Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Mackellar, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for Watson has moved as an amendment that all words after “That’ be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The question now is that the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the question.

Chris Bowen (Prospect, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As a nation we have not fully capitalised on the benefits that can come to us from our diaspora. There are, on any given day, a million Australians living overseas. I have referred in the House previously to the Lowy Institute report entitled Diaspora by Dr Michael Fullilove and Dr Chloe Flutter. On the opening page of their report, Drs Fullilove and Flutter note the following:

… the ‘Australian diaspora’, is large and, in the main, prosperous, well educated, well connected, and well disposed to this country. It is also very mobile: rather than turning their backs on Australia once and for all, expatriates these days are more likely to move back and forward between Australia and other countries as opportunities present ... The Australian diaspora should be seen as our ‘world wide web’ of ideas and influence.

Drs Fullilove and Flutter go on to make a range of practical suggestions about how Australia can better utilise the services of our diaspora. More importantly, the report makes the very strong case that a desire to live overseas for a time does not eliminate or reduce the loyalty of that individual to Australia.

I acknowledge the work of the Southern Cross Group, which supports expatriates and promotes their cause in spreading this message. They have been very vocal about the Australian Citizenship Bill 2005. Some of the things they have called for in the bill have been incorporated; others have not. For others it falls to the Labor Party to argue for and to continue to argue for, in particular on the matters I referred to previously in relation to the revocation of citizenship under section 18 of the act and the government’s failure to remedy that for those individuals and the children of those individuals.

I would also like to pay my acknowledgement to the work of Mr Lawrence DiMech, who lives in my electorate. He is the President of Maltese Welfare New South Wales Inc., a very vocal and well-known advocate for the cause of Maltese in Australia and one who has been very vocal on this bill and on the matter of citizenship generally. I regard him as somewhat of an expert on citizenship given the amount of time he has spent working in the department of immigration on citizenship matters.

I urge the government to accept Labor’s amendments and Labor’s propositions, which have been put in good faith to allow the 2,000 to 3,000 people of Australian descent who live in Malta, and the children of those people, to reclaim their Australian citizenship, revoked under section 18 of the act. I submit to the House that this would not only be fairer but it would also be an outcome in keeping with our national interests. Generally I support the bill, with the reservations that I expressed earlier about residency requirements and the government’s failure to fully deal with the matter of Maltese expatriates. They have dealt with it partially but not fully. I also express my reservations, as other honourable members have done, about the failure to give the minister discretion to deal with people who have been imprisoned for more than five years in an overseas country and the automatic refusal of citizenship to those people.

In the vast majority of cases that would be appropriate, but, as the honourable member for Gorton pointed out in his earlier contribution, under that rule, should Nelson Mandela, for example, choose to seek to be an Australian citizen he would be rejected and nobody would have the right to overturn it. That does appear to be an anomaly which the government should rectify. The government should also rectify the other shortcomings in relation to section 18 revocations. The government should revert to its original position of only increasing the residency requirement to three years out of five, not the four years out of five as they have amended their own bill.

Louise Markus (Greenway, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise today to speak on the Australian Citizenship Bill 2005 and the Australian Citizenship (Transitionals and Consequentials) Bill 2005. This new package introduces a number of amendments to both bills so that the government can achieve better structured and more accessible and modernised citizenship legislation. The amendments in these bills address a number of the recommendations that were made by the Senate Legal and Constitutional Legislation Committee inquiry, the report of which was tabled in February this year.

One of the most significant points is the incorporation of simplified outlines to assist readers to understand the legislation and clarification of the circumstances in which an application for citizenship may be made by a child in their own right and those in which an application may be considered as part of the application by a responsible parent.

Since the introduction of Australian citizenship in 1949, more than 3.5 million people have become citizens. Today, 95 per cent of the population are Australian citizens. This bill has come about to rationalise and update the original act, which was first passed in 1948, so that more people can share the privilege of becoming Australian citizens over the coming years. Also, we must not forget the 900,000 permanent residents who are eligible to become citizens, should they choose to take the steps towards citizenship.

Citizenship gives individuals the right to be an Australian, to vote and to have a voice in this country’s future. The importance of raising the value and awareness of citizenship cannot be underestimated. After all, apart from our Indigenous population, we are indeed a migrant population. I see this in my electorate of Greenway every day, where there are families and individuals from all parts of the globe: more than 100 different nationalities are represented. In 2004-05 alone, more than 93,000 people from over 170 different countries took Australian citizenship. This bill will provide an opportunity for other individuals who want to share in the future of this country.

The major provision in this bill is the recently announced and widely publicised amendment of the requirements to apply for citizenship. Currently, individuals who wish to apply for citizenship are required to have spent a minimum of two years as a permanent resident in Australia in the last five years, including 12 months in the last two years. However, the proposed amendment coincides with changes to government policy on the residency requirement. These changes will mean individuals who wish to apply for Australian citizenship must have a minimum of four years lawful residence in Australia immediately prior to making an application for citizenship. The four years of lawful residence must include at least 12 months as a permanent resident. This is similar to current residency requirements in other countries such as the UK, Canada and the US.

It is important for prospective citizens to understand and appreciate the Australian way of life and the commitment they are required to make to become a citizen. To do this, they must have spent a reasonable period of time living in Australia, so that they are familiar with the Australian values and our way of life and can integrate successfully into Australian life. I would like to highlight these key values: respect for the unique, intrinsic value of each individual; respect for the rule of law; the equality of men and women; a fair go for all; and compassion for those in need.

In the recent week, we have had the third point I mentioned—equality between men and women—challenged by comments by Sheikh al-Hilali. Can I first acknowledge that I have many dear friends in the Muslim community that abhor these comments. These comments are not about religion; they are about the value of and the attitude towards women. His comments are unacceptable and, can I say, unequivocally un-Australian. In this nation, Australia, we are proud that men and women can stand side by side and that in this House we can work together to plan and work towards the future of our children and our children’s children. It is critical that women and men are treated equally.

Equally significant is a change in government policy to individuals who have renounced their citizenship to acquire or retain another citizenship. Now, former citizens who resume their Australian citizenship will be able to sponsor family members for migration to Australia. On the weekend I attended a citizenship ceremony for the Maltese community in Marsden Park, in Western Sydney. The opening statements were made by Charles Mifsud, president of the Maltese Community Council. His statements were about his pride in being Australian, his and his community’s loyalty and commitment to Australia and to its future, and his gratitude for what Australia has given to him and to his community.

The Maltese community have contributed significantly to the local area. In my electorate of Greenway they have worked hard; they have worked side by side. Many of them have contributed towards the food needs of the greater part of Sydney, having worked the land. This legislation is significant to the Maltese community. I acknowledge that they would have liked the Australian government to have gone a little bit further, and that can possibly be looked at as time progresses.

As part of the policy rationale within these bills a number of discretions which were difficult to administer will be removed from the bills. The most significant is in relation to periods of time spent overseas involved in activities that are beneficial to Australia. However, there is also a recognition that time may need to be spent outside Australia, and therefore periods totalling more than 12 months in the four years, including three months in the 12 months, prior to application will not affect eligibility. However, two discretions have been included. The first is that it is better to recognise interdependent partners of Australian citizens. The other discretion will provide for the minister to treat a period spent in Australia, other than as a permanent resident or an unlawful noncitizen, as a period of permanent residence if the person would suffer significant hardship or disadvantage if citizenship were not granted. These two discretions will make the process much more flexible and accessible for those applying for citizenship.

The amendments laid out in these bills will not only provide transparent legislation to support the Australian Citizenship Bill 2005 and the Australian Citizenship (Transitionals and Consequentials) Bill 2005; they also raise the awareness of the value of citizenship and encourage eligible people to become citizens. Australian citizenship is a privilege; it is not a right. And with it comes the opportunity to be one of the many voices that make up this nation, Australia. It provides individuals, families and communities with the chance to become a part of one of the safest, most prosperous and most peaceful societies in the world.

Our citizenship law and policy have been at the heart of success of these programs. Our law and policy have changed over time to reflect the changes in Australian society, and the amendments that have been set forth today reflect those changes. For these reasons, I commend these bills to the chamber.

Laurie Ferguson (Reid, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Consumer Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Janet Albrechtsen has certainly started paying back the Prime Minister for her recent appointment to the ABC. In her recent column of 25 October she commented:

PAUL Keating and his admirers have long derided John Howard as a little man, a man with no vision, no passion for big, intellectual ideas.

She went on to comment:

A closer inspection of Howard’s history and a proper understanding of his contribution to the intellectual life of this country proves otherwise. Like it or loathe it, his influence on national debates through the culture wars has been deliberate, long planned and is likely to be remembered long after today’s economic statistics have been forgotten.

The Prime Minister is no Johnnie-come-lately when it comes to the culture wars.

…            …            …

As Opposition leader, Howard carefully targeted political correctness ...

She further noted:

Challenging the orthodoxy and commenting freely on heartfelt issues such as ... immigration was simply not possible without attracting absurd smears of racism and intolerance.

That is very apologetic for the Prime Minister, but this is an area where despite his forthrightness and his wish to indulge in the culture wars he has, on later occasions, admitted that he is wrong. His thinking is behind the Australian Citizenship Bill 2005 and the Australian Citizenship (Transitionals and Consequentials) Bill 2005. Going back to his original comments, I note his assertions on the John Laws program on 1 August 1988:

... it is legitimate for any government to worry about the capacity of the community to absorb change and there is some concern about the pace of change involved in the present level of Asian migration.

He noted further:

You’ve only got to blink the wrong way when you’re talking about people that come from other parts of the world or with a different coloured skin and you’re branded immediately.

And another comment:

I think the pace of change has probably been a little too great.

We all know that some time later he was a bit more reticent about these comments. In an article in the Australian by Mr Greg Sheridan on 9 January 1995, Mr Howard was quoted as saying:

I admit the remarks I made were clumsy. I can understand why some people legitimately took offence.

Janet Albrechtsen said that he engenders improper criticism, but there he was saying that perhaps his remarks on immigration and, more specifically, on Asians, were clumsy. Further in the Australian article Mr Howard is quoted as saying:

It was regrettable that it was couched in particular ethnic terms and you’ll be aware that the policy itself did not repeat that.

So despite the accolades from that noted columnist, the Prime Minister at least conceded that his language was clumsy. Unfortunately, he did not admit that it was totally wrong and that it was racist, but he said it was clumsy and could have been misunderstood. We all know about the narrow confines of his upbringing. He commented on one occasion about how fantastically radical and different it was to see the Italian migrant across the road using tiles on his front porch. This was, of course, very confronting for him.

The main aspect of this legislation that I am critical of is the proposed extension of citizenship specifications of permanent residents from two years. It is motivated by that same attempt to marginalise people, to put people in a corner, and to discriminate against one part of the population. Whilst it is not articulated in specific terms, the terminology that the Minister for Community Services, Mr Cobb, spoke of—international conditions et cetera—is clearly slanted at the Islamic population of this country. That is the coded, nuanced undertone that the electorate is supposed to pick up: we are going to be tough on terrorism by being tough on some people becoming citizens too early.

I am somewhat surprised that some premiers and state leaders in this country could apparently have been persuaded at some stage that there was some security premise for the suggested change in this legislation. Somehow they were given unspecified information, that none of us are aware of, that by forcing people to wait an extra year for citizenship Australians would be better protected and the terrorist threat in this country would be reduced. I do not know what that evidence was. I cannot imagine what it could be. Equally, the current government has not come out with further evidence as to why it might now be necessary to move the waiting period from three years to four years.

The situation is that, if you do security checks, it does not matter whether you do them after six months, three years or 10 years; it is the adequacy and the fullness of those security checks. That is what any fundamental protection in this country should be premised on: the adequacy of the tests, the examination, the resourcing of ASIO, the resourcing of the Federal Police, and the resourcing of any other institutions involved in this. To say that postponing the analysis of a person in Australian society is going to somehow protect us is preposterous.

I have heard and witnessed coalition members speaking in a variety of ethnic communities about how inclusive we are and that we essentially want people involved in our society. I often refer at citizenship ceremonies to how long this country has had compulsory voting and compulsory voter registration—since the 1920s. We want people to be involved, to feel that they are part of the decision-making process, that they are not outside the system or marginalised, unhappy and different. This legislation will clearly go in another direction. It will ensure that a group of people are targeted and made to feel that they are in some way different and not to be treated like others.

I found it very interesting when Patricia Karvelas, a reporter with the Australian, confronted the Prime Minister at a Greek event a few weeks ago and noted that half of those present, who were of advanced age—a pensioner group, as I recall—could not speak English. What was the Prime Minister’s response? ‘Oh, but these people helped build the country.’ That goes to my point that this is not about security. It is not about a wholesale, across-the-board approach. It is about giving coded messages to the less informed, less interested parts of this country that we are going to somehow target the Muslim community. In actual fact, it is going to have very little impact on that community. We only have to look at the nature of migration intake in this country.

It is interesting to note that it is going to have very little impact on that community. We only have to look at the nature of the intake of migration in this country. I will go through the 10 major intake countries from the last two years. I will start with the United Kingdom. Yes, there might be a few people in Leicester and there might be a few people in other industrial cities of Britain of Islamic extraction. But I think we know what the religions of the overwhelming proportion of British citizens coming to this country are, if they have got one. The second country is New Zealand. Similarly, because New Zealand took a more liberal approach on refugee intake over the last few decades, you might get a few more Fijian Muslims sneaking through the door after the coups there. From China, yes, you might get a few Uygurs, from western China—people with a Turkic background—but, once again, they are a very small part of the population.

India might have a very large number of Muslims, but not with regard to our overall intake. Sudan is admittedly a country where there might be some Islamic intake, but the majority of them are Christian and animist refugees from the south of Sudan rather than Muslims. In the Philippines, South Africa and Malaysia most particularly you might have some, and it is the same with Singapore and Vietnam.

It is very interesting to note that, whilst the government might like to give this message to the Australian electorate, in concrete, practical terms the community that will be hit by this—and I have certainly been raising it at Indian events lately—is the Indians, for instance. We all know the nature of the skilled migrant intake. There were 123,000 people this year. English, quite rightly, has been given a greater emphasis in the skilled intake. They are not going to be coming from downtown Tripoli, Blouza or Hadchit. They are going to be coming from Calcutta and Mumbai, and they are going to be coming from Britain. They are going to be coming from countries where English is much emphasised. In fact, the people who are prepared to wait four years are going to be coming from these countries in the next few years. That is the reality.

Let us look at the refugee intake. The government has, once again—and I agree with them totally—focused on the reorientation in Africa. There are 8,000 coming this year out of 13,000. They are predominantly from Sierra Leone, Sudan, Liberia and those kinds of countries. Some of these countries have significant Islamic minorities, but the refugees are predominantly not going to be Muslims. The communities that are going to be hit hard by this change are from Britain, New Zealand, India, China et cetera.

Like other members of the opposition, I am intrigued that this is so earth shattering that we have had to, in the last few months, announce an extension. Three years is not good enough for people to wait. It has to be four. In the interim, the figures show that, while this bill has been on the tables of the parliament, nearly 120,000 people became citizens of this country. There is the supposed importance of this to our national security and yet they have allowed this bill not to be moved on or acted upon in that time. What is the credibility of the government in saying that this is an urgent security measure that is actually going to protect us?

Another thing that is talked about is changing the age barrier for gaining exemption from the requirement to speak English. One again, this is another questionable change in this country. I referred to the Greeks earlier with regard to language proposals. It seems that this is actually designed to give a kind of incorrect measure to people—that they are going to somehow deal with one of these minority groups.

I was interested in Adele Horin’s article on 9 September this year in the Sydney Morning Herald. She noted that, despite the urgent need for everyone to speak English in this country, it was not too urgent when the government denied English instruction to 8,900 mainly Muslim refugees arriving in Australia from 1999 onwards. It was not too urgent for them to get English. Despite the government’s bleatings, they are virtually all permanently here now. They are all part of society. They are all people that need English, but it was not too urgent then. This is the same government that can reduce the amount of money they are devoting to English instruction by $11 million.

Adele Horin clearly points out that this situation, on the one hand, is so urgent and so important. No-one is denying that it is better for the country and better for the individuals to have English so that they can access employment in this country and so they can be absorbed into the wider society. The record of these reductions in expenditure and the 8,000-plus people at the moment who were not given English when they were in detention and are now in our society is very questionable.

While I am talking about English, I witnessed in Western Sydney the orientation to the refugee intake from Africa, which I commend very strongly. It is a very worthwhile initiative by the government. I also want to say that we will be facing massive social problems in the next few decades because of the failure of infrastructure with regard to English. We are taking people who are illiterate in their own languages: mothers and fathers who do not know their own language, let alone English. Schools in my electorate and some of the other further western schools, both private and public, are really taking the brunt of this kind of problem because of the failure to provide adequate English support.

The other issue I want to touch upon—which I am surprised the previous speaker did not because, last I heard, she had a significant population of people of Maltese extraction in her electorate—is that it seems that the campaign by Maltese residents of this country has not quite hit the electoral office of the previous speaker. One of the things that were not rectified in this piece of legislation was the ability of people of Maltese extraction to regain citizenship. I do not think that there is a convincing argument, despite the fact that the Senate committee this time agreed with the government, that a distinction should be made between these two groups of people who lost their citizenship.

