Andrew Bartlett (Queensland, Australian Democrats) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I think the next thing on the list is an opposition amendment, but I am happy to wax lyrical rather than have a quorum called.

Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am advised that we have finished with the opposition amendment and that we are now on your amendment (4).

Andrew Bartlett (Queensland, Australian Democrats) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I indicated before question time that I would not be proceeding with that amendment.

The Temporary Chairman:

In that case, Senator, you are correct: we are now moving to opposition amendment (3).

Andrew Bartlett (Queensland, Australian Democrats) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will not speak on the opposition’s behalf. Rather than call a quorum, I will recap on a couple of matters whilst we are waiting for the opposition shadow minister to come into the chamber. This debate has again come on rather more quickly than people might have anticipated. I will take the opportunity to indicate that the Democrats will support opposition amendment (3) when it is moved.

The important issue with regard to this legislation that is worth re-emphasising is that we are putting in place an entire new piece of law. We are not just amending the existing Citizenship Act; we are putting in place a brand-new one. It is worth reminding senators that until, I think, 1948 there was actually no such thing as a formal Australian citizen in law. In my speech in the second reading debate, I recalled going through some papers of my father’s not too long ago and discovering a resume he had written in the late 1940s detailing some of his experiences and qualifications to date. He was born in Sydney, his parents were both born in Sydney and yet on that resume he had put his nationality as British. It came as a bit of a shock to me to discover that my father was theoretically British.

It shows how much the notion of what Australian citizenship has evolved and continues to evolve. It is worth noting that the very notion of being a British subject and what is and is not an alien under the Constitution is something that is still being resolved at law. We have had two different High Court cases just in the last few years which have come down on different sides of the fence. They were four-three decisions in both cases but took different positions with respect to the status of people who are not Australian citizens but may have been very long-term residents in this country—whether they are or are not an alien and whether they are a noncitizen non-alien and all sorts of things like that.

That can sound like lots of arcane legal argument—and to some extent it is, except for the people who are directly affected by the case at hand—but it is a reminder of how the notion of citizenship is still evolving. It is also a reminder that there is still no precise head of power under the Constitution regarding citizenship. There is a head of power regarding the treatment of aliens, but that is not necessarily the same thing.

I also wanted to draw attention to the fact—and many of these amendments, including the one that is about to be moved, go to some of these issues—that there are people whose parents may have had citizenship but it lapsed for various reasons, particularly people who had no say in the changing status of their citizenship when they were children. These may be people who, as we know, have lived here for decades and often assumed they were Australian citizens and did not realise until it was drawn to their attention—often in less than pleasant circumstances—that they were not citizens. Many of them had been registered on the electoral roll and all sorts of things because they assumed that that they were Australian citizens. The notion that people who are citizens, who have this bit of paper, are somehow full-blown, 100 per cent Aussies and all the rest are somehow not true Australians is a pretty misleading concept.

I also want to emphasise again the expansion of the ability of people to be Australian citizens whilst also being citizens of another country, that is, being a dual citizen. I had this in a second reading amendment and was disappointed that it was not supported by the government. This is what we have seen both in many of the changes that are contained in this legislation and the whole new act that is about to be adopted and indeed in major amendments that were made a few years ago. Indeed, in some cases, we have people who are citizens of more than two countries—of three countries. Some years back it was actually not legal: if you became an Australian citizen, you automatically forfeited your citizenship of another country. That approach has changed and I think it is a very significant approach. It is an important part of expanding the strength of multiculturalism and expanding the benefits that we as Australians can get from the diverse range of backgrounds we have of people who are part of our community and our country.

It is worth remembering that Australia has one of the highest proportions of overseas born people. I think it is almost one-quarter of all Australians are overseas born. When you add on top of that people who have at least one parent who is overseas born, you are getting an extremely significant proportion of the Australian community. Very large numbers of those people will be dual citizens. Previous attempts I have made to ascertain exactly how many Australians are also citizens of another country have come up against a bit of a blank. Nobody actually knows. But, if we have nearly one-quarter of our community overseas born and a significant number on top of that whose parents are overseas born, there is a fair chance that the number of dual citizens we have is actually greater than the 20 per cent that is often used as an estimate. The more we go down this path—and it is a path that I support us going down—the more we are coming up against a major impediment in our Constitution, which is that anybody who is a dual citizen is precluded from running for the federal parliament. That is something that all parties have said they would support amending. Unfortunately we have not seen it progressed to the stage where they would take action to make it happen.

Bob Brown (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Bob Brown interjecting—

Andrew Bartlett (Queensland, Australian Democrats) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank you for the reminder, Senator Brown. Senator Brown put forward a private senator’s bill that came to a vote in this chamber. The Democrats have had legislation in the past as well—we may well even have some before the chamber at the moment as part of an omnibus bill—which sought to generate a referendum to make that change. Even though it has been official party policy of the coalition parties to support that change, when that came to a vote in this chamber they did not support it. They voted against it and therefore the bill did not progress. It was actually passed by a majority of the Senate at the time but, because such bills need to have an absolute majority—it does not take into account people who are absent for pairs or other reasons on the day—it did not get past the hurdle.

This bill is an opportunity to strongly emphasise once again that we are going further and further down this path of disqualifying a growing number of Australians from being able to run for parliament because of that barrier in the Constitution. If all of us recognise and support dual citizenship, as we all do under our parties’ policies, and we are all passing more and more laws expanding the number of people who are dual citizens, then it is about time that we initiated that referendum to amend the Constitution. If all parties support that policy, as I think we all do, then it is all the more reason to initiate a referendum to be conducted at the same time as a federal election so we can make that change. It is not only a matter of equality; it is a matter of Australia missing out on the skills that many of those people would bring to our political system. It is not just missing out on the skills they would bring to parliament; they are not even able to be candidates. They are precluded from even contributing as candidates and being part of the debates and engagement with the populace that happens throughout the electoral and democratic process.

There is one point I would like to make before I allow Senator Ludwig to get on with his amendment. It is of a reverse nature. We are emphasising the importance of citizenship, the rights of citizens and the obligations of citizens. One of the key rights you have when you become a citizen is the right to vote. It is probably one of the key incentives that people would think of when they decide to become an Australian citizen. Yet significant inconsistencies in that area are sticking out more and more. The more than we want to emphasise and promote the importance of our obligations and responsibilities as citizens—and that is meant to be a key reason behind the government’s arguments with the citizenship test they are proposing—the more we need to get consistency in how those rights and obligations are implemented. The simple fact is that there is a group of Australians now who have been quite consciously and deliberately disenfranchised, even though they are Australian citizens—that is, prisoners. All prisoners have now been disenfranchised under the Electoral Act.

