the 1930s. It was envisaged that each person would have a nationality
and none would have more than one nationality. Since Australia signed
the Convention, international practice has become more tolerant of dual
nationality and the provisions of the Convention have become rather anachronistic.
[6] Dual nationality is discussed in
more depth later in this chapter.
International Practice
2.12 DFAT drew a distinction between the principles which are enshrined
in the Vienna Convention and consular practice, much of which is not defined
in the Convention. Although each country has developed its own body of
consular practice, it is largely consistent among countries. There are,
however, inconsistencies in consular practice often resulting from 'local
law being inconsistent with either established consular practice or with
the consular practice of a particular foreign government'. [7]DFAT
submitted that Australia frequently goes, or seeks to go, beyond the requirements
of established consular practice in particular circumstances. It cited
the following examples:
- our willingness during the Gulf War to assist not only dual
nationals but also permanent residents and non-nationals;
- in Sofia, Bulgaria, when the airline Jes Air collapsed financially,
provision of consular assistance to refugees who were on their way
to Australia for the first time and who had little if any connection
with Australia;
- the involvement of the Foreign Minister in particular cases
and his representations, both written and oral, in a wide range of
cases;
- continuing efforts to assist Mrs Gillespie in her attempts
to contact her children in Malaysia;
- special assistance given this year to an Australian woman
whose testimony was required at a trial in Athens of three men who
raped her some years ago. [8]
2.14 DFAT argued that this showed its flexibility and innovation in handling
unusual cases. It pointed out, however, that even when it made special
arrangements in some cases, there was no guarantee that another country
would accept arrangements which were outside the normal boundaries of
consular practice and, in fact, sometimes regarded such arrangements as
improper interference in the internal affairs or judicial matters of a
sovereign country. [9]
Bilateral Arrangements
Bilateral consular agreements
2.15 DFAT submitted that during the 1980s, Australia had negotiated towards
entering into bilateral consular agreements with countries within the
former Soviet bloc. Consular officials had experienced difficulties in
gaining consular access to Australians (often dual nationals or former
nationals of the host country) who had been arrested while visiting these
countries which had not, at that time, adhered to the Vienna Convention.
However, when those countries acceded to the Vienna Convention, following
the fall of communist regimes in Eastern Europe, such proposed agreements
were rendered unnecessary. Agreements had actually been signed with Poland,
Hungary and the Soviet Union but those with Poland and Hungary could not
have been ratified in any event because they would have been contrary
to certain provisions of the Commonwealth Privacy Act enacted in 1988.
2.16 DFAT also reported that difficulties had arisen in China and Vietnam
in ensuring that consular access was granted to Australian dual nationals
arrested in those countries as neither country recognises dual nationality.
The Department noted that consular access to dual nationals in Vietnam
was always granted eventually and that Vietnam has now adhered to the
Vienna Convention. As a result, the Australian Government is now seeking
an exchange of letters with Vietnam in which each country would guarantee
consular access on request to the passport holders of the other country.
[10] No negotiations are currently being
undertaken but the matter is being raised on every suitable occasion with
the Vietnamese. However, the Department reported that there has been little
progress, with the Vietnamese saying that a new nationality law to be
enacted in Vietnam will resolve the problem. [11]
2.17 China adhered to the Vienna Convention in 1979. It had also entered
into two bilateral agreements with Australia relating to the establishment
of Consulates-General.
2.18 The Australian Government has approached China with a view to entering
into a possible bilateral agreement with China on consular matters. A
first round of talks was held with Chinese officials in February in 1997.
These were preparatory discussions and specific objectives for Australian
negotiators have not yet been set. However, DFAT indicated that its main
priority would probably be the protection of all Australian citizens in
China, including dual nationals. Other possible objectives might include
provisions guaranteeing that consular access would take place expeditiously
and at 'minimum intervals'.
Consular sharing agreement with Canada
2.19 Since 1986, Australia and Canada have been operating a consular
sharing agreement under a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU). Such arrangements
are permissible under the Vienna Convention, subject to host government
approval. There have not been any serious problems with host authorities
accepting the arrangements between Australia and Canada.
