Rod Sawford (Port Adelaide, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

The implied reason the government has given for the extension on the qualification period for citizenship from three years to four years is ‘national security’. I take national security issues seriously and I am sure you do too, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker Hatton, and I am sure most people on our side do as well. The reason I put national security in inverted commas in this context is that it is the government that is not taking national security seriously. In fact, the sequence of events relating to the Australian Citizenship Bill 2005 is clear evidence that the government is playing politics with the very important institution of Australian citizenship and it is using national security as the tool in this game.

The cynical abuse of the fundamental institutions of this nation is typical of the record of this government. This government has never been shy about abusing national institutions or groups of people in society for very base political reasons. We all remember the election climate of 2001: the lies, the asylum seekers who threw their children into the sea and the released doctored photographs in the final days of the campaign—all lies. That these stories were complete fabrications is now a matter of public record. This shows how this government is prepared to demonise groups of people for its own cynical political purposes, and we all know there are numerous other examples. The bells are also ringing in this case.

The government gave national security as a reason for extending the qualification period for citizenship from two to three years in the original bill, which was prepared 12 months ago. The opposition accepted in good faith this extension and the reasons the government gave for it. The opposition had to accept that the government was telling the truth. The government refused to provide the information and the opposition had no other way of verifying it. So, when the government intimated it had information critical to national security that necessitated the extension of the qualifying period, the opposition was in no position whatsoever to reject or argue that claim and, because we were not prepared to put the safety and security of Australians at risk, we had little choice but to say we would go along with the legislation.

This is an example of where the proper operation of the parliamentary system of government relies on the integrity of the government of the day. Although the government’s integrity in such matters has been ripped to shreds over the ‘children overboard’ affair, the opposition had no information contrary to that provided by the government. Thus the opposition agreed to the government’s original extension. That was the situation a year ago. If we had doubts then—and we did—we ought to have very serious doubts now.

If there were serious issues of national security at stake and if Australians were exposed to risk while the two-year rule applied then why has the government let the legislation lie on the shelf for the past year? In that year probably 120,000 immigrants have become new citizens, and about the same number have entered the country and begun their qualifying period of two years. If there were critical national security concerns, as the government claimed, why has it allowed another 120,000 people into the country under the old two-year qualification rule?

For many of us the question answers itself. The so-called national security issues the government nominated were a fabrication. The only alternative explanation is that the government is incompetent and sloppy on the critical issue of national security. That is probably true too. Both reasons are possible, but I judge the first reason as the more likely simply because of the government’s long record of cynical abuse of national institutions for its own political purposes.

The likely scenario is that the government judged that the opposition would oppose the increase from two years to three years. It would then put the legislation aside to use in another divisive election campaign in 2007. When the opposition took the government at its word, the legislation was shelved for a year and brought back in a new form. The new form extends the qualifying period from two to four years. It is clear that the government are prepared to cast most people who seek to enter this country as being of evil character—until they can prove otherwise. That seems to be their attitude—at least for their own crass political purposes.

My view is that the overwhelming numbers of people who seek to come to this country are good people who intend to make a positive contribution to our society and our nation, and who do that. I participate—probably like you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and most members here—in almost every citizenship ceremony in my electorate of Port Adelaide. It is one of the most rewarding functions. Different councils have different emphasis, but they are joyous occasions. It is a very happy time. Friends, families, kids, national costumes—it is a terrific thing. It is a time of optimism. Pride marks the culmination of the process of immigration settlement and citizenship.

My electorate has a very large number of immigrants and new citizens. The Vietnamese community, for example, has a significant presence. I have made some very good friends in that community. They have made an enormous contribution to my area and to the nation generally. Not least of all, as you can see by my girth, is the contribution made by the Vietnam Restaurant, judged recently as the best Vietnamese restaurant in the country. In fact, it is the best Asian restaurant in the country.

My wife, Aldona, is also an immigrant, coming to this country with her parents at a young age. Her parents were Lithuanian, caught by the Russians, caught by the Germans, then again caught by the Russians, caught by the Germans. They finished up in Czechoslovakia, then up in Meppen and then in Genoa, like millions of other refugees in war-torn Europe. They could have gone to Canada, but the next boat went to Australia. That was good enough; they were out of there. With a suitcase and two little kids they got on the boat and came here. They had no English, no possessions and no money. Like a lot of immigrants at that time, they were grateful to come to a country which has been able to provide such opportunities for them and their children and to which they have been able to make their own contributions.