Another inconsistency that sticks out, and is looking more and more outdated, is the fact there is a significant group within the community who are not Australian citizens but who can still vote, and that is all people who are British subjects who were eligible to be on the roll prior to 1984. I think that is when the Australia Act was implemented—on Australia Day 1984. There was a savings clause, what is often known as a grandfathering provision, which meant that all British subjects—not just British citizens but British subjects—eligible at that stage to be on the roll would remain on the roll. All of those people, if they were eligible at that time, remain eligible now, 23 years later.

There are many thousands of people in that circumstance. I am not seeking to pick on them, to somehow target them or to cast aspersions on them, but the simple fact is there are many thousands of people who are not Australian citizens who have had the right to vote now for over 20 years. At a time when we are reaffirming the importance of Australian citizenship and encouraging people to take up citizenship, we are keeping in place a measure in the Electoral Act that removes incentive for those people to become citizens. I think it is time to once again draw attention to that. I urge the government to amend the Electoral Act or, at the least, to explain what the rationale is for that savings provision to still be operating 23 years later. It would probably have been quicker to call a quorum, but I have all of those things on the record now. I will allow Senator Ludwig to move his amendment.

Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Senator Bartlett. It certainly did give you an opportunity to put all of those things on the record. I move:

(3)    Clause 21, page 28 (line 32), after “17”, insert “or 18”.

I will keep it brief. This was a matter to which I referred extensively in my contribution to the second reading debate, when I foreshadowed I would move this amendment. The government is aware of Labor’s concerns. It is a matter which was raised in the House of Representatives as well. The situation facing the Maltese community regarding children whose parents had to renounce their citizenship under section 18 of the act was discussed in detail.

It is recognised that the government has, to some extent, tried to fix the situation for children whose parents lost their citizenship automatically under the now repealed section 17 of the previous act, which effectively prohibited dual citizenship. However, those who took out citizenship of countries that also prohibited dual citizenship had to formally renounce their citizenship under section 18 of the Citizenship Act. The discrepancy has to be an oversight by the government. Labor strongly urges the government to make a minor amendment to the bill to fix the situation for a small section of the Maltese community that is currently severely disadvantaged by these laws. It is a matter that has been argued strenuously by the Maltese community for some time. They have been quite vocal in what you might call their perseverance in trying to persuade the government to adopt the position they have argued.

They have persuaded Labor that there is a need to alter the legislation to remedy the circumstances their children face. Labor supports their position and urges the government to alter the legislation, and that is what this amendment will do. The government has argued that these children do not have a sufficient connection to Australia. I think, and Labor thinks, that is absurd. The connection is called a mum and a dad. I said that in my speech in the second reading debate and I reiterate it here. It is a simple amendment and it deserves the support of this house.

Nigel Scullion (NT, Country Liberal Party, Minister for Community Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The government will not be supporting this amendment. The children’s parents have made a conscious decision to renounce their Australian citizenship. At the time of doing so, they could have had no expectation of being able to resume it without migrating to Australia and applying for citizenship in the same way as any other migrant would. As the senator would well know, the Senate report stated:

... 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.

Significantly, the bill also removes the 25-year age limit for the resumption of citizenship for people who have renounced their Australian citizenship. Former citizens who resume their Australian citizenship can also sponsor non-citizen family members, including their children, for migration to Australia. We will not be supporting the amendment

Question negatived.

Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—I move together:

(4)    Clause 22, page 30 (line 4), omit “4”, substitute “3”.

(5)    Clause 22, page 30 (line 8), omit “4”, substitute “3”.

(6)    Clause 22, page 30 (line 15), omit “4”, substitute “3”.

(7)    Clause 22, page 31 (line 3), omit “4”, substitute “3”.

I note that there are what seem to be equivalent Australian Greens amendments, but I will leave that for the Australian Greens. Alternatively they may choose not to move them. I have spoken at some length in this chamber in my speech to the second reading debate about how this government has seemingly—you could only say to score cheap political points—flouted the advice of ASIO in departing from the residency requirements of three years that Labor had agreed to. This bill seeks to change the period to four years of residency and the government still have not answered the primary question: where is the advice that four years is in the best interests of this nation in terms of national security? If they seek to underline it with, ‘Four is better than three,’ then it is no argument at all.

What they need to be able to do is substantiate the argument about why they say precisely four years is the required number. Where is the ASIO advice? Does it in fact exist in the first instance? And is it the best balance between the importance of needing to integrate migrants into our community and needing to ensure that citizenship is not something that is easily achieved or taken up lightly? Why does the government say that four years strikes that balance? Labor urges the government to heed the original advice provided by ASIO by making the residence requirement three years. It is a sensible amendment. I think, and Labor thinks, that it went to four years because of what could only be described as opportunistic political point-scoring by this government on a bill that does not need it.

As I think the Senate committee first said in their explanation of the bill itself, it is a bill that intends to replace the Australian Citizenship Act 1948. It has broad support. Its main proposals include the restructure of citizenship law to make it more coherent, accessible and easy to use. It will also increase access to citizenship by simplifying provisions and changing the laws relating to citizenship by descent and resumption of renounced citizenship. It aims to strengthen the protection of national security by extending residence requirements by 12 months, to three years. Amongst the areas I have mentioned, there are two in which the government has it wrong: resumption of renounced citizenship and the extension of residence requirements by 12 months.

On many of the other provisions the government have it right, and Labor agrees with those positions. What the government are now seeking to do is use what would otherwise be a bill that would be broadly supported to find cheap political points of differentiation. This is but one of them. The government should and can—even as late as today—say: ‘We think we’re wrong. We don’t have advice. We did seek to make cheap political points on it and we were wrong about that. And, for the sake of ensuring that this bill does get through the Senate with bipartisan support, on this issue we agree with Labor’s amendment.’ That would be the sensible path to take. I am not under any illusion. I do not think the government will do that. They should do it, and perhaps deep in their hearts they too know they should do it. I am a realist: they will not do that. But I have moved the amendment. Having said all of that, it is disappointing to see that the government have used these provisions to again try to score cheap political points.