People were forced, virtually with a gun at their head, to give up their Australian citizenship because of the vast array of privileges they were going to lose in Malta if they did not make that decision at 18 years of age. When we have reached the stage where we have liberalised on dual citizenship like the rest of the world, when we have allowed other people to get back privileges they lost in a different area of society and when there is a different attitude by us and the world, there is no logical reason why the Maltese population should be discriminated against in this manner just because their government at the time had those particular provisions.

In conclusion, there are some worthwhile measures in this bill. We are aware of those. I take the opportunity to commend the Southern Cross Group, which has been particularly active around the issues confronting the Australian diaspora. I think their campaign has contributed to a rethink in this country, and they have certainly highlighted these issues. Also—and I think I heard another speaker make this point earlier—one thing Australia is a bit overdue on is recognising the importance to this country of our diaspora. It is a growing number of people. Most of them are young and educated. They are out there in countries making a major contribution. We should be, like other countries—and I emphasise, as I did before, that China and India are two countries that understand this and they have understood it before we have—making sure that we can more fully utilise our diaspora for the national interest.

The main provision in this bill that I am concerned about is this attempt to require people to be here for a longer period of permanent residency before they get citizenship. That is going to be a very significant period for some people. We are talking about whether it is two or four years, or two or three years. I have people in my electorate who, because of security checks, have not been able to bring their spouses into this country for three to four years. Quite frankly, the decision should be made in those cases. Whether it is because we do not have the infrastructure, we cannot get the detail or we cannot get to the bottom of it all, we are talking about some people who, even if they eventually succeed in getting into the country, will be waiting eight or nine years to become citizens of this country. So it is more than two or three, and that goes for some business visas as well. It is not just the period that we are talking about here today; it will be quite extended periods. Otherwise, I commend other aspects of the bill.

Michael Johnson (Ryan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am pleased to speak in the parliament as the representative of the people of Ryan on the Australian Citizenship Bill 2005 and the Australian Citizenship (Transitionals and Consequentials) Bill 2005. These bills represent the largest raft of changes since the original act was introduced in 1948, coming into effect on Australia Day 1949. So the original act is almost six decades old. It is a world-class piece of legislation but, as with all pieces of legislation, the time has come for it to be reviewed and improved upon.

It is quite timely that I am able to speak on this in the parliament today as the representative of the people of Ryan because in recent days the issue of citizenship, loyalty to our country and values in our country has come to the fore with the remarks of a leader in the Muslim community in New South Wales. Of course, I refer to Sheikh al-Hilali. I want to commence my remarks, in the first place as an individual of this country but in particular as a representative in the Parliament of Australia and as the representative of the people of Ryan, by expressing without equivocation my condemnation of his remarks.

I have had a great many Ryan constituents contact me since the remarks came to the fore in the national media. Without overstressing the depth of feeling in those Ryan residents that have contacted me, they have been unanimous in their condemnation and in their outrage. As the representative of the people of Ryan, I want to make it clear that I associate myself very strongly with the remarks of the Prime Minister and all Australians in condemning Sheikh al-Hilali’s remarks and the sentiments and motivation behind them. There is no place in Australian society for them.

As I say, this bill before the parliament is quite timely because of the background in this country and the circumstances of the international community at this time, when we are facing all kinds of challenges, in the realm of economics and in particular in the realm of security. The bill reflects the changes which have occurred in our population since 1948. The population has risen from 7.8 million in 1948 to over 20 million today. We know that the nature of international transport today and the mobility of people, enabling them to move between nations, have revolutionised our world. More than ever travel and relocation between nations is becoming part of people’s lives. The capacity to travel and the affordability of travel for most people in developed economies and societies has impacted upon the sovereign state and the dynamics of relations between countries. This bill seeks to ensure that Australia as a modern 21st century nation keeps in tune with the new world which we are now part of. It reflects our current migration and humanitarian programs in a world which is very much globalised and which is facing unprecedented international security concerns, challenges and threats.

On behalf of the people of Ryan, I want to very strongly condemn the remarks of a gentleman by the name of Dr Ameer Ali, who is the departing chair of the Prime Minister’s Muslim Advisory Council. I will take at face value that his comments are accurate as reported in the Herald Sun on Monday, 9 October. This is part of the background of why this bill is important and why this issue of citizenship and the nature of our citizenship should be very much in focus in the national parliament. Dr Ali is quoted as saying:

“When I go abroad, they ask me where do I come from? I say I come from a Muslim country,”

I want to, in the parliament, emphasise very emphatically my objection to this sentiment and to this remark. I have had many calls from Ryan constituents questioning this sort of sentiment and this sort of loyalty from someone who is a citizen of this country.

Of course, the natural response that most of us would give when we are asked in the broad where we come from is to say that we come from Australia. Our automatic response would be to say that we come from a particular country rather than to say that we are of a particular faith or come from a country that subscribes predominantly to a particular faith. So, like the overwhelming number of my constituents that contacted me, I reject very strongly such a remark and in particular the sentiments behind such a remark, because it does no good whatsoever to the fabric of our society.

This bill is very much about striving for integration. It is very much about striving to ensure that the fabric of our society is rich, enduring and one that can accommodate all of us, irrespective of our faith, our ethnicity and many other things that we might hold dear to us. But it is important that there is a unifying factor, and citizenship in this country ought to be that unifying factor.

The bill enshrines certain basic tenets of the government’s citizenship policy, and I very much commend them. I very much think that they are in the national interest. I very much think that the overwhelming number of Australians would subscribe to them. The first is that citizenship is not a right for those who seek it who come from other countries. Indeed, it is a privilege. As someone in this parliament who was an applicant for Australian citizenship, I consider it to be a very deep privilege to be a citizen of this country. When Australians do not value the fact that they come from this country, that they come from the greatest country on the face of the planet, I think there is something very wrong there. This country has been blessed in so many ways and we should consider it to be very much a privilege to be a citizen.

One of the other tenets that should be very much in focus in all of this debate is that citizenship should be conducted in a non-discriminatory way, it should be inclusive in fashion, it should be non-compulsory and, of course, critically, it should represent a formal commitment to this country and what it embraces and stands for. Some people, such as Dr Ameer Ali, think that they come from a Muslim country. Of course, I reject that absolutely, but I will certainly tell him what sort of country he does come from. He comes from a democratic country. He comes from an egalitarian country. He comes from a classless country. He comes from a parliamentary country. He comes from a constitutional country. He comes from a country that embraces its history, and it is a country that is very much one of entrepreneurialism and innovation.

I think all Australians would be very proud to be citizens of this country. But it is not a Muslim country, it is not a Buddhist country and it is not a Hindu country—and let us make that very clear to all those who seek to be citizens of this country. Of course, it is Judaeo-Christian—very much so, because of a fact of history and of circumstances. That is just a fact that cannot be disputed. For those who say that they come from a Muslim country, a Buddhist country or a Hindu country, I think they should very much question how they view their particular place in this society.

We are Australian. We are not Greek, we are not Italian, we are not Vietnamese, we are not Chinese, we are not Arabic and we are not Korean or, for that matter, Japanese, Irish or from any other country. We are Australian, and that should be at the forefront of our thinking about how we want to approach all that we do in this country to make it a much better country.

This is a very important bill and I want to touch on some of its key points. In recent years we thought that the old legislation had failed to adapt to the increase in population mobility, and this current legislation will see to that. I touch on the fact that a person can gain permanent residency and then spend no time in Australia and still be granted citizenship, so long as they can show their activities overseas to be of benefit to Australia. Yet another applicant may have spent years in Australia prior to gaining permanent residency, immersing themselves in the Australian way of life but still not satisfying the residency requirement. So that oddity is going to be addressed.

The new requirements also recognise the changes in the migration program over the years, changes which have resulted in an increasing number of people spending significant periods of time in Australia as temporary residents prior to becoming permanent residents. I want to stress the changes will not affect current permanent residents. People will only be required to meet the current two-year residential qualifying period providing they apply for citizenship within three years of the commencement of this act.

As I alluded to earlier, at the heart of this act is a residency requirement. The bill increases the residency requirement for applications for citizenship from two in the five years immediately preceding the application to three in the five years. The new amendments to be introduced in the parliament follow this debate. However, it will alter these requirements to a minimum of four years of lawful residence in Australia immediately prior to making an application for citizenship, including at least 12 months as a permanent resident. Absences from Australia of up to 12 months during the four-year period will be allowed, with no more than three months in the year before they apply.

These strengthened residency provisions will give migrants and applicants for citizenship more time to really be part of the Australian way of life and to associate themselves deeply with the values that we consider very much the essence of this country. Of course, it will allow opportunity for the government and its relevant agencies to undertake the necessary security checks that should be taken.

I do not see why this should be an issue at all. If people come from another country and seek to be part of the Australian community, irrespective of where they come from, I think it is entirely appropriate that the government of this country and its relevant agencies focus on their backgrounds to see that they are the kinds of people that the rest of us in this country should welcome. There is no problem with that at all, as far as I can see—provided that it is done in a proper and professional manner, that it is done in an indiscriminate fashion and that it is applicable to everyone who falls in that category.

It is also important to remember—and I am sure that my constituents will be very keen to know—that these provisions are not out of step with countries such as the UK and the US. For instance, in the UK, they require five years of lawful residency with no more than 450 days absence during that time, while the United States legislation requires five years of permanent residency with absences of only up to six months each year. So it is not at all incompatible with those two countries and the emphasis they place on citizenship.

The bill will introduce changes to the requirements of citizenship by descent, including removing the age limit by which a child of an Australian citizen must be registered, a provision of citizenship by descent for children whose parents have lost their citizenship and a provision of citizenship by conferral for children who were born after their parents had lost their citizenship. These changes ensure Australia’s citizenship laws abide by the blanket policy that citizenship by descent should be applied when a child is born to a parent who is an Australian citizen.

Removing the age limit is a continuation of a previous legislative amendment which saw the limit in the legislation increase from one year after birth to 18 years in 1984 and to 25 years by the Howard government in 2002. This measure will provide relief for those people with an Australian parent at the time of birth who previously were above the age of registration, and it will remove the situation where the child was effectively punished and denied Australian heritage because of an omission by their parents, many of whom were not aware of the legislative requirements. So it will ensure that no child of an Australian parent is denied their ability to consider themselves an Australian, which of course I am sure that the overwhelming number would like to do.

An important point that this bill addresses is to enshrine equality in spousal provisions. The spouse of an Australian citizen will have to meet all the same criteria as other adult applicants. Spouses will also be able to have time overseas counted as time off for the residency requirement, as long as they can show a close and continuing association with Australia during that time. I think these provisions are long overdue and they do represent the fundamental ideal that each individual is a citizen in their own right and therefore each individual applicant for citizenship should meet the required standards, as opposed to relying on a spouse’s citizenship. It will ensure a spouse, along with all other applicants, has to undergo the ASIO security check.

Let me touch on that, because that is one of the key aspects of this bill. Provisions will prevent the approval of a citizenship application when there is an adverse or qualified ASIO security assessment that the applicant is directly or indirectly considered a security risk to this country, as defined by the ASIO Act 1979. All new citizenship applications, including citizenship by descent, conferral and resumption, will have to undergo the ASIO check. I think we owe it to our national security considerations that this is done across the board. Of course, that is the critical aspect—that no-one is singled out. Irrespective of where they come from, all will be treated equally and will undergo full checks by the relevant government agency.

I want to end my remarks by saying that those of us who have had the privilege to be able to apply for and be granted citizenship of this country are fortunate indeed. As at 30 June 2004 some 4.8 million of Australia’s population were born overseas—so some one in four Australians were not born in this country. The number of people born overseas in the 2001 census was 4.1 million, compared with 3.9 million in the 1996 census and 3.6-plus million in the 1991 census. Since the Australian Citizenship Act was passed in 1949, more than three million people born overseas have acquired citizenship. I certainly put my hand up as one of those three-plus million people who, since 1949, have applied for and were granted citizenship of this great country—and I now have the great privilege to be here in the national parliament of this country to represent my fellow Australians.

I should say that in Ryan—because I know that many of my constituents will be pleased to know this—some 34,000 people were born overseas, which represents just over a quarter of the total population of Ryan, and almost 7½ thousand, or just under six per cent of Ryan’s population, have been a resident for less than five years. I would encourage the residents of Ryan who are not quite yet citizens of our country to very much consider applying for citizenship, because it is a great privilege. Indeed, I will be conducting a citizenship ceremony on 11 November—Remembrance Day—and I have been informed that some 60 residents of the Ryan community at large will join the Australian family and become citizens of our great country. I look forward very much to welcoming them into the Australian community as citizens of our country and to encourage them to do their bit to strengthen all that is great in our country. We are a very proud democracy. Over 100-plus nations in the world today are members of the democratic family, and as one of the leading nations in the democratic family we want to continue to ensure that this country remains rich and prosperous in every fashion.

Martin Ferguson (Batman, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Primary Industries, Resources, Forestry and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I welcome the opportunity to contribute to this debate on the Australian Citizenship Bill 2005 and the Australian Citizenship (Transitionals and Consequentials) Bill 2005. I say that because I believe that since 1948 a formal system of Australian citizenship has served our nation well. I also want to deal with some of the history, because I think we should be very careful at the moment. If this debate goes wrong, as I fear it is going to, and migration becomes a political issue yet again, for short-term political gain, then Australia as a nation will be the short-term, medium-term and long-term loser.

As we would all appreciate, it was in 1948 that the then Labor Prime Minister, Ben Chifley, legislated a brave, forward-looking response to the economic challenges that faced our nation in the postwar era. I think it is important that we place some of this on the record. Postwar reconstruction demanded that we as a nation increase our immigration to grow our population and our economy. In doing so, immigration proved a resounding success. But, looking back on more than 55 years of citizenship, immigration has given us much more than a labour force and a bigger population. Migrants, be they Greek, Italian, Vietnamese or Somalian, have made Australia the open, vibrant society that exists today. Migrants offer us a range of important experiences, values and traditions.

As a member of parliament representing a prominent multicultural community in the electorate of Batman, I have taken great pleasure in attending all but two citizenship ceremonies in the City of Darebin in the decade since I was elected, in March 1996. I do that because I think it is not an insignificant decision to take out Australian citizenship, to actually make that public declaration of support for Australia as a nation. I congratulate each and every one of those people who have taken out citizenship. I encourage others who have not taken up the opportunity to become Australian citizens to do so in the foreseeable future. It is interesting to note that the records show that those who fail to take up that opportunity tend to predominantly come from the United Kingdom and New Zealand. Others value it and grab it at the first opportunity.

On Australia Day last year a record was set, with 12,000 people pledging their commitment to Australia in 275 ceremonies across the country. This year a new record was set, with 14,000 people becoming Australian citizens by pledging their commitment publicly to our nation. New citizens understand that when they take up Australian citizenship we do not require them to forget their country of origin or to forget their traditions and culture. That is why immigration in Australia has been so successful. Not only have we welcomed people and encouraged them to embrace Australian citizenship but also we have clearly accepted publicly that we do not expect them to walk away from the traditions and cultures of the country from which they came. I am proud to say publicly that that is because Australia is not a closed, xenophobic nation.

Each citizenship ceremony presents us with an opportunity to take pride in Australia, our way of life and our democratic, tolerant society which welcomes with open arms people from all over the world. The nature of the program has changed over the last 50 years. Initially people came from war-torn Europe, then from Asia and, more recently, from important places such as Africa and the Middle East.

On that note, can I say that Australia has been criticised over recent years because of the way the Howard government has treated asylum seekers. I simply say that the debate has always been about the integrity of the system. It is about making sure that anyone who applies for formal citizenship of Australia is given an equal go at having the merits of that application properly considered in an independent process which is highly honest in its decision making. I simply say in response to the government’s actions, which were for political reasons, that a Labor government would show compassion for these people whilst maintaining the integrity of the system. I think it is very important for the other side of the House to start considering that at the moment.

As far as I am concerned, it is not just migrants who need to understand and appreciate Australian values, culture and traditions but all Australians. We need more Australian studies in our schools and more appreciation of the history of our Indigenous peoples. Those of us who were born in Australia need to give serious thought to the value attached to Australian citizenship. It is very important that the government continues to promote the value of citizenship. It should be regarded as being of value not only by those who come to Australia and want to become Australian citizens but also by all of us who are fortunate enough to be born in this lucky country.

I am simply proud to be an Australian. I am very proud of the fact that Australia has one of the most highly successful managed immigration programs in the world—something that other countries aspire to. Clearly at the core of that success is the issue of citizenship and our willingness to grant citizenship to people seeking to come to Australia. But, in doing so, we must never forget that citizenship not only gives us rights but also gives us obligations. When a person becomes an Australian citizen, they actually accept those obligations.

Just as Australians have wholeheartedly embraced the history, cultures and traditions of our societies, I believe that migrants desire—and they should be encouraged—to learn about Australian history and the Australian way of life of so-called Australians. Having said that, I simply say in response to the government’s discussion paper on citizenship: I cannot see how a so-called test for people seeking to take out our citizenship can increase their understanding of our history and traditions. The discussion paper refers to the following types of questions: in the United States, what is the colour of the American flag; in Canada, how many constituencies make up the federal parliament; alternatively, in the United Kingdom, where does the jury system operate in the court system of the United Kingdom? What a range of questions to determine whether or not people can become citizens of those countries! Let us be frank about this debate. If you want a discussion about the values and history of Australia, then it should apply to all of us. To imply that we should now have those so-called questions in a test to determine whether or not you can be an Australian citizen is just plain wrong. It takes the eye off the main game in terms of how we maintain the integrity of a system that works out properly, at the first point, whether or not people are potentially a danger to Australian society.

