Graham Perrett (Moreton, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I too am pleased to rise in support of the Australian Citizenship Amendment (Citizenship Test Review and Other Measures) Bill 2009 and the related amendment before the House. It is particularly fitting that we are debating this bill on Australian Citizenship Day, when about 4,500 people right across Australia, including in this House, will become citizens. This is also a historic year, which marks 60 years of Australian citizenship. The history of Australian citizenship is a slightly chequered one. Up until Australia Day 1949, when the Nationality and Citizenship Act came in, Australians were actually British citizens.

The history of the process of becoming an Australian citizen is not one of our proudest chapters. The very first act of the Australian parliament was the Immigration Restriction Act 1901, which introduced a dictation test. People seeking to immigrate could be given a test in a European language and, if they were multilingual, it could be changed so that they could be excluded. It was the precursor to what became known as the White Australia policy, which lasted right up until World War II. There are some murky shadows in the multicultural history of Australia—murky shadows that I think probably need a light shone on them. It is certainly something that I have tried to do in my public speaking, especially in my electorate, which is a particularly multicultural electorate. We do not move on from the sins of the past by denying the sins of the past.

The Naturalisation Act 1903 introduced conditions so that aliens could be granted naturalisation by the Commonwealth and then they would become basically British subjects. But that act precluded people from Asia, Africa or the Pacific Islands applying for naturalisation, irrespective of how long they had lived in Australia or their connections with Australia. There were all sorts of complications for their children as well. Not surprisingly with that sort of culture, in the early years of the 20th century the number of people who were leaving Australia actually exceeded the number who were arriving, and that continued right up until the First World War, when immigration ground to a halt.

During World War I, the federal government amended the Naturalisation Act so that people who wanted to become British subjects, Australians, would have to advertise their intent to do so, they would have to renounce their own nationality, and they would also have to prove that they could read and write in English. It is good to see that we have moved on since those darker days. As I said, the Nationality and Citizenship Act came into effect on Australia Day 1949. It was great that this year on Australia Day I attended quite a few citizenship ceremonies. In fact, prior to one ceremony I was able to award the Sir James Killen community service award. Sir James’s widow, Lady Killen, presented the award to a deserving member of the community.

Prior to 1949, Australians could only hold the status of British subjects. All those Anzacs who died on foreign shores—50,000 in World War I and thousands more in World War II—were British subjects. Things changed after World War II. Since 1945, over 6.5 million people have migrated to Australia, and four million of those have acquired Australian citizenship. Obviously all members of parliament are doing what we can to make sure that we track down the other 2½ million people and, if it is all possible, give them the opportunity to become Australians.

Many migrants who come to Australia have chosen to live in my electorate. In fact, I represent an electorate where about one in three residents were born overseas. They have come from everywhere, particularly from the Chinese diaspora—which would include Taiwan, China and also people from the Chinese community in Malaysia, Papua New Guinea and Fiji.  There are also people from Sudan, Korea, Malaysia, Zimbabwe, Sierra Leone, Liberia, Eritrea, England, Scotland, Wales, Ireland, New Zealand, Ethiopia, Hong Kong, South Africa, Japan and even, like my wife’s ancestors, from India. We are an open, vibrant multicultural community and, for the most part, we are tolerant and understanding of one another.

One of the most rewarding activities of my job as a member of parliament—which I have held for only 20 months—and the one that I have enjoyed most is being involved in citizenship ceremonies. To take part as a presiding officer as new Australians take the oath of citizenship is humbling. Unlike many people in my electorate, I did not become an Australian by swearing; I did it by screaming—by being born here. So I did not have a choice. But for those people who make the decision, it is quite humbling to see them do it. It is always a moving experience, whether it is with a big crowd at an Australia Day event or whether it is one of the monthly, always wonderful, events that are held in Brisbane City Hall by the Lord Mayor Campbell Newman. On occasion, I have done citizenship ceremonies for individual people in my electorate office, because they have needed to go overseas for some reason. Even if it is just in the presence of the person’s family and friends, it is still moving. I do need to report that I make my staff sing the national anthem, trying to cover up the fact that I cannot sing. On Australia Day there are a couple of hundred people, but in my office there is only me and a few people, so it is always a bit embarrassing to have to sing the national anthem. But still, it is a moving experience even if I do sing off-key.

Not a day goes by that I am not contacted by someone seeking help and support with an immigration matter for themselves, a family member, a friend or occasionally a loved one. Romance obviously is not dictated to by international borders. These people come to my office seeking assistance to navigate the bureaucratic system, progress an application or obtain support for a visa, whether it is humanitarian, skilled, family reunification or any of the others. As I said, I was born in Australia. I spent a year backpacking overseas. I briefly dabbled with the idea of moving to another country, in fact to Canada, which is not exactly a radical leap from the culture in Australia. It was too scary a thought for me and it did not work out. When I look at these people who have made the choice to come to Australia, I think about their bravery, especially when moving to a country that has a different language and culture, and leaving loved ones behind. I take my hat off to their bravery.

