Michael Johnson (Ryan, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I am pleased to speak in the parliament as the representative of the people of Ryan on the Australian Citizenship Bill 2005 and the Australian Citizenship (Transitionals and Consequentials) Bill 2005. These bills represent the largest raft of changes since the original act was introduced in 1948, coming into effect on Australia Day 1949. So the original act is almost six decades old. It is a world-class piece of legislation but, as with all pieces of legislation, the time has come for it to be reviewed and improved upon.

It is quite timely that I am able to speak on this in the parliament today as the representative of the people of Ryan because in recent days the issue of citizenship, loyalty to our country and values in our country has come to the fore with the remarks of a leader in the Muslim community in New South Wales. Of course, I refer to Sheikh al-Hilali. I want to commence my remarks, in the first place as an individual of this country but in particular as a representative in the Parliament of Australia and as the representative of the people of Ryan, by expressing without equivocation my condemnation of his remarks.

I have had a great many Ryan constituents contact me since the remarks came to the fore in the national media. Without overstressing the depth of feeling in those Ryan residents that have contacted me, they have been unanimous in their condemnation and in their outrage. As the representative of the people of Ryan, I want to make it clear that I associate myself very strongly with the remarks of the Prime Minister and all Australians in condemning Sheikh al-Hilali’s remarks and the sentiments and motivation behind them. There is no place in Australian society for them.

As I say, this bill before the parliament is quite timely because of the background in this country and the circumstances of the international community at this time, when we are facing all kinds of challenges, in the realm of economics and in particular in the realm of security. The bill reflects the changes which have occurred in our population since 1948. The population has risen from 7.8 million in 1948 to over 20 million today. We know that the nature of international transport today and the mobility of people, enabling them to move between nations, have revolutionised our world. More than ever travel and relocation between nations is becoming part of people’s lives. The capacity to travel and the affordability of travel for most people in developed economies and societies has impacted upon the sovereign state and the dynamics of relations between countries. This bill seeks to ensure that Australia as a modern 21st century nation keeps in tune with the new world which we are now part of. It reflects our current migration and humanitarian programs in a world which is very much globalised and which is facing unprecedented international security concerns, challenges and threats.

On behalf of the people of Ryan, I want to very strongly condemn the remarks of a gentleman by the name of Dr Ameer Ali, who is the departing chair of the Prime Minister’s Muslim Advisory Council. I will take at face value that his comments are accurate as reported in the Herald Sun on Monday, 9 October. This is part of the background of why this bill is important and why this issue of citizenship and the nature of our citizenship should be very much in focus in the national parliament. Dr Ali is quoted as saying:

“When I go abroad, they ask me where do I come from? I say I come from a Muslim country,”

I want to, in the parliament, emphasise very emphatically my objection to this sentiment and to this remark. I have had many calls from Ryan constituents questioning this sort of sentiment and this sort of loyalty from someone who is a citizen of this country.

Of course, the natural response that most of us would give when we are asked in the broad where we come from is to say that we come from Australia. Our automatic response would be to say that we come from a particular country rather than to say that we are of a particular faith or come from a country that subscribes predominantly to a particular faith. So, like the overwhelming number of my constituents that contacted me, I reject very strongly such a remark and in particular the sentiments behind such a remark, because it does no good whatsoever to the fabric of our society.

This bill is very much about striving for integration. It is very much about striving to ensure that the fabric of our society is rich, enduring and one that can accommodate all of us, irrespective of our faith, our ethnicity and many other things that we might hold dear to us. But it is important that there is a unifying factor, and citizenship in this country ought to be that unifying factor.

The bill enshrines certain basic tenets of the government’s citizenship policy, and I very much commend them. I very much think that they are in the national interest. I very much think that the overwhelming number of Australians would subscribe to them. The first is that citizenship is not a right for those who seek it who come from other countries. Indeed, it is a privilege. As someone in this parliament who was an applicant for Australian citizenship, I consider it to be a very deep privilege to be a citizen of this country. When Australians do not value the fact that they come from this country, that they come from the greatest country on the face of the planet, I think there is something very wrong there. This country has been blessed in so many ways and we should consider it to be very much a privilege to be a citizen.

One of the other tenets that should be very much in focus in all of this debate is that citizenship should be conducted in a non-discriminatory way, it should be inclusive in fashion, it should be non-compulsory and, of course, critically, it should represent a formal commitment to this country and what it embraces and stands for. Some people, such as Dr Ameer Ali, think that they come from a Muslim country. Of course, I reject that absolutely, but I will certainly tell him what sort of country he does come from. He comes from a democratic country. He comes from an egalitarian country. He comes from a classless country. He comes from a parliamentary country. He comes from a constitutional country. He comes from a country that embraces its history, and it is a country that is very much one of entrepreneurialism and innovation.

I think all Australians would be very proud to be citizens of this country. But it is not a Muslim country, it is not a Buddhist country and it is not a Hindu country—and let us make that very clear to all those who seek to be citizens of this country. Of course, it is Judaeo-Christian—very much so, because of a fact of history and of circumstances. That is just a fact that cannot be disputed. For those who say that they come from a Muslim country, a Buddhist country or a Hindu country, I think they should very much question how they view their particular place in this society.

We are Australian. We are not Greek, we are not Italian, we are not Vietnamese, we are not Chinese, we are not Arabic and we are not Korean or, for that matter, Japanese, Irish or from any other country. We are Australian, and that should be at the forefront of our thinking about how we want to approach all that we do in this country to make it a much better country.