2.20 Under the MOU, the Canadian Government provides a range of consular
assistance to Australian citizens in the following 12 locations where
there is no Australian consular representation: Abidjan, Accra, Addis
Ababa, Conakry, Dakar, Dar es Salaam, Havana, Kinshasa, Libreville, Rabat,
Tunis and Yaounde. In return, Australia provides the same level of consular
assistance to Canadian citizens in 13 other locations where the Canadians
are not represented. DFAT submitted that:
The services that are provided under the consular sharing agreement
are of an emergency nature and include intervention in the case of arrest
and detention, issue of emergency travel documents, financial assistance,
repatriation, assistance in case of illness, death, lost property, welfare
and whereabouts, emergency evacuations and registration of nationals.
Services not included are legal or notarial acts, the issue of passports
or visas, assistance in extradition cases, administration of estates,
registration of deaths or the invigilation of examinations. [12]
2.21 Although it has not been intended that the consular authority in
a post under this agreement should spend much time on consular matters
involving citizens of the other country, there have been one or two exceptions
to this rule on each side. In addition, some cases do take a much longer
time than usual to finalise. Nevertheless, the arrangement is regarded
as being a successful one and serves the interests of the governments
and citizens of both countries. DFAT reported that there had only been
one complaint about the service provided by an Australian consulate from
a Canadian national. This complaint related to the lack of provision of
a French language service. The Department stated that while signs at overseas
posts are in both French and English, the agreement exempts Australia
from providing a French language service. [13]
United Kingdom consular assistance
2.22 The Committee was told by DFAT that Australian and other Commonwealth
citizens have been the beneficiaries of British consular assistance in
places where their countries were not represented. Although Australia
provides consular assistance for Britain in Honolulu and Bali, [14]
British assistance to Australians has been provided on a non-reciprocal
basis. Australia has attempted to minimise this reliance on British goodwill
by entering into consular sharing arrangements with Canada and extending
the Honorary Consul network. [15] However,
DFAT noted that Australia still relies heavily on British assistance in
places where there is no Australian or Canadian Government presence. This
is particularly so in the Persian Gulf where the British Embassy have
provided extensive assistance.
2.23 In its first appearance before the Committee on 9 September 1996,
DFAT stated that in the face of their own financial stringencies, the
British would prefer Commonwealth countries to make other arrangements
for provision of consular assistance to their citizens abroad. [16]
Following discussions with British officials in February 1997, DFAT reported
that Britain was still happy to provide consular assistance to Australians
as a study had found that the cost of doing so was small and 'our relations
with the British in terms of consular handling look much cheerier'. [17]
Negotiations towards consular sharing agreements with other countries
2.24 DFAT stated that the United States had assisted Australian nationals
in major emergencies in countries where there were no Australian Government
representatives. In the most recent case, Australians were included with
US nationals in the evacuation from Liberia in 1996. This assistance was
not based on any formal agreement rather 'the Americans organised it and
swept our people along with theirs'. [18]
DFAT has also stated that it would provide that same assistance to US
nationals where the US had no representatives and Australia does. [19]
2.25 DFAT noted the great benefits arising from informal consular co-operation
among nations [20] and told the Committee
that there were other areas where benefits could arise from a more formal
co-operative effort. [21] Moves had
been made to establish arrangements for co-operation. DFAT stated:
What we have been doing is starting preliminary talks with New
Zealand. We have had some discussions with the United States and we
have a meeting foreshadowed in the next six months with several countries
which will be held in Canada, which will look at this issue further,
not just in terms of reciprocal arrangements - we do it here, you do
it there - but also in terms of sharing some of the consular tasks within
a certain area. So you share the burden on individual high commissions
and embassies to cover prison visits, for example, some of the areas
where there is such a tremendous resource burden on an individual post.
