The concept of ‘Australian citizenship’ is a relatively recent one, having its origins in the Australian Citizenship Act 1948 (Commonwealth). Before the inception of the act on Australia Day in 1949, Australians were British subjects. [15] And, until 1 May 1987, when the Australian Citizenship Amendment Act 1984 (Cth) came into force, ‘Australia resisted the move to create a distinct Australian citizenship outside of British subject status’ and Australian citizens continued to be both Australian nationals and British subjects. [16] The 1948 Citizenship Act was also inequitable in that it allowed, de facto, overseas-born people to retain their former citizenship when granted Australian citizenship, while its Section 17 mandated its loss for an Australian citizen who acquired a citizenship of another country. Consequently, dual citizenship was accepted as a matter of legal reality for those who had another citizenship before becoming Australian citizens. As many countries make it difficult for nationals to renounce their citizenship, pledging allegiance to Australia upon becoming Australian citizens was insufficient to divest immigrants of their former citizenship. [17] This inequity was finally removed in 2002 when amendments to Australian citizenship legislation made it possible for Australian nationals to acquire citizenship of another country, when previously it would have meant forfeiting their Australian citizenship. In 2007, a new Australian Citizenship Act was introduced, which repealed the contentious s. 17 and broadened citizenship provisions to include dual citizenship. Thus, the act has made it possible for Australian citizens to maintain their former citizenships or acquire a new one without fear of losing their Australian citizenship. [18]
A further amendment was also introduced in 2007 to allow formal testing of prospective citizens’ English language proficiency and civic knowledge. The amendment requires prospective Australian citizens to demonstrate their commitment to ‘Australia’s common values’ and basic ‘knowledge of Australia’. A review commissioned by the Rudd Government in 2008 found the test ‘flawed, intimidating to some and discriminatory’ in that it resembled a general knowledge quiz that required the knowledge of ‘obscure historical or sporting facts’. [19] Not surprisingly, some migrant groups have contested the ‘prescribed’ notion of Australian identity as an attempt to homogenise the inherently hybrid migrant community. [20] Nevertheless, this uniform national identification will continue to be tested, albeit in a modified form, as ‘[t]he Rudd Government is committed to the citizenship test’ that ‘encourages potential citizens to find out more about Australia and understand the responsibilities and privileges of citizenship’. [21] More importantly though, the amendment highlights the duality inherent in the concept of ‘Australian citizenship’: those born into it may have little commitment to Australian values and a very limited knowledge of Australia, even though they are obliged to vote, while those seeking citizenship-by-grant have to demonstrate their eligibility for the membership of ‘Club Australia’. As Kim Rubenstein points out:
If the Government expanded its thinking about citizenship policy for all Australian citizens, not only those seeking out Australian citizenship and indeed considered moving the portfolio of citizenship outside of the Immigration department, it would promote a greater attention to thinking through what is meant by membership of the Australian community. [22]
Elsewhere in this volume, Nolan and Rubenstein argue that a uniform national identification implied by the amended 2007 act sits uneasily with the legal acceptance of dual citizenship in the 2007 act. They also argue that in a hybrid society such as Australia, people should be free to assume a blended, complex identity rather than be expected to fit into a common social mould imposed by the country’s dominant ethnic group. This writer is not qualified to discuss the extent to which the legal acceptance of dual citizenship is compatible with the uniform national identification implicit in the admittedly ill-conceived and insensitively implemented citizenship test introduced by the Howard Government in 2007. In logic, a degree of ‘uniform identity’ is implicit in laws about Australian citizenship that differentiate rights and obligations of Australian citizens from those of non-citizen residents of Australia and citizens of other countries. And, regardless of how this uniform identity is determined in practice and embodied in successive pieces of legislation, the membership of Club Australia inevitably restricts members’ freedom to assume a blended, complex identity of their choice. [23] While the acceptance of social ‘diversity’ and ‘hybridity’ implies a broad interpretation of ‘uniform identity’ (as opposed to a common social mould imposed by the country’s dominant ethnic group), no national ‘club’ is ever diverse and hybrid enough to satisfy all those who demand citizenship rights but resent the notion of reciprocal social obligations.
The 2007 test notwithstanding, membership requirements of Club Australia have been quite liberal by international standards and barriers to entry not particularly high. [24] This is best demonstrated by the proportion of overseas-born in the total population (about one-fifth) and the proportion of immigrants who acquire Australian citizenship. Since 1949, more than three million overseas-born Australian residents have acquired Australian citizenship and, in 2001, 74 per cent of overseas-born Australian residents (of two years or more) were Australian citizens.[25] Also, of 3.7 million overseas-born people who responded to the ‘ancestry question’ in the 2001 Census, 76 per cent stated their citizenship as ‘Australian’ and only 23 per cent as ‘Other’. [26]
[15] ABS, Year Book Australia, 2004.
[16] Rubenstein, K. 2008, ‘From supranational to dual alien citizen: Australia’s ambivalent journey’, in S. Bronitt and K. Rubenstein (eds), Citizenship in a post-national world: Australia and Europe compared, Law and Policy Paper, no. 29, Centre for International and Public Policy, The Federation Press, Canberra, p. 40.
[17] See Nolan and Rubenstein elsewhere in this volume .
[18] However, as the concept of ‘Australian citizenship’ is not included in the Australian Constitution, the power of the Commonwealth to enact laws about Australian citizenship derives primarily from the ‘alien’s power’. It is thus possible for those who are defined as ‘aliens’ (that is, those who owe an obligation to a sovereign power other than Australia) to be citizens and aliens at the same time. This applies to all dual citizens (Rubenstein, ‘From supranational to dual alien citizen’).
[19] Berkovic, N. 2008, ‘Howard’s migrant test to be dumped’, The Weekend Australian, 22–23 November 2008.
[20] See Nolan and Rubenstein elsewhere in this volume.
[21] Senator Evans, Immigration Minister, cited in Berkovic, ‘Howard’s migrant test to be dumped’.
[22] Rubenstein, ‘From supranational to dual ålien citizen’, p. 49.
[23] Indeed, the extent to which migrant communities have been able to voice their particular concerns about ‘national common values’ is itself a measure of Australia’s openness as a host country, as such groups have no voice in less tolerant societies.
[24] Hugo, ‘Centenary article’.
[25] Children born in Australia acquire Australian citizenship at birth, if at least one parent is an Australian citizen or a permanent resident of Australia, while those born overseas may be registered as Australian citizens by descent if at least one of their parents is an Australian citizen (ABS, Year Book Australia, 2004). The propensity to acquire Australian citizenship increases, ceteris paribus, with the age of immigrants and the length of their residence in Australia. For example, in 2001, Greece-born residents had a 97 per cent citizenship rate as 83 per cent of them arrived in Australia before 1971 and 75 per cent were at least fifty years old (ibid., Table 5.52).
[26] Ibid.,Table A2, p. 94.