Joanna Gash (Gilmore, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

In rising to speak to the Australian Citizenship Bill 2005 and the Australian Citizenship (Transitionals and Consequentials) Bill 2005 I am reminded of the words of Theodore Roosevelt, the 26th President of the United States, who said:

The first requisite of a good citizen in this republic of ours is that he should be able and willing to pull his weight.

The telling point of Roosevelt’s observation is that conferring citizenship on someone carries with it not only access to its benefits but also mutual obligations on the part of the individual. It seems to me that the notion of citizenship has had its meaning and purpose diluted over many years, and its benefits have come to be regarded as some sort of right rather than a privilege.

Citizenship has become a watered down, bureaucratic tool rather than an acceptance of a set of values that one embraces meaningfully and spiritually—in other words, to someone who comes to this country wanting the benefits Australia offers without any sense of contributing or committing to the very ideals that obviously drew them here, citizenship is just a boring ritual. We do not deserve this type of pseudocitizen. As a ‘new Australian’ myself, I feel I am sufficiently qualified to comment on aspects of this bill that deal with what it means to be a citizen of Australia.

Australian citizenship is a serious matter and all citizens need to be aware of the enormous responsibility we need to take to ensure that the spirit of this country remains positive, free thinking and tolerant. Australian citizenship represents formal membership of the community of the Commonwealth of Australia. Australian citizenship is a common bond, involving reciprocal rights and obligations uniting all Australians while respecting their diversity. Australia is one of the few countries in the world where you can speak your mind. In fact, our system of government actually encourages you to participate with your differing views.

We encourage people from a diverse range of backgrounds into our midst through our immigration programs, knowing that these new citizens will bring a welcome diversity of culture, skills, resources and knowledge. That might be seen as a rather ideological, pie in the sky view, but I firmly believe that citizenship cannot be viewed as simply a ritualistic ticket. It is far more than that and we are entitled, as citizens of Australia, to expect that those coming here from other lands accept the values that we cherish beyond mere lip-service as a ticket to self-indulgence.

I came to Australia with my family from Holland at the age of seven, and we were afforded every opportunity to grow. At that time we recognised that whilst we may have been given the opportunity, we were under no illusion that from then on we only got back what we put in. And we were under no illusion that ‘when in Rome’, and we adjusted accordingly to the Australian way of life, such as only speaking English in our home.

Even in those days there was a restriction when migrating to Australia in that a member of the family had to speak English and the prospect of a job was to be proven. These days seem different and we are more tolerant of persons who cling to the cultural habits of their old country. Perhaps we have gone too far. We need only scan the media reports to detect that there is an increased degree of discomfort with people who now seem a little too different to the rest of us. In fact, there are concerns expressed to me, from all walks of life, over the growing predisposition from some sections of the community to gather in enclaves.

I am sure there is only a minority who choose to do that, but I would be sticking my head in the sand if I did not recognise the very public demonstrations of anti-Australianism, particularly from sections of some Middle Eastern communities. The aggression shown is clearly at odds with someone who has purported to have accepted the value systems of their new nation. It is totally out of place and certainly un-Australian. It is almost like reverse apartheid, yet we are asked to tolerate and accept behaviour which is hostile to our ideals. There is no doubt that the process of obtaining Australian citizenship warrants a review, if for no other reason than the fact that the community is beginning to question whether we were becoming perhaps a little too lax in our entry requirements.

As much as I would like to think that we are a very tolerant nation, that generally we have an enviable record of assimilation of immigrants, I definitely resent being taken for a ride by someone who takes the oath of allegiance and then goes on to attack his new country. This seems to be happening more and more. Citizenship is not something that should be given away lightly. It is a thing to be cherished and savoured. There is a mutual obligation in this process, and we need to ensure that those who say, ‘Let me stay,’ stay on our terms and not on those imposed from afar. The preamble to the Australian Citizenship Act 1948 contains the statement:

Australian citizenship is a common bond, involving reciprocal rights and obligations, uniting all Australians while respecting their diversity.

