Kim Wilkie (Swan, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I welcome the opportunity to discuss the Australian Citizenship Bill 2005 and the Australian Citizenship (Transitionals and Consequentials) Bill 2005 and also to speak on the amendment moved by the member for Watson. One thing that we often forget in Australia is that we are all migrants—often when we go to citizenship ceremonies we even forget that ourselves. The Aboriginal people came here some 40,000 years ago and settled in this country, and the rest of us probably came here over the last 200 years from previous generations. Our country is made up of over 190 different nationalities, which have all combined to create a distinctly Australian way of life and culture. It is a harmonious culture that has defined our character without civil war or conflict. In fact, in less than 200 years we have been able to achieve what many nations or civilisations have taken up to 2,000 years to achieve, and that is a great credit to Australia and the people who have come here over those years.

The broad components of this bill are generally supported by the opposition. Indeed, why it has taken the government so long to get to the stage we are at today is, quite frankly, beyond me. It would appear that when the government put forward much of the legislation, which was announced with a great deal of fanfare, it had one eye on the polls and since then, of course, it has all evaporated. For goodness sake, the bill was introduced in November 2005 yet debate has only begun this week. At the time, 12 months ago, following the cowardly attacks on communities in London, we were told there was a massive security imperative to amend our citizenship requirements. Indeed, one of the central components of the original bill was to increase the citizenship waiting period from two to three years based on security advice given to the federal government and agreed in the COAG 10-point plan.

Why has the government ignored this security advice for 12 months? Just this week we have heard that over 117,000 people have been processed for citizenship under the old system—the very same system the government believes was deficient in screening out security threats to this country—while this bill was gathering dust. And we are told by this government that, for security reasons, it wants to expand the citizenship waiting period to four years. What is the security advice, and why did the government sit on its hands for 12 months following the additional advice? The parliamentary secretary has provided no justification for the increase to four years—no justification whatsoever.

In September in the Australian, Stuart Rintoul posed the question of whether a recently naturalised Sudanese family would have made better citizens if they had been required to wait four years instead of two. Stuart Rintoul wrote:

It was a question Mr Robb never really answered as he spoke of the Government’s ‘judgment’ that it took four years to understand Australia’s history, laws and culture sufficiently to become a citizen, just as in Britain there was a five-year wait.

The parliamentary secretary was then quoted in the article as follows:

‘Our judgment is that for most people two years is not sufficient to have, in their DNA, what it is that makes Australia tick,’ he said.

Four years is far too long. What am I going to tell my constituents about the increase in waiting times—that the government had a feeling in its waters, or that the parliamentary secretary spun a chocolate wheel and it landed on the number 4?

This is an issue in Western Australia, where I am informed that around 12 per cent of residents were born in the United Kingdom or Ireland and over five per cent were born in Asia. In fact, in recent years, Western Australia has had the highest proportion of overseas migration in the nation. This fact is reflected in the many wonderful citizenship ceremonies I attend at the councils of South Perth, Victoria Park, Belmont, Canning and Gosnells.

I am sure we have all been to the citizenship ceremonies. To witness the genuine enthusiasm that these new Australians feel when they take their oaths of allegiance to our nation is, as I am sure all members will attest, a very moving experience and it makes us proud to be Australians. Whether attending a citizenship ceremony, being handed a native kangaroo paw for their garden or observing the welcoming ceremony of a local Indigenous dance group, witnessing the pride and sincerity in which these Australians take the oath is one of the great pleasures of being a member of parliament. Let me say, however, that I believe there are some double standards here.

Let me make the first point. Citizenship is a wonderful thing, but even the best and brightest of our new citizens—those with Australianness running through their DNA, to quote the parliamentary secretary—can never aspire to hold the highest office in the land: our head of state, currently Elizabeth II, Queen of Australia.

The second point is about the difference between a citizen’s oath and our own oath as a federal member when we take up office. I have long believed it is bizarre that our duty to the Australian people is not better reflected in our oath or affirmation of office. It is simply incongruous that federal members must swear allegiance to the head of state but not to those people they represent—the Australian people. Acknowledgement of an MP’s responsibilities to the people of Australia should be made in addition to the oath or affirmation of allegiance to the Queen. I believe Australians find it strange that federal parliamentarians make no formal acknowledgement of their allegiance to those people who directly elected them. The sentiments of the citizenship oath, which pledges loyalty to Australia and its people, should be echoed by the oath taken by MPs.

Late last year, the Western Australian parliament took the step of allowing MPs the choice of declaring their loyalty to the Queen or to the people of the state. New South Wales took a similar step earlier this year. In Western Australia, Ben Wyatt, the new member for Victoria Park, a state seat that falls within my federal boundaries, become the first MP in Australia to give his allegiance only to his state following the by-election in the seat formerly held by Dr Geoff Gallop. Ben Wyatt is making a fantastic contribution to Victoria Park as a Noongar member of the parliament, one of the first owners of the land—one of the first settlers I talked about who came here over 40,000 years ago. Ben is making a great contribution. I believe that this would make a fantastic development at the federal level.