Andrew Bartlett (Queensland, Australian Democrats) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Democrats support Labor’s amendment, the effect of which would bring the residence requirement back to three years instead of four years. I place on the record—and this is also for the benefit of you, Temporary Chairman Marshall—that there was a proposed Democrat amendment to oppose clause 22. I now signal that we will not proceed with that. The preferred Democrat view was placed on the record when the government first announced that they were looking to extend the residence requirement from two years to three years. We stated that we were prepared to support that. That is not something completely out of proportion to what has been done in the past or by comparable countries. At that time, I think I said that the rationale given for extending it from two years to three years—that it might somehow assist with security concerns; and there was some debate after the London bombings—was simply ludicrous. Any suggestion that making people reside in Australia for three years instead of two, or four years instead of two, would somehow assist in any security issues regarding terrorism is farcical. Indeed, I would suggest that to some extent it is a bit offensive.

We need to work hard enough as it is to try and ensure that unreasonable prejudices towards migrants are not developed or validated in the community. Any suggestion that somehow there are security concerns with regard to whether or not migrants decide to become citizens just totally distorts where the debate needs to be when we are looking at how we deal with security and terrorism issues. It is a difficult and important debate. I certainly do not suggest that I have all the answers, but I do know that one of the answers is not going down a completely ridiculous and irrelevant dead-end side alley about how long people have to live in a country before they become citizens.

There are some valid debates with regard to integration and those sorts of things. It is useful to have those debates. The more we can have those sorts of debates without having some sort of undercurrent of attempts to look for dog-whistling opportunities and to play on some of the prejudices that exist in the Australian community, as they do in any community around the world, the more constructive the debate would be. Whilst I was prepared to accept that extending the period of residency for citizenship from two years to three years was reasonable enough and acceptable enough, I do not think that extending it for a further year, to four years, is justified. I certainly do not think the case has been made.

As always, the Democrats are prepared to consider the arguments. We are willing to look at the issues, hear people’s views and change our views if the case has been made. No case has been made. It was just straight off the top of the head of the government: ‘Let’s just push this out another year and make it look like we somehow need to make things a bit harder for migrants because they somehow need to be tested a bit further because there’s some problem.’ I do not think any case was made that there was any problem to start with. Frankly, I do not think there was any case made that there was a problem with two years. Having it bounced from not two to three years but two to four years—without any sort of consultation, any sort of flagging or any sort of case being made about what the problem was—was pathetic, frankly.

It actually offends me to some extent because I do believe citizenship is an important issue and something that does not get the attention it deserves in policy debate and public debate. That off-the-cuff, politically motivated shift in a pretty fundamental area regarding citizenship is too dismissive of an important issue. I agree that we need to more strongly promote the importance and value of Australian citizenship. I believe we need to much more strongly affirm not just the responsibilities but the rights attached to Australian citizenship. In that area, I think we are letting down some of our citizens. If you want to encourage people to become citizens, which I think is the public position of all parties in this chamber, why would you double the length of time people have to live here before they can become citizens if you cannot demonstrate that that is necessary to their effective integration? That has not been demonstrated at all.

My preferred position is that the residency requirement be three years; if that is not adopted, my second preferred position would be for it to stay at two years, which was what my foreshadowed amendment was meant to achieve, although I think it probably went a little wider than that—I think we can cover it with the vote on the amendment that provides for three years. If that is not successful we are stuck with the four years.

I want to point to one another issue I have with this extension to four years and ask a question of Minister Scullion regarding this. It is the first time I have asked him a question, I think, in his new ministerial role. If this bill is passed, section 21 of the new act will say that a person is eligible to become a citizen if the minister is satisfied the person fits a whole range of criteria. The bill provides that the person must either satisfy the residence requirement—which is what we are talking about at the moment, be it four years or three—or, as an alternative, has completed relevant defence service, which is under section 23. I can accept the different qualifications there for either a residence requirement or relevant defence service, but the longer the residence requirement—and now we are stretching it to four years; quite a big disparity—the greater the disparity with the required length of defence service.

As I read it, and the minister can correct me if I am wrong, new section 21 provides that the person can either satisfy the residence requirement, which is to be present in Australia for at least four years including at least one year of permanent residence immediately preceding their application, or complete relevant defence service of at least three months in the permanent forces of the Commonwealth or six months service in the Australian Naval Reserve, Army Reserve or Air Force Reserve.

Frankly, I think it would surprise a lot of Australians that we are advertising to get non-Australians to enlist in our defence forces. That is okay—I presume they get screened and go through all the appropriate criteria. It is a bit anomalous that we are saying, on the one hand, that people have to live here for four years before we can be sure they are real Aussies and not terrorists and that we have to be sure they know everything about Australia but, on the other hand, we will have them straightaway in our permanent defence forces of the Commonwealth. And if they serve just three months they are immediately eligible for citizenship. It seems a bit anomalous to me. I am not saying that people should not be able to do that, but it seems like rather a mixed message.

My question to the minister is: firstly, is it currently the case that we accept people who are not Australian citizens and, indeed, not Australian residents to serve in our Defence Force; secondly, is my reading accurate that, if those people who are not Australian residents serve just three months in the permanent forces of the Commonwealth, it in effect can be a fast track to citizenship? I ask the question because the more we lengthen the residency requirement, in this case to four years, the bigger the anomaly. If it was two years residence or a certain period in the Defence Force, it might not stick out so much. But when you push the residence requirement out to four years, this does appear to be quite an anomaly. I would appreciate an indication of whether, currently, people who are not residents are able to immediately enter the permanent forces of the ADF. If that reading is correct, is three months service in those permanent forces sufficient for them to meet the eligibility test for citizenship?

Nigel Scullion (NT, Country Liberal Party, Minister for Community Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the senator for the question. I am informed there is no intention at all to change the provisions with regard to serving time in the Defence Force being sufficient to gain citizenship. I am also informed that, regarding the issue of serving in the Defence Force, whether for three months or any other period, substantially the reason that the Australian government puts so much weight on the eligibility test for serving in the Defence Force is that there are a whole range of criteria that must be met to gain entry to the Australian Defence Force. I do not think it is proper in this place or in these particular circumstances to discuss the criteria necessary to enter the Defence Force, but in effect the answer to your question is that the provisions regarding enlistment in the Defence Force leading to the capacity to apply for citizenship still apply and are unchanged by this bill. However, I should make something clear. I used the term ‘enlistment’. I do not want to mislead the Senate. The provision involves having ‘completed’ a period of time in the Defence Force.

