Harry Jenkins (Scullin, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I regret that the opportunity that arises from the discussion of the Australian Citizenship Bill 2005 and the accompanying Australian Citizenship (Transitionals and Consequentials) Bill 2005 is not purely an opportunity to express our joy about the success of Australian citizenship since it was first implemented in 1948 and came into force in January 1949.

As an elected public official, both at local government and at federal level, for the past 27 years I have attended numerous—in fact, hundreds—of Australian citizenship ceremonies and have literally seen thousands of people take the step of becoming an Australian citizen. For somebody who was born an Australian citizen, it always amazes me to put myself in the place of those who are coming forward to adopt a new citizenship. Overwhelmingly, those people do so with great pride. Overwhelmingly, people who come forward to become Australian citizens at those ceremonies are clearly doing so because they want to, they understand the value, and they understand the values.

So this piece of legislation, in its simple form, should have been a celebration of that. And if, in fact, this piece of legislation were merely based on those propositions that were put forward in July 2004, after a proper process, that celebration would have been possible. But what we have seen since July 2004 were, of course, events that occurred in Britain that led to a COAG meeting whose purpose was to investigate the events of bombings in London and what could be learnt from those events.

It was decided by that heads of government meeting that, as a measure that in some way was supposedly part of a security package that dealt with measures for antiterrorism, the waiting period for citizenship should be changed from two to three years. At the time, because it was part of a package, perhaps there was not the debate that should have gone on about that measure. I have failed to find any great explanation as to how this was such an earth-shattering security measure.

If we go through the history of Australian citizenship—and an act that since 1948 has been amended on 36 occasions—we have seen a number of changes to the residency requirement. It went from five years to three years. Then, in 1973, the residency requirement was set at two years for both aliens and British subjects. Now we find, after 33 years, that we are to see it increased. But, even worse, since that September agreement at a COAG meeting of the heads of government of the states and territories and of the federal government, which decided that going from two to three years was a good idea, someone in this government has plucked out the figure of four years.

So, after we processed this bill in its original form when it came here 12 months ago, now there are a series of government amendments, one of which is that the three years will become four years. Where is the explanation? What is this about? Sadly, I have to agree with my southern neighbour, the member for Batman, that this is all about demonisation, fear, smokescreens and dog whistles—the whole kit and caboodle. In the absence of an explanation about how there is suddenly a reason for the increase from two to three to four years, I think that, quite rightly, we can suggest this is all about politics rather than good policy.

I will give the member for Fisher his due. Even though he thinks four years is not long enough and he wants five, at least, in his own way, he was willing to come into the chamber and try to justify it. Even if I disagree with him and even if I was disappointed in his contribution from the outset, he said that he disagreed with what the member for Batman had said and would explain why, though he did not get around to it. I am here for the debate, so I want to find out what the reasons are.

I was a bit thrown when I listened to the member for Mitchell’s contribution, which started the debate off in the main chamber. He was talking about the pledge and the oath of allegiance. I suddenly thought I had missed something very important. According to the member for Mitchell, we should roll it back because it is not good enough—it does not renounce all other allegiances; it does not follow the American model. So I have had to really study the bill in detail. I got to schedule 1, and I am really pleased that in 1993 we changed to this pledge and that it remains in this piece of legislation. I checked the explanatory memorandum to make sure that I had not got the wrong end of the argument, and it says that the schedule is equivalent to schedule 2 of the old act.

I have to tell you that, when people come forward to become Australian citizens and they indicate, whether it is under God or not, ‘From this time forward, I pledge my loyalty to Australia and its people,’ I am honoured that they actually do it, because not only are they pledging their loyalty to Australia but they also recognise that Australia is a beast made up of people and communities—and they are pledging their loyalty to the whole thing. They go on to say in the pledge, ‘whose democratic beliefs I share, whose rights and liberties I respect, and whose laws I will uphold and obey.’ I think that is a very good pledge.

There is another aspect of this debate that is really disappointing. I might disagree with the intent of the parliamentary secretary’s discussion paper on formal citizenship tests, but at least he has gone out into the marketplace and has produced a paper which makes very interesting reading—and I will not go over the matters that the member for Batman raised. I was very pleased to be in Indonesia representing the parliament on a parliamentary delegation when this was dropped. I did interviews with my local media about this and, regrettably, one of the flippant remarks that I made about Australia’s citizenry at the moment was that I thought that perhaps there would be 20 million people who would fail a test like the ones that are suggested here in the discussion paper. That flippant remark actually got into one of the papers. But there was a serious tone to it.

An opportunity has been given to us by the parliamentary secretary to discuss these matters—and that is fair enough. I might disagree on where he thinks we should go, but at least we are going to have a bit of a discussion about it. But when the announcement was made about the increase to four years at the same time that he released the discussion paper, why weren’t those matters included? Why don’t we have some sort of argument about those matters? Why don’t we have the government telling us why that is important?