I think this is actually borne out by our success. We have diversity in values that we all accept. We also have people who actually want to take out Australian citizenship as soon as possible. But just think about one of those countries that we now refer to in respect of a test of citizenship. Let us go to some statistics. In Australia, one in four Australians were born overseas, which is much higher than many comparable countries. For example, in the United States, the ratio is one in 10 were born overseas. We have succeeded because we have done the right thing by those people who want to settle in Australia and make a contribution to it.

I only have to walk down High Street in Preston, in my electorate, to see the embodiment of a truly multicultural society. In my local community there are people from more than 120 different ethnic backgrounds. There are those who came here 50 years ago and those who came here only a matter of weeks ago seeking refugee settlement. Australia’s living history shows a long commitment to multicultural values through its strong migration program. In Victoria, where I come from, almost a quarter of the population were born overseas in one of 233 countries. And we want to make it harder for people to become Australian citizens! There are more than 180 languages and dialects and 116 religious faiths. A significant number of these people were refugees—initially from Europe after the Second World War and more recently from the former Yugoslavia, Africa, the Middle East, Afghanistan and Somalia. Many of those Somalian immigrants reside in my electorate before they move to the north, more often than not, to the electorate of Scullin for permanent settlement because of the opportunity to buy a house there. Houses are cheaper in Scullin than in Batman.

These immigrants make an invaluable contribution to the Australian way of life and underpin our open-minded ethos and Australian values which we are all proud of and grateful for. This bill helps to improve the situation of migrants affected under old laws, such as those prohibiting dual citizenship. For this reason, I welcome some of the changes in this bill to improve opportunities for those who aspire to Australian citizenship. However, I wish to also point to several gaps in the legislation that need to be closed. These changes allow former citizens to resume their citizenship with only one condition attached—that they be of good character. They also provide the opportunity for former Australian citizens who lost their citizenship under the former section 17 to apply for citizenship by conferral.

However, I would like to qualify my support with a call to include those seeking citizenship under former section 18. There remain a large number of children of Maltese immigrants who are unable to seek Australian citizenship because their parents had to renounce their Australian citizenship on return to Malta. Labor is seeking an amendment to section 21 of the bill to allow children of the former Australian citizens covered under former section 18 the right to apply for citizenship by conferral. There are around 3,000 Maltese children who do not have a right to Australian citizenship. However, the children of Australian citizens who renounced their citizenship under section 17 because, for example, they were working overseas, do have the right to seek citizenship. This is an inequitable situation which must be addressed. Children under section 17 and 18 should be given equal opportunity to bid for their citizenship. While I welcome many of the changes included in this bill, I urge the government to consider this amendment.

The other change that I wish to speak about is to permanent residency. The government indicated in 2005 it would increase the term of permanent residency before granting citizenship from two to three years. However, due to delays in the bill being debated this amendment has been revised and today the government is clearly seeking to increase the term from two to four years. This is in line with a proposal within the government’s recently announced citizenship discussion paper. At the time the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs justified the extension from two to three years as necessary to contain the home-grown terrorist threat. That was the nature of the proposed amendment. At that time the then citizenship minister said that the longer migrants spent in Australian society before gaining citizenship, the less vulnerable they were to falling in with extreme groups.

I indicate that the opposition accepts the extension of the term of residency from two to three years, but I also indicate that I personally am opposed to that. I can see no reason why you do not work out at the character test whether these people are a danger to Australian society. It is your responsibility to do it then and there. There is no reason to increase it from two to three years, and there is no reason to now go from three to four years. This is just not justifiable. If the government were doing its job then it would have weeded out any problems in the initial character tests. The problems that exist in Australia, which are an absolute minority of difficulties, reflect on the government’s past failure.

I also go to the fact that in its discussion paper the government has not outlined any reasons for increasing the term, particularly on the back of such a recent proposal to go from two to three years. Effectively, what the Howard government wants to do is double the term within just four years without any justification. How does it justify this, looking back on the year of 2005—a year marked by significant environmental and social issues? It was a year that commenced in the tragic aftermath of the tsunami of 26 December, 2004. It saw Hurricane Katrina devastate New Orleans in Louisiana. The world remembered the 60th anniversary of Hiroshima. The 1.3 billionth Chinese citizen was born. Pope John Paul II died, and Britain released its commission for Africa. In America, Condoleezza Rice became the Secretary of State. Suicide bombers killed 55 people on London’s commuter system. An Australian citizen, Mr Van, was hung for trying to smuggle heroin into Singapore, and here in Australia global condemnation was received for the race riots that broke out in Sydney, bringing an end to an eventful 2005.

Obviously it was an eventful year marked by many significant milestones, achievements and tragedies, but it was nothing like the year of 2001, when the US terrorist attacks changed the world as we knew it. It was on the back of the world’s response to these attacks that the changes to the Australian citizenship bills were initially introduced, changing the term of residency from two to three years. That is wrong. It is not justified, and today the proposal to go to four years is even more unjustified.

In my speech this evening I also stated that the debate on Australian citizenship had been a long one. Yet these changes to the term of residency proposed by the government are significant changes imposed suddenly and without justification or rationale. This is not to say that, in seeking to understand the government’s reasoning for this increase in the permanent residency term, the opposition does not understand that compared with other countries we are generous in seeking to encourage people to take out citizenship. We think they should.

Obviously it is about understanding Australian values, but it is also about getting the character test right at the first point—not now trying to suggest that, by delaying when you can actually take out citizenship in Australia, you have a greater opportunity to weed out terrorists because they have a greater understanding of the Australian way of life and values. To put it bluntly, that is crap. It is about time we had a proper debate about where migration is going in Australia and stopped using it as a political football for short-term political reasons, which this government has done all too often over the last 10 years.

This brings me to the English language test. All the migrants I speak to—those who are now retired, those who have been here for a fair period of time and the new arrivals—say they have one desire in life: to get the skills to get a job in Australia. If you want to do something about English language training and numeracy in Australia, you should make it part of the operation of the Job Network, because it is there that they should get the skills which are part and parcel of getting them a job sooner rather than later. Many of the migrants that actually built Australia in the postwar period learned functional English on the job. It is now, in retirement, that they have a greater opportunity to go and engage in English language classes so they can communicate with and better understand their grandchildren. Their desire in the first instance was always to concentrate on creating economic opportunities for their family by getting a job. I would have thought that is where we should be attaching any additional resources in terms of the debate on English language.

Since 1996, the government have cut almost $11 million in English language opportunities for migrants in Australia. They are to be condemned, yet they now suggest we have a new test on the English language too. I can see the minister for migration, the parliamentary secretary for citizenship and the Prime Minister frequently attending a range of ceremonies around Australia that are well attended by migrants. The truth is that a lot of those people, and especially their parents, would fail the so-called English language test that the Prime Minister now wants to put in place.

I raise these issues because they are serious. This is why there is a divergence of views between the government and the opposition on some of the citizenship issues that are currently being debated. But I simply want to say it is also wrong to increase the period of permanent residency from two to three or four years retrospectively. These people have sought to take out citizenship on the basis of rules that existed. We do not do it on taxation, because it is wrong, so why should we do it on citizenship?

This bill as it currently stands ignores the plight of permanent residents hoping to get their citizenship status approved within the immediate future. This has implications for people who have been planning further studies, as those without humanitarian visas cannot access FEE-HELP from the government, and also for people hoping to obtain permanent residency over the next few months, as they will have to wait a year before becoming eligible. I do not consider this fair. Is this the Australian way—raise people’s expectations and then fail them because a new, retrospective bill is passed? The definition of citizenship is elusive because it encompasses so much that is intangible, but surely the government’s rationale for changing such an important bill should not be elusive. I stand alongside my colleagues in supporting the amendment but oppose an increase of permanent residency from two to four years and simply say in my personal view that there is no justification even for going to three years.

That aside, there are changes in the bill that the opposition and I support. Citizenship has served Australia well. The last thing we need now is a politically motivated debate about citizenship and migration in the lead-up to yet another election. Let us have a debate that really counts about issues such as industrial relations and climate change and questions of taxation and welfare reform, rather than demonising migration for short-term political gain just to try to best position oneself to occupy the Treasury benches of government. The community has had a gutful, and it is about time all members of the House lived up to the expectations of the Australian community, which values respect of Australian citizenship.

Duncan Kerr (Denison, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the honourable member. He certainly has managed to pass the plain English test through that contribution.

Peter Slipper (Fisher, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, were you suggesting the emphasis was on plain English or was it a plain contribution? In any event, while I certainly do not doubt the sincerity of the honourable member opposite who just spoke, I disagree strongly with much of what he said. I think it would be broadly held in the Australian community and in the Australian parliament that citizenship has been a success in Australia since the creation of the notion of Australian citizenship in 1949. I suspect that where the opposition and the government would differ would be more on the detail of what citizenship is supposed to entail, rather than on the importance of the concept of Australian citizenship.

The Australian Citizenship Bill 2005 and the Australian Citizenship (Transitionals and Consequentials) Bill 2005 represent significant changes to Australian citizenship. Australian citizenship is a system that has served us well for over half a century. The Australian Citizenship Act 1948 has proudly served Australia, determining who could become citizens—and, for that matter, who could not become citizens—for almost 60 years.

The Australian Citizenship Bill 2005 does not propose a complete rewriting of the act but will usher in an entirely new act. There are many proposed changes and the government is of the view that, given the substance of those changes, it is important to produce a new act rather than simply to have a bandaid approach. The new act will be more accessible, it will be better numbered, it will be easier to understand and hopefully it will be more logically organised. It also brings in a number of changes that were proposed following recommendations from the Australian Citizenship Council in 2000 and following government policy reviews in 2004.

I think most members of parliament are honoured to attend citizenship ceremonies around the country. I suspect that those ceremonies may change in flavour depending on where you are. The sorts of people and the origin of those people who become citizens would vary according to the part of Australia in which one resides, but those citizenship ceremonies have certain common elements when people accept rights to fully participate in Australian society. Of course, accompanying those new rights are responsibilities.

Unfortunately, in Australia today I think there is far too much emphasis on rights—what my rights or your rights are—and there is not an adequate emphasis on the accompanying responsibilities with those rights. They go hand in hand and it really is important that people who do become Australian citizens acquire the responsibilities of Australian citizenship in addition to the various rights that attach to the concept of Australian citizenship.

Most citizenship ceremonies appear to be conducted by local authority heads of councils—in most cases, mayors—and I must say that I have been fortunate to preside over a number of citizenship ceremonies in my capacity as the member for Fisher. Whether ceremonies have large numbers of new citizens or only one or two, they are very moving. It really is interesting to see just what this important step means to people, some of whom have been here for a short time, and others who have been here almost since the concept of Australian citizenship commenced.

The Australian Citizenship Bill 2005 and the Australian Citizenship (Transitionals and Consequentials) Bill 2005 do propose numbers of important changes to Australia’s citizenship guidelines—for example, those citizens who inadvertently renounced their citizenship by applying for additional citizenship of another country may be able to restore their Australian citizenship, and children who lost their citizenship under this condition may now be able to qualify for citizenship. The age limits for applying for citizenship by descent will be removed and the definitions for spouses will now include genuine de facto partners.

Other alterations include the capacity for citizenship to be revoked in cases where it was acquired through fraudulent means. There is an increase in the provisions to block and revoke the granting of citizenship, especially cases that involve an applicant committing serious offences, where applicants are assessed by ASIO to be a security risk and where they are involved in court matters.

There has been substantial discussion in the community over certain of the remarks by Sheikh al-Hilali in recent times. My understanding is that under our act as it currently stands there is no provision to strip citizenship from people who no longer espouse Australian values. I consider if that is not in the act—and I understand that it is not—then that certainly ought to be included in the act because we have lots of people from around the world who want to join our Australian family. It is important that we only have those people who are prepared to represent the essence of what is Australian and the essence of Australian values.

In the bills before the chamber there will also be provisions to grant citizenship to those who are born in Papua New Guinea while that country was a territory of Australia, where those people had at least one parent born in Australia. In addition, those children of Australian citizens who were born outside Australia will have greater abilities to be registered as citizens by descent. In 1949 it was required that these children be registered within one year of birth. This was increased to 18 years and then changed again to 25 years in 2002.

However, surprisingly there are some residents who have missed out on becoming citizens by descent simply because they and their parents were unaware of the time limits for registration and the Australian Citizenship Bill 2005 and the Australian Citizenship (Transnationals and Consequential) Bill 2005 will remove the time limits altogether. This is a very equitable measure and it reflects accurately the notion that children who have a very significant tie to Australia should not be denied something as significant as Australian citizenship simply due to a lack of knowledge of the requirements and guidelines.

The bills also lengthen the time frame between when new citizens arrive in Australia and the date when they become eligible to apply for citizenship. Historically under Australian law, Commonwealth citizens I think had to wait two years and those who were rather quaintly deemed to be aliens had to wait five years. For various reasons, I suppose, of feeling that there was a need to treat Commonwealth and non-Commonwealth citizens the same, everyone was required to be here for only two years as opposed to the previous situation. Personally I consider that to be here for fewer than 800 days indicates that we are really dumbing down Australian citizenship. We are essentially giving it away. I think the two-year requirement as it currently stands is woefully inadequate and that the step to increase the two years to four years is certainly a step in the right direction, but I would personally increase it to five years. Five years is, I understand, the period one has to wait for citizenship in the United States of America and also in the United Kingdom. A period of four years—five years as I said would be better but four years is certainly a step in the right direction—is regarded as a more suitable period in which prospective citizens are able to become familiar—

Harry Jenkins (Scullin, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Jenkins interjecting

Duncan Kerr (Denison, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Scullin will restrain himself.

Peter Slipper (Fisher, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is always good to see the honourable member for Scullin being compelled to restrain himself. I suppose the parliament would be even better off were that to happen on a greater number of occasions. But I do thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for your discipline of the Labor member for Scullin, who, despite his occasional lack of self-control, is really a very pleasant person.

Julie Owens (Parramatta, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Sometimes it is hard to control your nerves.

Peter Slipper (Fisher, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I listen to what the Labor Party member says, but in the good-natured sense in which this debate is taking place. I am pleased to see that the member for Scullin is going to be making a contribution following me. The time frame—and I referred to the four-year time frame—which citizens will now have to wait before becoming eligible for Australian citizenship will give them a greater opportunity to become more familiar with our way of life. They will be able to understand better the essence of being Australian. They will also fully learn the commitment that citizenship is. I consider that these bills reflect changes to Australian society and they also make sure that those people who are privileged to become Australian citizens will have been here for an adequate period to acquire the knowledge of Australia necessary to fully participate in Australian society.

I am pleased, though, that there is no retrospectivity—despite what the member for Batman said before—in this legislation and that those who are permanent residents in Australia now will not be caught by the new requirements. They will be able to obtain their Australian citizenship following the traditional two-year period, provided they apply for citizenship within a period of, I think, three years of the commencement of the bill. The Australian Citizenship Act has served Australia well and the new act is more than capable of taking its place.

I want to commend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs for his paper calling for submissions from the Australian community on matters surrounding this area. I believe an English language test is very important. There is an undeniable connection between being able to read and write—and, for that matter, count—and being able to get a job. Having large numbers of migrants who have been here for many years not actually being able to speak English is not a healthy sign. It means that they are excluded from some elements of participation in Australian society. If we could ever acquire a situation where everyone could speak English, then I think that would be a very positive step.

I, of course, would encourage people to not lose the language of their birth, their mother tongue, but it really is important that they should speak English. I think it is important, given the fact that we have huge numbers of people who want to come to Australia, to have them learn English before they come here rather than to be a drain on the resources of the Australian taxpayer and learn English once they actually are here. Having said that, of course, those residents who do not currently speak English obviously ought to have access to a range of facilities to enable them to obtain an appropriate level of English language competency. I commend the Australian Citizenship Bill 2005 and the Australian Citizenship (Transitionals and Consequentials) Bill 2005 to the House. I invite the member for Scullin to speak, and I hope that he can maintain self-control.

Duncan Kerr (Denison, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Scullin’s enthusiasm knows no bounds, and I call him.

Harry Jenkins (Scullin, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I regret that the opportunity that arises from the discussion of the Australian Citizenship Bill 2005 and the accompanying Australian Citizenship (Transitionals and Consequentials) Bill 2005 is not purely an opportunity to express our joy about the success of Australian citizenship since it was first implemented in 1948 and came into force in January 1949.

As an elected public official, both at local government and at federal level, for the past 27 years I have attended numerous—in fact, hundreds—of Australian citizenship ceremonies and have literally seen thousands of people take the step of becoming an Australian citizen. For somebody who was born an Australian citizen, it always amazes me to put myself in the place of those who are coming forward to adopt a new citizenship. Overwhelmingly, those people do so with great pride. Overwhelmingly, people who come forward to become Australian citizens at those ceremonies are clearly doing so because they want to, they understand the value, and they understand the values.