[22]
2.26 Further discussions were held in February 1997 and DFAT reported:
We found a number of areas where this [co-operation] could be
done, which would save us doing say four things separately when we could
have one of us doing the four things on behalf of each other. So we
have some areas to explore which might come up with some quite good
initiatives. [23]
2.27 DFAT also told the Committee that it was open to seeking co-operative
consular arrangements with other countries but pointed out that such arrangements
would require a country to have a similar set of standards to Australia
in terms of delivery of services and also complementary posts as was the
case with the arrangement with Canada. DFAT indicated that it may be advantageous
to Australia to make arrangements with Germany and Scandinavian countries.
In particular, DFAT noted that the Scandinavians had some representation
in areas of the former Soviet Union where Australia, Canada and New Zealand
are not represented. [24]
Consular assistance in emergencies
2.28 The Department pointed out that other countries will assist where
they can in emergencies, drawing attention to the help given by the USA
in the evacuation of Australians from Liberia in 1996. The Committee was
told that Australia would act in a similar way for citizens of other countries
if roles were reversed in a country where Australia was represented but
those other countries were not. [25]
2.29 DFAT also noted that where there is no Australian Government representation,
Australians can seek assistance from Canadian consuls under the sharing
arrangement and from British officials. As a result, DFAT indicated that
Australians had access to assistance in most places in the world with
the exception of areas of the former Soviet Union and a few parts of francophone
Africa.
2.30 The Committee believes that bilateral consular agreements and other
more informal arrangements not only extend the reach of consular assistance
to Australians travelling abroad but also provide a more efficient and
cost-effective service. This is a sensible approach to take. More Australians
are moving away from traditional tourist areas in search of more unusual
destinations, often in countries where Australia has no official representation.
There is still an expectation that consular assistance will be available
in times of need. Consular sharing arrangements help to fulfil that expectation.
In times of public financial stringency, when consular services are subjected
to funding cuts as are other areas of the Department and other Commonwealth
bodies, these sharing arrangements help to maintain or increase services
within a lower budget.
| 2.31 The Committee recommends that DFAT continue
to explore sharing arrangements with other countries to increase
the reach, effectiveness and efficiency of Australia's consular
services. |
Dual Nationality
2.32 DFAT noted that millions of Australians have dual or plural nationality.
A person may become an Australian dual national by:
- becoming a naturalised Australian and being permitted to retain citizenship
of their original country by that country;
- being Australian-born and entitled to another citizenship through
parents or grandparents; and
- being an Australian women who automatically acquires citizenship of
a foreign country on marriage to a citizen of that country.
Australians born overseas who acquired their Australian citizenship by
descent may also have dual nationality if they are entitled to the citizenship
of the country in which they were born or are also entitled to another
nationality by descent.
2.33 DFAT submitted that many Australians are unaware that they are dual
nationals. In some cases it is possible for an Australian to renounce
the other nationality if they do not want to remain a dual national. In
other cases it is not possible for them to divest themselves of it. [26]
DFAT also noted that a person cannot retain Australian citizenship if
they acquire another nationality by a positive act, for example, qualifying
for residence in Britain and then taking out British nationality.DFAT
noted that there are two broad categories in relation to the provision
of consular assistance to dual nationals:
- dual nationals in the country of their other citizenship; and
- dual nationals in third countries.
2.35 The question of dual nationality is one of the key issues for which
there is not unanimity of opinion among all other countries. Unfortunately,
dual nationality is not included in the Vienna Convention. As DFAT noted,
a fundamental right, exercised by all countries, is to make laws that
govern activities on that country's territory including laws relating
to citizenship. Therefore, a state has the right to enforce within its
territory the view that a citizen is exclusively a citizen of that state
and 'it follows that that state may disregard or explicitly reject any
other citizenship which a person might hold'. [27]
2.36 The Convention on Certain Questions Relating to the Conflict of
Nationality Laws, (The Hague Convention), was intended to ensure that
each person would have a nationality and that no one would have more than
one nationality. It addresses the two categories in relation to the provision
of consular assistance to dual nationals. First, Article 4 of the Convention
states that 'A State may not afford diplomatic protection to one of its
nationals against a State whose nationality such person also possesses'.
