Kevin Andrews (Menzies, Liberal Party, Minister for Immigration and Citizenship) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the amendments be agreed to.

Australian citizenship became a reality with the commencement of the Australian Citizenship Act 1948 on Australia Day, 26 January 1949—just three years after the first celebration of this day as our national day. Each year, more than 100,000 people from more than 200 countries make the pledge of commitment and, in doing so, become Australian citizens. They pledge to uphold a set of common values, which include belief in our democratic system, equality under the law and equality of treatment and opportunity. As full participants in the Australian community they can vote, they can stand for parliament and, more importantly, they have the privilege of being a part of this nation. The Prime Minister recently said:

… the path is you come to this country, you embrace its customs, its values, its language, you become a citizen.

Since 1949, more than four million people have followed this path. They have contributed to the wonderfully diverse, welcoming and energetic country that Australia is today. These bills represent major improvements in the legislation which has served us well over the years but needs to better reflect and cater for the challenges of the 21st century. In addition to the policy changes, the bill will result in better structured legislation using modern language.

The legislation provides for the refusal of applications by people who are assessed as a risk to our nation’s security, consistent with the United Nations Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness. There is explicit provision for refusal of an application unless the minister is satisfied as to the applicant’s identity. A further significant safeguard is a provision to revoke citizenship where that status was acquired as a result of fraud by a third party. The revocation provisions have also been strengthened to cover conviction for a serious criminal offence committed at any time before the person becomes an Australian citizen.

The legislation will remove the age limit for registration by descent. This will provide access to their Australian heritage for those born overseas whose Australian parents failed to register their birth before they turned 25 years of age. In recognition of the potential for fraud is the registration of citizenship by descent case load. The bill makes it clear that a person registered as a citizen by descent will be taken never to have been an Australian citizen if, at the time of the person’s birth, there was not at least one parent who was an Australian citizen.

There have been some claims from the opposition that COAG was somehow involved in the decision to increase the residence requirement from two years to three years. The fact is that the increase from two years permanent residence to three years permanent residence was not an agreed COAG outcome, nor was it the result of consultation with COAG. Indeed, it was announced by the Prime Minister on 8 September 2005, prior to the COAG meeting on 27 September. This is not surprising, given that citizenship law is a federal, not state, matter. There have also been claims that no reasons were given for the change from three years permanent residence to four years lawful residence. It is important to note that the change was from three years permanent residence to four years lawful residence, and up to three years on temporary visas can be counted towards the four years residence requirement. Reasons for the change were given on 17 September 2006, when the change was announced. The former Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, the Hon. Andrew Robb, said at the time:

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.

He also said:

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.

Resumption of citizenship has been streamlined, consistent with the repeal in 2002 of section 17, under which Australians who acquired citizenship of another country automatically lost their Australian citizenship. The age limit for resumption by people who knowingly renounce their citizenship will also be removed.

Importantly, there is explicit provision that all persons who were Australian citizens immediately before the commencement of this legislation, whether by birth in this country, by descent or by grant, will remain Australian citizens under the new act. The Australian Citizenship (Transitionals and Consequentials) Bill 2006 has received little comment during its passage. However, it contains essential provisions to allow for transitional changes and consequential amendments to other legislation which are necessary following the repeal of the act that has served us so well over the years.

I would like to acknowledge those who have been involved in the development of the policy changes reflected in this legislation: my colleagues the Hon. Gary Hardgrave, the Hon. Peter McGauran, the Hon. John Cobb—who introduced the bills in the parliament—and, most recently, the Hon. Andrew Robb. I commend the provisions to the House.

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Immigration, Integration and Citizenship) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In his speech, the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship gave a summary of the government’s position on the Australian Citizenship Bill 2006 but did not really go to the question that is currently before the House. The question before the House is not that the bill be read a second time; it is that the amendments be agreed to. It is worth noting, in support of resolving the question that the amendments to the bill that went to the Senate be agreed to, what those amendments actually were. When this bill went through the House of Representatives, it contained a section which should have been unthinkable, and that was for a very small class of people—those who had been defined under the legislation as being stateless people. If they had spent five years inside a prison within Australia, they would be prohibited from becoming Australian citizens.

That part of the legislation is not controversial, but it also said that if they had spent the same period of time in prison in any country of the world they would be prohibited from having Australian citizenship. Labor argued the whole way through this—and I do not blame the minister opposite, because it was his predecessor who was responsible for the sloppy drafting—that you could outsource many things but you should never outsource Australian citizenship and you certainly should never outsource Australian citizenship to the worst regimes in the world. The government refused to amend that bill while it was in this House, so the House of Representatives of Australia was actually saying—and I have always acknowledged that it is for a limited class of people—that those people would be prohibited from taking up Australian citizenship not because they had done anything contrary to Australian law but because they may well have broken the laws that enforced apartheid in South Africa. They may well have rebelled against the Hussein regime in Iraq. They may well have been part of the support group of Aung San Suu Kyi, in Burma. They could have been imprisoned for the requisite period of time for any of those reasons, and the Australian government minister would have had no right, no discretion at all, to allow that person to be an Australian citizen.

I have never been that impressed by the way the government exercises its discretion, but I certainly believe the minister should have a discretion in those instances. The motion that is before the House now is not about the entire bill. It is not about all the issues that the minister just went through. The motion before the House now is about an amendment that should have been carried in the House of Representatives the first time round. Fortunately, however, the amendment passed the Senate. We now have amendments which say that if that limited class of people were imprisoned by a foreign power then that would be highlighted to the minister and the minister would have a discretion. The bill is better for that change. Labor supports that amendment, and we are happy to support the amendments before the House.

Kevin Andrews (Menzies, Liberal Party, Minister for Immigration and Citizenship) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Very briefly, in response to my honourable colleague opposite, I remind the House that the amendments in the Senate were government sponsored amendments.

Question agreed to.