I would like to thank the contribution from the Senate, particularly that from Senator Ludwig. I recognise his acceptance that the bill is substantially a good one. I am disappointed that he cannot agree with the bill completely, and the amendments that are put forward reflect that.

The bill as drafted changes the residence requirements from two years of permanent residence to four years of lawful residence, including at least 12 months as a permanent resident. Absences from Australia of up to 12 months during the four-year period are allowed, for no more than three months in the year before making the application. Up to three years of temporary residence could be counted towards the four years that are required. In addition, the requirements would ensure that the applicants will have spent sufficient time in Australia to develop a sense of what it is to be an Australian and to fully understand the commitment they need to make to become an Australian citizen. The requirements also recognise the changes in the migration program over the years which have resulted in an increasing number of people spending significant periods of time in Australia as temporary residents prior to becoming permanent residents.

Andrew Bartlett (Queensland, Australian Democrats) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will respond briefly to that and save a bit of time by foreshadowing an amendment that I will move. The argument Senator Scullion put—and I appreciate he is representing the minister and is not the minister directly responsible—about needing to allow sufficient time for people to get an understanding of what it is to be an Australian and those sorts of things are nice-sounding words and a nice-sounding concept, but what does it mean in practice? We are making laws that people are required to meet.

The issue goes back in part to the point I was making before which, if I understand the minister’s answer to my previous point, he actually confirmed. People will not need to reside here for four years if they have completed just three months service in the permanent forces of the Commonwealth. Spending three months in the permanent forces of the Commonwealth is a fairly intensive activity. It may be that you are not getting a full understanding of all of those other things, whatever they might be—and they are always things we cannot quite nail down—about what it is to be an Australian. Three months is not necessarily a lot of time to do that, particularly if those three months are spent as a permanent member of the ADF. It is a nice rhetorical flourish, but it does not actually make the case for what is wrong with the current period of two years. Why does it need to be doubled to four years?

I emphasise that the change that is made of enabling part of that to be residency on a temporary visa is a welcome change and reflects the significant shift in the nature of our migration program. I wish there were a much greater acceptance and acknowledgement of that shift in public debate around migration issues. The number of people who came here on permanent residency visas in the last year, for example—that is what people normally think of when thinking of migrants and potential future citizens—is far smaller. I think it is about a third or even a quarter of the number of people who come here on temporary residency but residency nonetheless and long-term residency in many cases. Many of those then transition to permanent visas. The bulk of our annual migration program—of residency visas, anyway—issued each year is people on temporary visas. They have long-term temporary residency and residency rights, usually with work rights, Medicare entitlements and the like, although not always.

It is very different from the way the Prime Minister announced the change of the name of the department to the Department of Immigration and Citizenship—the idea of a progression, with people migrating and then becoming citizens. The world does not work in that nice straight-line way anymore. The fact that we have such a large proportion of people on temporary residency visas demonstrates that. The fact that we now have so many people who are dual citizens demonstrates that. The fact that we have hundreds of thousands of Australians living overseas—I think the diaspora is estimated at around a million—also demonstrates that. It is much more dynamic than the linear approach we used to have. That is another reason why a much more substantial case needs to be made.

This also provides me with the opportunity to raise a core problem with the government’s approach, which is reflected in the amendment I will move shortly, of providing certain refugees with only temporary visas. Some people who have been accepted as refugees and given refugee visas in Australia have been given five-year or three-year temporary visas. When that visa has expired they have been entitled only to another temporary visa. We have people who are recognised as refugees and are living in the community but are not entitled to permanent residency. I believe that the time in Australia of all of those people should be counted as if they were permanent residents, as it is only because of the politics surrounding asylum seekers—some of which we debated earlier today—that those people are in that situation.

That also cuts across the argument the government are putting forward. I will touch on that again in slightly more detail when I speak later, but this is a core part of the legislation and it is worth trying to get on the record—at least trying to draw out of the government on the record—what possible rationale they have for what they are doing and what the potential consequences are. Whilst the recognition of temporary residents in Australia goes some way to encouraging citizenship, for all the talk about encouraging citizenship stretching out the time period to four years works against that. Without a case being put, it is hard to see how we could do anything other than support the ALP amendment.

Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that opposition amendments (4) to (7) be agreed to.

Question put.

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—I move Greens amendments (2) to (5) on sheet 5173 together:

(2)    Clause 22, page 30 (line 4), omit “4 years”, substitute “2 years”.

(3)    Clause 22, page 30 (line 8), omit “4 year”, substitute “2 year”.

(4)    Clause 22, page 30 (line 15), omit “4 years”, substitute “2 years”.

(5)    Clause 22, page 31 (line 3), omit “4 year”, substitute “2 year”.

This relates to the residence requirement being two years rather than four years. I am not going to bother reiterating the discussion that we just had.

Andrew Bartlett (Queensland, Australian Democrats) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have already indicated this in my main comments but, just for the record, the Democrats are supportive of three years but are willing to support these amendments.

Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is a relatively short matter in the sense that I will not speak at length. Labor do not support the amendments. We prefer the position that we argued for and divided over.

Question negatived.

Andrew Bartlett (Queensland, Australian Democrats) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move Democrat amendment (5) on sheet 4868:

(5)    Clause 22, page 32 (line 26), at the end of subclause (10), add “and includes a same sex partner”.

This relates to the definition of ‘spouse’. Under the residence requirements of the new act that we have been debating, proposed subsection 22(9) deals with ‘spouse’ and a ministerial discretion. I will read it out for the benefit of the chamber:

Ministerial discretion—spouse, widow or widower of Australian citizen

(9)

If the person is the spouse, widow or widower of an Australian citizen at the time the person made the application, the Minister may treat a period as one in which the person was present in Australia as a permanent resident if:

(a)

the person was a spouse of that Australian citizen during that period; and

(b)

the person was not present in Australia during that period; and

(c)

the person was a permanent resident during that period; and

(d)

the Minister is satisfied that the person had a close and continuing association with Australia during that period.

