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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Also, absences from Australia of up to 12 months will be allowed during the four-year period, but people will not be allowed to spend more than three months away from Australia in the year before applying for citizenship. People who are already permanent residents will only be required to meet the current two-year residential qualifying period provided they apply for citizenship within three years of the commencement of the act. This is not intended to be retrospective in that sense.

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

See this speech in context