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

Australian citizenship is a very important issue that merits a lot more genuine debate than it has had. It is an important area of law. It is a bit similar to the wider issue of migration law, where there is a lot of jingoistic rubbish said, a lot of political point scoring and a lot of very narrow focusing but very little consideration of the totality of the issue, the real details of what it means and the potential for using this issue to genuinely build a much better nation. Of course, the flip side is the danger that can arise when this issue is misused and the damage it can cause to our nation.

The legislation before us, the Australian Citizenship Bill 2006 and the Australian Citizenship (Transitionals and Consequentials) Bill 2006, seeks to replace the existing Australian Citizenship Act, which has been in place since 1948. As a member of the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee that looked into this legislation quite a long time ago, I welcome many of the changes, upgrades and updates. It is worth noting at the start of any debate about citizenship issues that the Citizenship Act itself and the new version before us today specifically talk about citizenship representing membership of the Australian community and a common bond that unites all Australians in a reciprocal relationship of rights and obligations while respecting each other’s diversity. It is important firstly to emphasise that part of the recognised intent of Australian citizenship is to respect diversity—and, I would add, to recognise the enormous value that diversity provides to Australia.

I also want to emphasise that the act and the bills specifically talk about the reciprocal relationship of rights and obligations. Towards the end of last year, we had a very brief and fairly farcical consultation process around a government discussion paper on the concept of a citizenship test. The Democrats genuinely engaged with that process and put forward a considered submission in what I thought at the time was probably a vain hope. Nonetheless, it was done in the hope that there was going to be genuine debate and that we were going to consider some of these issues as part of a genuine community engagement. It was a vain hope. The process was a political stunt. It was a deliberate, cheap, pathetic wedge. The consultation process was simply a farce to cover the predetermined position of the government to try to bring in a citizenship test, without in any way indicating how there were any current problems, as a way of trying to score some political points to abuse and misuse citizenship.

The interesting thing about that government discussion paper—which I thought was quite poorly written, perhaps reflecting the fact that it was just a short-term political stunt—was that there was a lot of focus on the obligations of citizens and very little on the rights of citizens. I agree that there are mutual obligations, rights and responsibilities, but there is no point trying to emphasise the obligations of people who are becoming citizens to do A, B, C, D and E whilst completely dismissing the rights that attach to citizenship and the obligations of government to ensure that those rights are upheld.

Unfortunately, what we are actually seeing is that this government is ignoring the rights of citizens and, in some cases, seeking to take them away. That to me is an indication that if there is any problem with the compact of citizenship it is not with people who are potentially considering becoming Australian citizens; it is with this government and the way they are treating some citizens, the way they are willing to sacrifice people for political advantage and the way they are willing to use citizenship itself as a political football.

Look at what the Prime Minister said just recently. When he was announcing his reshuffle, he changed the name of the immigration department to Immigration and Citizenship rather than Immigration and Multicultural Affairs. He said it was:

… in recognition of the obvious fact, and obvious belief on the part of the entire Australian community, that immigration should lead to citizenship.

He also said:

…the desired progression is that an immigrant becomes an Australian.

That seems like a self-evident statement, but look at the government’s policies and actions in this area. Under this government there has been a dramatic increase in the number of people who get temporary residency visas in Australia. Far more people now get temporary residency visas than get permanent residency visas.

There is no direct path from being a temporary resident to becoming a citizen. You have to become a permanent resident first and then serve out some further residency requirements before you can become a citizen. So this notion that all people who come to reside here should be, in the Prime Minister’s view, on this nice, clear, straight path through to citizenship is belied by his own policies and his own record in recent times.

You only have to look at the dismissive treatment that the Prime Minister has given to this whole area in his ministerial appointments. In the last 2½ years we have had five different ministers responsible for this crucial area of public policy. It has gone from Mr Hardgrave to Mr McGauran to Mr Cobb to Mr Robb and now, with the new ministerial arrangements, to Mr Andrews or Ms Gambaro. I do not know which of those two has responsibility for it. Perhaps the government could enlighten us on that. But responsibility was with the parliamentary secretary, Mr Robb, before. I presume it would stay with the junior minister—and the junior ministers have been continually shuffled and moved around.

This year Mr Howard may have put ‘citizenship’ into the name of the department, but last year, when he had a reshuffle just before Australia Day—when he had a minister for citizenship, Mr Cobb—he scrapped the title of minister for citizenship altogether. The Prime Minister’s own record shows that he has no interest in this area. This legislation, and the lack of its passage, shows that the government has no interest in and no genuine commitment to progressing these issues.

