Harry Quick (Franklin, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I, like other members who have spoken in this debate, welcome the opportunity to speak on the Australian Citizenship Bill 2005 and the Australian Citizenship (Transitionals and Consequentials) Bill 2005. Citizenship is a rather strange area to talk about. Basically, most people in Australia take for granted the fact that they are Australian. They do not worry too much about the rights and responsibilities of being Australian. I know it will take a certain form this Boxing Day, when we are playing the Ashes test against the English. There will be two groups of people, the Poms and us, and there will be banter between the English and Australian supporters. At Olympic Games and Commonwealth Games we become very jingoistic and accentuate the positive attitudes about Australia.

But it is different when you actually leave the shores of Australia for another country and you front up to the immigration and customs desk and get your passport out. When you visit London you are in the ‘Others’ group. I remember the first time I left Australia, in 1966—40 years ago. My brother and I decided to emigrate to Canada. We had to go through all the initial requirements to be considered for Canadian citizenship. We had to have chest X-rays to see whether we had tuberculosis. We had to give evidence that we had jobs. We had to name the sponsors who were sponsoring us to go to Canada and, when we arrived at the Canadian-American border in Washington state and were about to be allowed into Canada, we had all the required documentation. We were in the dilemma of still being Australians—we still had our Australian passports—but in those days, 40 years ago, I believe we were British citizens. We had the Governor-General sign a declaration to that extent, so we were basically British subjects rather than Australian citizens.

Then, after two years, I decided to come back to Australia. I did not take up my Canadian citizenship but still have a strong affinity with the Canadians, and I admire many things about them, especially the fact that they have their own flag. I then met and married someone who had Lithuanian nationality. My mother-in-law came out in 1949 in one of the first waves of immigration. She and my wife speak Lithuanian at home because my mother-in-law had difficulty learning English. She is fluent in Polish, Russian, German and Lithuanian because, as you rightly know, Lithuania is in that area where waves of conquerors have gone backwards and forwards over the years, especially in the first and second world wars. My children and I have learnt Lithuanian phrases to be part of that Lithuanian family.

Mention has been made of the emphasis to learn English, and it has been touted as a fact that, if you do not speak it, you are somehow less of a person. I think that is a load of BS; I really do. If you come from another country for a variety of reasons—such as persecution or intolerance—and you seek solace in this place, the fact that you might not be fluent in English is, to my mind, somewhat irrelevant. If you are fluent in English, you can be a most undesirable person but you have one attribute in the tick box compared to a person who might have a hell of a lot more to contribute to Australian society but who does not get the tick in the box because their language skills are deficient for a variety of reasons—basically, a lack of opportunity; the fact that they have not had the opportunity to go to school because of the conflict within the country that they came from.

Another fact that really worries me is this extension of the waiting period to four years. Personally, I think it is driven by the fact that we have this fear of people who dress differently and who come from a region of the world where there is mayhem, intolerance or terrorist cells, and the easy way out is to say, ‘We’re going to raise the bar, and if you come out here we are going to punish you by extending the period from two to three to four years.’ If things get worse, as they probably will in the world, are we going to raise it to five or six years and make it harder and harder for people? I think we should encourage people to take up citizenship, not make it harder for them to acquire it.

My eldest daughter married an Englishman recently, and luckily for him he is within the two-year period. My daughter availed herself of the opportunity to take up British citizenship so that now she has Australian and British citizenship, so when she goes to England with her husband they can walk through the easy gate rather than lining up with the others. Michael, to his credit, wants to become an Australian citizen because he sees that this country has a lot to offer him, not only in job opportunities but also because he can make a real commitment and contribute to Australia. This almost psychopathic fear of certain parts of the world and hence the raising of the waiting period from three to four years is the wrong way to go; it really is.

But this government seems to have its blinkers on. It is determined to whip up an almost hysterical feeling in the community to get the flag out and wave it and say, ‘The only way we can keep these undesirables under control and deter them is to force them through this little narrow channel and, once they are in here, we’re going to raise the bar and we’re going to make them conform to all these things.’ Australians around the world are basically considered to be nice, laid-back, laissez-faire people who, when they are confronted with intolerance and injustice, contribute to peacekeeping roles involving their armed forces. We have been involved in conflicts in the various wars we have contributed to, but the rest of the time, if people come to our country, we accept them.