Second, Article 5 states that 'within a third country a dual national
shall be treated as having the nationality of the country in which he
is habitually or principally resident or with which he appears to be in
fact most closely connected'. [28]
Dual nationals in the country of their other citizenship
2.37 While Article 4 of The Hague Convention means that, in the state
of their other nationality, dual nationals technically have no right to
approach the Australian representative to request assistance, DFAT submitted
that since the Convention was formulated, there has been a move within
the international community toward a greater tolerance and recognition
of dual or plural nationality. As a consequence, where a dual national
was in the country of their other citizenship, 'it is relatively uncommon
for a state to be refused the opportunity to assist its nationals even
when they meet the criteria covered by Article 4 of The Hague Convention'.
[29]
2.38 DFAT reported that Australia's consular practice has also moved
away from strict adherence to this principle and consular officers seek
to provide the same level of assistance to Australian dual nationals as
they do for other Australian citizens: 'in Australia, as a matter of government
policy, we seek consular access to anyone who is an Australian citizen
in most cases'. [30] However, DFAT noted
that it was not always possible to offer assistance to dual nationals
as the receiving state may impose limitations on the assistance to a person
who is also a citizen of that country.
2.39 In practice, DFAT reported that there have been very few difficulties
with the Australian Government's policy on dual nationals in this situation.
As noted above, while Vietnam does not recognise dual citizenship, consular
officials have always eventually gained access to dual nationals. The
Committee notes that Vietnam's new nationality law should facilitate access
to dual national detainees by Australian consular officials.
2.40 However, consular officials are still unable to gain access to detained
dual nationals in China because China does not accept the concept of dual
nationality. According to DFAT:
Chinese nationality law provides for automatic loss of citizenship
on acquisition of another nationality, but in practice Chinese authorities
do not recognise the other nationality unless the person has also completed
procedures for renunciation of citizenship as laid down in a separate
article of their citizenship law. [31]
In accordance with its non-acceptance of dual nationality, China
does not allow Australian consular officials access to Chinese-born
Australians in custody unless they have completed procedures for renouncing
their Chinese citizenship.
2.41 At present, there are four Australians in gaol in China. Australian
consular officials have gained access to three of the detainees, including
Mr James Peng. When Mr Peng was detained in October 1993, the Chinese
Government did not accept Mr Peng as an Australian citizen because it
claimed he had not renounced his Chinese citizenship. The Chinese Government
refused consular access or recognition of a legitimate Australian Government
role in Mr Peng's case until the Australian Government passed on to Chinese
authorities irrefutable evidence of China's acknowledgment of cancellation
of Mr Peng's Chinese citizenship. DFAT stated that this was a key
factor in the Chinese Government's recognition of him as an Australian
citizen. [32] Mr Peng's case is
discussed in more detail in Chapter 6.
2.42 The fourth Australian in detention in China is Mr Wang Jianping,
who has not been granted consular access by Australian officials because
he had not renounced his Chinese citizenship. [33]
2.43 A further matter involving Chinese nationality laws is the position
of Australians of Chinese descent living in Hong Kong; Australians of
Chinese descent and previous Hong Kong residents; and, any of their children,
born in Australia, who return to Hong Kong after it reverts to China on
1 July 1997. DFAT stated:
The great issue which we foresee concerns Hong Kong and the likelihood
there that there will be very large numbers, tens of thousands, of people
who have Australian passports in Hong Kong or for travelling to Hong
Kong but who, under the laws which Hong Kong will be adopting, it seems,
after 1 July will automatically - and I stress the word 'automatically'
- become Chinese citizens on 1 July in Hong Kong. [34]
DFAT further stated:
[An Australian of Chinese descent and who was born in Hong Kong]
would not be allowed by the Chinese to have access to Australian consular
protection after 1 July, unless - and this is the important point -
they complete a declaration of renunciation of their Chinese citizenship,
which can be done at any time. In principle, anybody who finds themselves
Chinese on 1 July can at any stage assert their Australian citizenship
simply by completing this declaration of foreign citizenship. [35]
2.44 On 16 April 1997, DFAT issued consular travel advice regarding the
situation after 1 July. The travel advice stated:
China will regard all [persons of Chinese descent and who were
born in Hong Kong] from 1 July as having Chinese nationality unless
they make [a] declaration of foreign nationality.