For the purposes of that subsection, ‘spouse’ is also defined as ‘de facto spouse’. What that does, as I understand it, is allow the minister to treat the spouse of an Australian citizen who has permanent residency as having been in Australia even though they were not if they are the spouse of an Australian citizen. It is a ministerial discretion that can be applied to spouses, including de facto spouses, of Australian citizens who are permanent residents to enable them to become citizens as well.

We can all detail examples of how that circumstance could happen. I imagine many of us would know examples of that—Australian citizens who are married to people from other countries or who have a de facto partner who is from another country, while the spouse has a permanent residency visa for Australia, quite possibly a spouse visa although not necessarily; it could be any sort of skilled visa, even a refugee protection visa. For various reasons the Australian citizen could be off working somewhere else and their spouse could be with them—quite a common occurrence in the modern world. In those circumstances, if the spouse is interested in becoming an Australian citizen, it is in Australia’s interests for them to be able to do so without waiting out unnecessary extra lengths of time under the residency requirement.

The Democrat amendment is aimed at ensuring that the definition of ‘spouse’ includes not only de facto spouses but also same-sex partners. This is a longstanding campaign of the Democrats to try to reduce discrimination under Australian federal legislation towards people with same sex-partners. For quite some time the Prime Minister and a number of other members of the coalition, both senior and not so senior, have spoken about how they do not support discrimination against people on the basis of the gender of their partner.

A Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission inquiry underway at the moment has been detailing all of the different Commonwealth pieces of law where people are discriminated against on the grounds of their sexuality, one of which is the Migration Act and another of which is the Citizenship Act. The commission has held hearings and taken evidence from people around the country who have given real-life personal examples of how this discrimination impacts upon them.

Let me remind the committee that we are putting in place a whole new citizenship act here. Many times in the past, when the Democrats have moved amendments to ensure people with same-sex partnerships are treated the same way as people with opposite-sex partners, we have had the response, ‘Well, you can’t do it bit by bit; you have to do it as one big piece of legislation and do it all at once otherwise you will just get lots of anomalies.’

Last year, when the Democrats brought on for debate once again our one big bit of legislation that would actually do that, the Sexuality and Gender Identity Discrimination Bill, which has been in this chamber since 1995, we had government senators say, ‘We support this totally.’ I remember a particularly eloquent speech from Senator Brandis. Maybe that is why he ended up being in the ministry, because the Prime Minister was so impressed by his eloquent defence of the need to eliminate discrimination on the grounds of sexuality. He gave an eloquent defence, an eloquent speech—as did a few other Liberal senators—about the importance of this principle. He said that we could not do it all in one big thing like this; what we should do is do it piece by piece.

Now here is the opportunity. And it is not piece by piece; it is not even a tiny little amendment to one little part of the legislation. This is ensuring that we get the Citizenship Act—the brand spanking new, sparkly, squeaky-clean, updated, upmoded, modern Australian Citizenship Act—correct right from the start, right from when it is first in place. We are not just making a small amendment on the side, tacking on a little thing with a bit of sticky tape that will stick out and offend people’s sensibilities because it is not nice and neat enough. This is making sure the new act is spot-on when it comes in.

So I can only assume that the government will not put up the argument that we need to do this all at once, in one big go, and that we cannot possibly do it one act at a time. There is only one way to do it, which is one act at a time. And the human rights commission have been detailing those acts. Whether they have been detailing them or not, it is pretty obvious that that is what we have here: the definition of spouse includes de facto spouse; it does not include same-sex partner.

A particular reason it needs to be done is that we already have anomalies in the immigration act. We have the absurdity of the government themselves making a change to the treatment of spouses under one class of visa. And this was after all those years of saying: ‘No, we couldn’t possibly support an amendment that would generate equality for people with same-sex partners because it would be too messy and you would create anomalies. We need to do it all at once; we need to do it to whole acts, not just in one bit.’ It is after all those years of citing that as a reason to vote against Democrat amendments in this area—even though they supported the principle, totally supported the principle, were proud of the principle! ‘Great principle! Just can’t do it here.’

Yet what we saw from the former minister, Minister Vanstone, was a change to the criteria just for skilled visas. Under skilled migration visas, spouses include same-sex spouses. If you are applying for a skilled visa in Australia and you have got a same-sex partner, we will recognise that relationship. I supported that because at least it was some recognition of that relationship; it was a move forward. Yet we have an absurdity under our migration law. We are desperate to get people here on skilled visas—and I support our sizeable migration program; I support bringing in people on skilled programs; I support the 457 visa program; I am not criticising all that. But we have this bizarre situation where we are so desperate to get people here on skilled visas that the government have reversed their own longstanding, obstinate refusal to support these sorts of changes and made an administrative decision that same-sex partners count as spouses for skilled visas.

It was very important. We had clear evidence—and I recall former senator Brian Greig from the Democrats raising this in question time as an example—of doctors and nurses, people who we were desperately trying to get here, who would not come here because their partner could not come with them on the same visa. Everybody else’s spouse could come with them; same-sex partners could not. That was changed and that was good. It was self-serving, because we needed the skilled people. But then we had the bizarre situation where people could come here and have their partner recognised on a skilled visa, but they could not come here and have their partner recognised on a spouse visa. That anomaly is sitting there today; that continues, in any of those family categories.

People in same-sex relationships normally have to go through the interdependency visa; that is a roundabout way that has been used. That was a Democrat initiative, going back over 10 years now, to at least provide some mechanism, some way, for the government to allow in same-sex partners without admitting to the reactionary part of their constituency that that was what they were doing.

We already have all these anomalies in the Migration Act, so any argument that this cannot be agreed to because it would create an anomaly is just absurd. But we also have that anomaly where people can come here on a visa—not just on an interdependency visa now but also on a skilled visa—and have their same-sex partner recognised as a spouse. Yet, when people have a same-sex partner who is an Australian citizen, we do not recognise that as a spousal relationship. So I say to the government: by not fixing this up, by not agreeing to this amendment, you will actually create an anomaly that you are halfway to fixing—only halfway to fixing—in the migration area.

This has nothing to do with the gay marriage debate. And I would put on the record that the Prime Minister has made clear, as have most people in the coalition—and Mr Entsch from the electorate of Leichhardt in my own state of Queensland has pushed this to some extent in the coalition—that, whilst the government are about removing discrimination against same-sex couples, they are not about legalising same-sex marriage. It is not about adoption; it is nothing to do with that. It is simply making de facto partnerships, de facto spouses, equivalent, whether they are in same-sex relationships or opposite-sex relationships.