So this piece of legislation, in its simple form, should have been a celebration of that. And if, in fact, this piece of legislation were merely based on those propositions that were put forward in July 2004, after a proper process, that celebration would have been possible. But what we have seen since July 2004 were, of course, events that occurred in Britain that led to a COAG meeting whose purpose was to investigate the events of bombings in London and what could be learnt from those events.

It was decided by that heads of government meeting that, as a measure that in some way was supposedly part of a security package that dealt with measures for antiterrorism, the waiting period for citizenship should be changed from two to three years. At the time, because it was part of a package, perhaps there was not the debate that should have gone on about that measure. I have failed to find any great explanation as to how this was such an earth-shattering security measure.

If we go through the history of Australian citizenship—and an act that since 1948 has been amended on 36 occasions—we have seen a number of changes to the residency requirement. It went from five years to three years. Then, in 1973, the residency requirement was set at two years for both aliens and British subjects. Now we find, after 33 years, that we are to see it increased. But, even worse, since that September agreement at a COAG meeting of the heads of government of the states and territories and of the federal government, which decided that going from two to three years was a good idea, someone in this government has plucked out the figure of four years.

So, after we processed this bill in its original form when it came here 12 months ago, now there are a series of government amendments, one of which is that the three years will become four years. Where is the explanation? What is this about? Sadly, I have to agree with my southern neighbour, the member for Batman, that this is all about demonisation, fear, smokescreens and dog whistles—the whole kit and caboodle. In the absence of an explanation about how there is suddenly a reason for the increase from two to three to four years, I think that, quite rightly, we can suggest this is all about politics rather than good policy.

I will give the member for Fisher his due. Even though he thinks four years is not long enough and he wants five, at least, in his own way, he was willing to come into the chamber and try to justify it. Even if I disagree with him and even if I was disappointed in his contribution from the outset, he said that he disagreed with what the member for Batman had said and would explain why, though he did not get around to it. I am here for the debate, so I want to find out what the reasons are.

I was a bit thrown when I listened to the member for Mitchell’s contribution, which started the debate off in the main chamber. He was talking about the pledge and the oath of allegiance. I suddenly thought I had missed something very important. According to the member for Mitchell, we should roll it back because it is not good enough—it does not renounce all other allegiances; it does not follow the American model. So I have had to really study the bill in detail. I got to schedule 1, and I am really pleased that in 1993 we changed to this pledge and that it remains in this piece of legislation. I checked the explanatory memorandum to make sure that I had not got the wrong end of the argument, and it says that the schedule is equivalent to schedule 2 of the old act.

I have to tell you that, when people come forward to become Australian citizens and they indicate, whether it is under God or not, ‘From this time forward, I pledge my loyalty to Australia and its people,’ I am honoured that they actually do it, because not only are they pledging their loyalty to Australia but they also recognise that Australia is a beast made up of people and communities—and they are pledging their loyalty to the whole thing. They go on to say in the pledge, ‘whose democratic beliefs I share, whose rights and liberties I respect, and whose laws I will uphold and obey.’ I think that is a very good pledge.

There is another aspect of this debate that is really disappointing. I might disagree with the intent of the parliamentary secretary’s discussion paper on formal citizenship tests, but at least he has gone out into the marketplace and has produced a paper which makes very interesting reading—and I will not go over the matters that the member for Batman raised. I was very pleased to be in Indonesia representing the parliament on a parliamentary delegation when this was dropped. I did interviews with my local media about this and, regrettably, one of the flippant remarks that I made about Australia’s citizenry at the moment was that I thought that perhaps there would be 20 million people who would fail a test like the ones that are suggested here in the discussion paper. That flippant remark actually got into one of the papers. But there was a serious tone to it.

An opportunity has been given to us by the parliamentary secretary to discuss these matters—and that is fair enough. I might disagree on where he thinks we should go, but at least we are going to have a bit of a discussion about it. But when the announcement was made about the increase to four years at the same time that he released the discussion paper, why weren’t those matters included? Why don’t we have some sort of argument about those matters? Why don’t we have the government telling us why that is important?

We had a second reading speech on the original bill a year or so ago and we have now finally got around to the debate, and we have the notion of four-year residency and we have a series of amendments. I do not want to be pedantic and really upset the member for Fisher, but the bill that we are debating does have retrospectivity in it—but that is fixed up by the government amendments. So down the track we will get it all sorted out. That is what has gone on. At least some of the things that the opposition said at the time that this was first put on the Notice Paper and the second reading was moved have been listened to.

Regrettably, I am absolutely opposed to the notion that this increase to four years should go through, because there is just absolutely no reason given for the increase to four years. In fact, it may as well be five years, as suggested by the member for Fisher. We have to decide what the problem has been over the period when the residency requirement has been two years. What has this led to? Has it led to a disintegration of the Australian way of life? Has it led to migrants not continuing to make a contribution to the way in which Australia develops? There is just no evidence of it. What were the arguments that suggested to us that changing it from two years to three years was an appropriate measure for security reasons? What difference would it have made to the people who were recruited as the bombers in London—they were basically second-generation migrants—if their parents had had to wait a year more to get citizenship? Would that in some way have cured the problem? I just do not see it.

At the end of the day I represent an electorate where 32.9 per cent of the population was born overseas, compared to the Australian average of 21 per cent. At the last census, people not fluent in English represented 7.1 per cent. If the argument about fluency in English is an argument about what resources the federal government will apply to communities where that is a problem and bring those people up to a certain level, I am on the side of those proponents. But if in fact it is merely about saying to a wider audience which perhaps has not been exposed to the success of Australia’s diversity, to the potential of Australia’s diversity, that in some way a person’s value to the Australian society should be based on their English proficiency then I am against it.

If we look at the rate of citizenship uptake in Scullin, it stands at 90 per cent. I am informed that the national average is 88 per cent. So what we have is 10 per cent of the 33 per cent not actually taking it up, compared to 12 per cent of the average 22 per cent. So here, in a highly migrant population, there is a greater take-up because people are proud to become Australian citizens. I often bore people with the story of my constituent Sheikh Feimi, who is the most senior Islamic religious figure in Victoria. He probably would not describe himself as the leader, but it is a fact. As the leader at Preston mosque, and given the length of time he has been in Australia, he is a senior figure in Victoria. I always remember the story that he told me about his two sons—who are adults—about the way in which they played football for Thomastown, a suburb in my electorate. He said to me, ‘Football, you understand—not that soccer thing, but Australian football.’ I thought it was a reflection on how this man, a senior figure, who dresses as an Islamic leader and teacher, really relates to his neighbourhood and reflects upon those things that are of interest to his neighbourhood.

Many source countries make up the multicultural mix in Scullin. The larger communities are predominantly the southern Europeans. But we have seen, since the census, new arrivals from Sudan, Burundi, Sierra Leone and Liberia. And those people slowly but surely become part of the mainstream, part of the people that we do not even think of as different, even though they present in a diverse fashion.

During last week there was a refugee function sponsored by the local community, held at the Epping campus of northern metro TAFE. One of the really exciting things was the way in which, as all the different dancing groups got up, those parts of diverse cultures were shared by others—the Syrian dancers, for example, and the Macedonian dancers. People got up and joined them. When the Kurdish women were dancing, the first people to come from out of the crowd were women from the Horn of Africa. And then the whole crowd was up—Asians, Anglos, the whole crowd. This is the strength of the community that I represent. Even though people hold dearly to their original cultures, in the way in which they share it with their fellow Australians they are defining the Australia of the 21st century. Their belief in going forward after whatever requirement we end up with in this piece of legislation at the end of this process means that they will go forward to proudly become Australian citizens.

For the people who wait the 40 years to come forward, that is their decision. And they are conscious in coming forward. At any of the citizenship ceremonies that I attend, there will be people who have been here for many years who have made a conscious decision. Do not tell me that they do not understand why they are coming forward to become Australian citizens. Instead of this debate being about celebrating the way in which we have made the 1948 act—as amended on 36 occasions—a modern piece of legislation and a celebration of Australian citizenship, there is this dithering. The COAG meeting made this decision to insert this into this act on top of those things indicated in July 2004. It has dragged out so that here, in late October and early November 2006, we will debate this legislation. What was the magic about increasing it from two to three years, when in the last 12 months—somehow, and without referring it back to a COAG meeting—it was increased to four years? I suppose when we get to the consideration in detail stage the new parliamentary secretary will explain his amendments to us. But I will not really hold my breath, because I would have thought that he would have already done it in the public domain. These are serious matters, where we should not have the dissension.

I am pleased that the matters relating to the Maltese community et al will be fixed up. I hope that the government will look at those matters highlighted in part 3 of our second reading amendment, which go to discrimination against some of the children of these people. That is an anomaly that I am sure the government did not intend and will fix. However, if we are going to have a debate about citizenship, let us not in some way demonise the acts of migrants. Regrettably that is one connotation you could take on the purpose of this piece of legislation, proposed to be amended in the consideration in detail stage.

Joanna Gash (Gilmore, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In rising to speak to the Australian Citizenship Bill 2005 and the Australian Citizenship (Transitionals and Consequentials) Bill 2005 I am reminded of the words of Theodore Roosevelt, the 26th President of the United States, who said:

The first requisite of a good citizen in this republic of ours is that he should be able and willing to pull his weight.

The telling point of Roosevelt’s observation is that conferring citizenship on someone carries with it not only access to its benefits but also mutual obligations on the part of the individual. It seems to me that the notion of citizenship has had its meaning and purpose diluted over many years, and its benefits have come to be regarded as some sort of right rather than a privilege.

Citizenship has become a watered down, bureaucratic tool rather than an acceptance of a set of values that one embraces meaningfully and spiritually—in other words, to someone who comes to this country wanting the benefits Australia offers without any sense of contributing or committing to the very ideals that obviously drew them here, citizenship is just a boring ritual. We do not deserve this type of pseudocitizen. As a ‘new Australian’ myself, I feel I am sufficiently qualified to comment on aspects of this bill that deal with what it means to be a citizen of Australia.

Australian citizenship is a serious matter and all citizens need to be aware of the enormous responsibility we need to take to ensure that the spirit of this country remains positive, free thinking and tolerant. Australian citizenship represents formal membership of the community of the Commonwealth of Australia. Australian citizenship is a common bond, involving reciprocal rights and obligations uniting all Australians while respecting their diversity. Australia is one of the few countries in the world where you can speak your mind. In fact, our system of government actually encourages you to participate with your differing views.

We encourage people from a diverse range of backgrounds into our midst through our immigration programs, knowing that these new citizens will bring a welcome diversity of culture, skills, resources and knowledge. That might be seen as a rather ideological, pie in the sky view, but I firmly believe that citizenship cannot be viewed as simply a ritualistic ticket. It is far more than that and we are entitled, as citizens of Australia, to expect that those coming here from other lands accept the values that we cherish beyond mere lip-service as a ticket to self-indulgence.

I came to Australia with my family from Holland at the age of seven, and we were afforded every opportunity to grow. At that time we recognised that whilst we may have been given the opportunity, we were under no illusion that from then on we only got back what we put in. And we were under no illusion that ‘when in Rome’, and we adjusted accordingly to the Australian way of life, such as only speaking English in our home.

Even in those days there was a restriction when migrating to Australia in that a member of the family had to speak English and the prospect of a job was to be proven. These days seem different and we are more tolerant of persons who cling to the cultural habits of their old country. Perhaps we have gone too far. We need only scan the media reports to detect that there is an increased degree of discomfort with people who now seem a little too different to the rest of us. In fact, there are concerns expressed to me, from all walks of life, over the growing predisposition from some sections of the community to gather in enclaves.

I am sure there is only a minority who choose to do that, but I would be sticking my head in the sand if I did not recognise the very public demonstrations of anti-Australianism, particularly from sections of some Middle Eastern communities. The aggression shown is clearly at odds with someone who has purported to have accepted the value systems of their new nation. It is totally out of place and certainly un-Australian. It is almost like reverse apartheid, yet we are asked to tolerate and accept behaviour which is hostile to our ideals. There is no doubt that the process of obtaining Australian citizenship warrants a review, if for no other reason than the fact that the community is beginning to question whether we were becoming perhaps a little too lax in our entry requirements.

As much as I would like to think that we are a very tolerant nation, that generally we have an enviable record of assimilation of immigrants, I definitely resent being taken for a ride by someone who takes the oath of allegiance and then goes on to attack his new country. This seems to be happening more and more. Citizenship is not something that should be given away lightly. It is a thing to be cherished and savoured. There is a mutual obligation in this process, and we need to ensure that those who say, ‘Let me stay,’ stay on our terms and not on those imposed from afar. The preamble to the Australian Citizenship Act 1948 contains the statement:

Australian citizenship is a common bond, involving reciprocal rights and obligations, uniting all Australians while respecting their diversity.

Australia is a unique country and the qualities that make us unique are worth preserving. The government is intent on ensuring that our values and our way of life—the things that make us proud Australians—stay that way. If we are to act and live as a community then surely we must define the traits common to us all. How can you have a unified community when it is allowed to become segmented and segregated over diverse ideologies and cultures?

I have no problem with people identifying with their parent land—and sure, it forms part of their comfort zone. Certainly, I will always have a place in my heart for where I was born. But if you have chosen of your own free will to live in another country, surely it is common sense that you need to get on with the other people in that community. What is the point of saying, ‘I like your lifestyle; I want to join,’ and then saying, ‘But I don’t like you’? I cannot follow that logic, and neither can many Australians with whom I communicate daily.

It is not for me to stand here and say, ‘This is my opinion.’ I am simply reflecting what the majority of my constituency says to me and, in turn, I am relaying their sentiments to the House. I understand that not everyone shares this view and no doubt I will be criticised for daring to express it, but that is the way it is. I do not know why some people insist that it is we who have to change to accommodate the fractious newcomer. I want to welcome everybody into the home that we call Australia. It is a home that is warm, a home that is friendly and a home that is caring, and it is a nice place to be.

Unfortunately, we have had lately some instances where our home has been gatecrashed by people who really do not like much about our home. They have shown that they do not like us, they do not like the way we live, and they certainly do not have much tolerance for what we believe in. In fact it seems that in some cases these gatecrashers want to take over our home and impose their demands on the household. I say to them: ‘Welcome into our house but, while you are in it, you have to follow our rules. If you do not like them, go somewhere else more acceptable to you.’ Our home is worth fighting for, and many in our extended family have died preserving it for the rest of us. We should be grateful that there is so much generosity in our house that we can share. We do not want anyone in our house that wants to contaminate that generosity by preaching hatred and division. That is not our way.

This legislation is necessary and appropriate for the times. It is neither excessive nor harsh. It is a reasonable response to a time when Australians are becoming conscious of their identity after a period of cultural cringing. We do not have to be apologists for who we are. In fact, we have every right to be proud of who we are—and, if you want to join us, that is fine. Is that too big an ask? I do not think so. This legislation is not asking for any more than what is occurring in other countries that wish to protect their sovereignty and identity—countries like the United Kingdom, the United States and Canada.

I must commend the Senate Legal and Constitutional Legislation Committee for their thorough examination of the issues, and I equally commend the government for its adoption of many of the recommendations that flowed from that inquiry. Are we making it harder for new immigrants to win the right to Australian citizenship? Hardly. It has been my experience to find that people who have taken out citizenship have been living here for many years before doing so. Some have taken upwards of 40 years to discover that they want to be an Aussie. Not everybody will assimilate readily. Everyone has to have their own time frame, and some people will just never accept the Australian way of life. That is fine; that is their choice. But they should at least be honest about their intentions—and that is the fundamental philosophy of this bill.

In closing, I would also like to touch on the subject of introducing a formal citizenship test. I have seen the media comments in relation to this proposal. They largely ridicule the idea, which is hardly an unexpected reaction. But out in the electorates, out in the real world, a totally opposite viewpoint prevails. It is a subject worthy of exploration, and we would be failing in our responsibility to our constituents if we did not canvass those views. What is the point of offering citizenship if it does not act as a vehicle to unify newcomers to Australia?

On a cautionary note, publicity has been given to a handful of cases where an individual who identifies themselves as an Australian citizen is then seen to engage in anti-Australian behaviour. This should not be accepted as the norm. Most who come to Australia and who adopt it as their home assimilate readily and go on to contribute positively. I certainly do not want to demonise those people nor encourage the notion that we are xenophobic rednecks, but those pockets of individuals who accept our gift and then go on to dump on us are not wanted.

Opposition Members:

Opposition members interjecting—

Joanna Gash (Gilmore, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I hear the Labor Party members having a giggle about that. We can and should do without them, for all they do is breed division and animosity. I welcome the government’s initiative, and whilst these bills do not profess to be the be all and end all to this issue, at least they are a start in the right direction.

Roger Price (Chifley, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I must confess that I have heard contributions from the honourable member for Gilmore in this place and often agreed with the points that she has made. However, I do not agree with her submission on the Australian Citizenship Bill 2005 and cognate bill.

Let me make a few points. All members of parliament attend a lot of citizenship ceremonies, and they are conducted by local councils. The person who usually conducts the citizenship ceremony is the mayor. We are being told that citizenship is a very important thing in our society. I absolutely agree. However, the first thing I would say to that is that, often in our society, we use money to measure the importance of a thing. It is an unfortunate trait; maybe it is a hedonistic trait, I do not know. But I am not aware of councils getting one dollar from the federal government for conducting these citizenship ceremonies.

