這一說 zhè yī shuō 法指 fǎ zhǐ 的 de 是 shì 由 yóu 聯盟 lián méng 政府 zhèng fǔ 於 yú 2014 2014 年 nián 提出 tí chū 的 de 《 《 澳洲 ào zhōu 公民 gōng mín 身份 shēn fèn 及其 jí qí 他 tā 立法 lì fǎ 修正案 xiū zhèng àn 》 》 * * * * ( ( Australian Australian Citizenship Citizenship and and Other Other Legislation Legislation Amendment Amendment Bill Bill 2014 2014 ) ) * * * * , , 當時 dāng shí Scott Scott Morrison Morrison 擔任 dān rèn 移民部 yí mín bù 長 zhǎng [ [ 1 1 ] ] 。 。
The claim refers to the **Australian Citizenship and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2014**, introduced by the Coalition Government with Scott Morrison as Immigration Minister [1].
該 gāi 法案 fǎ àn 確實 què shí 提議 tí yì 擴大 kuò dà 移民部 yí mín bù 長 zhǎng 在 zài 公民 gōng mín 身份 shēn fèn 決定 jué dìng 方面 fāng miàn 的 de 權力 quán lì 。 。
The bill did propose expanding the Immigration Minister's powers regarding citizenship decisions.
According to The Guardian's reporting at the time, the legislation would allow citizenship to be denied or revoked if a person had "court orders to undertake a residential drug rehabilitation scheme or a residential program for the mentally ill" [1].
The bill's mental health provisions were specifically limited to:
- **Court-ordered confinement to a psychiatric institution due to criminal offences** [1]
- **Court orders to undertake residential drug rehabilitation or residential mental health programs** [1]
This is a narrower scope than the claim implies.
The bill did not give the Minister blanket power to deny citizenship to anyone with any mental illness—it targeted specific circumstances involving criminal conduct and court-ordered interventions [1].
However, Labor and the Greens opposed the bill in the Senate at that time due to concerns about proper scrutiny, with Labor requesting more time to review the legislation [1].
This concept—that citizenship requires meeting certain behavioral standards—is not unique to the Coalition and has existed in Australian immigration law for decades [3].
**2.
The ministerial discretion already existed:** The Australian Citizenship Act 2007 (enacted under the Howard Coalition government) already contained ministerial discretion powers.
The rationale provided by the government:** Immigration Minister Scott Morrison stated the changes were about "restoring integrity to the migration system" and that "the bar for becoming Australian should be high" [1].
政府 zhèng fǔ 的 de 立場 lì chǎng 是 shì , , 這些 zhè xiē 條款 tiáo kuǎn 針對 zhēn duì 的 de 是 shì 特定 tè dìng 的 de 公共安全 gōng gòng ān quán 問題 wèn tí , , 而 ér 非 fēi 一般性 yì bān xìng 地歧視 dì qí shì 精神疾病 jīng shén jí bìng 。 。
The government position was that these provisions targeted specific public safety concerns rather than discriminating against mental illness generally.
**4.
The narrow scope of the mental health provision:** The provision only applied to those with court-ordered residential treatment related to criminal conduct—not anyone with any mental health condition [1].
來源可信度評估
該 gāi 說法 shuō fǎ 引用 yǐn yòng 的 de 唯一 wéi yī 來源 lái yuán 是 shì * * * * 《 《 衛報 wèi bào 澳洲 ào zhōu 版 bǎn 》 》 ( ( The The Guardian Guardian Australia Australia ) ) * * * * 。 。
**The Guardian Australia** is the sole source cited with this claim.
The article itself is factual reporting from 2014, not an opinion piece, and quotes both government statements (Scott Morrison) and opposition views (Labor, Greens) [1].
然而 rán ér , , 其 qí 框架 kuāng jià 強調 qiáng diào 了 le 綠黨 lǜ dǎng 參議員 cān yì yuán Sarah Sarah Hanson Hanson - - Young Young 提出 tí chū 的 de 擔憂 dān yōu , , 並在 bìng zài 沒有 méi yǒu 實質 shí zhì 獨立 dú lì 核實 hé shí 的 de 情況 qíng kuàng 下 xià 呈現 chéng xiàn 了 le 政府 zhèng fǔ 的 de 理由 lǐ yóu 。 。
However, the framing emphasizes the concerns raised by Greens Senator Sarah Hanson-Young and presents the government's rationale without substantial independent verification.
**Did Labor do something similar?**
Search conducted: "Labor government citizenship mental health criteria Australia", "Labor character test immigration history"
**Findings:**
The character test and associated ministerial discretion powers existed long before the 2014 amendments.
搜尋內容 sōu xún nèi róng : : 「 「 Labor Labor government government citizenship citizenship mental mental health health criteria criteria Australia Australia 」 」 、 、 「 「 Labor Labor character character test test immigration immigration history history 」 」
The Australian Citizenship Act 2007 (which established the modern citizenship framework) was enacted during the Howard Coalition government, but subsequent Labor governments (2007-2013) maintained and operated under this same framework [4].
* * * * 發現 fā xiàn : : * * * *
The Rudd and Gillard Labor governments did not repeal or substantially modify the ministerial discretion powers related to character assessments [7].
The concept that criminal conduct (including conduct related to mental health issues) could affect citizenship or visa status has been a consistent feature of Australian immigration law across multiple governments of both parties [3][7].
