Brendan O'Connor (Gorton, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to support the Australian Citizenship Bill 2005 and cognate legislation and also the amendment moved by the member for Watson. These are very important bills and amend a very important act, because this is a country of migrants. This country was developed and built by the blood, sweat and tears of migrants. It is fitting, then, that this chamber consider the way in which we should amend the laws to ensure that they are relevant to today. As the member for Watson indicated, we do support, in the main, the thrust of the bills—and did so more than 12 months ago, when we sought amendments to ensure that the law was relevant to today’s circumstances.

I listened to the member for McMillan. In the main, can I indicate that I support the sentiments that he made with respect to his own association with migrants and his reference to those successful migrants. But I think it is also important to note that not everyone is going to be a Lowy or a Pratt; they are not going to be very wealthy, successful migrants—but they will nonetheless be successful in their lives. As the member for McMillan indicated, he knows people, and certainly I know people, who are successful migrants—and I count my parents, who managed to find a place here for themselves, their children and their grandchildren. I therefore have some understanding of the importance of becoming a member of a very significant club: the Australian citizenry.

I have a number of concerns about the Australian Citizenship Bill, which have certainly been attended to in the member for Watson’s amendment. I associate myself with the comments made by the member for Watson when he questioned why the government has chosen to extend from two years to three years—and now to four years—the period of time a person must reside in Australia before they are eligible to become an Australian citizen. As the member for Watson indicated, the Australian Labor Party’s acceptance of the extension of the eligibility period for Australian citizenship had much to do with the national security discussions held at COAG, in which information provided by our intelligence agencies indicated that we have to consider, among other things, the way we admit people to our citizenry. But there has been no further explanation by the government, the minister or the parliamentary secretary as to why three years is no longer acceptable and people will now have to wait four years.

I can assure the government and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, who is now in the chamber, that this will affect community members in my electorate and, I am sure, in all electorates across the land. As the member for Watson made clear, the long time it can take to become a citizen creates tension for people who want to make this country their home. If we extend the eligibility period too far, it sends a message that we do not welcome people after a significant period of residence in this country. So that extra year is significant. While both sides of the chamber supported the move from two years to three years, to actually double the eligibility period from two years to four years seems to be an onerous requirement on the overwhelming majority of people who come to live here. Labor do not support the government’s view that the eligibility period should be further extended, nor have we heard any reason why we should support a further extension. This would seem to exclude and turn away too many people who have already made this country their home. I do not think it is a very good idea. I think the parliamentary secretary and the government should reconsider this proposition.

I would like to comment on the provision in the bill that would prevent the minister from approving a person becoming an Australian citizen if the person ‘has been convicted of an offence against an Australian or foreign law for which the person has been sentenced to a period of imprisonment of at least five years’. I do not think we should accept in all circumstances that a person’s having been convicted and sentenced for five years under a foreign law should prevent the minister from determining whether that person is eligible to become an Australian citizen. I can think of a number of examples where people who have been unfairly imprisoned by a sovereign state—not Australia but another country—would be caught by this provision. Nelson Mandela was imprisoned for more than 20 years pursuant to a decision by a sovereign nation. I do not think we would not want Nelson Mandela to become an Australian citizen if he so wished. The government should consider the way in which this provision may prevent people who have been unfairly charged, convicted and imprisoned by certain states—because of the nature of the regime in that state—from becoming Australian citizens. I ask the government to reconsider that provision.

I have been waiting a very long time for this bill to be introduced into the parliament. Many of the proposed changes are well overdue and address inconsistencies in the law that really should have been fixed earlier. As I have indicated, there are still some problems with the bill. Hopefully, the government will accept the amendments that Labor has proposed, because they are sensible and fair and will only strengthen the bill. The most significant and urgent changes that this bill introduces are those relating to section 29, which deals with new provisions for resuming citizenship. The changes are significant because they end an anomaly whereby those who renounced their Australian citizenship in order to retain another citizenship were treated differently from those who renounced their Australian citizenship in order to acquire another citizenship.

The 2002 amendments to the act abolished the automatic loss of citizenship under section 17. Prior to these amendments, anyone who acquired the citizenship of another country automatically lost their Australian citizenship. This would typically apply to those Australians who moved to other countries, such as the United States, for the purposes of work and were required to take out citizenship of that country for their employment. Even if the other country permitted dual citizenship, under the 2002 act, pursuant to section 17, these people automatically lost their Australian citizenship. Section 23AA of the current act allows people in this situation to resume their citizenship provided that certain criteria exist regarding residency and character assessments. This contrasts with section 23AB of the act, which deals with those who renounced their citizenship in order to retain the citizenship of another country.

The single largest group of people affected by this law are the large number of Maltese Australians in our community. Many Maltese immigrants have come to Australia since the end of World War II. After many years of living in Australia, many returned to Malta with their Australian-born children. When these children reached 19 years of age, they were required, under Maltese law, to renounce their Australian citizenship in order to keep their Maltese citizenship. However, section 23AB requires that, apart from meeting similar criteria with regard to previous residency and to character, those who renounced their citizenship, in order to retain another citizenship, and wish to resume their citizenship must also be under the age of 25. Clearly, this is an anomaly.

There are currently two categories of Australian-born people wishing to resume their citizenship, with different rights. One group has its applications accepted, the other rejected. As the Malta Cross Group, in its submission to the Senate committee of inquiry into Australian expatriates, said:

It is indeed even more anomalous when you think that those Australian-born Citizens, undoubtedly of a more mature age, who freely chose to ‘acquire’ the citizenship of another country, can apply to resume their birth-right under Section 23AA but those Maltese who had no choice, cannot!