It is a very clear amendment. It is very simple. It removes discrimination. It ensures that our supposedly modern, new, updated Citizenship Act actually is that. It was raised in some submissions in the Senate inquiry over a year ago. So we cannot have the excuse that we did not have any warning about this and that nobody raised it, which is also sometimes used as a reason not to support this. Dare I suggest it is time, on this occasion, for equality to finally be implemented clearly and unequivocally in one Commonwealth act right from its very outset. I would urge all senators to recognise that and support this amendment.

Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I listened very carefully to Senator Bartlett’s speech on this issue. He has done his homework. I will not speak for those on the other side, but I have used arguments in the past about not agreeing to piecemeal legislation. I have also used the argument that it is outside the terms of the committee’s inquiry. Yes, those are arguments I have put in respect of not only this type of amendment but others of the same order, although not on the same topic. In other words, generally we do not agree with piecemeal amendments and we reserve our position for those areas where amendments put forward fall outside the terms of the committee’s recommendations or the committee’s examination of the bill itself, or where amendments fall outside the bill’s intention—in other words, the object of the bill.

In this instance, Senator Bartlett, you have managed to find an argument that does deserve support. The argument is that this is a new act and redrafting all of those provisions will put it in a logical, sensible position. Therefore, the argument that you raise does find favour with the Labor Party. It is right to argue for it in this instance. It is an argument where you have been able to clearly differentiate between a piecemeal approach and one that creates a coherent whole.

This legislation does require an amendment such as this dealing with same-sex partners. I make the point, perhaps a minor one, that the way you have used the definition section is a little inelegant. For example, if same-sex partners were included in the definition section of the act under a definition of ‘de facto partner’, those same-sex partners would be required to meet a similar standard of proof as heterosexual de facto partners. The only criticism I make is that it could have been better drafted. I understand the intent behind it and I understand the principle you enunciated.

I recognise that it is also time for this government to move on. Senator Bartlett is right: Senator Brandis did provide a very eloquent speech on these issues. I was actually persuaded that he might be changing his view, or the government’s view at least, on this issue. We were subsequently disappointed and I suspect we will be disappointed again. I cannot see the government picking it up. I think they should; I think it is an appropriate amendment to pick up. They should have included it in the original legislation, and I will be interested to hear why the government will not deal with this issue now. I could be surprised, as I suspect Senator Bartlett was surprised—although I hope he was not too surprised—by Labor’s decision to adopt the amendment. It was well argued and it is sensible. The government should agree to it as well, although I recognise that this government is stuck in the past and they will not.

Nigel Scullion (NT, Country Liberal Party, Minister for Community Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank Senator Bartlett and Senator Ludwig for their contributions. The additional comments by the Democrats did not go unnoticed, Senator Bartlett. I am not sure if you are aware but, whilst it was not a specific recommendation of the committee, these bills have been amended to include the provision of a residence discretion that has been made for persons granted a visa as the interdependent partner of an Australian citizen. I refer specifically to clause 22(11), page 32, line 27 of the bill. These amendments were passed by the House of Representatives on 28 November 2006 and that is why the government will not be supporting the Australian Democrats’ amendment.

Andrew Bartlett (Queensland, Australian Democrats) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I was not surprised that Labor supported our amendment; I thought you would—although I was worried there for a second that you might have knocked it down on the grounds of inelegance! The point the Minister for Community Services makes is true: there is recognition in the bill of a partner in an interdependent relationship. However, the point needs to be made that there have been repeated comments by many coalition MPs, not just Mr Entsch but also Mr Howard and others, that people should not be discriminated against because of the gender of their partner—I am paraphrasing but I am certainly not misrepresenting them—but that is what you are doing when you define ‘spouse’ in a way that recognises de facto opposite-sex relationships but does not recognise de facto same-sex relationships. It puts them on a different footing.

The interdependency component in there is welcome. It is similar to the current arrangements in the Migration Act. There is an interdependency visa. That was created many years ago, as I said, specifically as a result of Democrat pressure and action. It was before I was elected to the Senate, so it is going back quite a while. But we still have a scenario where there are limited numbers under the interdependency category. It is, if you like, a second-hand approach to circumventing the requirement to recognise people’s same-sex relationships—not to in any way recognise them in a marriage like sense but recognise them in the same way that de facto relationships have long been recognised under Commonwealth law. An interdependent relationship is not just a same-sex relationship. Indeed, it is good that those wider interdependent relationships are recognised because it shows the immense diversity of relationships. But to continue to put same-sex relationships in that basket and treat them differently from opposite-sex relationships maintains that discrimination.

Alan Ferguson (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The committee is considering the Australian Citizenship Bill 2006, as amended. The question is that Democrat amendment (5) on sheet 4868 be agreed to.

Question negatived.

Andrew Bartlett (Queensland, Australian Democrats) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move Democrat amendment (6) on sheet 4868:

(6)    Clause 22, page 33 (after line 11), at the end of the clause, add:

      (12)    For the purpose of subsection (1), the Minister must, if the person was the holder of a Temporary Protection Visa during that period, treat that period as one in which the person was present in Australia as a permanent resident.

Note:   Temporary Protection Visas are provided for under the Migration Regulations 1994.

I have reflected on this already to some extent so I will not go on at great length. Basically the intent of this amendment is to address an issue for those people who have been residing in Australia on temporary protection visas. During their period of residency the minister should treat—must treat—that period as if the person were present in Australia as a permanent resident. Senators would know that people on temporary protection visas, by and large, do not leave the country at all whilst they are on the visas. They do not have rights to re-enter the country if they do leave, except by special dispensation, and so the vast majority of them on temporary protection visas spend their entire time living as residents in Australia. There are discretionary components within the legislation which do allow waiver of the residency requirement under special circumstances, and I recognise that there is a discretion there, but I think that it would be better if it were automatic for refugees who have been here on temporary protection visas to have that counted as permanent residency.

I accept that under the changes in this legislation there is only a requirement for 12 months permanent residence rather than two years—the 12 months immediately preceding the day the person made the application—but there have to be four years of residence in total. So people who have been on a temporary protection visa, once they have a permanent visa, would only be required to reside here for a further 12 months. I believe that it would be appropriate for them not to need to wait that extra 12 months if they have already resided here for the four years.

