HANSARD EXTRACT
| Australian
Citizenship Bill 2005; Australian Citizenship (Transitionals
and Consequentials) Bill 2005: Second Reading |
| 31 October 2006 |
Mr HAYES
(Werriwa)
(7.42
p.m.)—The
Australian Citizenship Bill 2005
and the
Australian Citizenship (Transitionals and
Consequentials) Bill 2005 before us today, as the
minister noted in his second reading speech, replace the Australian
Citizenship Act 1948 with a new Australian citizenship act. A number
of changes will be implemented by these bills. They include but are
not limited to the proposals announced by the Prime Minister some
time back relating to combating terrorism.
Major provisions in this bill include: the ability of Australian
citizens who renounce their citizenship under section 17 to resume
their Australian citizenship if they are of good character; the
ability of the minister, under proposed subsection 2, to refuse to
approve the person becoming an Australian citizen despite the person
being eligible to be so approved; the ability of children of former
Australian citizens who have lost their citizenship under section 17
of the old act to acquire citizenship simply by conferral; the
prohibition on an approval of citizenship to applicants assessed by
the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation as a risk to the
security of Australia; a rise in the age of exemption from the
requirement to have basic knowledge of the English language from 50
years to 60 years of age; the requirement that the minister must not
approve a person becoming an Australian citizen unless the minister
is satisfied as to the person’s identity; the person becoming an
Australian citizen on the day that the minister approves the
application; the requirement that the spouse of an Australian
citizen meet the same requirements of Australian citizenship by
conferral as most adult applicants, with the minister exercising
discretion in this regard; and an increase in the range of personal
identifiers that can be used to establish identity.
As I mentioned earlier, the bills also attempt to graft on a number
of changes that were agreed by the COAG security meeting. Measures
to address security issues include the extension of the waiting
period for citizenship from two years to three years, security
checks for citizenship to be approved and provisions for increased
personal identifiers such as iris scans et cetera. Further, the
security risk assessments prescribed must be undertaken by ASIO in
order to get citizenship approvals.
For an individual or a family to move from one country to another
would be, I think, quite a significant thing to do in most
circumstances. In a move of that nature, nothing would be taken
lightly. Moving from one country to another could be considered for
a range of reasons, but I would defy anyone to say that moving from
one country to another is something that would be based on light
decision making by a person or a person’s family. Therefore, it is
of great significance when people do come to make a decision to take
citizenship in another country.
Similarly, a change in citizenship is not entered into lightly, as
most people who attend citizenship ceremonies in this country would
appreciate. As the member for Werriwa—and I imagine it is the same
for every member in this House—I certainly attend as many
citizenship ceremonies in my electorate as I can. The Campbelltown
City Council and the Liverpool City Council are the two major city
councils that have the right conferred upon them by the minister to
award citizenship. The lasting impression one takes away from these
citizenship ceremonies is just how proud these people are to become
new citizens of this country—which is, after all, their adopted
home. No matter their background or their country of origin, you
cannot help but be moved by the pride that you see on the faces of
these people in receiving citizenship, and I have experienced that
at every single citizenship ceremony that I have attended.
Of course, in most cases, they also remain proud of their country of
origin. Even those of us who are born here retain certain
connections to some degree to our heritage, no matter how long ago
our respective families moved to this country. The people that I
have seen at these citizenship ceremonies are, quite frankly,
fiercely proud of their new adopted country. They are certainly
proud to be Australians and are committed to participate fully in
life in this country as an Australian. I am sure that I am not the
only member who has experienced this. I believe that all members
should bear this in mind when we are considering the legislation
before the chamber at the moment.
In a series of amendments that were tabled on
12 October 2006,
the government decided to amend the amendments it intended to make
to the Australian Citizenship Act 1948. The amendments presented
earlier this month include recommendations from the report of the
Senate Legal and Constitutional Legislation Committee inquiry into
Australian citizenship, which was handed down on 12 October 2006,
and recommendations from the Standing Committee on Family and Human
Services inquiry into overseas adopting. Importantly, the amendments
also gave effect to the decision to increase the waiting period for
citizenship from two years to four years. In itself, the increase in
the waiting period for citizenship from three years to four years is
a significant departure from the bill that was presented to the
House in 2005. Significantly, the amendment has been included
without the government having indicated to the opposition why it is
necessary.
Labor supported the COAG agreed position to change from a two-year
waiting period to a three-year waiting period. In that instance,
Labor received a security briefing and on balance it decided to
support the changes for security reasons. It was reasonable in terms
of the explanation that was given and certainly in terms of the
content of the brief that was received. Labor was provided with the
necessary information and it made its decision to support an
increase in waiting periods from two years to three years, based
solely on information provided by the briefing.
I think even those most critical of the change would agree that,
once you had seen and been shown the relevant security material and
were convinced on balance that the measures were necessary, that
change should be agreed to in the context of what was being proposed
in the bill that was introduced in the House in 2005. But this time
the change is to a four-year waiting period; the opposition was not
provided with the same briefing. It was not given the opportunity to
have a look at further security material that backed up the
government’s changed position. There was no explanation, no
briefing—nothing but an amendment that was introduced on 12 October
this year.
Interestingly enough, this amendment, the change to a four-year
waiting period, came only after the announcement by the
Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Immigration and
Multicultural Affairs, which launched his discussion paper on
citizenship. You may recall that. It only came after the launch of
this discussion paper in September of this year. That sort of
behaviour, I have to say, suggests to me that there is something
more behind the change from a three-year waiting period to a
four-year waiting period and, I have to say, I think that change is
the realisation of next year’s election. You cannot help but think
to yourself that right at the very heart of this is some polling
undertaken by this government, launched as a result of the
discussion paper, that the coalition has found that there is some
electoral attractiveness in extending the waiting time. You cannot
help but think that politics has got in the way of public policy on
this one, with respect.