Furthermore, Labor's position in 2014 was procedural rather than substantive opposition—they requested more time to review the bill and stated they would not "rush down the path of passing legislation," but did not fundamentally oppose the concept of character requirements [1].
**Comparison:** The Coalition expanded existing powers rather than creating entirely new ones, and Labor governments had previously operated similar frameworks without major reform.
**The concerns raised by critics:**
Civil liberties and refugee advocates expressed legitimate concerns about the broadening of ministerial discretion.
The Australian Human Rights Commission raised concerns about the bill's potential to render people stateless and the extraordinary powers conferred on the Minister [4].
澳洲人 ào zhōu rén 權委員會 quán wěi yuán huì ( ( Australian Australian Human Human Rights Rights Commission Commission ) ) 對 duì 該 gāi 法案 fǎ àn 可能 kě néng 導致 dǎo zhì 人民 rén mín 無國籍 wú guó jí 以及 yǐ jí 賦予 fù yǔ 部長 bù zhǎng 的 de 非凡 fēi fán 權力 quán lì 表示 biǎo shì 關切 guān qiè [ [ 4 4 ] ] 。 。
The Kaldor Centre for International Refugee Law at UNSW identified concerns about the bill's expansion of ministerial powers [4].
新南 xīn nán 威爾士 wēi ěr shì 大學 dà xué Kaldor Kaldor 國際難 guó jì nán 民法 mín fǎ 中心 zhōng xīn ( ( Kaldor Kaldor Centre Centre for for International International Refugee Refugee Law Law at at UNSW UNSW ) ) 確認 què rèn 了 le 對 duì 該 gāi 法案 fǎ àn 擴 kuò 大部 dà bù 長 zhǎng 權力 quán lì 的 de 擔憂 dān yōu [ [ 4 4 ] ] 。 。
Greens Senator Sarah Hanson-Young argued the measures would "hit refugees the hardest" and raised concerns about the lack of judicial oversight [1].
**The government's position:**
The Coalition argued the changes were necessary to protect the integrity of Australian citizenship and ensure those granted citizenship met community standards.
Minister Morrison emphasized the need to be "ever-vigilant" on citizenship standards [1].
* * * * 政府 zhèng fǔ 的 de 立場 lì chǎng : : * * * *
The mental health provisions specifically targeted individuals whose mental health issues were connected to criminal conduct requiring court-ordered residential treatment—not a blanket discrimination against mental illness [1].
**Context:**
The 2014 amendments occurred in a broader environment of heightened national security concerns following ISIS emergence and increased counter-terrorism focus.
The claim is technically accurate that the bill expanded ministerial powers related to mental health in specific circumstances, but the framing omits the narrow scope (criminal conduct-related only) and the fact that similar frameworks existed under previous governments.
該 gāi 說 shuō 法 fǎ 在 zài 事實 shì shí 上 shàng 是 shì 準確 zhǔn què 的 de , , 即 jí 2014 2014 年 nián 的 de 法案 fǎ àn 確實 què shí 擴大 kuò dà 了 le 部長 bù zhǎng 在 zài 公民 gōng mín 身份 shēn fèn 決定 jué dìng 中考 zhōng kǎo 慮 lǜ 心理健康 xīn lǐ jiàn kāng 相關 xiāng guān 法院 fǎ yuàn 命令 mìng lìng 的 de 權力 quán lì 。 。
The claim is factually accurate in that the 2014 bill did expand ministerial powers to consider mental health-related court orders in citizenship decisions.
It implies a broad power to deny citizenship to anyone with mental illness, when the provision was narrowly limited to court-ordered residential treatment connected to criminal conduct [1].
2.
It suggests this was a novel Coalition innovation, when ministerial discretion powers existed in similar forms under previous governments, including Labor [4][7].
3.
It omits that Labor's opposition was procedural (insufficient time for review) rather than fundamental opposition to character requirements [1].
4.
4 4 . . 它 tā 缺乏 quē fá 關於 guān yú 既有 jì yǒu 法律 fǎ lǜ 框架 kuāng jià 以及 yǐ jí 心理健康 xīn lǐ jiàn kāng 條款 tiáo kuǎn 特定 tè dìng 、 、 有限 yǒu xiàn 範圍 fàn wéi 的 de 背景 bèi jǐng 。 。
It lacks context about the existing legal framework and the specific, limited scope of the mental health provisions.
最終分數
6.0
/ 10
部分真實
該 gāi 說 shuō 法 fǎ 在 zài 事實 shì shí 上 shàng 是 shì 準確 zhǔn què 的 de , , 即 jí 2014 2014 年 nián 的 de 法案 fǎ àn 確實 què shí 擴大 kuò dà 了 le 部長 bù zhǎng 在 zài 公民 gōng mín 身份 shēn fèn 決定 jué dìng 中考 zhōng kǎo 慮 lǜ 心理健康 xīn lǐ jiàn kāng 相關 xiāng guān 法院 fǎ yuàn 命令 mìng lìng 的 de 權力 quán lì 。 。
The claim is factually accurate in that the 2014 bill did expand ministerial powers to consider mental health-related court orders in citizenship decisions.
It implies a broad power to deny citizenship to anyone with mental illness, when the provision was narrowly limited to court-ordered residential treatment connected to criminal conduct [1].
2.
It suggests this was a novel Coalition innovation, when ministerial discretion powers existed in similar forms under previous governments, including Labor [4][7].
3.