Jill Hall (Shortland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

The Australian citizenship legislation before us tonight consolidates and rewrites the old Citizenship Act of 1948. The legislation also implements measures to allow citizenship for many who have lost it or who did not have access due to former restrictions on dual citizenship. This includes members of the Maltese community, Australian citizens who have adopted children from overseas and people from a PNG background. The amendments proposed in this bill also give effect to the decision to increase the waiting period for citizenship from two to four years, which, as previous speakers have indicated, we oppose. The updating of the act to include the new recommendations has been discussed by committees of both the Senate and the House, and I think that the amendment put forward by the member for Watson highlights some of the inadequacies of the overall legislation before us today.

When I considered what to say about the Australian Citizenship Bill 2005 and the Australian Citizenship (Transitionals and Consequentials) Bill 2005, I had very mixed feelings. A number of feelings pervaded and contradicted each other. Australia has gone down a road that I do not think we should be embracing, and I really fear for the future. I fear for where we will be in 10 years time. I fear for the kind of nation that we have become. I have always thought of Australia as a very inclusive, caring nation—one that I was so proud to be a citizen of—but some of the things that have happened in this country since 2001 make me ashamed and make me question the future.

It is good to see the member for Kooyong in this House now, because I think he has made some very positive contributions in respect of where our nation is heading. He is one voice in a government that is not inclusive of people who come from overseas and seek to become citizens. Things have happened that should not have happened. These are times when people who have turned to Australia for assistance and solace have not been given that assistance and solace. These are times when we have deflected our thoughts and actions away from core issues and core values; however, the idea of including value statements in citizenship ceremonies is fraught with danger.

One of the experiences that I have enjoyed more than anything else as a member of parliament has been to attend citizenship ceremonies. Members on both sides of the House have talked about their experiences. I was at a citizenship ceremony last week, and I was overwhelmed. Amongst the people who were taking out citizenship were a number that I had directly helped to get their visa to come into Australia. Subsequently they have had children, and they have been embraced and welcomed into Australian families. They came up to me and thanked me for the support that I had given them at a time when they needed it. What I did was no different from what other members on both sides of this House do, but I found their gratitude and the feeling of pride in becoming Australian citizens overwhelming. It was so important to the people who were part of this ceremony to now be considered truly Australian.

This bill will make it harder for people to become citizens. We should embrace and encourage people to take out citizenship. When I spoke at this ceremony last week, I encouraged people to take out citizenship. I told them that we were debating this legislation this week in parliament and that, if they have friends or relatives who are thinking about taking out citizenship, they should do it now; if they do not, they will have to wait four years. I understand what a big step it is for a person to decide to take out citizenship of another country. Even though they do not have to give up citizenship of their own country, it is still a very big step.

At citizenship ceremonies, I ask people how long they had been in Australia before they took out citizenship and the longest case was 82 years; at Lake Macquarie City Council, the record is 87 years. It is not a frivolous decision to take out citizenship of a nation; people think about it and they value it. I think that, in the current climate, the government is moving down the track of viewing citizenship as more of a privilege rather than something that we should be encouraging. In Australia, we have an ageing population and research has shown that, even with increases in immigration, we will still have an issue surrounding an ageing population. We should be encouraging people to come to our country—not just bringing people in on temporary work visas where they are here today and gone tomorrow, but giving them the opportunity to contribute to the long-term wellbeing of our nation.

I find it hypocritical that the Howard government talks about people having to pass an English test and increasing the age that a person will have to take that test from 50 years to 60 years of age. Previous speakers have highlighted the problems associated with women who stay at home and care for children. The hypocrisy of this requirement is that in 1996 or 1997 this government cut the number of hours and the funding for English courses. That was one of the first acts that it took. If it is going to be a requirement that people have to pass English tests, it has to be properly funded. That is something that this government has not done. I think it needs to go back and think about that. The government is raising the bar but it is not putting the resources there for people to be able to jump over it.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs said, when talking about changing the residence requirements for citizenship from two years to four years:

This change together with the proposed citizenship test, with its English language requirement—

which is underfunded—

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.

I have news for the parliamentary secretary: I think that people already appreciate that. What does he want? Does he want them to get on the ground and grovel and say, ‘Please, please, please? I am grateful! I will be eternally grateful for the rest of my life!’ Rather, we should be embracing, welcoming and recognising that people who want to become citizens of this country actually have something to offer and we as a country should be valuing what they are prepared to give to this nation. He also said:

... increasing numbers of people spent significant periods of time in Australia as temporary residents prior to becoming permanent residents - this was why only one of the four years spent in Australia had to be as a permanent resident.

Once again, it is very much a little bit of this and a little bit of that. The member for Swan previously touched on the pledge that we as parliamentarians have to make in comparison to the citizenship pledge. The citizenship pledge is:

I pledge my loyalty to Australia and its people,

Whose democratic beliefs I share,

Whose rights and liberties I respect,

And whose laws I will uphold and obey.

What could better encapsulate the values Australians should have? I think that says it all. If people asked me what Donald Bradman’s average was, I would have to scratch my head. I would probably fail. Maybe I should not be an Australian citizen, because I am not up to speed on Donald Bradman’s average. Don’t look at me in horror, please!

See this speech in context