I agree on the importance of Australian values: a fair go; this being a land of opportunity in which people can succeed; and that it does not matter what your colour is, what your race is or what your religion is. It is a land of opportunity where people, by dint of their own efforts, can succeed. I also hold mateship as being fundamental to Australian values.

However, when people become Australian citizens, they are not tested on their understanding of Australian values. This government will not invest in adequate courses so that people can learn English. I am a very proud member of this place and I am the son of a refugee. My mother came out here in 1938; she was 18 at the time. She is 90 now and she has the very faintest hint of an accent. But if we were trying to test my mother on English, I suspect she might have failed and never been able to become an Australian citizen. If we applied that test of speaking English to that whole wave of postwar migrants who contributed so much to this country, we know they would not get here today on the point system but under any English test they would probably fail.

I want to discuss this issue about assimilation and getting a sense of what it is to be Australian. I have seen communities wanting to preserve their culture, wanting to preserve their language and wanting to preserve their connection with their country, and I have always said I do not object to that; in fact, I commend it. But Mother Time works her magic and, if she does not do it with the generation that migrates, it is the next generation—and if it is not that one it is the second and the third generations. We can legislate as much as we like, but we will not stop Mother Time and the wonderful way she works.

We have gained so much from that massive post World War II migration. During World War II Australia had only six million people. All the strange smells and foods that we originally objected to when that mass of mostly European and southern European migrants came—the Italians and the Poles and the Yugoslavs; we called them Yugos and wogs and a whole range of things—we have quietly adapted to and adopted some of the things that they brought here.

I must admit that I admire their commitment to family; they are ferociously committed to family. They were so overwhelmed by the opportunities here—they might have come here as labourers or farmers or market gardeners or poultry farmers; I grew up in that part of Western Sydney that was called, probably in a derisive way, ‘little Malta’, but I was proud to be part of it—and they really wanted their children to succeed, really wanted them to do well at school. They wanted them to go on to university, and so many of their kids ended up with qualifications well beyond what their parents had.

I can remember getting into school buses and getting, because I grew up in ‘little Malta’, an overwhelming smell of garlic. I thought at the time it was most objectionable because in our home we did not use garlic. Like a lot of Australians—I suspect you, Mr Deputy Speaker Lindsay, and even the honourable member for Parramatta—I am addicted to garlic now. What Australian family would not cook spaghetti bolognaise? What Australian family would not—

Phillip Barresi (Deakin, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I’ll teach you how to cook properly.

Roger Price (Chifley, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There you go.

Peter Lindsay (Herbert, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The federal member for Deakin is misleading the parliament.

Roger Price (Chifley, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Indeed! Mr Barresi draws my attention to the fact that we have a number of Italian members on both sides of the House. I was always very fond of the former member for Bowman, Mr Sciacca, when he was a member. But that is how successful they have been as migrants, and I say congratulations to them. I am not threatened by what they have brought to Australia. It has not affected my Australianness, but the magic about being Australian is that we have not only kept our core values but also absorbed some of the very worthwhile values that the migrants have brought to us.

I was talking about citizenship ceremonies. If this federal government and I believe that citizenship is so important, why aren’t we assisting councils in those important citizenship ceremonies? Speakers, including the member for Gilmore, have referred to those people at a citizenship ceremony who have been here for 20 or 30 years and have stepped forward. All too often, I must say, they are from the UK. In fact, the one group in our society which has been very backward in accepting Australian citizenship is migrants from the UK. They are the biggest group of migrants who have not become Australian citizens. They are permanent residents. Once, if you came from the UK, you did not have to take Australian citizenship. I am sure every member in the House has had an experience where someone has been on the rolls without being a citizen, moved, dropped off the roll and then they cannot get back on because they actually have to take citizenship when they fall off the rolls.

I can relate the case of a delightful lady who was a permanent resident but who has sadly passed on now: Mary Woods. Did she give me some when she came to the office! She was a little pocket battleship—a lovely person though, I want to say. She was outraged about it, absolutely defiant: there was no way she was going to take Australian citizenship. I am pleased that I persevered and talked to her, and I had the great pleasure of seeing Mary and Tom become Australian citizens. I think we should put more into our citizenship, not less.

The other thing that really grates on me is that the only thing I can do to establish my citizenship is to actually produce my birth certificate or a copy of my birth certificate. That is what determines the fact that I am an Australian citizen. The former minister for immigration, Mr Ruddock, said people can affirm their citizenship. Often the practice is now that those Australian citizens at a citizenship ceremony affirm it. Well, I do not like that. I think we should be even more flexible and allow Australian citizens who actually do not have a certificate of citizenship to undergo a ceremony and take an oath, as I would, to affirm—I cannot say renew, because they were born with it—their Australian citizenship and have one of those lovely citizenship certificates. I would proudly display mine. But under these proposals I am not allowed to.

The other thing is that people come here under different circumstances. I refer to my mother, when she came here. They paid to get out of Vienna, got forged documents and were able to bribe their way through the border guards. We would say in today’s language that they used people smugglers to get out of the country. But what about those people who are imprisoned by oppressive regimes? We have too many of them. In this new millennium, sadly we still have too many of them.

Other speakers have made the point that, under these proposed changes, if Nelson Mandela wanted to come to this country, he could never become an Australian citizen because he spent more than five years behind bars. In my view, he was improperly imprisoned, but you can run an argument it was by the law of the land, by a legal process. He was imprisoned for 26 years. But Nelson Mandela, should he wish to come into this country, would never be eligible for citizenship under this legislation. I think that that is an outrage because, as prominent as Nelson Mandela is, I am sure there are a whole host of citizens who have been victims of maladministration or poor government. We would not really call it a government; we would probably say a dictatorship, an oligarchy or whatever. But still today they are falsely imprisoning citizens or improperly, in my view, not giving them human rights. I think it is something that we need to look to.

The government announced that it intended to have citizens wait three years as permanent residents before they could take citizenship. It was done under the auspices of COAG and it was done for security reasons. The Labor Party supported it. We supported that policy as initially announced by Mr Hardgrave and then, I think, by the Prime Minister for a three-year wait. But this legislation has increased it to four years and we are offered no particular reason as to why it should be four years. It has not been referred to COAG, so we know it is not the state governments that have urged this upon the government. There is no security reason stated for it going from three to four years. If there is, please state it. It should be in the second reading speech, but it is not. I have some difficulty with it.

Initially in my electorate of Chifley, the highest NESB group was Maltese. I am delighted to say that it is actually Filipino—Filipinos now constitute the largest non-English-speaking group or migrant group in my electorate. They are just fabulous people. I have quite a variety of migrants in my electorate. When the Filipinos come here, they are so proud and grateful to be here. They wait their two years, as is the law at the moment, and then they are in there wanting to become Australian citizens. The Filipinos in particular are in there and they want to be Australian citizens. They make great citizens of Blacktown and they make great Australian citizens. They certainly recognise that this is a country of great opportunity, and their rate of homeownership is high. It is such a triumph for them when they buy that first home rather than renting it. Are they adopting Australian values? I think so. I cannot detect amongst them, or amongst any group for that matter, any reluctance. Ironically, for the electorate with the highest level of unemployment in New South Wales, I have a lot of Sudanese refugees—some might say a disproportionately high number of Sudanese refugees. They are terrific people.

Phillip Barresi (Deakin, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Barresi interjecting

Roger Price (Chifley, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, they are, really. They are so grateful to be here. Many of them do not initially understand the very basics of how to change a light bulb, operate the toilet or whatever, but they are very grateful to be here and, notwithstanding the fact that they are in an electorate with such high employment, they are very eager to get the skills and the ability to get the job. I would not say about that group of people that they are ungrateful.

In fact, I cannot think of any citizenship ceremony I have been to where at the ceremony or subsequently people have attacked Australia or Australian values. We do have some differences. I think the great privilege of being a federal member is that we are required as part of our job to get to know the different communities that are in our electorates and we tend to get a broader knowledge of them. We get an understanding of different religions. If we were just ordinary citizens, we might know our neighbours and we might know the people we work with or go to church with, but we would not know as wide a circle as we are privileged to know as members of parliament.

The shadow minister has moved a second reading amendment. I must say that I support it. We support extending the wait for citizenship to three years on the basis that this was an outcome of COAG, but we are not supporting extending it to four years. What is the reason we are not supporting it for four years? It is because the government has offered no explanation. It has not consulted with the Council of Australian Governments, COAG, on increasing it beyond the three years. It has offered no security reason for it. I also pointed out the situation that would apply to Nelson Mandela: because he was incarcerated not for five years but for 26 years, he could not become an Australian citizen. Of course there is the mostly rectified situation with the Maltese community—I am pleased to say that—but there are still some anomalies and we have pointed out in our second reading amendment that we hope that the government would pick up those anomalies and do a good job of tidying it all up.

I do not have a cultural cringe about being Australian; I am intensely proud of it. I think we have a fabulous country, but so do the people who come here. They think it is a fabulous country. They do not think we have a cultural cringe. They want to join us. They want to get in on the opportunity. I will conclude by saying that I strongly support the second reading amendment that we have moved, but we are not declining to give this bill a second reading.

Phillip Barresi (Deakin, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am very pleased to be able to make a contribution to this important debate. It is a debate which has at its heart a recognition of the fact that the Australia we live in today is markedly and vastly different from the Australia that introduced the Nationality and Citizenship Bill 1948. We know that we have evolved as a nation through successive waves of migrants that have come into this country and added to the richness of what we call Australia today.

These amendments and the associated legislation seek to make those citizenship laws relevant to our contemporary society. I note that in his second reading speech the parliamentary secretary made it perfectly clear that the principles underlying the existing legislation remain the same. That is to say, this legislation reflects the belief that access to citizenship of this country should and does remain inclusive and non-discriminatory and that these beliefs should form the basis of our citizenship law and policy. It means that as a society we can continue to welcome migrants and refugees who come to Australia and decide they wish to remain here and become fully participating members of the Australian community.

I am one of a handful of members in this parliament—both in the Senate and House of Representatives—who was born overseas. I have lived through some of the difficulties of adjusting to a new home, albeit as a boy. I cannot pretend to know exactly what it would be like as an adult. I know that, certainly in those early years when my father and mother came out here in 1959 and 1960, when I was only a four-year-old boy, life was tough. We lived in a different Australia then.

They had to wait five years to take out Australian citizenship. It was a two-year wait for quite a long time. It has been changed to three years and now of course there is a move to make it four years. I support the move to four. I think certainly the period of two years was well and truly too short to have a full understanding of the kind of society that one is calling home and to appreciate the expectations that are on you as a new migrant. Likewise, it is too short a time for the nation to be satisfied that that transition is truly being made with a firm belief in becoming a working member of our society.

Democracy is not easy and it is not meant to be. For all intents and purposes, it is an undertaking that requires active and full participation by those who would enjoy the benefits of it. Being a citizen cannot and must not become a spectator sport, one where the vast majority of citizens sit back and are governed.

I, like all members of this place, attend a number of citizenship ceremonies held by our councils; I have even held citizenship ceremonies in my office, private ceremonies, on occasions. And I often say at the citizenship ceremonies that I attend that people have the freedom and the ability in this country to achieve whatever they wish to achieve and that the aspirations of a migrant to this country can be fulfilled and the dreams that they have set for themselves and for their children can be realised in this country.

Certainly, whether it be participating in a school as a parent, whether it be participating as a member of a sporting club—whether that be the junior soccer club or a tennis club—or whether it be participating in the democratic process in council, state or federal government, in terms of membership or as a volunteer in that process, the opportunities are there without fear or favour. The kind of participation and freedom that is allowed in this country is one which I believe does set us apart from so many other nations. And it is an expectation we have of our citizens that they do participate in the process, rather than sitting back and simply enjoying the fruits of becoming an Australian citizen.

I have found that being able to adequately and concisely explain to someone from another country exactly what it means to be an Australian is very difficult. I think if we were to ask various members of parliament, they would probably have different interpretations of what it is that that would mean. It is something that requires active participation in democracy, as I spoke of earlier. It is, of course, perfectly acceptable to disagree with another citizen who says, ‘I think that being an Australian means—’ whatever, without explaining the reasons for disagreement or, better still, providing an alternative value which typifies this society.

It is easy to say something is un-Australian. I note that in the last week or so there has been quite a lot of commentary made about things which have been said which are un-Australian. It is easy to know that the comments by Sheikh al-Hilali that were made last week are un-Australian; that is without question. We may not know exactly what the specific values are, but we do know what is un-Australian, and those comments certainly were. They were derogatory, they were outdated, they were sexist and they certainly do not reflect the views of many in this country, no matter what background those people come from. And I am pleased to see that members of the sheikh’s own community have also denounced those statements—although I do wish that some others would denounce them even more strongly, rather than being lukewarm in their comments. They do nothing to build up a sense of oneness in the broader Australian society. What the recent media coverage of these comments has provided is a chance for the moderate sections—which I believe are the vast majority of the Australian Muslim community—to express their views, which are certainly reflected by the rest of the Australian community. They have responded almost universally in their condemnation of these comments.

The debate about what it means to be Australian, and the type of values we can enunciate to those who wish to join us as a fully engaged citizen, is one that we must have. I am pleased to see that in the last month or so the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs has put out for discussion that very topic—about what it means to be an Australian and what the values are. I will certainly be noting with great interest the submissions and the comments that are made in response to that request.

Enunciating these values is difficult and it is meant to be difficult. Other nations have resorted to revolutions or wars of independence to develop the clarity of thought to enunciate the values on which their nations would be built. We are not seeking to create a shorthand in this process, but we are certainly seeking the engagement of the Australian public with what it means to become an Australian citizen. Life in Australia today, and the life we will lead in the future, is too complex for a shorthand approach to identifying the values that we hold dear.

Prior to entering parliament, as a number of members would know, part of my training was in the area of psychology. One of the things that I know from psychology is that it is always very hard, almost impossible, to read the mind of a client and to read exactly what is going on. People would say to me, ‘You know what I am thinking about,’ which was quite flattering but also very untrue. But what you do rely on in your assessment is to look at the context in which that person is operating and the situation they are in, and to notice the behaviour that they exhibit. By examining their behaviour you can help to explore some of the deeply held values which they may have.

In the same way, while it is difficult to read the mind of the Australian society, we can look at the behaviours that we want to promote in this country and that we want to encourage in our society. We can take these manifestations and explore the sentiment that drives these behaviours. We can begin to clarify the criteria that we apply to ourselves in determining what makes a fully participating member of Australian society, and from there begin to detail the characteristics and the qualities of those people we are looking to include in society.

I began my remarks by saying that democracy is not easy and it is not designed to be. To those who wish to have an input into the way in which we clarify just what it means to be an Australian, I say: give serious consideration to the parliamentary secretary’s call on the value statement, vocalise your views and let’s see if we can make this country, which has been so enriched over 200 years of migration, an even better nation than it is today.

I make that call not only to those who have come to this nation through the usual migration process but increasingly also to those who have come across as refugees. This country has a proud record in taking refugees into its society, from right after World War II, when they came from countries such as Poland in eastern Europe. In the 1950s we saw refugees coming from Hungary and Czechoslovakia. I think in the last couple of weeks we celebrated with the refugees from that time the 50th anniversary of the Hungarian uprising, which coincided with the Melbourne Olympic Games. We have refugees from the Balkan wars of the 1990s. People came from the Indochinese community in the 1970s and from Chile and El Salvador, and, of course, in more recent times people have come from the Middle East, Asia and Africa.

Refugees and migrants have enriched this nation. They have made this a nation that all of us are very proud to be members of. I am proud to be a member of this parliament, having a migrant background. I look forward to the day when we will see members of this parliament from nationalities which are perhaps more recent arrivals to this country. While we have members of parliament from Holland and Fiji and from the eastern European nations, it would be great at some stage in the future if we have members of parliament who can trace either themselves directly or their families to the African region, to the Middle East and to Asia. But, in doing so, we must all have one thing in common—that is, a love for this nation and the upholding of the very things that make us great, the values which are very common to all of us as a nation.

Craig Emerson (Rankin, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to 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.

Margaret May (McPherson, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am pleased to make a brief contribution tonight to this debate, which is important to all Australians. Unlike the member for Rankin, I believe the Australian Citizenship Bill 2005 is important. Of course the coalition will not be opposing the bill; I certainly will not be. Traditionally in this country Australia Day is a national holiday, a day to reflect on our rich history, a day to celebrate with friends and family, usually with an Aussie barbecue, outdoors in this wonderful country of ours, a day that traditionally marks the end of the summer holidays, the end of a long hot summer, of holidays at the beach, beautiful long hot summer nights and clear blue skies. But, apart from being a national holiday, Australia Day for many will hold a special place in their hearts. For many Australians or new Australians it is a new beginning because, in communities right around Australia, citizenship ceremonies are held to embrace our newest Aussie citizens.