This situation will apply in Hong Kong from 1 July regardless
of whether the Australian citizens concerned are living in Hong Kong
or Australia.
Making such a declaration will be particularly important if Australian
citizens in Hong Kong wish to have access to assistance from Australian
consular officials in matters involving the Hong Kong authorities.
Australian citizens who make a declaration of foreign nationality
and who travel to other parts of China on a travel document other than
their Australian passport ... should be aware that this might prejudice
their right under Chinese law to Australian consular assistance. [36]
Dual nationals in third countries
2.45 When a dual national traveller seeks consular assistance in a third
country, the policy of that country towards dual nationals may determine
which country provides that assistance. Although some countries may allow
the traveller to nominate the country from which he or she receives consular
assistance, other countries have fixed policies which allow the traveller
no choice.
2.46 Article 5 of The Hague Convention states that: 'within a third country
a dual national shall be treated as having the nationality of the country
in which he is habitually or principally resident or with which he appears
to be in fact most closely connected'. DFAT informed the Committee that:
The International Court of Justice, in the Nottebohm
case (1955), held that, where more than one citizenship
existed, a person should be deemed to be a national of the state with
which he/she was most closely and genuinely associated. Factors to be
taken into account include place of habitual residence, centre of interest,
family ties, participation in public life, and attachment shown by the
person to one country and inculcated in his/her children. [37]
2.47 DFAT advised that often the method used to determine the country
with which the traveller appears to be most closely associated is the
passport used by that person to enter the country. However, many dual
national travellers use a passport other than of the country of residence
to facilitate entry into a third country or do business there. An Australian/British
dual national resident in Australia may use a British passport to facilitate
travel in European Community countries or to obviate the need for a visa
entering the USA or France. If, in such circumstances, a third country
uses a passport to decide nationality, the traveller may be denied Australian
consular assistance, except perhaps when the Australian consular official
is accompanied by a consular officer from the country whose passport the
person used. [38]
2.48 DFAT stated that 'probably most consular services, although not
necessarily ours, adhere more or less to the rule that they will give
you consular service in a third country if you came in on their passport'.
[39] However, Australia has a more comprehensive
policy and DFAT informed the Committee that :
In third countries, by and large, if somebody comes to us and
has an Australian passport, we would provide them with consular services,
unless it were clear that they were primarily resident of and belonging
to another country and had come in on the passport of the other country
and were already getting consular services from the other country. [40]
2.49 The Consular Instructions direct posts to provide assistance to
an Australian dual national but that the 'dominant nationality' concept
is to be born in mind, that is to establish the country with which the
person is most clearly associated. Subject to the consular policies of
a third country, Australian consular officials do not regard the passport
used to enter that country as an important factor in determining whether
Australian dual nationals should receive consular assistance there.
2.50 DFAT stated that it was not aware of any situation where the issue
of dual nationality had created a problem in a third country.
Australian consular policy on dual nationals
2.51 DFAT advised that the Australian Government policy is to seek to
assist holders of Australian passports both where a person had returned
to the country of their other nationality and in a third country. [41]
DFAT also reported where there has been concern over a person's status,
the 'dominant nationality' test has proved successful in providing a fair
way of determining if consular assistance should be provided.
2.52 In evidence, DFAT compared Australia's policy with that of other
countries, stating that:
The New Zealanders operate very strictly on The Hague convention.