I am old enough to remember the first wave of migrants when I was a kid at Port Augusta High School. I vividly remember a guy called Rudi Gerdtroitlin, a German kid who came out. He wore lederhosen to school. The kids in Port Augusta High School were dumbfounded. Here was this kid in these leather lederhosen rocking up when the rest of us were in shorts and blue shirts going to Port Augusta High School. This kid had real trouble, but he soon fitted in. He could speak half-a-dozen languages. We saw the positive things that he could contribute to our society in Port Augusta. Then the other waves started coming along.

That is the right way; inclusion rather than exclusion should be the way we tackle these things. To raise the waiting period from three to four years—and have the possibility of five if the world goes absolutely turtle and turns inside out—is the wrong way to go. But this Attorney-General is fixated; this government is fixated with deterring people.

I think we ought to really look at this issue rather than becoming jingoistic and sabre rattling and saying, ‘This is the way to go and we’re going to make it harder’—I really do. We are a nation of many races. My relatives came out in 1853. They were Cornish tin miners. The alluvial gold ran out in Ballarat and the mine owners went over to St Ives and said, ‘We want you to come to Australia to sink the shafts, to contribute to Australian society.’ So the Quick family came out in 1853 and have contributed to Australian society in many ways.

They helped form Australia as we know it. One branch of the family, Sir John Quick, helped write the Australian Constitution—he helped form the concept of federal parliament. I consider myself to be part Cornish, part English, part Lithuanian, part Australian, part Canadian. The people who come from other shores in their thousands, as we welcome them, have much to contribute. But we should not say we only want white, English-speaking, conformist, church-going people—‘You can easily enter the door.’ For goodness sake, we are probably the most tolerant society that I know—and I have visited most parts of the world. We have got it right, but we do have pockets where people are causing concern. But, rather than focusing all our resources and energy on that small festering sore, let us look at all the positives when we discuss citizenship.

If you go to citizenship ceremonies, as other speakers have said, there is a real pride. We enjoy conferring our citizenship on other people and they enjoy receiving it and wish to contribute, and in many cases have shown real contributions in that period between when they arrive and when they actually get the piece of paper.

As a teacher, I did not make an overt attempt to highlight to my students the facts about Australian citizenship. I did it in a calm, perhaps unorthodox, way to highlight the fact that because we have so many things going for us, living in such a wonderful nation where we want for nothing, we have a responsibility to contribute to the welfare and wellbeing of people less fortunate than we are. If that means opening our doors as a result of conflicts, we should do it. But we should not then say, ‘There are some people who have snuck in who are out to cause mayhem, so let’s focus all our legislative endeavours to sort them out.’ To my mind, that is the wrong way. It is easier to be involved in initiatives in other countries where we can provide the example rather than, as the Americans do, try to keep a lid and a clamp on the unrest, social mayhem and disorder.

They are my concerns. We are going to lose. The waiting period is going to be four years. The government is determined. In the event that we win the next election—I will not be here, but when we do win the next election—I would like to think that some of these issues will be resolved and we will make it easier rather than harder.

Finally, there is one positive thing. When our committee did the report on overseas adoption, we highlighted some of the things that needed to be sorted out when it came to children coming from overseas and the problems they faced with citizenship. I welcome the fact that, of our 27 recommendations, the government agreed to 24, which was great. Amendment (30), citizenship for persons adopted in accordance with the Hague convention on intercountry adoption, inserts a new subdivision AA, relating to citizenship for persons adopted in accordance with the Hague convention on intercountry adoption. The purpose of this new subdivision is to allow children adopted overseas by Australian citizens to become Australian citizens in a similar way in which children born to Australian citizens overseas can become Australian citizens.

The new provisions implement the government’s response to a recommendation made by the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Family and Human Services in its inquiry into the adoption of children from overseas, and I congratulate the minister. As someone who has visited China and seen the need for us to simplify and clarify some of the things regarding overseas adoption, I welcome the minister’s quick response in this. I thank the House for the opportunity to say a few words on this issue.

Anthony Byrne (Holt, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise today to speak about the Australian Citizenship Bill 2005 and the Australian Citizenship (Transitionals and Consequentials) Bill 2005 and welcome the member for Franklin’s contribution. I just want to put on the record how much he will be missed when he departs. He has been a fantastic member of parliament. He has been an ornament to this parliament and to this place and to the Australian Labor Party. Certainly I, along with many of his other colleagues, will miss him after the next election.

