Andrew Robb (Goldstein, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs) Share this | Hansard source

There have been cries of ‘marginalising people’, ‘putting up the barriers’, ‘discriminating against new arrivals’ and ‘no new national security arguments to justify the change’. All of these statements that I have heard in the last two days ring pretty hollow when most of those speakers in the next breath have waxed lyrical about the significance of citizenship and referred to the importance of rights and responsibility. The comments also ring pretty hollow when all speakers totally ignored the principal argument for extending the residential period to three years advanced in the second reading speech by my predecessor, the member for Parkes. The principal reason for going from two to three years advanced by the member for Parkes has been ignored in every contribution made by those opposite over the last two days. It was the sole reason advanced by me in September when announcing the intention to extend the resident requirement to four years. So the sole reason I have advanced for extending it to four years and the principal reason advanced by the member for Parkes when he made the second reading speech has been ignored in every contribution made by those opposite who have opposed the two to four year proposition. In the second reading speech, my colleague the member for Parkes said:

The increase in the residential qualifying period will allow more time for new arrivals to become familiar with the Australian way of life and the values to which they will need to commit as citizens.

He went on:

It will also strengthen the integrity of the citizenship process by giving more time for the identification of people who may represent a risk to Australia’s security.

So there are reasons. The principal reason is to give people more time to understand the Australian way of life. The member for Watson, in his contribution, spent 20 of his 30 minutes entirely focused on the national security part of that argument, as though that was the only reason. It is still a legitimate reason, a good reason, which you supported, to go from two to three years, but you spent all your time on the national security argument as to why it should not go from three to four or, in this case, in total from two to four. That was conveniently ignoring, I think, the critical issue of how long it takes for new arrivals to understand the way of life they are signing up to when they make the very serious pledge of citizenship. If, as all those opposite claimed, they believe so strongly—as I am sure they do—in the significance of citizenship and the commitment that goes with it, why did every one of them completely ignore any consideration of the time needed for those seeking citizenship to understand just what they are committing to? That is the crux of the argument for going from two to four years.

I can assure the House that the sole motivation in advocating an increase from three to four years, on subsequent consideration by the government of these changes for the resident requirement, was to do with new arrivals, especially those from new and emerging communities, who nowadays are often from countries with cultures far removed from the Australian culture. Over 200,000 people in the last 10 years have come from the Middle East and Africa. It makes no reflection on the merits of any culture. It is just a fact that it is more difficult if you come not from Europe but from other cultures that are far removed from the Australian culture to get some understanding of what it is that makes Australia tick—what is the way of life that you are committing to as you take that pledge.

Of course, many people who come from cultures far removed from the Australian culture do not have English language skills when they arrive, and they need sufficient opportunity to understand exactly what they are committing to when they make the citizenship pledge. When people take out citizenship, they are committing to a way of life. As the new citizenship ads say—and these ads encouraging people to take out citizenship were a matter of some discussion in the debate over the last two days—citizenship is more than just a ceremony. And that is the point: it is much more than just a ceremony; it is a huge commitment. When people take the pledge, they need to have the English language skills to understand exactly what they are committing to and they have to have a sense of how Australia works—Australian values and the essence of the Australian way of life—because they are committing to signing up to that way of life.

A lot of my motivation for recommending these proposals to the cabinet was my experience moving around every state across dozens of new and emerging communities and seeing the difficulties some of these people are experiencing in just coming to grips with the new environment. They are highly motivated and they are going to make great citizens, but they need the opportunity and the time, if they are going to commit to our way of life, to get a true sense of Australia. Two years is certainly inadequate. Three years is very difficult. Four years, in my view, is an absolute minimum. When you look around the world, four years is pretty much a minimum. It is not unreasonable to expect these people to have a reasonable opportunity to get a real sense of what it is to be Australian—what it is to make a contribution; what it is to commit to the Australian way of life.

In fact, what I have found in the last few weeks since announcing our intention to move a further amendment to take this to four years is that a number of African community members have said to me that they have a sense of some relief and that they have been feeling under pressure with a two-year requirement to understand Australia within that two-year period. They are saying they feel some relief that there is not an expectation for them to acquire a sense of the Australian way of life and take out citizenship within a two-year period. I am confident that this extension is a sensible proposal that will only serve to further enhance the effectiveness and the privilege of citizenship.

On another matter, the opposition has moved an amendment to provide access to citizenship for children born to Maltese citizens who had previously been Australian citizens. Under the new act, all people who were born in Australia and voluntarily renounced their Australian citizenship will be able to resume their citizenship, subject to character and national security considerations and verification of their identity. I think that is an important and a major provision in the bill which obviously is supported by those opposite.

However, Australian citizenship is a privilege; it is not a right. Provision has not been made for the children of the Maltese citizens who had previously been Australian citizens. In the government’s view, they do not have sufficient connection with Australia for automatic provision to be made for them. Their parents consciously renounced Australian citizenship and at the time of doing so could have had no expectation of being able to resume it without migrating to Australia. The Senate Legal and Constitutional Legislation Committee, in their inquiry into the bills, accepted the proposed provisions, stating:

The Committee considers that this matter has been fully considered by the Government over a number of years and that renunciation is properly regarded as a more significant and conscious relinquishing of the bonds of allegiance to Australia.

That was in contrast to the many people who had unconsciously lost Australian citizenship under section 17, which, of course, has now been withdrawn from the bill. However, these people under section 18 had consciously renounced their citizenship and, according to the committee, it did present itself as a more significant and conscious relinquishing of the bonds of allegiance to Australia.

So we have made a major concession and a proper concession to all of those Maltese citizens who had previously been Australian citizens—that is an important provision—but not for their children, who were not born here, have never been in Australia and have been Maltese citizens from birth. Importantly, though, there is still a path for such children to gain citizenship if they so wish. Presumably either of their parents who seek to renew their Australian citizenship, as Australian citizens, can sponsor their non-citizen children. (Time expired)

See this speech in context