I as a member of the federal parliament am conferred with the power to act as a presiding officer at two ceremonies that are held in my electorate on that day. Both ceremonies are rewarding and very moving, and tonight I would like to pay tribute to Mr Ron Workman and the Currumbin Palm Beach RSL for hosting one of these very moving ceremonies. A ceremony earlier this year saw 90 new Aussies take out their citizenship. It took place in the company of many of our veterans, our local high school captains, members of our cadet units and representatives from our local Indigenous community—the traditional custodians of our land, the Currumbin people. The ceremony is very moving; there are tears and laughter. The hopes and dreams of many are shared on the day, as are the challenges and difficulties that many have faced before coming to our wonderful country. The morning service is a celebration of the cultural and ethnic diversity that is the hallmark of Australia today.

The planning for next year’s ceremony is already under way. The morning has a true Aussie flavour, with presentations from members of our Indigenous community, with poetry readings and singing and, of course, with great Aussie tucker. The evening ceremony is hosted by the Mudgeeraba Lions and includes a great Aussie barbecue in a local hall. On Australia Day this year, 30 new Aussies accepted our invitation to dinner, and what a celebration that was. There is nothing like a sausage sandwich and a lamington—both great Aussie traditions that we shared on that evening. The Mudgeeraba Lions are going to host this event again next year.

We as a country can be proud of our accomplishments, we can be proud of our rich heritage and we can be proud of our vibrant and democratic society. We believe in the notion of a fair go for all. And, as a nation since the introduction of Australian citizenship on 26 January 1949, we can be proud that people from more than 200 countries around the world have made their homes in Australia. For many of these people that have made Australia their home it is the first time they have enjoyed liberty and freedom from persecution, hunger, disease and poverty. Many of these people have come here under our very generous refugee program and have found peace in their lives.

As someone who took out Australian citizenship in 1975, I can say that undertaking that step gave me a very strong bond with this country. It was an important milestone in my life. I am proud to be an Australian and I am proud that this country has allowed me the opportunity to serve in the national parliament. In my view, Australian citizenship provides a pathway to full participation in our Australian society.

Taking out Australian citizenship is a cause for celebration and reflection. People often comment to me after the ceremony about their first impressions of our country and what taking out Australian citizenship has meant to them. They describe the physical attributes of our great land: the wide open spaces, the light, the colour, the different trees and landscapes, the new smells from our different foods—I have even had people comment on the humble sandwich, something we all take for granted—the sounds of our outback, our animals and birds, the friendliness and warmth of our people, and the sense of reassurance for many that they are safe from persecution and deprivation. These impressions should never be taken for granted, and indeed Aussies can be proud that our new migrants—our new Aussies—feel this security and warmth when they arrive on our shores.

But for many of these people life has not been easy. There have been language and cultural difficulties and, of course, homesickness. It has been said that homesickness is felt most strongly in the first two years, particularly by those who grieve for their families and the domestic customs they leave behind. There is loyalty to one’s country—they are torn between the old and the new: loyalty to the old country and loyalty to their new home.

The citizenship ceremony plays an important role as the significant rite of passage in the journey to becoming an Australian citizen. It is a moment when people begin to identify themselves as Australian. The pledge of commitment is very powerful. It reflects the significance of the commitment made by people who have chosen to embrace Australian citizenship.

The package of bills before the House today contains amendments which maintain the intent of the bills. The intent of the bills is to achieve a better structured and more accessible and modernised piece of citizenship legislation, and I believe they do. I would like to outline some of those amendments here tonight. The major amendment implements the recently announced change to government policy on the residency requirements, and that has caused quite a deal of debate. This requires applicants for Australian citizenship to have a minimum of four years lawful residence in Australia immediately prior to making an application for citizenship, including at least 12 months as a permanent resident. Currently the qualifying period is two years, which had previously been extended to three years in the existing bill. Absences of up to 12 months during the four-year period are allowed, with no more than three months in the year before making the application. Personally, I see no problem with that four-year rule. I think it gives new Australians every opportunity to find peace here in our country, to assimilate into our country, to get to know what our values are and to live harmoniously with what we value here in our country. Importantly, persons who are permanent residents before the changes come into effect will only be required to meet the current qualifying period—two years as a permanent resident in Australia in the last five years, including 12 months in the last two years—provided they apply for citizenship within three years of the commencement of the act, as recommended by the Senate committee.

However, there are new discretions and they do apply. The previous act contained a number of discretions in relation to the residency requirement and was difficult to administer. Some of the provisions had a particular focus on application for merits review. In these proposed new amendments before the chamber today, the provisions have been revised to meet the policy objectives. These important changes include the removal of a discretion in relation to periods of time spent overseas involved in activities beneficial to Australia, and the inclusion of a discretion which provides for the minister to treat a period spent in Australia other than as a permanent resident or unlawful noncitizen as a period of permanent residence if the person would suffer significant hardship or disadvantage if citizenship were not granted.

The majority of amendments to the Australian Citizenship Bill 2005 address recommendations made by the Senate Legal and Constitutional Legislation Committee’s report into the bill tabled in February 2006. These include: provisions for stateless people that fully comply with the UN Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness, changes to the personal identifier provisions to more effectively combat document and identity fraud in citizenship applications, clarification of the circumstances where an application for citizenship may be made by a child in their own right and when an application may be considered as part of the application of a responsible parent, and maintenance of review rights existing in the current act.

One amendment is made in response to a recommendation of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Family and Human Services inquiry into the adoption of children overseas. I know the member for Mackellar, who chaired that inquiry, will be delighted to see this provision. This provides that a child who has been adopted overseas by an Australian citizen for full and permanent adoption in accordance with arrangements under the Hague convention on intercountry adoption can be registered as an Australian citizen. The bill also includes a change to government policy allowing for resumption of Australian citizenship by former citizens who renounced their citizenship to acquire or retain another citizenship.

We have often heard that Australian citizenship is a privilege and not a right, and to that end we must ensure that people understand that privilege. It is important that applicants have spent a reasonable amount of time in our country and that, during that time, they gain a very clear understanding of our Australian values and our Australian way of life and understand the responsibility they have to fully participate in the opportunities that life in Australia offers. The bills are not about punishing or penalising people by making them wait longer before they can apply for Australian citizenship; they are about giving people the time to embrace our way of life and to understand the rights and responsibilities that go hand in hand with Australian citizenship. They are about having time to adjust to the Australian lifestyle.

The final act of taking out Australian citizenship is a formal commitment to our country and the values that uniquely define us as Australians. Most of our new Aussies do eagerly grasp the opportunity to feel the sense of belonging, to make the commitment to become one of us—an Australian citizen. In fact many of our new citizens have encouraged us to value our way of life—the freedoms that we can often take for granted. I know there have been many times when I have seen my country through new eyes and reflected on what it means to be an Australian. That particularly comes home to me during those citizenship ceremonies when I meet people from all corners of the globe and they share with me some of the hardships and challenges they have endured in their own lives and, in coming here to Australia, what it means to them to embrace the freedom, values and culture of Australia.

The range of contributions made to this country by many of our migrants is just breathtaking. The diversity of our ethnic origins is truly the strength of our multicultural society. Many of Australia’s top corporate executives, diplomats, lawyers, doctors, academics and people from industry and business generally make up the rich tapestry that is Australia.

Australia is and always will be a multicultural society. Our multicultural policies have served Australia well, contributing, I believe, to a fairer and more just society. The cultural diversity of our nation is indeed a strength—a strength that has built a cohesive and harmonious society which has contributed to the economic, cultural and social fabric of our great country. I commend the bills to the House.

Chris Hayes (Werriwa, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Australian Citizenship Bill 2005 and the Australian Citizenship (Transitionals and Consequentials) Bill 2005 before us today, as the minister noted in his second reading speech, replace the Australian Citizenship Act 1948 with a new Australian citizenship act. A number of changes will be implemented by these bills. They include but are not limited to the proposals announced by the Prime Minister some time back relating to combating terrorism.

Major provisions in this bill include: the ability of Australian citizens who renounce their citizenship under section 17 to resume their Australian citizenship if they are of good character; the ability of the minister, under proposed subsection 2, to refuse to approve the person becoming an Australian citizen despite the person being eligible to be so approved; the ability of children of former Australian citizens who have lost their citizenship under section 17 of the old act to acquire citizenship simply by conferral; the prohibition on an approval of citizenship to applicants assessed by the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation as a risk to the security of Australia; a rise in the age of exemption from the requirement to have basic knowledge of the English language from 50 years to 60 years of age; the requirement that the minister must not approve a person becoming an Australian citizen unless the minister is satisfied as to the person’s identity; the person becoming an Australian citizen on the day that the minister approves the application; the requirement that the spouse of an Australian citizen meet the same requirements of Australian citizenship by conferral as most adult applicants, with the minister exercising discretion in this regard; and an increase in the range of personal identifiers that can be used to establish identity.

As I mentioned earlier, the bills also attempt to graft on a number of changes that were agreed by the COAG security meeting. Measures to address security issues include the extension of the waiting period for citizenship from two years to three years, security checks for citizenship to be approved and provisions for increased personal identifiers such as iris scans et cetera. Further, the security risk assessments prescribed must be undertaken by ASIO in order to get citizenship approvals.

For an individual or a family to move from one country to another would be, I think, quite a significant thing to do in most circumstances. In a move of that nature, nothing would be taken lightly. Moving from one country to another could be considered for a range of reasons, but I would defy anyone to say that moving from one country to another is something that would be based on light decision making by a person or a person’s family. Therefore, it is of great significance when people do come to make a decision to take citizenship in another country.

Similarly, a change in citizenship is not entered into lightly, as most people who attend citizenship ceremonies in this country would appreciate. As the member for Werriwa—and I imagine it is the same for every member in this House—I certainly attend as many citizenship ceremonies in my electorate as I can. The Campbelltown City Council and the Liverpool City Council are the two major city councils that have the right conferred upon them by the minister to award citizenship. The lasting impression one takes away from these citizenship ceremonies is just how proud these people are to become new citizens of this country—which is, after all, their adopted home. No matter their background or their country of origin, you cannot help but be moved by the pride that you see on the faces of these people in receiving citizenship, and I have experienced that at every single citizenship ceremony that I have attended.

Of course, in most cases, they also remain proud of their country of origin. Even those of us who are born here retain certain connections to some degree to our heritage, no matter how long ago our respective families moved to this country. The people that I have seen at these citizenship ceremonies are, quite frankly, fiercely proud of their new adopted country. They are certainly proud to be Australians and are committed to participate fully in life in this country as an Australian. I am sure that I am not the only member who has experienced this. I believe that all members should bear this in mind when we are considering the legislation before the chamber at the moment.

In a series of amendments that were tabled on 12 October 2006, the government decided to amend the amendments it intended to make to the Australian Citizenship Act 1948. The amendments presented earlier this month include recommendations from the report of the Senate Legal and Constitutional Legislation Committee inquiry into Australian citizenship, which was handed down on 12 October 2006, and recommendations from the Standing Committee on Family and Human Services inquiry into overseas adopting. Importantly, the amendments also gave effect to the decision to increase the waiting period for citizenship from two years to four years. In itself, the increase in the waiting period for citizenship from three years to four years is a significant departure from the bill that was presented to the House in 2005. Significantly, the amendment has been included without the government having indicated to the opposition why it is necessary.

Labor supported the COAG agreed position to change from a two-year waiting period to a three-year waiting period. In that instance, Labor received a security briefing and on balance it decided to support the changes for security reasons. It was reasonable in terms of the explanation that was given and certainly in terms of the content of the brief that was received. Labor was provided with the necessary information and it made its decision to support an increase in waiting periods from two years to three years, based solely on information provided by the briefing.

I think even those most critical of the change would agree that, once you had seen and been shown the relevant security material and were convinced on balance that the measures were necessary, that change should be agreed to in the context of what was being proposed in the bill that was introduced in the House in 2005. But this time the change is to a four-year waiting period; the opposition was not provided with the same briefing. It was not given the opportunity to have a look at further security material that backed up the government’s changed position. There was no explanation, no briefing—nothing but an amendment that was introduced on 12 October this year.

Interestingly enough, this amendment, the change to a four-year waiting period, came only after the announcement by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, which launched his discussion paper on citizenship. You may recall that. It only came after the launch of this discussion paper in September of this year. That sort of behaviour, I have to say, suggests to me that there is something more behind the change from a three-year waiting period to a four-year waiting period and, I have to say, I think that change is the realisation of next year’s election. You cannot help but think to yourself that right at the very heart of this is some polling undertaken by this government, launched as a result of the discussion paper, that the coalition has found that there is some electoral attractiveness in extending the waiting time. You cannot help but think that politics has got in the way of public policy on this one, with respect.

As I indicated earlier, and as others have already indicated during this debate, Labor was prepared for the change to a three-year waiting period, but it has serious questions about the extension of the waiting period to four years, because it seems to have been done without rhyme or reason. I simply do not understand the logic to it. I cannot understand why the government would seriously believe that it makes for better immigrant integration to exclude them for another 12 months. That just does not seem rational.

Those who have been through citizenship processes—those who have come to love this country and who would protect it—must start to question this approach. What message are we sending to the world if we are saying, ‘Well, you have to sit outside of society for four years before we consider you committed enough to become an Australian citizen’? What are we really telling immigrants and potential immigrants to this country?

Labor have been clear on where we stand when it comes to adopting Australian values. We, along with other Australians, want people to be aware of the values that we pride ourselves on. We want people to know what is expected of them while they are in this country. Those same values apply whether you are here for a short time or whether you are going to move here permanently. One underpinning thing about values is the concept—a colloquialism, no doubt, but nevertheless there is still some substance in it—that we do stand for a fair go for everybody. You may not think that by looking at what this government has attempted to introduce and has introduced in terms of Welfare to Work or through Work Choices. It has certainly thrown the concept of a fair go out of this country in its undertakings of late. It certainly does not subscribe to fairness and decency in those instances that I have referred to. Fairness and decency have certainly been casualties of the approaches that have been adopted by this government.

When I speak at citizenship ceremonies, I often refer to the very thing I instructed my own children on as they were growing up: the concept of a fair go for everybody. Perhaps the government should think more about that and the way it parcels its legislation in other forms. Given that the opposition is yet to receive any clear reason or even any indication from the government as to why the waiting period is being extended to four years—the government has refused to give that—I cannot support that part of the legislation.

Having outlined my concerns about the extension of the waiting period for new citizens, I would like to take a bit of time to comment on some other provisions of this bill. I would like to lend my support to the provisions that give children of former Australian citizens who have lost their citizenship under section 17 of the old act the opportunity to reapply for citizenship in this country by conferral. Where the parents have moved to another country and, as a consequence, have had to forgo their Australian citizenship, their children, on applying, can have citizenship conferred on them. That is a very positive thing I draw from this bill.

Having said that, I am particularly concerned about what the government proposes to do with its migrant English programs. I, for one, believe it is important for migrants to make every effort to learn English, to adopt the language of their newly adopted country—and I would trust that, throughout this House, we are one in that assumption. However, I accept that learning a new language is never easy and, therefore, it should be supported. Senate estimates yesterday revealed that $10.8 million has been cut from the migrant English program. I believe that everyone, especially new migrants, would be best served if that funding were restored. I believe the government would be best served by that restoration, particularly if it is serious in its view that migrants should have to learn English. As I indicated, I support people adopting the English language in their newly adopted country. But can you believe that? While the government is saying those things, it is slashing $10.8 million off that budget.

There are no doubt some national security considerations to be taken into account when any nation is considering permanent or transitory migration to or from its shores. We have all seen and heard of the experiences of other nations that have been subjected to terror attacks launched by citizens from other countries and, in particular, by citizens of their own country. There is no doubt that in the post-September 11 world we have all become more acutely aware of our new realities and we must be prepared to live with a heightened sense of potential threat. Regrettably, that is now being seen as part and parcel of a modern world. I do not shy away from that reality. Quite frankly, I know that our actions on the world stage to date have probably increased the likelihood of an attack on Australian soil.

A document—I think it was a newsletter—that was recently translated from a known al-Qaeda website indicated that this terror group considers Australia to be a proper target. Its Indonesian offshoot, Jemaah Islamiah, has also made it clear that it considers Australia to be a target. Even the former head of the Australian Defence Force, General Peter Cosgrove, believes that terrorism is a long-term threat to Australia.

However, vigilance is one thing; paranoia is something else. Given that the opposition has not been privy to any material that would lend itself to an easy rationale for a change in the waiting periods, and given that this proposed change has come so quickly after the government’s release of its discussion paper on citizenship, I cannot help but conclude that paranoia about security and, more importantly, electoral paranoia are driving this change. It disappoints me that we have got to a stage in the political debate where a change is proposed that has not necessarily a direct link but perhaps an indirect link to security related issues.

While it is important that the bill has a speedy passage through the House, I do not believe that should create an environment in which any provision, no matter how seemingly innocuous, is pushed through without due consideration of its impact. There was agreement on both sides of the House on the provisions for extending waiting periods from three to four years. That was considered to be acceptable, but the government has unilaterally changed that. I cannot help but think that, once again, this government is in a mid-term slump. It is not only me who believes this; I think everyone else believes that to be the case, including those on the other side. The government is struggling to hold back issues on many fronts, and the minister, or perhaps even the Prime Minister, has decided that it is time to blow the dog whistle once more.