Paul Neville (Hinkler, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I endorse that.

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

So do I.

Anthony Byrne (Holt, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you. When someone becomes an Australian citizen, and as a politician I have in fact witnessed many people becoming citizens in this country—people from many diverse backgrounds, people from war-torn backgrounds and people from more affluent backgrounds—it is an amazing reminder of what can make our country great, because, in taking that act of citizenship, they are renewing the lifeblood of our country. Particularly given our decreasing fertility rates in this country, we need to bring more and more people into this country to keep our country strong. One of the great privileges I have as the federal member for Holt is attending City of Casey citizenship ceremonies. The City of Casey, for those who are not familiar with it, is I think the largest shire in Victoria. It has a population of about 230,000 people, with some 65 families shifting in per week, and it has a very unique citizenship ceremony—and I will touch upon this because the symbolism of the Australian citizenship ceremony that is embodied by the City of Casey says a lot about the debate we are having about this bill today.

It is interesting that in the period from November 2005 to October this year the City of Casey welcomed over 1,700 new citizens, according to the Mayor of the City of Casey, and these new citizens came from a great variety of backgrounds, with just under 70 different nationalities represented in this particular period. What is particularly striking and particularly noticeable about those who attend these citizenship ceremonies is that the ceremony is a rite of passage. There is no doubt about that. Some have taken a very long step from different and far-flung countries; some a much shorter step. But, in taking that step, they are making our community and our country much stronger. In my observation, regardless of their backgrounds—whether they are Islamic, Hindu, Jewish, English or whatever—each of these people treats the ceremony with the same sense of reverence. They know that, in taking that incredibly long step or that short step, they are making a significant commitment.

It is not easy to leave the country of your birth, for whatever reason, and set up your future life and the lives of your children in another country. It is not an easy thing. It is not an easy transition. If you look at people who shift from state to state for employment opportunities, you will see that it is not an easy transition. There is the issue of dislocation, the issue of the difficulties of leaving family and friends behind. But these people make that journey—some pushed because of war-torn circumstances or other circumstances in their country; some pulled by the attraction of this country. But when they reach that threshold point, when they become citizens, as I said, they add to the lifeblood of the community.

The City of Casey has a unique ceremony. It has a very intimate, very personal ceremony. At the end of the ceremony, you are handed an Australian native plant. After citizenship has been conferred upon you, you are handed an Australian native—and I have very proudly handed an Australian plant to a large number of people who have become citizens in the City of Casey. In the speeches that I give to these people, the symbolism for these people in receiving that plant is that they are like the plant, because becoming Australian citizens is like them putting roots into the soil of our country. By putting roots into the soil of our country, they are embodied, embedded, in our country. They become a greater part of our country, a greater whole of our country. In doing so, they also transform the landscape of our country—they change our country. They become embedded within it, but they can change it at the same time. They can change the landscape of our country.

It is interesting in the context of the debate about citizenship and some of the provisions of this particular bill which we are examining today. We need to really reflect upon what it means to be an Australian citizen—the expectations that we put on people who become Australian citizens and what their beliefs are, what their expectations are and what their understanding is of the country that they are becoming part of. They are becoming the very roots of the soil of the country. They, in becoming Australian citizens, can determine the future of our country by voting for who will represent them. So it is an incredibly significant step.

I wonder what many of those who have become citizens—particularly those people who I have dealt with recently who had a sense of exuberance, a sense of joy and a profound sense that they knew exactly what they were doing—would say about the provision that extends the permanent residency requirement from two years to four years. I have heard media reports which effectively say, ‘I have seen some people walk out.’ In fact I have heard it from the parliamentary secretary—‘Some people walked out of a citizenship ceremony.’ We know the sorts of groups of people he is talking about.

I will tell you one thing: in every citizenship ceremony that I have ever been to, for everybody that I have seen undertake that citizenship, it is almost like a sacred ceremony—it is a sacred rite of passage. We have to be very mindful of this when we consider this particular bill, for those people who take that very sacred rite of passage are adding to the lifeblood of our community, are strengthening our community, are becoming citizens and are strengthening us economically—for without them our economy starts to peter and to die. We do need them, and that is reflected in the increased uptake of immigrants in this country. We do not need to demonise any of them. When we ask them to become part of us, we ask all of them to become part of us, not just some of them.