Australia is a unique country and the qualities that make us unique are worth preserving. The government is intent on ensuring that our values and our way of life—the things that make us proud Australians—stay that way. If we are to act and live as a community then surely we must define the traits common to us all. How can you have a unified community when it is allowed to become segmented and segregated over diverse ideologies and cultures?

I have no problem with people identifying with their parent land—and sure, it forms part of their comfort zone. Certainly, I will always have a place in my heart for where I was born. But if you have chosen of your own free will to live in another country, surely it is common sense that you need to get on with the other people in that community. What is the point of saying, ‘I like your lifestyle; I want to join,’ and then saying, ‘But I don’t like you’? I cannot follow that logic, and neither can many Australians with whom I communicate daily.

It is not for me to stand here and say, ‘This is my opinion.’ I am simply reflecting what the majority of my constituency says to me and, in turn, I am relaying their sentiments to the House. I understand that not everyone shares this view and no doubt I will be criticised for daring to express it, but that is the way it is. I do not know why some people insist that it is we who have to change to accommodate the fractious newcomer. I want to welcome everybody into the home that we call Australia. It is a home that is warm, a home that is friendly and a home that is caring, and it is a nice place to be.

Unfortunately, we have had lately some instances where our home has been gatecrashed by people who really do not like much about our home. They have shown that they do not like us, they do not like the way we live, and they certainly do not have much tolerance for what we believe in. In fact it seems that in some cases these gatecrashers want to take over our home and impose their demands on the household. I say to them: ‘Welcome into our house but, while you are in it, you have to follow our rules. If you do not like them, go somewhere else more acceptable to you.’ Our home is worth fighting for, and many in our extended family have died preserving it for the rest of us. We should be grateful that there is so much generosity in our house that we can share. We do not want anyone in our house that wants to contaminate that generosity by preaching hatred and division. That is not our way.

This legislation is necessary and appropriate for the times. It is neither excessive nor harsh. It is a reasonable response to a time when Australians are becoming conscious of their identity after a period of cultural cringing. We do not have to be apologists for who we are. In fact, we have every right to be proud of who we are—and, if you want to join us, that is fine. Is that too big an ask? I do not think so. This legislation is not asking for any more than what is occurring in other countries that wish to protect their sovereignty and identity—countries like the United Kingdom, the United States and Canada.

I must commend the Senate Legal and Constitutional Legislation Committee for their thorough examination of the issues, and I equally commend the government for its adoption of many of the recommendations that flowed from that inquiry. Are we making it harder for new immigrants to win the right to Australian citizenship? Hardly. It has been my experience to find that people who have taken out citizenship have been living here for many years before doing so. Some have taken upwards of 40 years to discover that they want to be an Aussie. Not everybody will assimilate readily. Everyone has to have their own time frame, and some people will just never accept the Australian way of life. That is fine; that is their choice. But they should at least be honest about their intentions—and that is the fundamental philosophy of this bill.

In closing, I would also like to touch on the subject of introducing a formal citizenship test. I have seen the media comments in relation to this proposal. They largely ridicule the idea, which is hardly an unexpected reaction. But out in the electorates, out in the real world, a totally opposite viewpoint prevails. It is a subject worthy of exploration, and we would be failing in our responsibility to our constituents if we did not canvass those views. What is the point of offering citizenship if it does not act as a vehicle to unify newcomers to Australia?

On a cautionary note, publicity has been given to a handful of cases where an individual who identifies themselves as an Australian citizen is then seen to engage in anti-Australian behaviour. This should not be accepted as the norm. Most who come to Australia and who adopt it as their home assimilate readily and go on to contribute positively. I certainly do not want to demonise those people nor encourage the notion that we are xenophobic rednecks, but those pockets of individuals who accept our gift and then go on to dump on us are not wanted.

See this speech in context