As Senator Ludwig mentioned, many of the changes in this legislation result from decisions and announcements that were made back in 2004—a whole range of positive improvements that would actually enhance people’s ability to become Australian citizens, as Mr Howard says he wants them to do. Yet it has taken till now for them to come before the Senate. The legislation originally appeared in 2005. The Senate committee inquiry that looked into it, as usual, had to do a quick job because it was important that we got the report back so that the government could progress the legislation. We reported in February last year, and it is only now that the legislation is before us. Now, suddenly, the Prime Minister wants to pretend that he is all concerned about citizenship and that he thinks it is absolutely vital and important. What a joke!

You only have to look at the sudden decision out of nowhere to extend the residency period to four years. Mr Howard supposedly wants to encourage people to become citizens and yet, out of nowhere, with no consultation, he puts in an extra barrier for them. We all know that people can be permanent residents indefinitely. There are hundreds of thousands of people living in the Australian community who have been permanent residents for decades and decades. I might say that, proportionally, the majority of them are from the UK and New Zealand. They live in the community and they do not, for whatever reason, become citizens—they do not wish to become citizens, they cannot be bothered or they do not get around to it. If, as the Prime Minister says, we want to ensure this desired progression from immigrating to becoming citizens, why is he making it harder for people? Why is he making it more likely that people will go, ‘I can’t be bothered; there’s no point’? And why are those extra rights attached to becoming a citizen being eroded along the way?

Let me emphasise that I do not reject on a policy ground—and the Democrats are on the record with this—the notion of extending the residency requirement from two years to three, as was originally proposed in this legislation. The purpose of my previous comments was to emphasise the government’s hypocrisy—the difference between their statements and their actions. Whilst we do not reject extending the residency requirement from two years to three, we have seen no reason at all as to why it should be extended to four years. But the reason that was given for extending it to three years was ludicrous. How could anybody suggest that it is in any way a national security measure to make people have to wait three years instead of two years to become a citizen? We all know that anybody who becomes a citizen has to have already been a permanent resident. They already had permanent residency entitlements. The only way they can be deported and have their residency cancelled is if there are serious character issues or serious convictions.

The notion that making the residency requirement a year longer before people can become citizens is being put forward as a genuine response to the London bombings is ludicrous. The fact that the government can put this forward as a genuine response to the threat of terrorism and get away with it shows how poor the debate around these issues is.

I went to a number of citizenship ceremonies around Australia Day, as I am sure many of us in this chamber did. I went to four different ones. I always find citizenship ceremonies a positive experience. They are very uplifting. They have a great vibe about them: people wanting to become Australian are recognising the positives of our nation. There are always a lot of differences in the way those ceremonies are run. Without in any way wanting to be critical of some of the people also at some of those citizenship ceremonies, it was very clear from some of the speeches that were given at those ceremonies that there was almost a subconscious assumption that half of these people had just stepped off the plane. When people become citizens, they have been permanent residents for years. They are making a conscious decision that makes me proud to be an Australian. They are choosing to become Australian. It was not a choice of mine; I was born here, and I am very lucky to have been born here. But I think for other people to choose to become Australian is a great and positive reflection on our nation.

I am sure people all know this when they think about it, but, because of the lack of genuine, substantive debate about this, there is a continuing assumption that people who are becoming citizens have barely got off an aeroplane and need a nice little introductory lecture on what a local association is, where the local shops are and that sort of stuff. But we are talking about people who have already been permanent members of the Australian community for a number of years and who, for a whole range of different reasons, are choosing to become citizens. That is a positive for us. We should not begrudgingly say, ‘We’ll only let you in if you know what day the Melbourne Cup is on.’ That is ludicrous.

To some extent, having citizenship tests with these Trivial Pursuit type questions in them is, I am afraid, the way the debate has been framed. If the minister and the parliamentary secretary could have come up with anything more substantial than this sort of thing—this vague button-pushing and dog-whistling about Australian values—then maybe we could have had a genuine, robust debate. I saw an article in a newspaper a week or so ago in which someone genuinely suggested that the government think about making it an extra help in respect of your ability to become an Australian citizen if you become a member of a footy club. How ridiculous! What are we reducing citizenship to when that is the level of the debate about citizenship? It is an important issue. It just disgusts me.