I agree that appropriate measures need to be taken to ensure that those who want to come to Australia and become Australian citizens are of a character that we would expect. It is appropriate that necessary checks and tests are undertaken and that all candidates for citizenship meet those checks. However, it should not be considered appropriate to introduce provisions in this bill that seem to have no public policy basis and that merely rely on some sense of fear of foreign nationals becoming Australian citizens. It is not appropriate to introduce legislative provisions driven by fear rather than by rational thought.

Stuart Henry (Hasluck, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On 26 January 1949, the Nationality and Citizenship Act 1948 came into being. On that day, Australia’s national identity was enshrined in the reality of Australian citizenship. It is fair to say that, since then, Australian citizenship has meant different things to different people. However, one thing that has stood out and remained constant is that Australian citizenship is a great privilege that needs to be earned and respected. It is not a right or an entitlement. It is a choice which we encourage bona fide migrants to this country to make and it includes an appropriate process that leads to that ultimate outcome of Australian citizenship.

The Australian Citizenship Bill 2005 is intentionally designed to determine a person’s commitment, desire and fulfilment in understanding the Australian identity, which has been forged with exactly those qualities. It is appropriate that we continue to seek from those who wish to be identified as Australians a commitment to Australia and to our values, freedoms and laws. Contrary to the views of the member for Werriwa, this legislation is fair and reasonable, and the amendments proposed in it meet this nation’s needs.

The Australian identity, like our lives, is not for negotiation but for living fully. As Australians we expect that, with our shared and common vision for a secure and prosperous Australia, we can live together in a safe and secure Australia in this age of terrorism. This must be considered as a priority. It takes its place alongside employment opportunities, lifestyle and the character of our nation. We must never forget that one of the main reasons people choose to migrate to Australia and to take up that ultimate commitment to Australian citizenship is that Australia is seen as a safe and secure place where people are tolerant of different cultures, religions and races and live harmoniously together in our Australian communities.

In my electorate of Hasluck, one of the most multicultural in Australia, citizenship is very important. I am advised that more than 208 nationalities are represented among Australia’s citizens. There are 137 of these nationalities living together in harmony in the electorate of Hasluck. It is a well-integrated community, boasting many migrant services for new citizens, and different faces are well represented there. Sporting and cultural clubs have flourished there, supported by proud Australians who themselves represent the very best Australia has to offer to those seeking to settle here. These constituents, from all over the globe, have succeeded spectacularly in their journey to this country and in becoming Australian citizens. I congratulate each and every one of them on their wonderful choice in calling Australia home and on their contribution to our community.

This truly is a great demonstration of the many and diverse nationalities coming together under Australian laws and adopting Australian values as the basis for their lives in Australia, with their own cultures being woven into the fabric of what is an evolving Australian society. As the member for Hasluck I have had the opportunity to attend many citizenship ceremonies conducted by the Shire of Kalamunda and the cities of Gosnells and Swan. These occasions are filled with expectation, anticipation and excitement for those taking on Australian citizenship. On each occasion it has been a great privilege to attend these ceremonies and to have the opportunity to share with all these people from all parts of the globe their desire to be recognised as Australian citizens, taking on all the obligations and responsibilities that go with that.

It is also a great joy to recognise their diversity. These people have come from Asia, Africa, North America, South America and Europe. They have come from countries such as Nigeria, Sudan, Sierra Leone, Japan, Malaysia, Singapore, India, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Colombia, the United States of America, Canada, Ireland, England and New Zealand—to name just a few of the 137 nationalities represented in the Hasluck electorate. With Australian citizenship they have the freedom to pursue their dreams—dreams which some may have had while they endured unimaginable cruelty, oppression, hunger, threat of disease, torture and, in some cases, war. New Australian citizens understand the privilege and value of Australian citizenship only too well, having attained that status as a result of an appropriate and lawful process.

I would like to take this opportunity to acknowledge the Hindu and Sikh communities upon the recent occasion of Deepavali, the Hindu Festival of Lights. The Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, Senator the Hon. Amanda Vanstone, expressed her very good wishes to the Indian Hindu and Sikh communities on the occasion and reiterated her observation of the considerable contributions they have made to Australia in their integration as Australian citizens. Indeed, Australian citizenship has provided them with the opportunity to freely express their faiths and cultural identities.

Likewise, I take this opportunity to congratulate the Muslim community in Australia, especially the extensive Muslim community who reside in my electorate of Hasluck, on the occasion of Eid-ul-Fitr, the Muslim new year, and the completion of Ramadan. Like all Australians who look toward to their new year with hope and excitement, the Muslim community in my electorate will commence their new year with much to look forward to as Australians who can know they have every opportunity in our democratic society to pursue their potential and fulfil their dreams as citizens of Australia.

I witnessed this firsthand last month when I had the pleasure of visiting the Australian Islamic College in my electorate for the graduation ceremony of their year 7 students. There I had the opportunity to see students demonstrating excellent behaviour, recognition of values consistent with the values of Australia, positive and progressive attitudes and leadership qualities, as well as an impressively high level of academic achievement. It is great to know that these young Australians receiving an Australian education through the Islamic values integration approach to education can freely know and express their beliefs at a community level and that the community as a whole is richer for it.

I am proud of the great cultural diversity and backgrounds of the many Australian citizens who live in the electorate of Hasluck, and I very much appreciate the talent, skills and generosity of spirit that they have brought with them. There has been no negative feedback from the diverse population in my electorate on the proposed change that extends to a minimum of four years the residential qualifying period prior to making an application for citizenship. Given the criticism that we have heard from some speakers on the opposition benches, that is very comforting.

These changes have been carefully considered. And let us not forget that it is a necessary process to confirm the applicant’s bona fides and intent to become an Australian citizen. Citizenship should not be given away lightly. It is not a passport which expires after its pages are filled or the date runs out—it is an identity for the rest of one’s life.

In consideration of these factors and the well-understood needs of applicants, the bill has reasonably accommodated absences. Absences from Australia of up to 12 months during the four-year period will be allowed, with no more than three months in the year before making an application. Presently, the requirements provide that, to be eligible for Australian citizenship, applicants need to have spent a minimum of two years permanent residence in Australia in the last five years, including at least 12 months in the last two years.

The new requirements recognise the changes in migration to Australia over the years, which have resulted in an increased number of people spending longer periods of time in Australia as temporary residents prior to becoming permanent residents. The changes are very clear-cut and focused, allowing for absences of up to 12 months within that time frame, providing for better planning by the applicant. Often there is family education, early child rearing or ageing family members to be considered by the applicant, and the amendments provide greater flexibility, facilitating this process and other matters that may be of consideration. Likewise, it gives professionals the opportunity to complete work or service contracts, which helps to preserve their foreign pension entitlements—something which is obviously very important to them. And those funds may ultimately be invested in financial services and Australian property.

There are many significant benefits to applicants and to Australia from these amendments. Those people who become permanent residents before the changes come into effect will only be required to meet the current two-year residential qualifying period, provided they apply for citizenship within three years of the commencement of the act.

The changes are comparable to those of other countries, though I would suggest that the Australian citizenship process is more focused than those of the United States, the UK or Canada, to which some people have made comparisons. Whilst comparable in many ways to these countries’ requirements, the Australian model has its advantages in that it is a focused program which gives applicants well-planned organisational and preparation time.

Then, of course, there is the other side of the coin. Because we are a democracy, we do not presume that everyone will feel the same about our country. We give them the choice. We do this by providing a reasonable time frame for the applicant to search their heart and mind as to whether Australian citizenship is something they really do want. As a democracy which respects the rights of individuals and their individual freedoms, we give them the time to choose. We believe the way we have structured the new residency requirements reflects this sense of provision and democracy in the process.

Finally I want to draw your attention to the great importance of Australian citizenship, our democracy and our national commitment to it. It has been exciting to see Australians embracing democracy, citizenship and civic education recently. During October, Australia celebrated its democracy during Celebrating Democracy Week. This is a week of civics and citizenship education for our schools and communities. It ultimately celebrates the very reason migrants choose to become Australian citizens.

The very privilege that our citizenship brings is the freedom of a democratic society. Our citizens work hard at maintaining and building our free and democratic society, and fiercely guard these freedoms. It is appropriate for Australians to always seek to understand their unique Australian identity, such as through opportunities provided by Celebrating Democracy Week. It is also important to understand the context of our history, of our patterns of migration across the generations and of our peoples through important programs like this. We, as Australians, should never be afraid to engage in the debate of considering how we see ourselves and to learn of our collective views and the historical facts that form our Australian identity and character.

Australia rightly defends its freedom to choose who enters this land of ours and when and how people enter. It wholeheartedly welcomes all those who seek to be Australian citizens, accepting our values and our laws. In return it shares with them the democratic privileges, obligations and responsibilities that go with being Australian. I support the amendments.

Steve Georganas (Hindmarsh, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I, too, rise to speak on the Australian Citizenship Bill 2005 and the Australian Citizenship (Transitionals and Consequentials) Bill 2005. Citizenship is the foundation of Australian society on which our democratic system of government rests. In a country that has largely been built on immigration, Australian citizenship takes on even greater significance. Perhaps more than anything else, it reflects the fact that Australia has been a work in progress, depending on migrants from all around the world to populate, build and sustain what has become our vibrant, multicultural and largely contemporary Australian society.

For many of us, including me, Australian citizenship is part of our birthright; it is something that most of us take for granted—at least most of the time. However, for the 3.5 million or so people who have become Australian citizens since World War II, it is a different story. In deciding to take the oath of allegiance they made a conscious and deliberate choice to affirm their loyalty to Australia and its democratic ideals. Their decision to do so was no doubt very much influenced by the view of Australia as the land of hope and opportunity and a country free from the tyranny and violence that many of them desperately sought to escape.

In the electorate of Hindmarsh, 23 per cent of people were born overseas, and I am very proud to say that 91 per cent of the people in the electorate of Hindmarsh are Australian citizens. That compares to 88 per cent nationally. So in Hindmarsh, a greater number of people who were born overseas decide to become Australian citizens, and I think that is quite significant. As one of the 43 per cent of people living in Australia who were either born overseas or have one or both of their parents who were, I think I can say that I have some understanding of the importance of Australian citizenship.

Both my mother and father migrated to Australia from Greece. Like so many other migrants, they came here in the early 1950s. To them, I owe a deep depth of gratitude for providing me with the opportunity to learn about the history and culture of their birthplace as well as its language. As an Australian, I treasure my heritage and am proud of my parents for making it happen for me, but I fearlessly call myself an Australian at all times.

Although I was only a child at the time, I can still recall and I still have great memories of the ceremony where they received their Australian citizenship at the Thebarton Town Hall, very near to where I still live today. It was unquestionably a special occasion for me and for the entire family. Even though I was only four years old at the time, I still treasure that moment and remember it vividly. I am sure many other people who are gaining their citizenship will always treasure that special moment and remember it for the rest of their lives, as I did when I saw my parents gain their citizenship.

Taking out Australian citizenship does not mean turning your back on your heritage. On the contrary, it contributes to the continually evolving nature of Australian culture. In this context, the decision to seek citizenship is a celebration of multiculturalism, one that exemplifies the adage that in diversity there is unity. But for the positives of multiculturalism, citizenship is much more than this single outcome of Australia’s immigration policies over the past couple of hundred years.

Citizenship is much more than the recognition that Australia is a desirable country within which to build a new life. It is much more than the opportunity to live in relative peace away from century-old millennium hostilities, conflicts and inhumane actions that are still evident in parts of the world and that too often seem both insurmountable and contagious.

Citizenship is about rights and responsibilities—in a sense, joint ownership, both of the good and the bad, and a commitment to this nation that joint ownership suggests. It is a bit like a marriage: the engagement period can be for a short period or a long period. Many people decide immediately that they want to become citizens because they know immediately that this is the place for them. For others it may take a bit longer. But it does not matter how long it takes—the important thing is that they have taken that step to become citizens and embrace this country wholly.

The discussion paper on a citizenship test released by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs proposes a number of characteristics that, while not necessarily being exclusive to this country, offer a description of either how we see ourselves or how we would like to be perceived. These characteristics include: respect for the freedom and dignity of the individual, support for the democracy, our commitment to the rule of law, the equality of men and women, the spirit of a fair go and of mutual respect, and compassion for those in need.

The discussion paper calls for input on a number of points, but I only want to comment on a couple at this point in time: firstly, regarding English language proficiency. Current arrangements require prospective citizens to have their English capabilities demonstrated either by an Australian citizenship language record issued by an Adult Migrant English Program provider or through a formal citizenship interview. Content of the English program can be centred on Australia and the Australian way of life through a course called Let’s Participate: A Course in Australian Citizenship. Through such a program, prospective citizens develop their English skills through learning the kinds of things that most people would expect prospective citizens to be aware of.

Subsequent to such courses, the citizenship interview also requires applicants to respond to questions regarding the responsibilities and privileges of Australian citizenship. The questions may not be particularly hard. They may be no harder than those put to prospective UK citizens in their multiple-choice test. But testing is effectively in place already in Australia. I would like to suggest that programs such as Let’s Participate: A Course in Australian Citizenship could well be made a matter of course for prospective citizens, irrespective of a person’s English skills.

Successful completion of such a course and the English language skills that completion would require would be indicative of a prospective citizen’s knowledge and understanding of his or her place within Australian society. I think it is the responsibility of the government to maximise the availability of Australian centred programs for all migrants and, specifically, English language tuition for those from non-English-speaking backgrounds, irrespective of whether a person is applying for citizenship, continuing as a permanent resident or on a temporary visa. That the content of such courses consists of information pertinent to life within Australia is well and good, and I would assume it evolves over time to address particular themes as they become more pertinent to Australian society.

A reduction in spending on the Adult Migrant English Program to the tune of $10.8 million, as stated in a Senate estimates hearing earlier this year, suggests that the government could increase its focus on this program, the utility of English within this nation and the social benefits that migrants derive from developing their English skills. I would encourage the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs to pursue a level of funding for the program that reflects its ongoing importance.

I would like to make a comment on another question raised by the discussion paper—that is, how important is a demonstrated commitment to Australia’s way of life and values for those intending to settle permanently in Australia or to spend significant periods of time in Australia? Australia’s way of life and values presumably incorporate those elements described in the position paper as ‘the spirit of a fair go’. A variation of this theme, I suppose, is something that we all are familiar with—that we are saying that all of us have grown up with—and that is ‘a fair day’s work for a fair day’s pay’. Fairness is something that the Australian government itself may have a difficult time in establishing as one of its characteristics or even interests. A prospective citizen may look at this government’s legislative agenda over recent months and the way that its attitude to fairness has been absorbed and implemented since the introduction of the government’s new IR policies. What would the prospective citizen see as demonstrating fairness?

The government’s view of what constitutes fairness can be seen in its shredding of the old Workplace Relations Act 1996, specifically in relation to the establishment of the minimum but fair wage. Now the government’s view of fairness is demonstrated in its new legislation’s dismissal of fairness as a criterion and its use of the term as a brand name, highly deceptive of its intent. The government went well out of its way to strip the concept of fairness from that which was charged with establishing a fair day’s pay for a fair day’s work. This government’s demonstration of fairness and values is evident in its approach to workplace democracy, and this is the example of Australian fairness that new Australians experience when entering the Australian workforce for the first time. This is the meaning of an Australian fair go that people will experience day after day through the workplace. No number or size of Australia Day ceremonies or parades will make up for the attack on fairness that people in this country are currently experiencing the effects of, every single working day, potentially for years to come. If anyone wants to talk about Australian values, they cannot include the Australian government. There are few organisations integral to this nation that are less Australian than the current Australian government and its Work Choices legislation.

Turning back to the bill, I think it can be said that much of its content is unobjectionable. In relation to the resumption of citizenship, I note that the bill does not provide for the resumption of citizenship by children whose parents have knowingly renounced their Australian citizenship. This is patently unfair, and it has been an ongoing issue of concern, particularly to the Maltese community, many of whom reside in the electorate of Hindmarsh. It is a concern that I share as well. The injustice of this situation was recognised by the former minister in a speech to the Sydney Institute, where he undertook to remedy the situation at the earliest opportunity. However, there is nothing that addresses this concern. In the light of the government’s failure to act, Labor has sought an amendment to clause 21 of the bill to deliver on this broken promise.

At the moment there are a few vocal people in Australia who are indulging in a myth of a monoculture. It is unfortunate that they are pushing against the reality that multicultural Australia exists and that being an Australian who has links with another nation is about as Australian as you can get. Our local libraries are filled with Australians tracing their family trees, with people sometimes finding out funny things about their background. One of my constituents who looked up their family tree told me about a Cornish great-great-grandmother who was in love with an Afghan camel trader. So whether you research your Welsh, Irish, Italian, Greek or Vietnamese heritage, it makes little difference. With the exception of Indigenous Australians, our people have been here in this great country for only a few generations.

Australia’s multiculturalism is a model for other nations around the world. It is an advantage that the great majority of us have been here for only a few generations. As I said earlier, we do not have ancient hatreds, and as such we can live together as one nation. I am alarmed by the suggestion by some that multiculturalism is not working. It is a part of what this country is, and it has been a part of Australia for the past 200 years. To anyone who thinks that multiculturalism is not a success, I ask this one question: is Australia a success? Clearly, the answer is yes. Because Australia and multiculturalism are so thoroughly entwined, it follows that multiculturalism is also a great success.

