Craig Emerson (Rankin, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

Australia is the greatest nation on earth. The Australian story is one of immigration, as wave after wave of migrants came to join the original inhabitants of the land, to whom we pay our respect as the custodians of the land. As a nation of immigrants, we built this country to become the greatest country on earth, and a wonderful story in our history is the great postwar immigration period. That period was conceived by John Curtin, as the Prime Minister of Australia, during the Second World War. It was initiated by Ben Chifley after the war, and after the tragic death of Prime Minister Curtin, and was then carried on by the Liberal government through the fifties and sixties. And Labor and Liberal governments through the seventies, eighties and nineties have continued a very strong immigration program. I acknowledge that it was the Holt Liberal government that abandoned that horrible, vicious, nasty White Australia policy, and I pay tribute to the Holt government for doing that. That was a blot on our claim to be a decent and fair nation, and it is a great tribute to that government—with the support of Labor—that that stain has been removed.

I now want to cast forward, having recognised that some six million migrants have come to our country since the Second World War. About half of the population growth in Australia has been due to migrants. If we look at Sydney and Melbourne, we see that closer to two-thirds of the population growth is attributable to migrants if we count the children of migrants. That gives you some idea of the dimensions of this wonderful immigration program. In looking forward, we know we have the challenge of an ageing population in this country, and it is worth asking what role immigration can play in arresting the ageing of the population. Surprisingly, the role that immigration can play in achieving that objective turns out to be quite limited.

The projections from the Australian Bureau of Statistics have tended to rely on mid-range net overseas migration of around 100,000, but that has got up to almost 120,000 in the mid-2000s. I think it is a good result for Australia that net overseas migration has been lifted, and I am happy to say that. But if we were able to achieve net overseas migration of 125,000 per annum over a 40-year period, the proportion of our population over the age of 65 would decline from 26.1 per cent to 25.6 per cent, which is hardly a major difference. That leads us to the conclusion that net overseas migration cannot realistically be engineered to avoid or even substantially moderate Australia’s demographic transition to an older population.

By the way, these projections and alternative scenarios of 100,000 or 125,000 net overseas migration demonstrate the absurdity of the polar positions that have been taken in relation to Australia’s future population. On the one hand, prominent biologist Tim Flannery in 1994 spoke of a population of six to 12 million. That is a very substantial depopulation of Australia. On the other hand, former Prime Minister Malcolm Fraser in 1997 spoke of a population of 50 million. But, even if Australia were to raise its net overseas migration to 125,000 a year over a sustained period and if we were able to stabilise the fertility rate at 1.8, which is roughly where it is at present, the effect would be to raise our population by the middle of this century from 26.4 million to 31.4 million—an addition of just five million people.

But, having said all that, increased levels of overseas migration will be crucial to cushioning the impacts of population ageing and to prevent Australia’s population from actually declining from around the mid-2030s under the current projections. So I would argue that we do need net overseas migration of around 125,000 a year, which is greater than the current levels—which themselves are greater than those during the 1990s. That provides some of the background to the legislation that we are debating here in the parliament, the Australian Citizenship Bill 2005 and the Australian Citizenship (Transitionals and Consequentials) Bill 2005.

The truth of the matter is that we will need a very substantial immigration intake in this country, not only to cushion the impacts on the population or population ageing, but because, crucially, in the 21st century the availability of creative talent will heavily influence and arguably determine the affluence of nations. Richard Florida has prepared two influential books: The Rise of the Creative Class, in 2003, and The Flight of the Creative Class, in 2005. Florida argues that there are about 150 million creative people in the world today, essentially university educated professionals.

Many of them, however, are also people who have gained an advanced vocational education. Florida argues that it is not so much countries but parts of countries—regions and communities—able to generate, attract and retain creative talent that will be the most successful communities in our globalised world. These creative people will generate wealth, and a characteristic of those regions or areas where creative talent concentrates is that they are much more tolerant and open societies—better places to live. And most of us would want to live in affluent, tolerant, open societies.

So this great contest for creative talent will be and already is under way. Australia needs to fully understand that it will be a competitor with other countries in seeking to attract such creative talent to our shores. Conversely, those areas, those parts of countries, that are unsuccessful in attracting, generating and retaining creative talent will be closed, intolerant societies. They will be lower wage societies and they will not be the sorts of places that we would want our children to live in. So there is a great deal at stake in generating, attracting and retaining creative talent, and that is the context in which I want to assess the legislation before the parliament.

The legislation with which we are dealing makes two big changes. The first change is that it extends from two to four years the number of years during which someone must be a resident in our country before they can become an Australian citizen. This bill, in 2005, proposed to extend that residency qualifying period from two to three years. Labor, on the advice of security agencies and due to the fact that the states were prepared to accept and were supporting this legislation, was prepared to accept arguments that were not well developed but were put to us that there was merit in increasing that residency requirement from two to three years.

Personally, I had a lot of difficulty with that. I will explain my reasons. Whenever I, as an elected member of parliament, go to a citizenship ceremony—and I enjoy them whenever I do—and get the opportunity to speak, I say: ‘Congratulations. Good on you for making a commitment to our country, for making the decision to become an Australian citizen. Good on you for not simply remaining a resident, whether temporary or permanent, but making a commitment to our country.’ Then I urge people who have made that commitment to go out to others in the community and encourage them to make that same commitment to Australia.