It should also be emphasised, on top of that, that many people that have had that period of extended residency in Australia on TPVs have also had quite a number of years prior to that stuck in detention centres. Quite explicitly in the legislation that does not count as time spent in Australia. To some extent that is logical and I accept that. If you are in Australia as an unlawful noncitizen according to the act, whether or not you are in a detention centre or out in the community—as I would prefer people to be—then it is reasonable for that not to count as time residing in Australia because in the legal sense of the word you are not a resident. But, once people are given a temporary protection visa, an acknowledgement that they are a refugee, then I believe that period should be counted straightaway as the start of permanent residence for the purposes of becoming a citizen.

My understanding is that, on average, people on refugee visas are quicker to take up citizenship than other migrants, which is quite a logical situation. Most refugees have, by definition, experienced a lot of instability in their lives and have had fairly significant uprooting of their existence. They are fairly keen to fully connect with their new country as quickly as possible and remove any further instability from their future. As I am sure all senators would acknowledge, Australia has benefited enormously from the contribution of many refugees, whether they have come through the humanitarian program or via boat arrivals. I will not revisit the debate from earlier today about asylum seekers arriving by boat, but it is widely acknowledged by all sides of politics that we have benefited a lot from the contribution of many people who have arrived by boat and have been accepted as refugees. There is always the occasional bad apple, as there is in the wider migration program and as there is, of course, amongst the Australian-born section of the community. But I am not aware of any evidence that shows there is any greater risk from people who have arrived as asylum seekers or, indeed, that theirs has been a lesser contribution over time.

The intent of this amendment is to try to remove what I believe is an unnecessary barrier to these refugees being able to become citizens as soon as possible after they have fulfilled the four-year residency requirement that will now be in place. By any measure, that is a very long period of time. I believe it is particularly beneficial, not just for the refugees but for Australia, for these refugees to be able to get on with their lives. The sooner that security and stability is present in their lives, the more completely they will be able to fully participate in the Australian community.

As it is somewhat related, I once again ask the minister a question relating to clause 22. As I noted before, under clause 22(1)(b) time spent in Australia as an unlawful noncitizen does not count as being part of the four-year residency requirements. There is an exemption to that under subclause 4A. For the purposes of subclause (1)(b), the minister may waive that requirement if the person was an unlawful noncitizen because of administrative error. I was wondering whether we could get a clearer detailing of what constitutes ‘administrative error’ with regard to somebody being an unlawful noncitizen. Does that relate to perhaps a Cornelia Rau type circumstance, without wanting to be provocative by using that example—she is someone who was deemed mistakenly to be an unlawful noncitizen—or would it also relate to, for example, people who were in detention having been refused a visa on the grounds of mistaken identity that was then overturned on appeal?

Examples like that have occurred and I have spoken about them in this place before. I really want to get to examples of people who have lost time—quite long periods of time in some cases; a number of years—being kept as unlawful noncitizens due to decisions that were later overturned by government rather than anything they did wrong. In those circumstances, it is only fair and just for those people to be able to count their time. Again, in Australia’s interests, it is better not to have those sorts of reasons in the way of potentially valuable citizens being able to become citizens as soon as practicable.

Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will not delay the debate on this longer than I need to. The position outlined by Senator Bartlett does draw the support of the opposition. It is the case that the government has failed in this area. The way the TPV regime currently works is unhelpful. Senator Bartlett’s proposition does allow that period to be treated as a period in which the person was present in Australia as a permanent resident. That is a sensible way of progressing the temporary protection visa holders. The ultimate aim is to ensure that the temporary protection visa holders can satisfy the residence requirements to better allow them to integrate into the community as soon as possible. That seems to be the objective; therefore, it does draw our support.

Nigel Scullion (NT, Country Liberal Party, Minister for Community Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

With regard to the question from Senator Bartlett, this provision was, I understand, actually carried over. For clarity, I will read into the Hansard section 13, part 4(b)(v) of the Australian Citizenship Act 1948:

... if the Minister considers that an applicant who is a permanent resident was, by reason of an administrative error, not a permanent resident during a period during which the person was present in Australia—treat the period as a period during which the applicant was present in Australia as a permanent resident.

That provision, of course, is as it applies to lawfulness. The notion that an unlawful noncitizen was at any time—in fact, I will sit down before I get myself into more strife. I hope that answers your question.

Question negatived.

Andrew Bartlett (Queensland, Australian Democrats) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move amendment (10) on sheet 4868:

(10)  Clause 54, page 66 (after line 20), at the end of the clause, add;

        (2)    The regulations must include policy guidelines providing that the application of the ministerial discretions in section 22 in relation to significant hardship or disadvantage and activities beneficial to Australia are to be applied broadly to include:

             (a)    social and cultural factors; and

             (b)    economic considerations.

I will be brief. This amendment is to a part at the end of the legislation that deals with regulations. It provides a requirement that the regulations must include policy guidelines providing that the application of the ministerial discretions in section 22, which is the section we have just been talking about, in relation to significant hardship or disadvantage and activities beneficial to Australia are to be applied broadly to include social and cultural factors and economic considerations. It is really just to try to provide a bit more flesh around the exercise of ministerial discretion in this area.

I have spoken at great length about, and indeed we have had Senate inquiries into, the exercise of ministerial discretion in the Migration Act and some of the problems with regard to the opaque nature of that. This amendment would go part of the way to ensuring that there was just a little more flesh around how ministerial discretion is exercised. It creates clearer guidance for ministers—and I appreciate that sometimes ministers do not like being constrained by regulated guidance; they like to be able to have total freedom to decide—and it is to the benefit of the minister and government of the day in relation to the uncertainty that surrounds the reasons ministerial discretion is used in a range of areas in the Migration Act, and in the Citizenship Act where it applies. That can be problematic in that it is easy for people to draw unhelpful or very negative conclusions about the way the law operates when there is no real clear reason why discretion is exercised in one case and not in another case.

Obviously, some migrant communities come from countries where it is very clear what sorts of factors might help create a more favourable decision—they are not actions that are encouraged in Australia, such as money changing hands and various other inducements to get a better decision. I am not suggesting that happens here; I am suggesting that to reduce the prospects of people suspecting that that is the reason discretions get exercised in particular ways it can be quite helpful to have clearer and to some extent more enforceable guidelines. That is what this amendment goes to.

Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Labor supports this amendment for the reasons very effectively outlined by Senator Bartlett. It is one of those areas where—I would refer to it as more than opaque, Senator Bartlett—it is impenetrable sometimes how those ministerial decisions are made, particularly in the exercise of section 417 of the Migration Act. Any amendment such that policy guidelines through regulation might help to make that process more transparent will always garner Labor’s support. Exercising ministerial discretion is one area where that particular Senate committee did find that there was a need for greater transparency, as I recollect it. If I am wrong about that then I am sure I will be corrected, but my recollection is that there is a need for greater certainty and transparency in circumstances when the minister exercises a discretion of that nature. Senator Bartlett has sought to put some transparency in that process. I doubt very much that the government will concede to this amendment but it will be interesting to hear their argument as to why they will not.

Nigel Scullion (NT, Country Liberal Party, Minister for Community Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There is a very clear reason why we will not be supporting this amendment—that is, that it is unnecessary. Senator Vanstone advised this chamber on 30 November 2006 that the government had accepted the recommendation of the Senate committee report and that policy guidelines would interpret the concept of ‘significant hardship’ broadly, to include social and cultural factors as well as economic considerations.

Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If that were the case, you would not see any objection to putting it in the legislation so that it is there for all to see.

Nigel Scullion (NT, Country Liberal Party, Minister for Community Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I should not be drawn, but there are obviously matters of policy and there are matters that should be put in the legislation. I think it is broadly within the convention in this place to place this within the policy guidelines.

Question negatived.

Andrew Bartlett (Queensland, Australian Democrats) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move Democrat amendment (11) on sheet 4868:

(11)  Page 66 (after line 20), at the end of Part 3, add:

55 Review

        (1)    The Minister must cause an independent review of:

             (a)    the extent to which Australia discharges its obligations to stateless persons; and

             (b)    the extent to which the Department of Immigration and Citizenship has conferred with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission on Australia’s obligations to stateless persons.

        (2)    The person who undertakes the review under subsection (1) must give the Minister a written report of the review.

        (3)    The Minister must cause a copy of the report of the review to be tabled in each House of Parliament within 12 months after the second anniversary of the commencement of this Act.

This amendment is fairly self-evident. It seeks to cause an independent review to be performed regarding the extent to which Australia discharges its obligations to stateless persons and the extent to which the Department of Immigration and Citizenship has conferred with the UNHCR and the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission on Australia’s obligations to stateless persons. From my recollection of the genesis of this amendment, I think the drafting instructions on this went in about 10 or 11 months ago when the Senate committee reported. It was really generated from some of the discussions and submissions around statelessness and our obligations to stateless persons, which I accept is a murky area. Indeed that is part of the reason to suggest this review to make clear the extent of exactly how adequately we are discharging our obligations in that area and whether there are ways we can improve that performance.

Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Labor supports the Democrat amendment. As Senator Bartlett has correctly pointed out, this is a matter that was recommended by the committee. On that basis, it would be helpful for the Senate to understand the effect on stateless people and to assist the parliament in reviewing the effectiveness of our laws. Therefore, it does gain Labor’s support.

Nigel Scullion (NT, Country Liberal Party, Minister for Community Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I understand that this amendment relates to recommendation 11 of the Senate committee’s report, which was partly accepted by the government. This bill has been thoroughly reviewed in the light of the committee recommendations. Submissions have been made to the committee, and the government is completely satisfied that the bill as amended is consistent with Australia’s international obligations regarding statelessness. I understand neither HREOC nor UNHCR have the legislative authority to determine compliance of Australian law with the convention.

Andrew Bartlett (Queensland, Australian Democrats) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My final comment is that it is true that HREOC and UNHCR do not have that power. But HREOC, the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission, established by an act of this parliament, clearly has a role to provide advice on how Australia meets or otherwise its obligations under international conventions, including ones that touch on stateless people. It deals with this stuff every day in much greater detail than the parliament and, I would suggest, on a day-to-day basis, almost anybody in the department or government as well. The UNHCR, on an international scale, does the same.

One of the reasons these sorts of reviews are valuable is that we are not forced to rely on bland assertions from government that they meet all our obligations. I have heard that repeatedly from representatives of the minister for immigration in this chamber—or indeed from the minister for immigration herself when that was the case—for a number of years now. They blandly assert that Australia meets our international obligations in every way, even in the face of overwhelming, comprehensive, undoubted, incontestable evidence such that anybody with even the remotest comprehension of the English language would know that we are flagrantly breaching our obligations. Nations have a right to do that but the least we should do is admit it.

The government should not be defensive about this; I am not accusing them of doing it. I am suggesting it is an area to look at. My belief is that the intent of the Senate committee’s recommendation was not in any way to suggest the government were failing in this area—unlike Senate committee recommendations in other areas where they quite clearly believe the government have failed to meet their international obligations on refugees and other matters. The intent was to enable a more thorough examination because it is not really clear whether or not we adequately meet our obligations.

The obligations to stateless people and how you best meet those obligations is not an easy area. None of this is easy, as I said earlier, but this is a particularly difficult area. It is not even always clear as to how stateless people are defined, frankly. Reaching agreement as to whether or not someone is stateless is not always easy. It is an area that could do with further work. For once it is an area where not even I am saying that the government is failing to meet its international obligations. As the minister would know, I am quite often alleging that, as I did earlier on today. The benefit of it is that it would enable that to be done.

It can be done in other ways. It is not the end of the world if it does not happen. I am sure HREOC will continue to provide advice anyway. But it was an opportunity, because the issue arose during the course of the inquiry, to reinforce that by and large the Senate committee across the board found it a positive piece of legislation which could be improved upon and it was an opportunity to do so further. Perhaps in wrapping up all of that and the amendments themselves, it is appropriate to acknowledge that, despite the government’s nonacceptance of this particular amendment flowing from the committee inquiry, which I assume will stay the same despite my last contribution, there has been acceptance of a reasonable number of the recommendations from the committee inquiry. That should be acknowledged.

Question negatived.

Bill, as amended, agreed to.

AUSTRALIAN CITIZENSHIP (TRANSITIONALS AND CONSEQUENTIALS) BILL 2007

Bill—by leave—taken as a whole.

Bill agreed to.

Australian Citizenship Bill 2006 reported with amendments; Australian Citizenship (Transitionals and Consequentials) Bill 2006 reported without amendments; report adopted.