HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES - The Southern Cross Group

Tuesday, 31 October 2006 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 13
nent and obvious example was in the case of Maltese
Australians. Of course, many thousands of Maltese
citizens emigrated to Australia after World War II and,
outside Malta, there are more Maltese in Australia than
in any other country. When these immigrants had children
in Australia they of course became Australian citizens
and, under Maltese law, they were Maltese citizens
by descent. In some cases the original Maltese
immigrants returned to Malta and took their children,
Australian citizens, with them. When these people returned
they of course retained their Australian citizenship.
But the problem arose under the former Maltese law,
whereby those children had to choose between their
18th and 19th birthdays which citizenship to retain. If
these individuals did not renounce their Australian citizenship
by the time of their 19th birthday they lost
their Maltese citizenship. This was an invidious choice
for these individuals but, at the end of the day, many of
them had no choice. Children who were living with
their parents in Malta, many of them undertaking further
education, had no choice but to renounce their
Australian citizenship, as difficult as that was for them.
If they did not renounce their Australian citizenship
they would not have been able to continue their studies,
they would not have been able to work for the Maltese
government and they would not have been able to
buy property in Malta. So it is unfortunate that the
Maltese government at that point imposed that choice
on Australian citizens in Malta. Thankfully, in 2000
Malta changed that policy and they now accept dual
citizenship, as do most nations around the world.
The difficulty arises now because those people who
renounced their Australian citizenship have had their
own children. Under this bill, the child of a person who
forfeited their Australian citizenship under section 17
of the former act is able to reclaim their Australian citizenship.
And that is a good thing—we welcome it. But
the child of a person who was forced to renounce their
citizenship under section 18 is not able to do so. This is
a false dichotomy, an artificial distinction and it is one
the government should rectify and it is one that they
are refusing to rectify. It is also unfair to the between
2,000 and 3,000 children who are living in Malta.
The government mounts the case that people who
took citizenship of another country and who therefore
lost their Australian citizenship often did not know the
implications of what they were doing, whereas the
people who formally renounced their citizenship did
know the implications of their actions. As I say, it is a
false distinction. Many of the people who took other
citizenship and therefore automatically lost their Australian
citizenship did know the implications of their
actions. That is not to say that it made their decision
any easier. It is not to say that it was not a wrench for
them, but they did know the implications of their ac-
CHAMBER
tions, just as Maltese citizens who renounced their citizenship,
under section 18 of the old act, also knew the
ramifications of their actions. It does not reflect what
the government said that they would do. In his address
to the Sydney Institute on 7 July 2004, the former Minister
for Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs, the
member for Moreton, said this:
… the Australian Government has reconsidered this issue
and decided that the principles underlying the resumption
provisions should apply equally, regardless of whether the
purpose of renunciation was to acquire or retain another citizenship
and regardless of a person’s age. The Government
will amend the act accordingly and include a requirement
that the person be of good character.
But the bill that we see in the House today does not
reflect that undertaking given by the member for Moreton
to the Sydney Institute in July 2004. The government
have, frankly, squibbed on their undertaking to
Maltese Australians and reneged on their undertaking
to the thousands of good Australian citizens who had to
renounce their Australian citizenship under Maltese
law. The government should rectify that and they
should abide by the undertaking that was given by the
member for Moreton in 2004.
It also does not reflect the recommendation of the
Senate’s Legal and Constitutional References Committee,
which strongly recommended that the children of
people who renounced their citizenship under section
18 of the act should be treated the same way as people
who forfeited their citizenship under section 17. It was
a unanimous recommendation and the government
should accept it. Importantly, the failure to deal with
this issue in an inclusive way also reflects the old way
of thinking.
It is of course true that Australian citizenship is a
privilege which needs to be guarded closely, but it is
equally true that as a nation Australia has not adequately
valued the benefits that come to us from our
diaspora. As a nation we have not fully capitalised on
the potential of the large number of Australians who
live overseas but who still regard Australia as home.
On any given day, there are up to one million Australian
citizens who live overseas. They still regard Australia
as home and they are still happy to help our
country.
The SPEAKER—Order! It being 2.00 pm, the debate
is interrupted in accordance with standing order
97. The debate may be resumed at a later hour and the
member will have leave to continue speaking when the
debate is resumed.
PARLIAMENTARY BEHAVIOUR
The SPEAKER (2.00 pm)—There was another instance
yesterday of members holding up placards in the
chamber during question time, thus disrupting a question
being asked by the Leader of the Opposition. I
have repeatedly made it clear that members should not