I do not understand this provision and what we are saying in terms of the citizenship ceremony. When you come into the country as a permanent resident you would have an expectation that after two years you could really become part of this country, that you could exercise your rights to determine who represents you and become a fully integrated part of the community. The argument that we have in this country is about integration. It is about people from all parts of the world becoming part of our country. Gareth Evans, my predecessor as the member for Holt, talked about it as a ‘salad bowl’—people from different parts of the world making up the salad bowl of our community.

What are we saying to these people? Instead of two years, which is what it was, or instead of three years, which was what was agreed to as a consequence of security concerns by the premiers in COAG, we are now saying four years. For what justification? What are we saying? On the one hand we are saying we want you to become part of our community, we want you to integrate into our community and we want you to understand Australian values—in fact, the discussion paper that the parliamentary secretary put forward talks about all of this. But on the other hand we are saying: ‘Well, we have changed our minds. Instead of being two years, we have some security concerns about you we wanted ticked off, so the states agreed it was to be three years, but now it is four.’ I do not understand that. What signal are we sending to people who come to this country—that they are not good enough?

What we need is the complete antithesis of what we are saying. On the one hand we are saying, ‘Become part of our country, integrate’—I hate to use the word assimilate, but I mean become a deeper part of our community—‘and accept our values.’ Let’s talk about ‘accepting our values’. We have a discussion paper which talks about English testing, for example, and how we should qualify for citizenship. But where is there in this something which categorically and clearly defines what it means to be an Australian—about the sense of fairness, egalitarianism and equality?

I see nothing in this. I see some slogans, but what about what I do not see? If you are going to put a discussion paper before the House, including before the Australian people, and talk about English testing and a whole range of other things, and punitive things, what about what it means to be an Australian? What about what Australia is and what it hopes to be, and how these people can shape the country? When these people become citizens, they shape the future of our country. So where is the debate? We have a debate about English testing; we have a debate about accepting history and geography, but what do we have about what it really means to be an Australian? In this community at the present time there is a great debate about what it means to be an Australian. What we see in the community and what I see in the outer suburbs of the electorate I represent and the electorates that others represent is a great debate, a sense of dislocation from the community, a sense of ‘what does it really mean?’ because Australia has changed.

In the suburbs that I grew up in in the 1970s there was a very strong sense of community. People knew each other. Now you might know someone 40 kilometres away but not someone who shares a residential apartment next to you. Australia has changed. So what are we saying to these people who come from far-flung places with different cultures and different ideas about what Australia represents? Is Australia as fair a place as it was 20 years ago? I would say no. Is Australia a less equal place? I would say yes. But where is a discussion about this?

If we are going to have a discussion about English language testing, to be more productive let us have a discussion about where we are at in Australia at the moment, the problems that we confront, the issues that we are dealing with and what it really means. If you look at America as a society, it has a very powerful national narrative. When people come from all parts of the globe to become part of America, there is a very powerful narrative that they become part of. What I see this legislation are the bandaid measures. For some reason that is still ill-defined, citizenship permanent residency requirements are now going to be shifted from two to four years. But where is the national narrative? Where is the national discussion? We are in the midst of the great culture wars at the present time. Where is the freedom of expression when a unique program called The Glass House gets taken off television? Where is that discussion about where we are as a society?

A society is defined by its narrative. It is defined by how it defines itself. At the present time I would argue that, particularly as a consequence of globalisation and as a consequence of market forces and how they have affected our communities, many people are very uncertain about what their society represents. We are fiddling around at the edges with this sort of legislation. Worse than that, we are creating that great thing called the wedge—a wedge that wedges some portions of the community off against other portions of the community.

When I first came into this place in 1999, in my first speech I spoke about my great fear that what governments would do in order to win government and to hold government was to wedge sections of the community against each other. I had seen some of the worst examples of that with the rise of Pauline Hanson. In those days my electorate represented Dandenong and areas like Springvale South, Noble Park and Keysborough. These were areas that were very heavily multicultural. In fact, we had areas that represented people from 142 different countries. The interesting thing about it, before Ms Hanson came along, in my view was that that area operated better than anywhere else in the world in terms of tolerance, acceptance, understanding and them becoming part of our society. Yet Ms Hanson came out and basically said that, because people come from a different part of the world with different ideas and different cultures and different backgrounds, they should be stigmatised and demonised. So people I knew who did not have the name Smith or Jones or Peters but maybe Truong or Nguyen or something else were being vilified and abused while walking down the streets of Dandenong, one of the most multicultural electorates in the country.