Julia Irwin (Fowler, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The concept of citizenship as we know it is quite different in Australia today than it was in the original 1948 act. When we say that the world has changed a lot in the last 58 years, we are also saying that the identity of the individual which relates to his or her citizenship has also changed. Many of the effects of these changes are reflected in the Australian Citizenship Bill 2005 and the Australian Citizenship (Transitionals and Consequentials) Bill 2005, including in the provisions for people who have lost their Australian citizenship as a result of acquiring or retaining the citizenship of another country.

We need to begin by acknowledging that, since 1948, the greater proportion of migrants to Australia have not been British subjects and as a result they have, for a range of reasons, retained links with their homeland or the homeland of their parents. But, most significantly, Australia now exists as a part of a so-called globalised world. In trade and communications, national boundaries have less and less meaning. Free trade agreements, reductions in tariffs, easing of restrictions on international trade and the removal of barriers to finance and commerce have changed our ideas of any economic loyalty. Today we assume that business and investment decisions are based on considerations of financial return without regard for national interests in all but the most exceptional cases.

At the same time, we find that more than one million Australian citizens live and work overseas. That figure is growing rapidly every year. We also find that the number of migrants to Australia, particularly skilled migrants, is growing, and of course we have rapid growth in 457 working visa entries. All of this could cause us to question not so much what it means to be an Australian citizen but what it means to be a citizen of any nation.

I recently met with a person of dual Australian and Italian citizenship who was also seeking citizenship of an Asian country. The reasons for this multiple citizenship were very much about convenience and the rights of each country’s laws and treaties. His Italian citizenship gave him access to work and business opportunities in the European Community, while his Thai citizenship allowed him to own property and conduct a business in Thailand. Passports these days are a bit like credit cards; you carry a number of them to be sure that you will have at least one which is accepted in each country. As a result of free trade, footloose capital, global labour markets and economic unions such as the European Community, citizenship of one country must be defined and understood to have a quite different meaning to what was applied half a century ago.

As I said at the beginning, this bill gives some recognition to these changes. But, when it comes to the big question of just what citizenship is, we need to go back to the drawing board and come up with a definition which will work in the 21st century. Much of the debate about citizenship has been centred on the issue of dual citizenship. The main argument against allowing dual citizenship has been that a person cannot owe allegiance to more than one country and that a person should be totally committed in an emotional and legal sense to one country. But, as I have already said, the demands of a globalised world make dual or even multiple citizenships advantageous to a great many Australians.

If we accept that for reasons of employment or business dual citizenship is acceptable, how far should we go in demanding allegiance to Australia? Our pledge of citizenship would suggest that we make a total commitment in an emotional and legal sense to Australia. But in the case of dual citizenship I have to ask whether that means a half or a total commitment—and does that commitment mean that Australian citizens holding citizenship with another country should be prohibited from engaging in certain activities outside Australia?

My attention was recently drawn to the tragic death of Asaf Namer, a 27-year-old from Bondi. He was an Australian citizen holding dual citizenship with Israel. Namer was undertaking military service as a sergeant in the Israeli army when he was killed in the war in Lebanon. While we seem to excuse service in Israeli Defence Forces, I wonder whether we would take the same stand if an Australian holding dual citizenship in another country did the same thing. Would they be regarded in the same way? I know of a number of young Australian citizens in my electorate of Fowler who have served in the Lebanese army and the armed forces of Syria. While I do not know if they have been involved in any conflict—to my knowledge they have not been—I would ask if their service would be regarded in the same way as Asaf Namer’s, who served in the Israeli army.

Having raised that issue, though, I must say that I can appreciate the motives of many young people to leave Australia to follow a career overseas. As we have seen fewer opportunities for Australians in many areas of research and the arts, it is not surprising that they should look overseas for work and for study. That has been happening for some time. As I said earlier, one million Australian citizens now live outside Australia. They might still call Australia home—the majority of them do—but their participation in other countries is often a full commitment. In a broader sense we should see this as part of the global labour market.

For the many Australians working in manufacturing, in computer software, in call centres and in financial services, who have seen tens of thousands of jobs disappear overseas—and we have lost tens of thousands of jobs overseas—it is hard to understand how they can maintain a total commitment in an emotional and legal sense to Australia. It is all very well to give examples of national sporting teams, but in the world competition for investment and jobs Australia’s team management seems to be playing for the other side. When it comes to loyalty to one’s country and having a total emotional and legal commitment, corporate Australia is not proving to be a model citizen. Many companies have shown, through their offshore dealings to minimise taxes paid in Australia, that their first loyalty is to their shareholders.

When it comes to what we value about Australian citizenship, I believe that we have various levels of commitment to Australia and, as a result, our citizenship laws should reflect the fact that not everyone holding Australian citizenship can place his or her hand over their heart and say that they have a 100 per cent commitment to Australia in an emotional and legal sense. That is not to say that they are not Australians or, for that matter, that they are not good Australians.

But before we all wrap ourselves in the flag and start singing the national anthem, we do need to acknowledge the realities of the world in the 21st century. There are the measures included in this bill for reasons related to antiterrorism, though the increase in the waiting period from two to three years for citizenship does concern me. Like many members, I regularly attend citizenship ceremonies and I know that in many cases the new citizens are anxious to become Australian citizens as soon as possible. Many who have been refugees and others who have married Australian citizens have good reasons to become citizens of this great country of ours. Often the need to travel overseas under the protection of an Australian passport is an important reason. While I can understand the implications of this for persons engaged in terrorist activities, I know that the change will cause disruption and concern to many permanent residents awaiting citizenship.

I fully support the Labor amendment which seeks to maintain the present two-year waiting period for people who are currently permanent residents. I would also question the changes to the age limit for English language knowledge. While I support the need for Australians to learn English so that they may function as part of our society, I am not convinced that excluding people, particularly older residents, is in our best interest in the long run.

As I see in my electorate of Fowler, settling in a new country is not an easy process. For many permanent residents, the priorities of finding a home and a job are the highest on the list. While knowledge of English can help, it is often difficult to find the time to attend formal classes. So learning English is left till later. It is also difficult for women, who often do not participate in the workforce in their early years in Australia. As their mother language is often spoken in the home, they can be much slower to improve their English skills.

I see among the older people in my electorate that they have poor English skills today because their earlier years were devoted to the struggle to establish themselves and their families here in Australia. They have gone on to contribute greatly to our society and I would definitely count them as some of the best Australians that we have. But it would be wrong to deny them citizenship on the grounds that their English is poor. They have survived, and in many cases thrived, in their new country without what some would call good English. They have managed to get by, with help when it was needed; they have been able to participate in the community and they have done so to their fullest.

The measures in this bill to allow citizens who renounced their citizenship under section 17 to seek to renew their citizenship are most welcome. In earlier changes to the Citizenship Act which allowed dual citizenship there was an ongoing problem: Australians citizens who had previously renounced their Australian citizenship in order to take the citizenship of another country were left without the opportunity to readily renew their Australian citizenship. This was often necessary for migrants from countries which were part of the old Soviet Union or the former Yugoslavia. Because they did not have a residual citizenship, they were requested to renounce their Australian citizenship. This was often necessary for family, business and property inheritance reasons. These changes will allow many of those citizens to readily resume their Australian citizenship. I also note the special case of children of Australians who renounced their Australian citizenship in Malta and indicate my support for Labor’s amendment to include the children of former Australian citizens who lost their citizenship under section 18 of the old act.

In reviewing the Citizenship Act, we have had the opportunity to correct some of the longstanding provisions which, in the light of changes in recent years, have needed to be modified. But, at a time when some in this parliament want to push their ideas of what Australian values should be and to enshrine those values in statements of allegiance, I feel that we are definitely missing the real issues of citizenship and what the concept of citizenship will be in the years ahead. We have not reached the stage where we are citizens of the world, but we do find that many Australian citizens spend much of their time outside Australia and many are involved in the affairs of other nations. I would point out that a number of Australian citizens and residents serve as representatives in the parliaments of other countries. We recently had Australians elected to the Italian parliament and another Australian serving as a governor in Afghanistan. So at some time we will have to rethink our ideas about what it is to be an Australian citizen, not what it is to be Australian or what are Australian values. We will have to separate our concepts of each. In the meantime, we will need to ensure that Australia’s citizenship laws do not prevent Australians from playing a role in an increasingly globalised world.

Peter Garrett (Kingsford Smith, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Reconciliation and the Arts) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have listened with a good deal of interest to the contributions that members have made as they address the Australian Citizenship Bill 2005 and the Australian Citizenship (Transitionals and Consequentials) Bill 2005 and I very much endorse the comments of Labor members who have made a contribution to the debate on this legislation. There has certainly been a great need for the Citizenship Act 1948 to be rewritten and it is important that legislation comes forward which allows citizenship for many people who had lost it or did not have access to it due to former restrictions on dual citizenship. A number of speakers would already have mentioned the situation faced in particular by people from the Maltese community, people who have adopted children from overseas, people from a Papua New Guinean background and others who were disadvantaged by the legislation as it stood. This is an issue that Labor has been alert to. At the last national conference a resolution was passed to the effect that Labor will streamline the citizenship resumption arrangements for those who lost citizenship as a result of previous provisions on dual citizenship in Australian and Maltese law in particular, in recognition of the problems and the difficulties that the Maltese community was facing. There are a number of amendments that the shadow minister has moved which we are urging upon the government. In the general discussion about citizenship, a number of speakers have mentioned the fact that we are now living in a vastly changed environment to that in which we previously lived and which people had experienced on coming to live in Australia in the past.

The whole issue of citizenship is now being opened up into a discussion about the nature of citizenship rights and responsibilities in the modern democratic state and in the light of international developments that are threatening to many people in this country, including issues of security that attach to the prospect of terrorism; issues to do with different cultures making their way, bringing up their children, educating their children and expressing their religious preference in terms of worship in the country; and, most recently, some of the controversy in respect of comments that have been made by religious leaders, including Muslim religious leaders. I will speak a little later on about that aspect of it, but for the moment note that from our perspective it is particularly important that the government does not use the issue of citizenship as a way of continuing a political campaign about the appropriate policies that we ought to have, as executed by any government regardless of its political persuasion, in the country in respect of issues of citizenship and people’s participation in the life of the nation.

As far as the current bill is concerned, I note that the permanent residency requirements have been extended from two to four years; that Australian citizens who have renounced their citizenship under section 17 of the act can resume their citizenship if they are of good character; that children of former Australian citizens who lost their citizenship under section 17 of the old act, which I referred to briefly earlier, can acquire citizenship by conferral; that the new provisions will prohibit the approval of a citizenship applicant who is assessed by ASIO as a security risk, and there have been some informed contributions made on that particular provision already by members; and other measures, including that the age for an exemption from the requirement to have a basic knowledge of the English language has been raised from 50 to 60; that the minister must not approve the person becoming an Australian citizen unless the minister is satisfied of their identity; and a number of other issues as well.

The bill also encompasses changes made to the old act in July 2004 and on 14 September 2005 and 19 September 2005. These are two proposals that relate to issues of antiterrorism, as described by the Prime Minister, and they are: extending the waiting period for citizenship from two to three years, security checks before citizenship is approved and provision for increased personal identifiers.

Labor has said that it will not support policy that delays people from committing to our values in the citizenship ceremony. Neither do we see any good reason for a change in extension of the period from three to four years. There is no doubt that by making people wait four years before they make a commitment to our way of life we are simply extending a burden which seems to be, with respect to the difference between three and four years, unnecessarily onerous. There has been, as I mentioned before, significant comment about the effect that the old legislation did have on people from the Maltese community, and it is appropriate that they should be taken into account in this bill and that is certainly supported by Labor.

In the context of this bill coming into the House, a number of other matters have been raised in relation to citizenship. The most obvious one is the discussion paper on Australian citizenship that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs released in September, which canvassed the option of a formal citizenship test and raised a number of possible components for a test: a written English test, test on a person’s knowledge of Australia, compulsory questions on responsibilities and privileges and so on.

I have to say that I think there are some strong arguments to support the idea of an enlarged citizenship test for people seeking citizenship in this country. I think there is a strong case to invest citizenship with greater meaning generally. Certainly, because the circumstances of culture and history are changing and evolving and the challenges that we do face in the country in relation to making certain that when they come here people are able to embrace full citizenship, fully understanding and comprehending those particular unique aspects of Australia’s way of life and also the responsibilities that attach to it, I think there is some merit in having a discussion about that.

But the idea of citizenship and what constitutes a good citizen has been around for a very long period of time. As I am sure you would be well aware, Mr Deputy Speaker Jenkins, it was something that Plato and others discussed in the ancient times. They discussed it, wrote about it and talked about it. There is no question that embedded in the idea of citizenship is the notion of a full, open and participatory democracy. This is effectively the most essential element of what being a citizen in a democracy is all about. Just as citizens, as individuals, as sovereign persons within the nation-state or the community, have rights and responsibilities, so the idea of the state itself is imbued with a kind of citizenship, and there is an expectation that power attaches to the state—in this case to determine what conditions or otherwise ought to be applied to people who come into a country—and so the state itself has an a priori responsibility and, I would argue, a duty to espouse citizenship as well, and not only to espouse it but to give evidence on it.

So, as we consider the issues of citizenship and as we consider amplifying the idea of what it means to apply for citizenship in Australia, we have to do that in a way which is consistent with our democratic traditions, consistent with our understanding of what a citizen is—in terms of both the individual citizen and the citizenship that is embedded in the nation—which is consistent with our common-law principles and which is consistent with our international obligations, the treaties and conventions which the Australian nation as an international citizen has signed. It must be in that context—not just the narrow context of trying to identify the kind of person you may or may not like to apply for citizenship—that we should have this debate.

It is absolutely critical that conflating a debate about culture or about desirable characteristics of a citizen—debates that have concerns about terrorism attached to them and debates which can be manipulated by governments and manipulated through the media—does not get in the way of sensible proposals and a sensible and rational discussion about what citizenship, if it is going to be enlarged in the context of people applying for Australian citizenship, is all about. I think it is absolutely critical for those of us that are elected to office here, whether we are in the government or whether we are in opposition, to bear that in mind as we consider and discuss this issue.

I want to make an additional point in relation to citizenship. I have not had the opportunity to listen to all the contributions to the debate, and it may be that some members have already raised this. If that is the case, I will be going over well-trodden ground; nevertheless, I think it is important. Next year sees the 40th anniversary of the referendum whereby Indigenous people of this country were recognised by the Australian Constitution. Even though they really did have a right to vote earlier on, it was only in 1967 that they were effectively able to claim their citizenship as a constitutional recognition in the federation. I think that gives us due cause to pause and reflect on what the idea of citizenship really is about. It has been defined—and I think it is a reasonable definition—as a conferring of benefits to which certain responsibilities attach. I would simply say, speaking to this citizenship legislation, that I think there is still a deeper and more important question about the nature of Indigenous citizenship in this country, given that the conferring of benefits that would normally be identified as flowing to them as citizens in actual fact has not occurred or taken place. I do know that there are a number of Indigenous leaders and others who have reflected on this on occasions such as this, when legislation comes through the House, and will certainly be reflecting upon it next year when the 1967 referendum anniversary takes place.

To the extent that all Australians are equal under the law, yes, Indigenous Australians could consider themselves Australian citizens. To the extent that they both have access to and receive the benefits that go with Australian citizenship, I think there is a very strong argument to suggest that that is not the case. Mr Deputy Speaker, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders—as I know you and other members are well aware—have a life expectancy approximately 17 years shorter than non-Indigenous people. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander women are twice as likely to have low birth weight babies. The rate of communicable diseases is over 90 times higher amongst Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people than amongst non-Indigenous people. This is in a country where individual Australians on a per capita basis have never been wealthier. So I ask a simple question: is the citizenship that Indigenous people are experiencing at this point in time consistent with the benefits that we would expect to be conferred upon Indigenous people as a consequence?

There is a final point that attaches to this issue and to considering this legislation, and it is simply this: citizenship in itself is something which can only be exercised fruitfully and fully if the rights that people have within the nation are properly protected. There is no doubt that whilst it is desirable for people who are coming into the country to have a good and clear sense of democratic traditions, a good understanding of our language and a commitment to the democratic ideals that we all share, it is equally important for us to be very cognisant of the fact that many of the democratic rights that we take for granted are in no way guaranteed under our system of government. There has been a very fruitful discussion, which has fallen on barren ground over the last five to 10 years, about whether or not Australia, in order to properly have citizenship rights protected, ought to have a bill of rights. I want to give notice that I think that is a debate that we ought to re-energise in this parliament.

A citizenship ceremony is a wonderful thing, as I and all members know. Those who are seeking to become citizens of Australia take this ceremony very seriously. They recognise not only the great and very meaningful symbolism but also the practical effect that taking that step actually has upon them, and subsequently upon their families. So that is a big step that people take, and it is an extremely important one in the context of someone coming from one country to another. Those of us who are Australian citizens at this point in time, along with those who come to this country, need to remember that our citizenship depends very much on our rights being protected, particularly under law—and, I would argue, also through the Constitution. It also depends on us exercising our responsibilities of respect for the rule of law, observance of the rules of the Commonwealth and a commitment to participate fully in the life of the nation. On that basis, I shall conclude my remarks.

Debate (on motion by Mr Wakelin) adjourned.