HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES - The Southern Cross Group

92 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Tuesday, 31 October 2006
that should be at the forefront of our thinking about how we want to approach all that we do in this country to
make it a much better country.
This is a very important bill and I want to touch on some of its key points. In recent years we thought that the
old legislation had failed to adapt to the increase in population mobility, and this current legislation will see to
that. I touch on the fact that a person can gain permanent residency and then spend no time in Australia and still be
granted citizenship, so long as they can show their activities overseas to be of benefit to Australia. Yet another
applicant may have spent years in Australia prior to gaining permanent residency, immersing themselves in the
Australian way of life but still not satisfying the residency requirement. So that oddity is going to be addressed.
The new requirements also recognise the changes in the migration program over the years, changes which have
resulted in an increasing number of people spending significant periods of time in Australia as temporary residents
prior to becoming permanent residents. I want to stress the changes will not affect current permanent residents.
People will only be required to meet the current two-year residential qualifying period providing they apply for
citizenship within three years of the commencement of this act.
As I alluded to earlier, at the heart of this act is a residency requirement. The bill increases the residency requirement
for applications for citizenship from two in the five years immediately preceding the application to
three in the five years. The new amendments to be introduced in the parliament follow this debate. However, it
will alter these requirements to a minimum of four years of lawful residence in Australia immediately prior to
making an application for citizenship, including at least 12 months as a permanent resident. Absences from Australia
of up to 12 months during the four-year period will be allowed, with no more than three months in the year
before they apply.
These strengthened residency provisions will give migrants and applicants for citizenship more time to really
be part of the Australian way of life and to associate themselves deeply with the values that we consider very
much the essence of this country. Of course, it will allow opportunity for the government and its relevant agencies
to undertake the necessary security checks that should be taken.
I do not see why this should be an issue at all. If people come from another country and seek to be part of the
Australian community, irrespective of where they come from, I think it is entirely appropriate that the government
of this country and its relevant agencies focus on their backgrounds to see that they are the kinds of people that the
rest of us in this country should welcome. There is no problem with that at all, as far as I can see—provided that it
is done in a proper and professional manner, that it is done in an indiscriminate fashion and that it is applicable to
everyone who falls in that category.
It is also important to remember—and I am sure that my constituents will be very keen to know—that these
provisions are not out of step with countries such as the UK and the US. For instance, in the UK, they require five
years of lawful residency with no more than 450 days absence during that time, while the United States legislation
requires five years of permanent residency with absences of only up to six months each year. So it is not at all incompatible
with those two countries and the emphasis they place on citizenship.
The bill will introduce changes to the requirements of citizenship by dissent, including removing the age limit
by which a child of an Australian citizen must be registered, a provision of citizenship by dissent for children
whose parents have lost their citizenship and a provision of citizenship by conferral for children who were born
after their parents had lost their citizenship. These changes ensure Australia’s citizenship laws abide by the blanket
policy that citizenship by dissent should be applied when a child is born to a parent who is an Australian citizen.
Removing the age limit is a continuation of a previous legislative amendment which saw the limit for legislation
increase from one year after birth to 18 years in 1984 and to 25 years by the Howard government in 2002.
This measure will provide relief for those people with an Australian parent at the time of birth who previously
were above the age of registration, and it will remove the situation where the child was effectively punished and
denied Australian heritage because of an omission by their parents, many of whom were not aware of the legislative
requirements. So it will ensure that no child of an Australian parent is denied their ability to consider themselves
an Australian, which of course I am sure that the overwhelming number would like to do.
An important point that this bill addresses is to enshrine equality in spousal provisions. The spouse of an Australian
citizen will have to meet all the same criteria as other adult applicants. Spouses will also be able to have
time overseas counted as time off for the residency requirement, as long as they can show a close and continuing
association with Australia during that time. I think these provisions are long overdue and they do represent the
fundamental ideal that each individual is a citizen in their own right and therefore each individual applicant for
citizenship should meet the required standards, as opposed to relying on a spouse’s citizenship. It will ensure a
spouse, along with all other applicants, has to undergo the ASIO security check.
MAIN COMMITTEE