It is up to us, in national government, as the legislators to set the national tone in this place to define what is acceptable as a community standard but also to help define who we are as a people, what we are as a country and where we go as a country. I certainly believe that we have failed in the past 10 years. We have gone from being an outward-looking country, with an understanding that we live in a changing world and have to have tolerance and understanding, to a more inward-looking society. We can see the costs of that within our community through the divisions that exist.

These are the issues that need to be addressed by this government but which have not been addressed, and in fact they have been exacerbated by some of the provisions in the bill that I see here, because, again, what market signal is being sent? What rational justification is there for extending the permanent residency waiting time from two to four years? There are some tinkering amendments which allow people covered under various sections of the act to gain citizenship, and I welcome them. But there are others, covered under section 18, which affect a lot of people of Maltese background, who have not been affected and whose conditions have not been changed. That is one of the amendments that we have moved. I have about 1,200 people of Maltese background who live in my electorate. So, if the government is serious about remedying these things, even with a bandaid measure like this, why hasn’t that been addressed? I say to the government: when you go down the path of creating division in the community, however well constructed the language is and however well structured it is, you rend the fabric of our community. I know, and my residents tell me and a lot of other people I know tell me, that Australia is a less fair place.

Our national anthem says: ‘Advance Australia Fair’. What a lot of people are saying in our country is that it is ‘advance Australia less fair’, because it is a less fair place than it was 20 years ago. What this government sends in a subliminal way through the community is that there are some people who are less equal than others, depending on where they come from or on what religious belief they have, contrary to the rhetoric that you read in the minister’s discussion paper. That is the message that is clearly being sent to those people in those communities. Governments are here to lead. If there are fears within a community, governments are here to assuage those fears and to unite a community, because any government knows that a government and a country that are disunited cannot function as a country, cannot become the great country that it could become. Australia is a great country, and it can become a much greater country.

This bill is a bandaid measure in its tinkering around the edges; it does not address the very serious issues that we confront. We need to have a proper national debate about what it really means to be an Australian and about where we are really going as a country, and the people who come from different parts of the world need to be part of that. They do not need to be excluded. They do not need to be subliminally told that they are going to be excluded. They need to be involved. If we can do that, then instead of facing the divisions that we saw in the Cronulla riots I believe we will have a more united country, a fairer country, a more Australian country. I look forward to the day when that debate happens in this place.

Graham Edwards (Cowan, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary (Defence and Veterans' Affairs)) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I welcome the opportunity to involve myself in this important debate on the Australian Citizenship Bill 2005 and the Australian Citizenship (Transitionals and Consequentials) Bill 2005. I want to start off by congratulating the member for Holt on his very strong, impassioned words. This is an issue that does evoke emotion and passion. How can we possibly talk about these bills without having strong feelings about the issues that are involved in the discussion paper which the minister circulated and, indeed, the bills? Like the previous member who spoke, I have over nearly 30 years, through service in state parliament, local government and federal parliament, attended countless citizenship ceremonies. Indeed, as far as I am concerned, they have always been the highlight of my political life over the years. The cities of Stirling, Wanneroo, Joondalup, Swan and Bayswater all conduct wonderful services and ceremonies. I suppose the ones I most attend these days are those of the City of Wanneroo, which over many years has been one of the leading local authorities when it comes to citizenship ceremonies, particularly with regard to the one they hold outdoors every year on Australia Day—and what more fitting day could there possibly be to take out Australian citizenship on than Australia Day?

One of the other things that I do, like a lot of other members, is to attend many schools and talk to students about a whole range of issues. One of the things that has come to the fore of late in those discussions has been young people themselves wanting to talk about citizenship. One of the questions that inevitably a member of parliament is asked by these young people—and I am sure that I am no Robinson Crusoe here—is: ‘What is it that got you involved in politics?’ I explain to them that I had been involved in local government for some years and in state government for some years when I gave it away in the mid-nineties. They say, ‘What got you back involved?’ It was the same matter raised by the member for Holt—it was the issues being raised by Pauline Hanson, the way in which those issues were being raised and the fact that the current government and the current Prime Minister seemed to be happy for Pauline Hanson to raise those issues and for that wedge type debate to be had in the community. That made me angry, because I grew up with a lot of new Australians, as they were called in those days: Italians, Macedonians, Slavs and Greeks—people who came from a whole range of European countries; people whose parents could not speak English but who learnt through their children. There were young blokes who came from Italy who went to school with us who had never seen a football or a cricket ball, and many of them ended up representing the state teams in Western Australia. That is where many of them learned their Australian values—through the field of sport—and that is where they were able to teach their parents many of the values of Australia.