Of course, apart from the Indigenous people, we are all immigrants. From the first days of European settlement, new immigrants to South Australia first stepped ashore at Port Adelaide. Where else? The clever ones never ventured much further. My family has lived there for 170 years. It is a long time.

Citizenship, as we say at the ceremonies, is the common bond that unites us all in a mutual commitment to Australia, regardless of our birthplace, ethnic background or religious affiliation. By international standards our citizenship system is welcoming to newcomers. We have a shorter than average qualifying period of permanent residence; that is true. We do not have a strenuous language test. That is true too. This reflects a deliberate choice of adopting an inclusive approach that can act as the unifying force in an increasingly diverse population. You can treat people as being of light and goodness and you can treat people as being of dark and evil. I think the goodness and light is the attitude that we have used since the end of World War II, and it is one that we ought to continue.

Australia has conducted an enormously successful high-intake immigration program over the past half-century. I think we have the highest per capita rate in the world. More than 3.2 million immigrants have gone on to become citizens, contributing to the building of the nation of which we are all proud. It is an immigration and citizenship program that has enjoyed bipartisan support, at least until recently. Remarkably for such a huge immigration program, there have been few failures: a few Nazis after the war, a few hiccups with Malcolm Fraser and some people from the Middle East in the seventies and early eighties. But overall, it has been overwhelmingly successful.

The only other concern with the system is the take-up of citizenship, which, at around 75 per cent, is lower than I think all of us would hope for. There are about 950,000 eligible noncitizens who have not taken up citizenship in this country, despite meeting the residential requirements, including 350,000 people born in the United Kingdom and 200,000 born in New Zealand. Somehow I think that figure is about 500,000 really. New Zealanders seem to be here in great droves. It is in the national interest that every resident eligible for citizenship becomes a citizen. Every effort must be made to increase the take-up rate. I do not think that the government’s new legislation, however, will assist in any way—in fact, it will only hinder that.

It is an interesting quirk of history that the legal status of Australian citizenship is around just half the age of the nation itself. Australia became a nation in 1901. It is one of the longest continuing democracies in the world, of which we all should be proud. It was not until 1949, on Australia Day, that the federal Australian Citizenship Act, which was introduced in 1948 by Ben Chifley, the Prime Minister of the day, came to fruition. In fact, Ben became the first Australian citizen at that ceremony here in Canberra.

Prior to the act, most residents were, legally speaking, British subjects. I can tell you that when my family fought at Fromelles and Pozieres in World War I and at Tobruk and on the Kokoda Trail in World War II they did not regard themselves as English or British; they were Australian. They were Australian from the time the eldest child was born in this country, in the 1850s. But legally we were British subjects.

It is interesting, that first Australian citizenship ceremony. After Ben Chifley, the next seven people to be granted Australian citizenship were born in seven different countries. They were all men—you would not get away with that today: Angel Maguira, from Spain; Jan Jandura Pucek, from Czechoslovakia; Paul Marvig, from Denmark; Thiel Marstrand, from Norway; Michalos Mavrokefalos, from Greece; Auguste Duran, from France; and Mladen Bumbak, from Yugoslavia. Right from the very beginning, this prime event was designed to emphasise and signify the multicultural and multiethnic character of Australian citizenship—right from the very beginning. People think this word ‘multiculturalism’ is some sort of touchy-feely, pretty word of the last 20 years. No, it is not. It was implicit in that first ceremony. The act decreed that most people born in Australia prior to that day automatically became Australian citizens. That was me. Unfortunately, Australia’s Indigenous people had to wait another 18 years before they were legally entitled to become citizens, to our great shame.

As I said, since 1949 more than 3.2 million people have taken the step to become an Australian citizen, helping Australia to become one of the most culturally diverse nations on earth. That diversity is one of the defining characteristics of our society. It is something to celebrate, to take pride in. It is a strength, not a weakness.