I am well aware that the decisions we make in this place regarding immigration and citizenship law have significant consequences and should never be taken lightly. These decisions more than almost any other area of law have the power to drastically impact on individuals and their families. We must ensure that as a government our immigration and citizenship policies are fair and equitable for all. You only have to look at the policies of the previous government relating to the mandatory detention of illegal asylum seekers to see how these laws disrupt people’s lives. There are some business owners in my electorate who spent too many years in detention centres when they could have been assimilating, getting jobs and paying taxes. In the lead-up to the 2007 election, unfortunately, my predecessor, the former member for Moreton, Gary Hardgrave, sent shivers through African communities, especially in Moorooka the suburb where I live, when he made some inappropriate comments. Even a dumped minister for multiculturalism should have understood how lives would be impacted by his comments. I am not sure whether they were careful comments or careless comments. I suggest the former. They caused too much damage in my community and many people will not forgive him.

The bill before the House is a common-sense amendment to ensure fairness in our citizenship criteria. It implements two of the recommendations of the Australian Citizenship Test Review Committee in their report Moving forward: improving pathways to citizenship. As a result, certain applicants will be eligible for citizenship without sitting the test if they have a physical or mental incapacity at the time of application that is a result of torture or suffering outside Australia. The act already exempts people with permanent or mental incapacity. However, this bill will ensure that those with psychological disorders as a result of trauma do not need to sit the citizenship test. It also ensures a person’s disability or mental incapacity does not need to be permanent, rather the condition must exist at the time of the application.

This bill also streamlines the application process by allowing applicants to apply and complete the test at the same time. Under the current system, applicants can only apply after they have successfully completed the test. The bill also clarifies that applicants who are under 18 years of age must be permanent residents at the time of application to be eligible for citizenship conferral. This amendment is really just about ensuring consistency across all applicant groups.

Refugee and migrant groups on Brisbane’s south side, where my electorate is located, have raised serious concerns with me about the citizenship test being a barrier to citizenship for some people, especially in our vulnerable refugee and humanitarian community where the rigours of taking a test are not something that you or I would treat lightly; for them it is quite significant. Mystery and fear surrounds the test.

The Rudd government believe that all people should be treated fairly and not excluded from citizenship because of circumstances outside their control. This bill, as well as changes to regulations and policies, will help achieve that. We also believe that understanding civic responsibilities and the rights and obligations of citizens is important for all Australians. That is why the Rudd government will keep the citizenship test. However, the test will be changed to reflect the recommendations of the review and to focus more on the legal and democratic foundations of Australian citizenship. The citizenship resource book will also be rewritten in plain English and will contain information about the pledge and broader information about Australia. I am assured that Don Bradman will still be in there, but obviously there will be a greater focus on some other aspects like democratic foundations.

I also welcome the amendment to ensure our citizenship criteria is fair for those who are required to travel outside Australia frequently for their work. Currently, some people who move to Australia but travel frequently for work such as elite athletes and airline pilots are unfairly excluded from citizenship because it is almost impossible for them to meet the citizenship criteria, as people who are out of the country for 90 days or more are ineligible. All applicants will need to show that, despite spending periods of time overseas, their home is in Australia. To paraphrase that bloke from Tenterfield, ‘Wherever they roam, they will still be able to call Australia home.’

Elite athletes with the potential to represent Australia will need to have been a permanent resident for two years and been physically present in Australia for six months. They will also need to require Australian citizenship to represent Australia in their chosen sport and have their application supported by the sport’s peak body. Specialist professionals such as pilots whose job requires international travel will need to have spent at least 16 months physically in Australia and been a resident in Australia for four years immediately before applying for citizenship. They will also need to have their application supported by their current employer to prove they have travelled extensively and that it is a condition of their work. Obviously, they will also need to meet all other legal requirements for citizenship, including sitting and passing the citizenship test.

On a related note, I will soon begin an enrol-to-vote campaign in my electorate to encourage new citizens to make sure that they are on the electoral roll. I know that there are some new Australians in my community who have had citizenship conferred but for whatever reason have not taken the next step and enrolled to vote. The Australian Electoral Commission definitely does a great job at these citizenship ceremonies. I see them making sure they get their forms off people, but unfortunately some new citizens manage to slip by without getting on the roll. Exercising our democratic right to vote is something all of us should hold precious and that of course begins by enrolling with the AEC. I will be talking with my community and with multicultural groups over coming months to see how we might work together to ensure that more of our new citizens become enrolled and stay enrolled. In closing, I welcome these amendments. They certainly will not make citizenship a free-for-all, but they will provide balance and fairness to the application process. I commend the bill to the House.

See this speech in context