This is a very important bill and I want to touch on some of its key points. In recent years we thought that the old legislation had failed to adapt to the increase in population mobility, and this current legislation will see to that. I touch on the fact that a person can gain permanent residency and then spend no time in Australia and still be granted citizenship, so long as they can show their activities overseas to be of benefit to Australia. Yet another applicant may have spent years in Australia prior to gaining permanent residency, immersing themselves in the Australian way of life but still not satisfying the residency requirement. So that oddity is going to be addressed.

The new requirements also recognise the changes in the migration program over the years, changes which have resulted in an increasing number of people spending significant periods of time in Australia as temporary residents prior to becoming permanent residents. I want to stress the changes will not affect current permanent residents. People will only be required to meet the current two-year residential qualifying period providing they apply for citizenship within three years of the commencement of this act.

As I alluded to earlier, at the heart of this act is a residency requirement. The bill increases the residency requirement for applications for citizenship from two in the five years immediately preceding the application to three in the five years. The new amendments to be introduced in the parliament follow this debate. However, it will alter these requirements to a minimum of four years of lawful residence in Australia immediately prior to making an application for citizenship, including at least 12 months as a permanent resident. Absences from Australia of up to 12 months during the four-year period will be allowed, with no more than three months in the year before they apply.

These strengthened residency provisions will give migrants and applicants for citizenship more time to really be part of the Australian way of life and to associate themselves deeply with the values that we consider very much the essence of this country. Of course, it will allow opportunity for the government and its relevant agencies to undertake the necessary security checks that should be taken.

I do not see why this should be an issue at all. If people come from another country and seek to be part of the Australian community, irrespective of where they come from, I think it is entirely appropriate that the government of this country and its relevant agencies focus on their backgrounds to see that they are the kinds of people that the rest of us in this country should welcome. There is no problem with that at all, as far as I can see—provided that it is done in a proper and professional manner, that it is done in an indiscriminate fashion and that it is applicable to everyone who falls in that category.

It is also important to remember—and I am sure that my constituents will be very keen to know—that these provisions are not out of step with countries such as the UK and the US. For instance, in the UK, they require five years of lawful residency with no more than 450 days absence during that time, while the United States legislation requires five years of permanent residency with absences of only up to six months each year. So it is not at all incompatible with those two countries and the emphasis they place on citizenship.

The bill will introduce changes to the requirements of citizenship by descent, including removing the age limit by which a child of an Australian citizen must be registered, a provision of citizenship by descent for children whose parents have lost their citizenship and a provision of citizenship by conferral for children who were born after their parents had lost their citizenship. These changes ensure Australia’s citizenship laws abide by the blanket policy that citizenship by descent should be applied when a child is born to a parent who is an Australian citizen.

Removing the age limit is a continuation of a previous legislative amendment which saw the limit in the legislation increase from one year after birth to 18 years in 1984 and to 25 years by the Howard government in 2002. This measure will provide relief for those people with an Australian parent at the time of birth who previously were above the age of registration, and it will remove the situation where the child was effectively punished and denied Australian heritage because of an omission by their parents, many of whom were not aware of the legislative requirements. So it will ensure that no child of an Australian parent is denied their ability to consider themselves an Australian, which of course I am sure that the overwhelming number would like to do.

An important point that this bill addresses is to enshrine equality in spousal provisions. The spouse of an Australian citizen will have to meet all the same criteria as other adult applicants. Spouses will also be able to have time overseas counted as time off for the residency requirement, as long as they can show a close and continuing association with Australia during that time. I think these provisions are long overdue and they do represent the fundamental ideal that each individual is a citizen in their own right and therefore each individual applicant for citizenship should meet the required standards, as opposed to relying on a spouse’s citizenship. It will ensure a spouse, along with all other applicants, has to undergo the ASIO security check.

Let me touch on that, because that is one of the key aspects of this bill. Provisions will prevent the approval of a citizenship application when there is an adverse or qualified ASIO security assessment that the applicant is directly or indirectly considered a security risk to this country, as defined by the ASIO Act 1979. All new citizenship applications, including citizenship by descent, conferral and resumption, will have to undergo the ASIO check. I think we owe it to our national security considerations that this is done across the board. Of course, that is the critical aspect—that no-one is singled out. Irrespective of where they come from, all will be treated equally and will undergo full checks by the relevant government agency.

I want to end my remarks by saying that those of us who have had the privilege to be able to apply for and be granted citizenship of this country are fortunate indeed. As at 30 June 2004 some 4.8 million of Australia’s population were born overseas—so some one in four Australians were not born in this country. The number of people born overseas in the 2001 census was 4.1 million, compared with 3.9 million in the 1996 census and 3.6-plus million in the 1991 census. Since the Australian Citizenship Act was passed in 1949, more than three million people born overseas have acquired citizenship. I certainly put my hand up as one of those three-plus million people who, since 1949, have applied for and were granted citizenship of this great country—and I now have the great privilege to be here in the national parliament of this country to represent my fellow Australians.

I should say that in Ryan—because I know that many of my constituents will be pleased to know this—some 34,000 people were born overseas, which represents just over a quarter of the total population of Ryan, and almost 7½ thousand, or just under six per cent of Ryan’s population, have been a resident for less than five years. I would encourage the residents of Ryan who are not quite yet citizens of our country to very much consider applying for citizenship, because it is a great privilege. Indeed, I will be conducting a citizenship ceremony on 11 November—Remembrance Day—and I have been informed that some 60 residents of the Ryan community at large will join the Australian family and become citizens of our great country. I look forward very much to welcoming them into the Australian community as citizens of our country and to encourage them to do their bit to strengthen all that is great in our country. We are a very proud democracy. Over 100-plus nations in the world today are members of the democratic family, and as one of the leading nations in the democratic family we want to continue to ensure that this country remains rich and prosperous in every fashion.

See this speech in context