HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES - The Southern Cross Group

Tuesday, 31 October 2006 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 3
information but the premiers and the Prime Minister
would not. I find that difficult to believe. If that is how
it now operates, then that is a fascinating development
in governance in this nation.
When Labor agreed for this bill to be passed off to
the Main Committee, we did so in the context that it
was noncontroversial, that we were in agreement with
the government on these issues and that there were
some minor amendments that we would be putting
forward. We have a situation now where we will honour
the agreement that we previously gave about it going
to the Main Committee, but this agreement never
would have been given had we known at the time that
the government intended to abandon the information
that had previously been agreed on nationally—and
that is what we are faced with here.
There is much in this bill that is good, and that is
why, even though I suspect we will lose in the vote as
to whether or not it goes to four years, we will support
the bill in its final form. One of the things is that we
have a changing concept of how the residency requirements
are viewed—and this was something that
was discussed in estimates yesterday. Previously, determining
length of stay in Australia for eligibility for
citizenship would begin at the time you became a permanent
resident. Given the number of people who find
themselves on temporary visas but well and truly integrated
into Australia, the government is now offering a
higher level of flexibility in taking those periods into
account. On the face of it, that appears to be a sensible
move.
We also have some major changes which particularly
affect the Maltese community. They are not specific
and exclusive to the Maltese community, but there
are statelessness issues that I know both the member
for Gorton and the member for Prospect will be going
into in some detail, where people of Maltese origin
who renounced their Australian citizenship—where
they were forced to under some previous situations that
affect quite specifically this situation—were deemed to
have retained their rights to Maltese citizenship rather
than having acquired a foreign citizenship. In March
2005, the Senate Legal and Constitutional References
Committee stated that Australian citizenship needed to
be more inclusive and that children of people who renounce
their citizenship under section 18 should also
find themselves eligible for Australian citizenship. The
government is going some way to fixing many of these
problems. An amendment in detail has been circulated,
I understand, which addresses the problem for some of
the people caught by the situation affecting the Maltese
community. Labor will be moving an amendment
which I hope will be acceptable to the government.
Labor will also move a second reading amendment,
which I will do at the end of my remarks. The Maltese
group are by far the largest to be affected by the sec-
CHAMBER
tion 18 rule, but there will also be some from other
countries—for example, people from the United States
have also found themselves to be affected.
A discussion paper has been put out by the Parliamentary
Secretary to the Minister for Immigration and
Multicultural Affairs on a number of issues relating to
citizenship. The discussion paper itself does not refer
specifically to the four-year change. The four-year
change is something that was heralded at the same time
as the discussion paper went out, and I have no doubt
that the shift to four years is being covered in many of
the submissions that are being made following that
discussion paper. Sadly, any of that level of consultation
proves irrelevant, because the government were
able to wait more than a year to implement COAG recommendations
but they were not able to wait until the
end of their own consultation period to determine
whether or not to ignore the security advice and security
determinations and go for the shift all the way to
four years.
In the context of some of the issues in that discussion
paper, a lot has been said about the English language
and the importance of people learning it. I would
find the government’s conviction on this far more
credible if the Howard government had not slashed
funds from its migrant English language program,
which was revealed in estimates to be to the tune of
$10.8 million. When you look at adult English services,
which is a significant area for adult migrant English
programs, you will find cuts to English language
training at the same time as there are massive increases
in the number of people seeking and requiring those
programs, which makes the government’s commitment
to English language seem far more tokenistic than I
think people on each side of politics would wish.
From what is currently circulated, it appears that an
earlier draft is no longer there. If it is no longer there, I
am pleased. I saw an earlier draft of the second set of
amendments, the transitional amendments concerning
stateless people, but it does not appear to be the version
that is now in the House. Given that the government
has changed this legislation a number of times, I will
refer to the draft now just in case it re-emerges after
my speech. The government were intending to have a
category of stateless people. The minister would not
even have a discretion to allow an applicant to become
an Australian citizen, depending on whether or not the
applicant had been imprisoned for a period of time under
the law of a foreign country. When I saw that
amendment I thought it was one of the more extraordinary
suggestions I had ever seen from the government.
That is not a bad benchmark; there have been a few out
there.
But to actually see the government, in amendments
that appear to have been withdrawn, put forward that
the law of another country and whether or not some-