I mentioned that I attend a number of schools to talk to students. I was recently at Morley Senior High School in my electorate. I met with a group of young people there and we talked about a whole range of issues. I met one particular young girl who is a Muslim. Following the meeting I had with that group she wrote to me. But I also received a letter from the school following my visit. The students said:

Dear Graham,

Thank you again for a great breakfast chat. The students greatly appreciated your views and the insight you gave regarding political life. You made a wonderful impression on all of the students, especially—

and I have taken her name out—

the Muslim girl you met at the breakfast. I believe she has sent you a letter describing her life as an Australian practicing Muslim. We are very proud of—

this young girl—

and would like to thank you for your support.

I want to read into the Hansard what this young girl wrote to me, because I think it is so pertinent to this debate. She said:

Dear Mr ... Edwards,

... I am 17 years old and completing my secondary studies at Morley Senior High School in Perth.

I arrived in Australia in the year 1994 from Pakistan. I am a practicing Muslim of Afghan origin. I passionately believe that I am one of the very few lucky young women to grow up in a country so multicultural, diverse and modern as Australia. I have been brought up in a country alien to me but I have learned to appreciate and embrace the values and beliefs of the Australian way of life. On a regular basis, I might see images and stories of poverty in Sudan, hunger in Zimbabwe and war in Iraq and Afghanistan. I watch with sadness and disbelief, I try to grip these images and come to terms with what is happening around me, then I think to myself how lucky I am to be in Australia. If only others were given a fair chance and had the opportunities and prospects I have today.

However, I have faced many obstacles in my life as have many other Muslim men and women. Although I am a practicing Muslim, I do not wear the veil. When I meet people, I am frequently told I do not appear a stereotypic Muslim; I would have been guessed European or Persian. It is difficult to avoid the parochial views towards Muslim men and women. Even today, marginalisation of the Muslim race is evident and stronger than ever before. It comes as no surprise to me anymore hearing the words Islam or Muslim being associated with topics of terrorism, violence, chaos and corruption. In fact, I’m surprised when the connection is not made!

I will come back shortly to that statement. Her letter continues:

There does exist a minority of extreme Islamists among the Muslim race but why should everyone be judged on the basis of a few people’s actions. This is not only apparent in the Muslim population, but also among the Jewish, Christian and Hindu communities.

Another issue I have given a lot of thought to is the government’s intention of implementing new citizenship laws. By sitting a short test comprising of general knowledge and Australian culture, I do not understand the underlying purpose of the test. It is argued that “foreigners” may come to terms with Australian morals and should be aware of the values and attitudes upheld in the Australian society. From my perspective as a young Australian, I believe this is sending an unclear and impractical view of Australia. I’ve placed myself in others shoes and thought that if I were a migrant and intended on living in Australia, the idea of a test creates feelings of insecurity and mistrust towards the Australian community. To me values cannot be forced upon someone or tested; they are developed from personal experiences and teachings. I do not think I would have been the same person I am if I had to be educated about Australian culture before I came to terms with the Australian way of life. Whatever happened to the Australian value of fair go?

I can clearly remember Peter Costello’s attitudes towards the issue earlier this year. He claimed that if you don’t believe in democracy and aren’t prepared to embrace the Australian culture, don’t come here. It came as a shock to me at first. When I thought about his speech even more I was confused and hurt, angry with him and ashamed of my cultural and religious beliefs. But then further thought made me ask why I should have to discard of my religious beliefs or prevent them from shaping my opinion? Why should my own moral standings be reduced so that others become content? I think it is inappropriate to recommend the rejection of one’s beliefs simply because he lives on different land and territory. Maybe a better response to the situation would have been a recommendation of uniting the person’s own beliefs and the beliefs and values of Australia. I was positioned to view Mr. Costello’s statement as an obvious attack on the Islamic population and I do not believe I was alone in thinking this.