As we have heard, this bill will update Australia’s citizenship law by replacing the Australian Citizenship Act 1948. The significance of the 1948 act is particularly interesting because, with its enactment, the government of Ben Chifley introduced the principle of citizenship for Australians as Australian rather than British. The empire was of course in decline and independence movements across the globe were dramatically altering the prewar colonial landscape. Vast migration programs to Commonwealth countries such as Australia were also underway. Australian citizens remained British subjects but, from the proclamation of the act in January 1949, were recognised as citizens of their own country. The act did of course retain the concept of aliens—those defined as not British subjects. Amendments to the Nationality and Citizenship Act in later years progressively changed the assumption of this Britishness. Indeed, the concept of ‘British subject’ was removed by the 1973 amendment, although the concept of ‘alien’ remained until 1986.

In recent months, the issue of the 1948 act has arisen in terms of the government’s plan to introduce a citizenship test. I believe it was the member for Kooyong, who is here today, who made the point recently that, under the Australian Citizenship Act 1948, people are currently assessed on the following: basic English language knowledge, understanding the nature of the application and its meaning, and an adequate knowledge of the responsibilities and privileges of Australian citizenship. Yet, paradoxically, we have a government that was prepared to cut over $10 million from the Adult Migrant English Program. As the Australian’s Greg Sheridan wrote in September:

We also know that English language, while immensely useful, is not absolutely essential for the deep personal commitment that citizenship involves. Surely we all know Cantonese grandmothers, east European family patriarchs and others who have made wonderful Australian citizens but who could not have passed this silly test.

Mr Sheridan continued:

Moreover, there is reason to doubt the Howard Government’s good faith here. In its early years in office it cut funding to English language training for migrants. A report by the nation’s education ministers accuses the Government of seriously under-funding the English language teaching of refugee children. That is not boat people or visa over-stayers, but people we choose to take as refugees from camps around the world.

I know from past experience of a lot of situations in this country where migrants have come in from, say, Greece or Italy, or from many other countries, and the husband has gone to work and had an opportunity to work with other Australians who speak English. They have learnt to speak English through that mechanism. But the mothers or the wives at home have not had an opportunity to learn English. Some of those people are now grandmothers, and they still have great difficulty in speaking English. Under this proposed arrangement, despite the fact that their families have made a fantastic contribution to this country, we would not allow them to become citizens because they do not speak English. How ludicrous is that? Many of them have children, and their children have children who are making a wonderful contribution. But, under these proposed rules, no, they are not allowed to be Australian. I think that is ridiculous. It is just crazy.

Once again we are dealing with a sneaky government. We talked about Australian values. To me, we want people coming to this country to have the Australian values of a fair go and tolerance. That, as I said before, is the reason we have built up such a wonderful country over the last 200 years. But we have a government that, whilst preaching a fair go and tolerance, does not display a fair go and tolerance. It is the most anti fair go and intolerant government I have ever seen in this nation.

We are dealing with a sneaky government, as I said. This side of the House believes that our national security is too important for the games being played by this government and, quite frankly, for the 12 months of incompetence that has delayed this debate. Attacks on Australian workers and the least fortunate in our community are quickly implemented by this government, yet important initiatives which have the broad support of the House are left to gather dust. The member for Watson has moved an important amendment which I said earlier I fully support. I call on members to support his amendment which states:

(1)

opposes the increase in residence requirement to 4 years.

(2)

notes that the government consulted with the Council of Australian Governments (COAG) on increasing the period from 2 to 3 years on national security grounds but undertook no consultation on the increase to 4 years and has given no adequate reason for this measure;

(3)

opposes the discriminatory treatment of people who lost their Australian citizenship under section 17 of the old Act (acquisition of citizenship of another country) and those who lost citizenship under section 18 (renouncing of citizenship) given that it fails to provide equitable treatment for a number of groups, but particularly the Maltese community; and

(4)

notes that a stateless person would be denied citizenship if convicted for an offence of greater than 5 years even if it were a trumped up conviction under a brutal and oppressive foreign regime.

I recently spoke of the persecution of the followers of the Baha’i Faith in Iran, and I dread to think that followers who arrive on our shores may be denied citizenship because of false imprisonment under the Iranian regime. I believe the amendment proposed by the member for Watson satisfies the requirement for a reasonable period of time for people who reside in Australia to seek citizenship and welcomes with open arms people who wish to call Australia home, with all the rights and obligations that that entails. I commend the amendment to the House.

See this speech in context