This anomaly was first brought to my attention when Steve and Lilian Schembri approached my office in December 2003, almost three years ago, seeking help. Steve was born in Melbourne in 1966 to Maltese immigrant parents. He was brought up in St Albans and spent his first 18 years there. He went to school at St Albans Tech and he barracks for the Western Bulldogs. In 1984, when he was 18, his parents decided to move back to Malta. At about the same time, his future wife, Lilian, who had been born and brought up in Australia, also moved back to Malta with her parents. Maltese law prior to 2000 required young people of Maltese descent to renounce their Australian citizenship between their 18th and 19th birthdays in order to retain their Maltese citizenship. Those failing to do so became ineligible for free tertiary education in Malta and were unable to hold certain jobs, access social security benefits or purchase property without approval.

In 2002, when Steve and Lilian decided that they wanted to return to Australia, Steve applied in Malta for a former resident migration visa (AR) at a cost of approximately $1,500 and waited 10 months for a response. Unfortunately, the application was rejected due to a condition that prevented former citizens from being granted this visa. Ironically, if Steve had not previously been an Australian citizen he would have been granted the visa. Steve, Lilian and their family of three children then came to Australia on visitor visas and applied for resumption of citizenship, only to discover that the under 25 years of age clause excluded them. In November 2003, Steve approached our office for assistance. In February 2004, Steve lodged his application for a general skilled migration visa, at a cost of $1,800. Whilst that was being processed, Steve was placed on a bridging visa which gave him no work rights and no access to Medicare or Centrelink.

Given the involvement that I have had with Steve, our office has been working to ensure that government policy is fixed so that this anomaly is fixed. Indeed, the policy that Labor took to the 2004 election would remove this anomaly. In March 2004, I submitted questions on notice to the then minister for citizenship, Gary Hardgrave, asking him why the law discriminated against those over 25 years of age. In May 2004, I addressed the House, pointing out the absurdity of denying citizenship to someone who was born and raised in Australia. In July 2004, Minister Hardgrave made a speech admitting that the government needed to fix this anomaly.

So in July 2004 the minister accepted that this anomaly was unfair—2½ years ago. In the meantime, people like the Schembris suffered. In November 2004, nine months after applying for a general skilled migration visa, Steve’s application was rejected because he did not meet the work experience requirements of ‘12 months work in the past 18 months’. Steve had been a plasterer since July 1988, but he did not qualify for the visa because he had been waiting in Australia since 2003 without working—because he was not allowed to work!

Steve got a fair bit of publicity over his plight, with the Herald Sun editorial of 10 November 2004 describing the plight of the Schembri family as ‘an example of appalling bureaucratic inflexibility and legislative absurdity’. It called on Immigration Minister Vanstone to:

... treat the Schembri affair for what it is—arrant nonsense. The family must be allowed to stay.

In November 2004, I asked the new minister, Mr McGauran, whether the government intended to honour the commitment made by the previous minister. In March 2005, I once again raised the issue in the House and asked the minister when the changes were anticipated. Finally, in April last year Steve Schembri was granted a sponsored skilled migration visa, allowing him to work. However, he does not get access to Medicare and is required to pay in excess of $300 per month in private health insurance. In June 2005, I asked the minister again when the government intended to put a bill before parliament.

The 2½-year delay to get to this point has been very disappointing. It took until November 2005 before the government could draft a bill to present to parliament and then a staggering 11 months between the introduction of the bill and the current debate. This is appalling. Work Choices legislation is rammed through this chamber without allowing members to even debate the merits of the legislation. But if it is a bill whose substantive provisions have in the main unanimous support across the chamber, the government cannot even get the bill into the chamber for debate and to have the bill enacted.

That shows you the failure of this government. The fact that it is out of touch with people who are hurting and the fact that it is not even able to cope with the ordinary business of legislation shows you how this government is failing people like Steve and Lilian Schembri. I am not surprised that the Herald Sun chose to write so strongly in opposition to the government’s inaction with respect to this matter. The passage of this bill cannot happen quickly enough for the Schembris, for the hundreds of other Maltese Australians in similar circumstances and for the many others still in Malta and unable to come here because they are in the same position as the Schembris.

While we are happy that the government with this bill has chosen to remove the anomaly that exists between those who renounced their citizenship in order to acquire and those who renounced in order to obtain—that is, sections 17 and 18—the government has stopped short of removing all anomalies by treating the children of these two categories differently. While children born before their parents renounced their Australian citizenship will be entitled to resume citizenship once again, there is no provision in the bill for those born after. It is not difficult to see the potential difficulties this will cause in situations where some children qualify for resumption of citizenship while their siblings do not. Steve and Lilian Schembri have three children, aged seven, 13 and 15. All three were born in Malta after Steve and Lilian had renounced their citizenship. The children currently attend the local school in Kings Park in my electorate. Under this bill they do not automatically become citizens at the same time as their parents do. They will have to apply for citizenship outside of policy guidelines, which is discretionary rather than automatic. That is why Labor has proposed the amendment.

So I do implore the government and, in particular, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs to ensure that the anomaly that has been remedied by the bill does not continue to affect the children. I am not suggesting that they cannot ultimately become citizens, but it seems to me a little strange that parents can become citizens automatically after this bill is enacted but their children cannot. I therefore ask the government to consider the proposed amendment by Labor in all respects but, indeed, for the people I know, the Schembri family and families like them, and for the children who have been left out of the proposals that are incorporated in this bill.

See this speech in context