I sincerely hope for an improved and more appropriate approach to the arrival of immigrants into Australia. Everyone should have the opportunity to demonstrate their full potential and talents in a country so expanse and open to integration and growth. After all, isn’t that what Australians stand for, equality? I, myself came to Australia at the age of five and could not speak a word of English. I am 17 now and strive eagerly towards University degrees and a full time career. I have complete trust and belief that I may achieve anything I stand for and who could ask for more in a country so willing to acknowledge my intentions!

Thank You for your attention.

I was very impressed and I thought it was an incredibly strong letter. It was an incredibly mature letter for a young girl to have written. I can understand exactly why the year 12 coordinator said, when the school wrote to me, that they were very proud of this young lady. I want to go back to a sentence from this letter. I will repeat it:

It comes as no surprise to me anymore hearing the words Islam or Muslim being associated with topics of terrorism, violence, chaos and corruption. In fact, I am surprised when the connection is not made!

I was going past the library the other day, and I noticed a display of books. I stopped to have a second look because, in that display, there were books titled: Holy Terror; 7/7: The London Bombings; Terror on the Internet; The Koran for Dummies; and The Osama bin Laden I know.

In with those books about terrorism were: Basic Principles of Islam and Muslims: Their Religious Beliefs and Practices. I wonder why it is that books of that mixture would be on display. I have seen similar sorts of books in other book shops, all together and on display. I could not help but think back to the words of that young girl about the association between Islam and terrorism. She said, and I repeat: ‘In fact, I am surprised when the connection is not made.’ I just wonder how it is possible to debate the issues and not to be influenced by the connection to Muslims in displays such as these. I do not think they are intentionally put together to associate Muslims with terrorists, but it seems to me that the connection is being made—perhaps subconsciously, but it is certainly being made. It was a bit of lesson for me to think of her words and then to think of that display.

When I speak at citizenship ceremonies I say to people that, just because they have come from different countries, it does not mean they have to discard their heritage, their customs or their religion but I do ask people to bring their customs, heritage and other beliefs and fold them into the country that is Australia. Australia is a diverse nation. Our strength as a nation is drawn from that diversity. We should celebrate that diversity and all that comes with it.

I think we should also be cautious about playing the wedge and playing politics with these issues, which go to the basic, everyday lifestyle of Australians. We need balance and open debate but, at the end of the day, we also need compassion, understanding, support and encouragement for those people who, often, have come to Australia in incredibly difficult and dangerous circumstances.

The young lady whose letter I read mentioned the phrase ‘fair go’. I always say at our citizenship ceremonies that, if Australia stands for one thing, it is for the thing that I was brought up to believe in most about our nation—that is, a fair go. I was always taught as a young bloke that you never ask for a fair go unless you are prepared to give a fair go. That is the important thing about being Australian. Unfortunately, the ethos and the importance of a fair go seems to have been lost in today’s Australia and in today’s society. If we could get back that whole approach to a fair go—giving a fair go and asking for a fair go—we would be much richer and much better off as a nation.

One of the things that we have to ensure that we stay away from is the politicisation of these issues. By politicising these issues, we are tossing away any chance of a fair go for some of these people whose future and whose children’s future lies in Australia. Australia must be tolerant. We must be compassionate, we must be strong, we must be patient and, above all, we must not lose sight of the fact that our greatest strength as a nation is our diversity. I support the amendment.

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

In summing up, I would like to thank all those who have made a contribution to this debate over the last couple of days. It has been an extensive debate; it is an important bill. The Australian Citizenship Bill 2005 and the Australian Citizenship (Transitionals and Consequentials) Bill 2005 will replace the Australian Citizenship Act 1948. The bills deliver better structured, clearer and more accessible Australian citizenship law, drafted in the language of the 21st century. In this regard the second body of improvements has stemmed from the original Australian Citizenship Council report. The major and significant response to that report was embodied in amendments in 2002.

The changes maintain and reinforce the notion that Australian citizenship is a positive and unifying force and that Australian citizenship lies at the heart of our national identity. It gives a strong sense of who we are and our place in the world. Importantly, citizenship allows people who come to Australia to fully participate in Australian life and to take advantage of the great opportunity this country provides. Australia is also the richer for the unique experiences and perspectives which migrants bring to our country. Diversity makes us stronger, but only when those who bring this important diversity also support the values—our values—which are the glue that maintains and has sustained such a cohesive society.

