Julia Irwin (Fowler, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

The concept of citizenship as we know it is quite different in Australia today than it was in the original 1948 act. When we say that the world has changed a lot in the last 58 years, we are also saying that the identity of the individual which relates to his or her citizenship has also changed. Many of the effects of these changes are reflected in the Australian Citizenship Bill 2005 and the Australian Citizenship (Transitionals and Consequentials) Bill 2005, including in the provisions for people who have lost their Australian citizenship as a result of acquiring or retaining the citizenship of another country.

We need to begin by acknowledging that, since 1948, the greater proportion of migrants to Australia have not been British subjects and as a result they have, for a range of reasons, retained links with their homeland or the homeland of their parents. But, most significantly, Australia now exists as a part of a so-called globalised world. In trade and communications, national boundaries have less and less meaning. Free trade agreements, reductions in tariffs, easing of restrictions on international trade and the removal of barriers to finance and commerce have changed our ideas of any economic loyalty. Today we assume that business and investment decisions are based on considerations of financial return without regard for national interests in all but the most exceptional cases.

At the same time, we find that more than one million Australian citizens live and work overseas. That figure is growing rapidly every year. We also find that the number of migrants to Australia, particularly skilled migrants, is growing, and of course we have rapid growth in 457 working visa entries. All of this could cause us to question not so much what it means to be an Australian citizen but what it means to be a citizen of any nation.

I recently met with a person of dual Australian and Italian citizenship who was also seeking citizenship of an Asian country. The reasons for this multiple citizenship were very much about convenience and the rights of each country’s laws and treaties. His Italian citizenship gave him access to work and business opportunities in the European Community, while his Thai citizenship allowed him to own property and conduct a business in Thailand. Passports these days are a bit like credit cards; you carry a number of them to be sure that you will have at least one which is accepted in each country. As a result of free trade, footloose capital, global labour markets and economic unions such as the European Community, citizenship of one country must be defined and understood to have a quite different meaning to what was applied half a century ago.

As I said at the beginning, this bill gives some recognition to these changes. But, when it comes to the big question of just what citizenship is, we need to go back to the drawing board and come up with a definition which will work in the 21st century. Much of the debate about citizenship has been centred on the issue of dual citizenship. The main argument against allowing dual citizenship has been that a person cannot owe allegiance to more than one country and that a person should be totally committed in an emotional and legal sense to one country. But, as I have already said, the demands of a globalised world make dual or even multiple citizenships advantageous to a great many Australians.

If we accept that for reasons of employment or business dual citizenship is acceptable, how far should we go in demanding allegiance to Australia? Our pledge of citizenship would suggest that we make a total commitment in an emotional and legal sense to Australia. But in the case of dual citizenship I have to ask whether that means a half or a total commitment—and does that commitment mean that Australian citizens holding citizenship with another country should be prohibited from engaging in certain activities outside Australia?

My attention was recently drawn to the tragic death of Asaf Namer, a 27-year-old from Bondi. He was an Australian citizen holding dual citizenship with Israel. Namer was undertaking military service as a sergeant in the Israeli army when he was killed in the war in Lebanon. While we seem to excuse service in Israeli Defence Forces, I wonder whether we would take the same stand if an Australian holding dual citizenship in another country did the same thing. Would they be regarded in the same way? I know of a number of young Australian citizens in my electorate of Fowler who have served in the Lebanese army and the armed forces of Syria. While I do not know if they have been involved in any conflict—to my knowledge they have not been—I would ask if their service would be regarded in the same way as Asaf Namer’s, who served in the Israeli army.

Having raised that issue, though, I must say that I can appreciate the motives of many young people to leave Australia to follow a career overseas. As we have seen fewer opportunities for Australians in many areas of research and the arts, it is not surprising that they should look overseas for work and for study. That has been happening for some time. As I said earlier, one million Australian citizens now live outside Australia. They might still call Australia home—the majority of them do—but their participation in other countries is often a full commitment. In a broader sense we should see this as part of the global labour market.