The British and the Americans are about the same; they operate a bit
less strictly. The Canadians and ourselves tended to be on the more
generous side. [42]
While the Australian policy is more generous and many consular
cases involve dual nationals, DFAT stated that it had not considered
the effects that these cases have on the consular work load, 'though
it is likely to be significant'. [43]
2.53 The Committee believes that DFAT should, as a general policy, continue
to seek to provide consular assistance to any Australian citizen, irrespective
of the passport used at the time or whether the person has returned to
the country of his or her other nationality. There are many valid reasons
for a dual national to use a non-Australian passport - responding to a
family crisis overseas, where use of an Australian passport might occasion
delays awaiting a visa, or taking advantage of the benefits of having
a local passport in some countries to assist business dealings. There
is, however, no realistic way of distinguishing between various uses of
a foreign passport overseas.
2.54 However, when a dual national uses a passport of another country,
that person should be aware of the possibility of not being eligible to
receive Australian consular assistance overseas in some countries. That
person should weigh the potential benefits and costs of using a non-Australian
passport, depending on which countries are to be visited. The responsibility
for using a non-Australian passport should rest squarely on the shoulders
of the traveller. The onus is therefore placed on DFAT to ensure, as far
as practicable, that all dual-national Australian residents are aware
of the difficulties in which they might find themselves overseas if they
use a non-Australian passport.
2.55 This information is included in Hints for Australian Travellers,
which is given to all recipients of an Australian passport. Unfortunately,
with the issue of ten-year passports, it is very easy to lose the publication
during the currency of the passport and forget there are problems which
might arise from use of another passport. Dissemination of consular information,
including that related to dual nationality, is dealt with in more detail
in Chapter 5.
2.56 The Committee agrees with DFAT that it would be inappropriate for
the Government to advise a dual national to renounce his or her other
citizenship(s) [44] and in any case,
in some circumstances it may not be possible to renounce citizenship of
another country. DFAT also said that problems usually arise when a dual
national is held in custody by government authorities overseas, allegedly
for breaking the laws of that country. That may apply in many cases but
not in all. In some cases, the nature of a regime may result in the arrest
and imprisonment of a dual national for political reasons rather than
for breaking a law. In other cases, allegations have been made that Australians
have been framed for a crime.
Footnotes
[1] DFAT submission, p. 3.
[2] DFAT submission, pp 3-4.
[3] Attorney-General's Department submission,
p. 4.
[4] Attorney-General and Minister for Justice,
Family law: future directions, Press release, 15 October 1996.
[5] Committee Hansard, p. 75.
[6] DFAT submission, pp 6-7.
[7] DFAT submission, p. 4.
[8] DFAT submission, p. 5.
[9] DFAT submission, p. 5.
[10] DFAT submission, p. 8.
[11] DFAT answers to questions on notice, 1
May 1997.
[12] DFAT submission, p. 9.
[13] Committee Hansard, p. 476.
[14] Committee Hansard, p. 478.
[15] Committee Hansard, p. 475.
[16] Committee Hansard, p. 10.
[17] Committee Hansard, p. 477.
[18] Committee Hansard, p. 475.
[19] Committee Hansard, p. 10.
[20] Committee Hansard, p. 10.
[21] Committee Hansard, pp 10, 475.
[22] Committee Hansard, p. 10.
[23] Committee Hansard, p. 475.
[24] Committee Hansard, pp 477-78.
[25] Committee Hansard, p. 10.
[26] DFAT submission, p. 6.
[27] DFAT submission, p. 5.
[28] DFAT submission, pp 6, 7.
[29] DFAT submission, p. 6.
[30] Committee Hansard, p. 27.
[31] DFAT submission, p. 8.
[32] DFAT submission, Annex 19, p. 2.
[33] Sydney Morning Herald, 27 November
1996.
[34] Committee Hansard, p. 480.
[35] Committee Hansard, p. 481.
[36] Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade,
Consular Travel Advice-Hong Kong (from 1 July 1997), 16 April 1997.
[37] DFAT submission, p. 7.
[38] DFAT submission, p. 7.
[39] Committee Hansard, p. 486.
[40] Committee Hansard, pp 486-87.
[41] Committee Hansard, pp 27, 487.
[42] Committee Hansard, p. 487.
[43] DFAT answers to questions on notice, 1
May 1997.
[44] Committee Hansard, p. 28.