The act of becoming an Australian citizen is a significant one. It involves a formal commitment to Australia and its people. Australian citizenship brings with it privileges but also responsibilities. Importantly, the bills retain the principle that Australian citizenship is a privilege and not a right. This is underpinned by the retention of the existing discretion to refuse an application for citizenship despite the applicant being eligible to be approved. This has been a consistent feature of naturalisation legislation through the Commonwealth for over 100 years and reflects the role of the state in determining citizenship and that it is a strong bipartisan matter. Australian citizenship is a very valuable status. It cannot and should not be undervalued.

The risk of fraud is continuous. A major change in this bill allows the consideration to be given to the revocation of Australian citizenship where a third party has been convicted of fraud in relation to an application. Following amendments made by this bill, it will be possible to revoke citizenship where a person has obtained approval to become a citizen on the basis of third-party fraud. The revocation provisions have also been strengthened to allow for revocation for a conviction of a serious criminal offence committed at any time before the person becomes an Australian citizen.

Applicants for citizenship by descent are required to have an Australian citizen parent at the time of their birth. Importantly, a new provision makes explicit that a person born overseas who did not have an Australian citizen parent at the time of their birth will be taken never to have been an Australian citizen. One other important area of change to the citizenship by descent provisions is the removal of the age limit. Currently persons must apply for citizenship by descent before they turn 25. The Australian government recognises that there are some people who have an entitlement to citizenship by descent but have not been registered for whatever reason.

The inclusion of a personal identifiers framework is an essential addition to our citizenship legislation. It will increase the government’s ability to authenticate and identify a person making an application for Australian citizenship and to combat identity and document fraud in the citizenship program. The bill explicitly states that a person cannot be approved for Australian citizenship unless there is satisfaction as to their identity. Another significant measure aimed at safeguarding Australian citizenship is allowing for an application to be refused if the person is assessed as being a direct or indirect threat to the security of our nation. This provision applies to all applications, whether a person is applying to become a citizen by descent, by conferral or by resumption of their Australian citizenship.

On the matter of resumption of Australian citizenship, the Australian government recognises that, over the years, many people have lost their Australian citizenship—some without knowing because of the operation of Australian law, while others have knowingly renounced their allegiance to Australia. The government has amended the legislation to provide that the only requirement for those people to resume their citizenship is that they be of good character and, as indicated above, that their identity can be confirmed. Provisions for resumption by people who renounce their citizenship were first introduced by this government in 2002. The removal of the age limit represents a very significant concession. Citizenship has been a powerful force in the development of this nation, and these bills will ensure it continues to be so.

I now turn to some of the points raised during the debate on these bills over the last couple of days. Firstly, there is a proposal in the current bill to increase residency requirements to three years and an amendment foreshadowed by the government to increase that to four years. This proposal to increase residency requirements to four years from the current two years has been raised, in one way or another, by nearly all speakers. The existing bill proposes an increase in the residential qualifying period of not less than two years in Australia in the previous five years to a period of three years. However, the government will propose a further amendment, which has been circulated, which proposes new residency requirements of a minimum of four years before being able to apply for Australian citizenship.

These new requirements recognise the changes in the migration program over the past four years. Increasing numbers of people spent significant periods of time in Australia as temporary residents prior to becoming permanent residents. This is why only one of the four years spent in Australia, as proposed in the amendment, will need to be as a permanent resident. This will also include those who have been here on temporary protection visas; they will qualify for three of the four years for citizenship. So three of the four years residency will be a requirement before people will be eligible to apply for citizenship.

Also, absences from Australia of up to 12 months will be allowed during the four-year period, but people will not be allowed to spend more than three months away from Australia in the year before applying for citizenship. People who are already permanent residents 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. This is not intended to be retrospective in that sense.

They are the mechanics of what is proposed. This measure has come in for particular attention by those opposite during the course of this debate. I must say I have found the arguments that I have listened to by those opposite against extending the residential qualifying period to four years to be totally unconvincing. The opposition are quite happy to support an increase from two to three years; however, the proposal to take the period from two to four years instead of two to three has brought, in the main, a sort of ‘shock, horror!’ response, which sounds to me more like playing to an audience than a response based on any plausible argument.

Opposition Members:

Opposition members interjecting—

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

Order! The parliamentary secretary is entitled to sum up and to pay attention to the arguments that were raised by the opposition and other members in the House. I think it is reasonable that you listen to his response.

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

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

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

He went on:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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 immediate question is that the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the question.

Question agreed to.

Original question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

A division having been called in the House of Representatives—