As I indicated earlier, and as others have already indicated during
this debate, Labor was prepared for the change to a three-year
waiting period, but it has serious questions about the extension of
the waiting period to four years, because it seems to have been done
without rhyme or reason. I simply do not understand the logic to it.
I cannot understand why the government would seriously believe that
it makes for better immigrant integration to exclude them for
another 12 months. That just does not seem rational.
Those who have been through citizenship processes—those who have
come to love this country and who would protect it—must start to
question this approach. What message are we sending to the world if
we are saying, ‘Well, you have to sit outside of society for four
years before we consider you committed enough to become an
Australian citizen’? What are we really telling immigrants and
potential immigrants to this country?
Labor have been clear on where we stand when it comes to adopting
Australian values. We, along with other Australians, want people to
be aware of the values that we pride ourselves on. We want people to
know what is expected of them while they are in this country. Those
same values apply whether you are here for a short time or whether
you are going to move here permanently. One underpinning thing about
values is the concept—a colloquialism, no doubt, but nevertheless
there is still some substance in it—that we do stand for a fair go
for everybody. You may not think that by looking at what this
government has attempted to introduce and has introduced in terms of
Welfare to Work or through Work Choices. It has certainly thrown the
concept of a fair go out of this country in its undertakings of
late. It certainly does not subscribe to fairness and decency in
those instances that I have referred to. Fairness and decency have
certainly been casualties of the approaches that have been adopted
by this government.
When I speak at citizenship ceremonies, I often refer to the very
thing I instructed my own children on as they were growing up: the
concept of a fair go for everybody. Perhaps the government should
think more about that and the way it parcels its legislation in
other forms. Given that the opposition is yet to receive any clear
reason or even any indication from the government as to why the
waiting period is being extended to four years—the government has
refused to give that—I cannot support that part of the legislation.
Having outlined my concerns about the extension of the waiting
period for new citizens, I would like to take a bit of time to
comment on some other provisions of this bill. I would like to lend
my support to the provisions that give children of former Australian
citizens who have lost their citizenship under section 17 of the old
act the opportunity to reapply for citizenship in this country by
conferral. Where the parents have moved to another country and, as a
consequence, have had to forgo their Australian citizenship, their
children, on applying, can have citizenship conferred on them. That
is a very positive thing I draw from this bill.
Having said that, I am particularly concerned about what the
government proposes to do with its migrant English programs. I, for
one, believe it is important for migrants to make every effort to
learn English, to adopt the language of their newly adopted
country—and I would trust that, throughout this House, we are one in
that assumption. However, I accept that learning a new language is
never easy and, therefore, it should be supported. Senate estimates
yesterday revealed that $10.8 million has been cut from the migrant
English program. I believe that everyone, especially new migrants,
would be best served if that funding were restored. I believe the
government would be best served by that restoration, particularly if
it is serious in its view that migrants should have to learn
English. As I indicated, I support people adopting the English
language in their newly adopted country. But can you believe that?
While the government is saying those things, it is slashing $10.8
million off that budget.
There are no doubt some national security considerations to be taken
into account when any nation is considering permanent or transitory
migration to or from its shores. We have all seen and heard of the
experiences of other nations that have been subjected to terror
attacks launched by citizens from other countries and, in
particular, by citizens of their own country. There is no doubt that
in the post-September 11 world we have all become more acutely aware
of our new realities and we must be prepared to live with a
heightened sense of potential threat. Regrettably, that is now being
seen as part and parcel of a modern world. I do not shy away from
that reality. Quite frankly, I know that our actions on the world
stage to date have probably increased the likelihood of an attack on
Australian soil.
A document—I think it was a newsletter—that was recently translated
from a known al-Qaeda website indicated that this terror group
considers
Australia to be a proper target. Its Indonesian offshoot, Jemaah
Islamiah, has also made it clear that it considers Australia to be a
target. Even the former head of the Australian Defence Force,
General Peter Cosgrove, believes that terrorism is a long-term
threat to Australia.
However, vigilance is one thing; paranoia is something else. Given
that the opposition has not been privy to any material that would
lend itself to an easy rationale for a change in the waiting
periods, and given that this proposed change has come so quickly
after the government’s release of its discussion paper on
citizenship, I cannot help but conclude that paranoia about security
and, more importantly, electoral paranoia are driving this change.
It disappoints me that we have got to a stage in the political
debate where a change is proposed that has not necessarily a direct
link but perhaps an indirect link to security related issues.
While it is important that the bill has a speedy passage through the
House, I do not believe that should create an environment in which
any provision, no matter how seemingly innocuous, is pushed through
without due consideration of its impact. There was agreement on both
sides of the House on the provisions for extending waiting periods
from three to four years. That was considered to be acceptable, but
the government has unilaterally changed that. I cannot help but
think that, once again, this government is in a mid-term slump. It
is not only me who believes this; I think everyone else believes
that to be the case, including those on the other side. The
government is struggling to hold back issues on many fronts, and the
minister, or perhaps even the Prime Minister, has decided that it is
time to blow the dog whistle once more.
I agree that appropriate measures need to be taken to ensure that
those who want to come to Australia and become Australian citizens
are of a character that we would expect. It is appropriate that
necessary checks and tests are undertaken and that all candidates
for citizenship meet those checks. However, it should not be
considered appropriate to introduce provisions in this bill that
seem to have no public policy basis and that merely rely on some
sense of fear of foreign nationals becoming Australian citizens. It
is not appropriate to introduce legislative provisions driven by
fear rather than by rational thought.
Return
to Speeches Menu.