Our immigration program has been lauded as one of the most successful immigration and settlement programs in the world. Why are we running away from that? Are we ashamed of what we have done? What we do not need is a government that is prepared to sacrifice such a successful national program for cynical political purposes. Unfortunately, that is what is evidenced by the government’s latest version of the legislation that has been brought into the parliament.

As I said earlier, it is my view that the government increased the qualification period from two to three years in its original legislation for cynical political purposes. It thought that the opposition would argue that the system has worked very well for half a century—like I am arguing now—and that there is no need for such a change. The government probably also thought we would argue that the increase in the qualifying period for citizenship could hardly have any bearing on national security issues. After all, there are stringent tests to be passed in order to win a residency visa in the first place, and presumably this process would weed out any unsatisfactory potential residents—and, if not, why not? It is a fair question to pose to those who query this argument. Secondly, it really stretches plausibility that the authorities can find out in three years that a person is an unsatisfactory potential citizen but they cannot find out in two.

The government’s arguments for change were shallow and barely believable and led to serious doubts about their veracity and sincerity. Nevertheless, as I said earlier, the opposition agreed to the change because the government argued they had ‘national security’ reasons that compelled this change. Look, we are aware that the circumstances of security in the world have changed, but that is not the reason. Personally I could not see the justification for the change to the citizenship qualifying period. I cannot see that, but of course I accepted the position decided by my party. My doubts about the sincerity of the government’s position have been confirmed by the failure of the government to put this legislation, said to be of critical importance to national security, before the House during the last year, and any lingering doubts have been entirely blown away by the form in which this legislation has come back into the parliament.

The government now proposes that the qualifying period be increased not from two to three years but from two to four years. That the government intended to use the original legislation, when rejected by the opposition, for cynical political purposes in the next election campaign is now without doubt. That is the only possible explanation for the revised legislation. There are a few other things hidden in there, but that is the only real reason. But, unfortunately for the Prime Minister and this government, the opposition will not be drawn into this cynical political game. We will support this legislation, not because we agree with it but because we value the national institution of citizenship so highly that we will not see it abused for crass political purposes. We will not allow the next election campaign to become a rerun of the disgraceful, cynical campaign of 2001. Labor are committed to Australia being an unified nation, not a divided nation. We value our new citizens and the contribution that they have made to this nation, and we will not allow them to be vilified by the government for their own electoral ends.

This latest version of the bill is nothing other than another attempt to play politics with the very important Australian institution of citizenship. I condemn this legislation, but I also accept that I will have to support it, probably for the good of the nation, so that citizenship is not trashed, because, if the legislation is defeated—and it will not be—there is no doubt in my mind that the government will drag the good name of new citizens through the mud in the next election campaign for its own political purposes.

This government is in trouble. It is not in trouble because of citizenship, skills, education, health or climate change; it is in trouble because it has buggered up the economy. That is the real reason. It has had these huge surpluses and it has given them away instead of spending them on infrastructure, education, training or research—on trying to raise the bar at which this country operates—and now it has a problem. Interest rates are out of control. Inflation is nearly four per cent. They are the determinants, as they always were, that have this government in huge trouble. Yes, there are other reasons why elections are won and lost, and we saw that, unfortunately, in Madrid in Spain not so long ago and we have seen it in Israel twice. But, generally, it is the economy that dictates whether governments win or lose.

What is so sad about this citizenship bill is that, as the previous member on our side, Simon Crean, said, we have had bipartisanship on this program for over 50 years. I do remember Ian MacPhee, the former member for Goldstein. He was a very good friend of my predecessor, Mick Young, and I was very proud to be in their company on a number of occasions. Their friendship was quite remarkable, but it was a very close friendship. When they spoke about this country, from very different backgrounds, they spoke of it as a nation of coherence, of togetherness, of being proud, of being inclusive and of seeing the goodness and uniqueness of people from all over the world—not seeing evil. Of course we have some evil people who sneak through the system, but they should not be the determining factor of this citizenship program, which, in my view, is the most successful in the world.

I am not afraid of a debate about improving it. In some ways in this country we walk away from debates within political parties and within this parliament. We seem to be afraid of debate. I am not afraid of debate, but I do not want to see this program trashed. This government is well on the way to doing that, and that is to our eternal shame.

See this speech in context