Michael Forshaw (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to make some remarks on the Australian Citizenship Bill 2006 and cognate bill. In doing so, I acknowledge that many of the aspects of the legislation are non-controversial. I want to particularly highlight some recent events that occurred with regard to a citizenship ceremony in the Sutherland shire on Australia Day which certainly were controversial. When this bill was first introduced the then minister, in his second reading speech, stated:

Today I have the honour to present the Australian Citizenship Bill 2005 which deals with the core of our national identity—Australian citizenship.

This bill, once passed by the Parliament will replace legislation which introduced the concept and reality of Australian citizenship on Australia Day 1949.

During debate in the House, many members reflected on citizenship ceremonies they had attended. They commented on the obvious pride and joy of former migrants and humanitarian entrants to this country making the pledge, which is the final step in becoming an Australian citizen.

Like all members of parliament, both in the House and in the Senate, I have attended many Australian citizenship ceremonies over the years. I refer particularly to Australia Day citizenship ceremonies held in the Sutherland shire each year. These are very large occasions. Indeed, usually there are some 150 to 200 people taking out citizenship that day. It is a major event on the shire calendar and, as Sutherland shire people are prone to be very parochial, they regard this part of Australia as the birthplace of the Australian nation, when Cook first landed in 1770. They are always significant events. All the state and federal politicians and local councillors attend, and it is a great day. After the ceremony is concluded there is always a good old-fashioned Aussie barbecue. It is wonderful to see not only the new Australian citizens who attend that day and take out citizenship but also the many families and friends who come along to enjoy that special occasion.

They have always been bipartisan events. Indeed, as I said, I have been attending these ceremonies since I came into this parliament in 1994. I can say, without contradiction, that they have always been treated appropriately by the respective members of parliament, whichever political persuasion they come from. My federal colleagues Danna Vale and Bruce Baird and state members always treat the occasion as an opportunity to express their appreciation to new citizens and to welcome them as part of the great Australian nation. Until this year, I cannot recall any one occasion where there has been an attempt to use that event as a political platform. But, sadly, this year that is what happened. The Australia Day ceremony received a fair amount of coverage in the media, both in print and on radio in Sydney, so I want to set the record straight.

Prior to Australia Day, the leader of the New South Wales opposition, Mr Debnam, approached the council requesting an invitation to attend and speak at the Australia Day ceremony. He is not a local member of parliament for that area; he is in fact the member for Vaucluse. He sought not to attend an Australia Day citizenship ceremony in his own electorate but to come to the Sutherland shire and attend one in that region. I think the reasons are pretty obvious. Firstly, the Liberal Party hopes to win two state marginal seats in that area, Miranda and Menai. The second—unfortunately, as we all recall—is the Cronulla riots two years ago. There is no doubt in my mind, and in the mind of many others, that the NSW Leader of the Opposition sought to use the occasion to try to gain some cheap political advantage by attending and speaking at the ceremony in Sutherland. He sought an invitation and it was granted. The mayor—who happens to have been a member of the Liberal Party but decided to run as an Independent for mayor—extended an invitation to Mr Debnam and welcomed him to the occasion. Indeed, as a result of that, other local members of parliament declined the opportunity to speak on that occasion because it would have extended the ceremony for a much longer period.

Mr Debnam provided a copy of his speech to the council, to the mayor, prior to Australia Day. There were a number of paragraphs in that speech which were blatantly political. For instance, he directly referred to candidates for the Liberal Party in the two seats I have just mentioned. He sought to highlight the fact that they were running for the seats and to give them some support. He also made a number of comments which were clearly an unfortunate reflection upon the history surrounding the Cronulla riots, which, I must say, people of all political persuasions in the shire have been working hard to overcome. I pay particular tribute to my federal colleague Bruce Baird. Along with the council and other members of parliament, he has endeavoured to improve community relations in that area. For instance, a program has been running where young people of Muslim faith have been encouraged to join the local surf clubs and train to be lifesavers. A range of programs such as this have been initiated and I think they have been working well.

On Australia Day, the leader of the Liberal Party opposition in New South Wales decided that he wanted to go to the Sutherland shire and make a big partisan political speech to try and promote his state candidates. Naturally there was an objection from the mayor and the council to the content of the speech and Mr Debnam was asked to take out the offending paragraphs. I might interpose here by reminding all senators, not that they need reminding, that it is a specific requirement of the government, and an appropriate requirement of the government—it has been a longstanding requirement of governments, whether they be Labor or Liberal—that these ceremonies be treated in a bipartisan way. I quote from the letter forwarded to me and other members of parliament by Andrew Robb, who was Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs in January this year. In the section that refers to the conduct of ceremonies the letter states:

The Code makes clear, at page 28, that “All elected local representatives, at the Federal, State/Territory and Local Government level, shall over time have an opportunity to provide a welcoming speech ...”.