We had a second reading speech on the original bill a year or so ago and we have now finally got around to the debate, and we have the notion of four-year residency and we have a series of amendments. I do not want to be pedantic and really upset the member for Fisher, but the bill that we are debating does have retrospectivity in it—but that is fixed up by the government amendments. So down the track we will get it all sorted out. That is what has gone on. At least some of the things that the opposition said at the time that this was first put on the Notice Paper and the second reading was moved have been listened to.

Regrettably, I am absolutely opposed to the notion that this increase to four years should go through, because there is just absolutely no reason given for the increase to four years. In fact, it may as well be five years, as suggested by the member for Fisher. We have to decide what the problem has been over the period when the residency requirement has been two years. What has this led to? Has it led to a disintegration of the Australian way of life? Has it led to migrants not continuing to make a contribution to the way in which Australia develops? There is just no evidence of it. What were the arguments that suggested to us that changing it from two years to three years was an appropriate measure for security reasons? What difference would it have made to the people who were recruited as the bombers in London—they were basically second-generation migrants—if their parents had had to wait a year more to get citizenship? Would that in some way have cured the problem? I just do not see it.

At the end of the day I represent an electorate where 32.9 per cent of the population was born overseas, compared to the Australian average of 21 per cent. At the last census, people not fluent in English represented 7.1 per cent. If the argument about fluency in English is an argument about what resources the federal government will apply to communities where that is a problem and bring those people up to a certain level, I am on the side of those proponents. But if in fact it is merely about saying to a wider audience which perhaps has not been exposed to the success of Australia’s diversity, to the potential of Australia’s diversity, that in some way a person’s value to the Australian society should be based on their English proficiency then I am against it.

If we look at the rate of citizenship uptake in Scullin, it stands at 90 per cent. I am informed that the national average is 88 per cent. So what we have is 10 per cent of the 33 per cent not actually taking it up, compared to 12 per cent of the average 22 per cent. So here, in a highly migrant population, there is a greater take-up because people are proud to become Australian citizens. I often bore people with the story of my constituent Sheikh Feimi, who is the most senior Islamic religious figure in Victoria. He probably would not describe himself as the leader, but it is a fact. As the leader at Preston mosque, and given the length of time he has been in Australia, he is a senior figure in Victoria. I always remember the story that he told me about his two sons—who are adults—about the way in which they played football for Thomastown, a suburb in my electorate. He said to me, ‘Football, you understand—not that soccer thing, but Australian football.’ I thought it was a reflection on how this man, a senior figure, who dresses as an Islamic leader and teacher, really relates to his neighbourhood and reflects upon those things that are of interest to his neighbourhood.

Many source countries make up the multicultural mix in Scullin. The larger communities are predominantly the southern Europeans. But we have seen, since the census, new arrivals from Sudan, Burundi, Sierra Leone and Liberia. And those people slowly but surely become part of the mainstream, part of the people that we do not even think of as different, even though they present in a diverse fashion.

During last week there was a refugee function sponsored by the local community, held at the Epping campus of northern metro TAFE. One of the really exciting things was the way in which, as all the different dancing groups got up, those parts of diverse cultures were shared by others—the Syrian dancers, for example, and the Macedonian dancers. People got up and joined them. When the Kurdish women were dancing, the first people to come from out of the crowd were women from the Horn of Africa. And then the whole crowd was up—Asians, Anglos, the whole crowd. This is the strength of the community that I represent. Even though people hold dearly to their original cultures, in the way in which they share it with their fellow Australians they are defining the Australia of the 21st century. Their belief in going forward after whatever requirement we end up with in this piece of legislation at the end of this process means that they will go forward to proudly become Australian citizens.

For the people who wait the 40 years to come forward, that is their decision. And they are conscious in coming forward. At any of the citizenship ceremonies that I attend, there will be people who have been here for many years who have made a conscious decision. Do not tell me that they do not understand why they are coming forward to become Australian citizens. Instead of this debate being about celebrating the way in which we have made the 1948 act—as amended on 36 occasions—a modern piece of legislation and a celebration of Australian citizenship, there is this dithering. The COAG meeting made this decision to insert this into this act on top of those things indicated in July 2004. It has dragged out so that here, in late October and early November 2006, we will debate this legislation. What was the magic about increasing it from two to three years, when in the last 12 months—somehow, and without referring it back to a COAG meeting—it was increased to four years? I suppose when we get to the consideration in detail stage the new parliamentary secretary will explain his amendments to us. But I will not really hold my breath, because I would have thought that he would have already done it in the public domain. These are serious matters, where we should not have the dissension.

I am pleased that the matters relating to the Maltese community et al will be fixed up. I hope that the government will look at those matters highlighted in part 3 of our second reading amendment, which go to discrimination against some of the children of these people. That is an anomaly that I am sure the government did not intend and will fix. However, if we are going to have a debate about citizenship, let us not in some way demonise the acts of migrants. Regrettably that is one connotation you could take on the purpose of this piece of legislation, proposed to be amended in the consideration in detail stage.

See this speech in context