For the many Australians working in manufacturing, in computer software, in call centres and in financial services, who have seen tens of thousands of jobs disappear overseas—and we have lost tens of thousands of jobs overseas—it is hard to understand how they can maintain a total commitment in an emotional and legal sense to Australia. It is all very well to give examples of national sporting teams, but in the world competition for investment and jobs Australia’s team management seems to be playing for the other side. When it comes to loyalty to one’s country and having a total emotional and legal commitment, corporate Australia is not proving to be a model citizen. Many companies have shown, through their offshore dealings to minimise taxes paid in Australia, that their first loyalty is to their shareholders.

When it comes to what we value about Australian citizenship, I believe that we have various levels of commitment to Australia and, as a result, our citizenship laws should reflect the fact that not everyone holding Australian citizenship can place his or her hand over their heart and say that they have a 100 per cent commitment to Australia in an emotional and legal sense. That is not to say that they are not Australians or, for that matter, that they are not good Australians.

But before we all wrap ourselves in the flag and start singing the national anthem, we do need to acknowledge the realities of the world in the 21st century. There are the measures included in this bill for reasons related to antiterrorism, though the increase in the waiting period from two to three years for citizenship does concern me. Like many members, I regularly attend citizenship ceremonies and I know that in many cases the new citizens are anxious to become Australian citizens as soon as possible. Many who have been refugees and others who have married Australian citizens have good reasons to become citizens of this great country of ours. Often the need to travel overseas under the protection of an Australian passport is an important reason. While I can understand the implications of this for persons engaged in terrorist activities, I know that the change will cause disruption and concern to many permanent residents awaiting citizenship.

I fully support the Labor amendment which seeks to maintain the present two-year waiting period for people who are currently permanent residents. I would also question the changes to the age limit for English language knowledge. While I support the need for Australians to learn English so that they may function as part of our society, I am not convinced that excluding people, particularly older residents, is in our best interest in the long run.

As I see in my electorate of Fowler, settling in a new country is not an easy process. For many permanent residents, the priorities of finding a home and a job are the highest on the list. While knowledge of English can help, it is often difficult to find the time to attend formal classes. So learning English is left till later. It is also difficult for women, who often do not participate in the workforce in their early years in Australia. As their mother language is often spoken in the home, they can be much slower to improve their English skills.

I see among the older people in my electorate that they have poor English skills today because their earlier years were devoted to the struggle to establish themselves and their families here in Australia. They have gone on to contribute greatly to our society and I would definitely count them as some of the best Australians that we have. But it would be wrong to deny them citizenship on the grounds that their English is poor. They have survived, and in many cases thrived, in their new country without what some would call good English. They have managed to get by, with help when it was needed; they have been able to participate in the community and they have done so to their fullest.

The measures in this bill to allow citizens who renounced their citizenship under section 17 to seek to renew their citizenship are most welcome. In earlier changes to the Citizenship Act which allowed dual citizenship there was an ongoing problem: Australians citizens who had previously renounced their Australian citizenship in order to take the citizenship of another country were left without the opportunity to readily renew their Australian citizenship. This was often necessary for migrants from countries which were part of the old Soviet Union or the former Yugoslavia. Because they did not have a residual citizenship, they were requested to renounce their Australian citizenship. This was often necessary for family, business and property inheritance reasons. These changes will allow many of those citizens to readily resume their Australian citizenship. I also note the special case of children of Australians who renounced their Australian citizenship in Malta and indicate my support for Labor’s amendment to include the children of former Australian citizens who lost their citizenship under section 18 of the old act.

In reviewing the Citizenship Act, we have had the opportunity to correct some of the longstanding provisions which, in the light of changes in recent years, have needed to be modified. But, at a time when some in this parliament want to push their ideas of what Australian values should be and to enshrine those values in statements of allegiance, I feel that we are definitely missing the real issues of citizenship and what the concept of citizenship will be in the years ahead. We have not reached the stage where we are citizens of the world, but we do find that many Australian citizens spend much of their time outside Australia and many are involved in the affairs of other nations. I would point out that a number of Australian citizens and residents serve as representatives in the parliaments of other countries. We recently had Australians elected to the Italian parliament and another Australian serving as a governor in Afghanistan. So at some time we will have to rethink our ideas about what it is to be an Australian citizen, not what it is to be Australian or what are Australian values. We will have to separate our concepts of each. In the meantime, we will need to ensure that Australia’s citizenship laws do not prevent Australians from playing a role in an increasingly globalised world.

See this speech in context