We had legislation in this parliament in 2005 making it harder for that to happen—that made residents wait for another year before they could take out the very citizenship that we wanted them to take out, that we congratulate them on taking out and that we urge them to spread the word to others in the migrant community that they should take out. To me, that was uncomfortable. But the latest proposal contained in this legislation to increase that qualifying period by a further year, from the proposed three years to four, is unacceptable to me and my colleagues on the Labor side. What earthly reason could there be for the government, having not even passed the legislation to increase the qualifying period from two to three years, to have a rethink and increase it further to four years?

I have been going through the explanatory memorandum, I have gone through the second reading speech and I have gone through the citizenship paper of the parliamentary secretary, Mr Robb. I can find no compelling reason to extend that qualifying period by another year. I know there are members of the government who are very uncomfortable with the proposal to do that. Therefore, I thought I would ask the member for Kooyong to speak on my behalf during this debate. I refer to Mr Georgiou’s statements in the Melbourne Age of 5 October this year, where he said:

In my view, the discussion paper in no way demonstrates the need to change our longstanding processes, and the proposed new approach potentially undermines our unquestionable success.

The member for Kooyong continued:

I have looked closely at the Federal Government’s discussion paper, Australian Citizenship: much more than just a ceremony, and I can find no detailed, robust analysis of a problem, and no evidence of how the new measures would resolve a problem that has not been demonstrated.

He said:

How can it be in the national interest to impose new barriers to citizenship, barriers that would have prevented its acquisition by so many who have demonstrably proven to be model citizens?

Hear, hear! And good on the member for Kooyong for speaking out on this. The only reference that I can find to moving from two to four years is in a statement by the parliamentary secretary, Mr Robb, which said:

This change, together with the proposed citizenship test with its English language requirement, will help ensure citizenship applicants have had sufficient time in Australia to become familiar with our way of life and appreciate the commitment they are making when they become citizens.

That is it. That is the explanation: it is just going to give them a bit more time to work out whether they want to or not. If they want to after two years, why would we stop them? We are told that there are national security reasons. If we reluctantly accept that, what are the reasons for extending it a further year? It is only because the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister decided it would be a cute trick—something to do that might make life a little more interesting. Maybe we could get a debate going about how people should really make a commitment to this country and we will make it a bit more difficult for them to do so. No explanation whatsoever, as the member for Kooyong has well demonstrated.

The member for Kooyong made further comments on this in a speech called ‘The Liberal tradition’. It was an address to the Murray Hill Society of the University of Adelaide on 4 October 2006. Again, I would like to share with you some of the sentiments of the member for Kooyong. He said at page 10:

Now we are told we need to make significant policy changes to address weaknesses in our citizenship laws.

He goes on to say:

Where is the evidence showing who does not learn adequate English and the reasons for that? Do immigrants not want to learn or are they stymied by the lack of availability of classes or are they fully occupied in meeting other demands, such as employment and family responsibilities?

Again, there is no analysis, as the member for Kooyong points out. He goes on to say:

The third premise is that somehow we have fallen behind other countries in the stringency of our requirements. The countries that we are falling behind are cited as the US, the UK, Canada and the Netherlands. Look at their record of harmony. Australia’s record is second to none in multicultural harmony and integration. We are uniquely successful. Why should we emulate countries with a less distinguished record?

Again, I join with the member for Kooyong in his statements there. In what seems to be a warning by the member for Kooyong, he says:

The Liberal Party’s traditions may have changed over the decades.

But enduring has been the right of members of the Liberal parliamentary party to differ from the majority of their colleagues on matters of principles and conscience. This of course extends to the expression of a different view on the floor of the parliament.

I do not propose to spend the remainder of my time chortling about the member for Kooyong as if this is some great political coup. He is just making the point that this is a matter on which he feels very strongly. And I join him because it is a matter on which I feel very strongly.

The member for Kooyong is foreshadowing the possibility of crossing the floor on this issue. It has happened before, in 1988, when the now Prime Minister complained that he thought there was too much Asian immigration. Bob Hawke introduced a motion into the parliament. I was a staffer when he did so; I sat in the advisers box. That motion was a call for a return to a bipartisan immigration program, noting in the parliament that it was the Holt government that had abandoned the White Australia policy. The motion called for a return to a bipartisan non-discriminatory immigration policy. A number of members of the coalition crossed the floor on that motion, in both the House of Representatives and the Senate. One of those was the current Attorney-General and former immigration minister, Mr Ruddock. To the best of my memory, Senator Hill crossed the floor as well. Good on them. They showed that they care about these matters, and the member for Kooyong is showing that he cares about these matters.

For heaven’s sake, in the 21st century, when we will be competing for talent around the world, for skilled migrants, it is completely unnecessary to say to them, ‘We will not allow you to make a commitment to this country, to declare your allegiance to this country, until you have been a resident in this country for four years.’ It is against the national interest and we should oppose it. I would encourage any and every member of the coalition who has had the time or the inclination to think about this legislation to join Labor in opposing that measure. It is not in the national interest and it is not in the spirit of the great postwar immigration program that has mostly enjoyed bipartisan support and that is now fraying at the edges through manoeuvres such as this.

See this speech in context