I stress that the reference is to ‘elected local representatives’. It continues:

There is reference to the possibility of brief messages of welcome from local clubs and associations and/or any local celebrity—

I do not think Mr Debnam is a local celebrity in the Sutherland shire; he might be trying to be one—

and that “ ... it is essential that the dignity and bipartisan significance of citizenship ceremonies be maintained at all time. Citizenship ceremonies shall not be used as forums for political or partisan expression ...”.

I read that out because it was very clear that the first speech prepared by Mr Debnam which he intended to give on that day contravened those specific requirements for bipartisan and non-political content. When Mr Debnam was asked to take out the offending paragraphs in his speech he embarked upon a media campaign in Sydney. He claimed that he was being banned from speaking, that he was being muzzled, that he was being censored. On one occasion he said that he did not really care whether or not the mayor liked his speech. He said he would give his speech either inside the council centre at the citizenship ceremony or on the footsteps of the council building. He became very defiant and built it up as if his right to make a speech was being rejected. The fact is that he had no right, technically, to make the speech. He had sought an invitation which had been acceded to and then he sought to abuse it.

Eventually Mr Debnam redrafted his speech and took out the offending paragraphs. At least he backed down in that respect. However, on the morning of Australia Day he was all over the radio running this campaign, attacking the mayor and attacking the council, saying they were trying to ban him. Indeed, there were articles and editorials in the newspapers—I refer particularly to the Daily Telegraph of Saturday, 27 January, the day after Australia Day—which picked up the theme that Mr Debnam was promoting and which were critical of the mayor and the council for seeking to have Mr Debnam abide by the code.

The fact of the matter is that on that day Mr Debnam, I thought in a most outrageous and disgraceful manner, tried to hijack an Australian citizenship ceremony for base partisan political motives. You ask the question: why would the state member for Vaucluse, the New South Wales Leader of the Opposition, on Australia Day seek to travel to the Sutherland shire—an area with which he has had no association at all up until recently—to give a citizenship speech? Normally members do that in their own electorate, or they might attend a major function in a capital city. But no; it was quite obvious what Mr Debnam was doing. During his speech he referred to what had happened at Cronulla. As I said earlier, there has been a lot of good work done by a lot of people to heal the wounds that were so disgracefully opened in late 2005 with the Cronulla riots. Frankly, I think Mr Debnam’s conduct deserves to be condemned.

I am particularly concerned that radio commentators such as Alan Jones picked up on this, and again ran Mr Debnam’s mantra that he was being denied free speech. We all recall—the record is very clear—the conduct of Alan Jones on the radio in the weeks leading up to the Cronulla riots. He was on the radio, some might say, inciting people to come down to Cronulla that weekend to those protest rallies. Certainly they turned ugly. I am particularly intrigued by that because Mr Jones, like Mr Debnam, would normally have trouble even finding his way to the Sutherland shire. I can give a direct instance of that. A couple of years ago Alan Jones was the guest speaker at the opening of an art exhibition at the local gallery in the Sutherland shire. I was there. Mr Jones came out, and in his opening remarks to the assembled gathering he commented upon the fact that it had been a long, long time since he had been to the Sutherland shire and that he had really had trouble finding his way there. He normally only drives on the outskirts of the shire as he heads down to his country estate—somewhere in the Kangaroo Valley, I think. Probably the last time he had visited the shire was when he was coaching Balmain, back in the days when they were not terribly successful—they were probably playing a game at Shark Park. Why do I mention this? It is because Alan Jones is on the radio speaking as if he is an expert on community relations, crime, ethnic tensions and so on in the Sutherland shire, when he would not have the first iota of knowledge of what happens in our community.

I wanted to put this on the record today because I find it intriguing that members of this government have, from time to time, taken the opportunity to condemn mayors or other politicians—generally from our side of the fence—for making what they believe are partisan political speeches at citizenship ceremonies. If they did make those partisan political speeches then I would accept that they should not have done so. But this is the government’s code. I find it incredible that the person who seeks to be the next Premier of New South Wales would so abuse the requirements of a code that is laid down by his fellow Liberal government here in Canberra. People in the Sutherland shire, like any other community, do not appreciate people from outside coming in and stirring up trouble—and that goes for politicians like Mr Debnam as much as it goes for anyone else.

Question negatived.

Original question agreed to.

Bills read a second time.