Table of Contents
Citizenship in its entirety not only symbolises community but also the duties and rights of the community that comes along with it. Outside the core of membership, conceptions of citizenship have altered due to the time and place, as both the nature of community and membership are in question. Typically, citizenship is often about legal and political relationships. A citizen is a member of society by virtue of mutual rights and duties in common. Citizenship can also include inequality, in distinguishing citizens from non-citizens. Since Federation, in 1901, Australia has had numerous changes and debates around immigration and citizenship, many of those debates are still in question and quite prominent in today’s society.
History of Australian Citizenship
The globe is divided into nation-states which use sovereignty within their own territorial boundaries. The origins of this contemporary nation-style system can be located in a group of centralised European territorial states that came into existence during the sixteenth century. Those states then developed their own administrations, established precise land boundaries, limited their populations, and founded systems of interstate relations which permit mutual acknowledgement of honesty and sovereignty.
There was widespread public support for the adoption of a national immigration policy and administration upon Federation. Immigration was at the time administered separately by the states. All of the major parties involved in the new Federal Parliament held policies deliberately aimed at the exclusion of non-European migrants. The Immigration Restriction Act 1901, which introduced a ‘dictation test’ for those seeking to immigrate that could be given in any European language, was the beginning of what became known as the ‘White Australia Policy’. This policy remained virtually unchanged until after the Second World War.
127 our experts are availableright now
In 1903 the Naturalisation Act was introduced to Australia. Conditions which granted ‘aliens’ naturalisation by the Commonwealth and the attainment of the same rights and privileges of British nationals. Individuals from Asia, Africa or the Pacific Islands were prohibited from applying for naturalisation. Immigration came to a halt when World War One began, up until then there had been a gradual increase of those immigrating to Australia. During WWI the Federal Government made changes to the Naturalisation Act 1903, individuals applying for naturalisation would need to disclose their intent, relinquish their own nationality and prove they were able to read and write English. In the changes made to the Nationalisation Act 1920, a definition for ‘natural born’ British persons. The nationality of many who may have considered themselves to be ‘Australian’ were primarilary of British decent well until 1949. In 1920 the Australian Government took on the responsibility of selecting migrants and all migrant operations in the United Kingdom in the following year, 1921. Many of the migrants arriving from England were under the Empire Settlement Act 1922. The 1930’s saw a steady decline in migrants to Australia because of the economic depression with arrivals coming to a virtual halt at the beginning of World War Two, as a result Australia saw a large increase in the amount of refugees entering the country.
At the first citizenship ceremony in 1949, seven men from Czechoslovakia, Denmark, France, Greece, Norway, Spain and Yugoslavia swore their allegiance to Australia. Seven men were chosen to represent each of the Australian states and territories. Each of the seven men, despite their varied backgrounds, they became committed to equal opportunities, respect and tolerance on a mutual ground, religious freedoms and speech, and a commitment to Australian law and democracy.
The development and history of Australian citizenship and immigration is fundamental in how Australia develops as a country with regards to its people. The timeline below shows important milestones within the history of Australian citizenship and immigration.
1959 – Saw the first spike in people becoming citizens. Citizenship increased from less than 5,000 in 1954 to more that 49,000.
1969 – The Nationality and Citizenship Act 1948 was amended to include reduced residency requirements and renamed Citizenship Act 1948-1969
1973 – The Citizenship Act is renamed the Australian Citizenship Act. The special treatment for British citizens was removed, thus allowing for the same good character and language requirements applied equally to everyone applying for Australian citizenship.
1984 – Australia revoked the laws that made Australian citizens subjects of the United Kingdom.
1999 – The confirmation was introduced to the citizenship ceremonies thus allowing all new citizens to share their achievement of becoming an Australian citizen and their commitment to the Australian values.
2001 – September 17, was introduced as Australian Citizenship Day as a representation of the anniversary (1973) of the renaming of the Citizenship Act to the Australian Citizenship Act
2002 – the provisions of dual citizenship was adopted. Allowing new citizens to reflect their heritage
2007 – As part of the citizenship application, a short multiple choice test was introduced to encourage new citizens to obtain the knowledge they would enable them to successfully intergrate into Australian society.
Policy and Rulings
The Australian Parliament recognises that becoming an Australian citizen holds a full and official membership of the Commonwealth community. Australian citizenship is a shared bond, connecting mutual rights and obligations, uniting all Australians whilst respecting the diversity within the community.
The parliament recognises that Australian citizens enjoy these rights whist undertaking and accepting these obligations:
- Pledging loyalty to Australia and its people; and
- Sharing their democratic beliefs; and
- Respecting their rights and liberties; and
- Upholding and obeying Australian laws.
There are two cases which I feel define the ways that immigration and citizenship are viewed, the first being: Potter v Minahan (1908) 7 CLR 277.
The immigration issue arose when Minahan’s entry to Australia could be legislated against under section 51 (xxvii) of the Constitution and therefore subject to the laws of the Immigration Restriction Act. James Minahan, Australian citizen by birth, arrived in Australia arrived back in Australia after residing in China for 26 years. Upon Miahan’s return to Australia he failed the Dictation Test (A short test that determines written English skills). Upon this result Minahan was classified as a “prohibited immigrant” under the meaning of the Immigration Restriction Act despite being Australian by birth. Court proceeding were commenced with Minahan arguing he was not an immigrant but in fact an Australian Citizen. With a extremely thorough reading of the Act three of the five justices decided that Minahan had been born in Australia and therefore had always retained his interest in Australia and was not considered an immigrant for the purposes of the Act.
The second case: Comcare v Banerji [2019] HCA 23 This issue of the case was is if the Australian Public Service Code of Conduct violated the constitutionally implied freedoms of political communication. Banerji worked for the Australia Department of Immigration and Citizenship. She had an anonymous Twitter account that posted 9,000 Tweets which were of critical importance to the Australian government and its policies. Banerji’s identity became known and her employment was terminated for violating the code. Banerji claimed compensation under the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Cth) for injury resulting from the termination of employment. The claim was rejected on the basis that the respondent’s injury was suffered as a result of the termination. That decision was set aside by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, on the basis that the Code trespassed upon Banerji’s implied freedom of political communication. The High Court unanimously held that the Code had a purpose consistent with the constitutionally set system of representative and responsible government. The Court held that the provisions of the Act and the Code were reasonably appropriate and adapted or proportionate to their purpose and did not unnecessarily infringe the implied freedom of political communication. Importantly, the Court reemphasised that the implied freedom of political communication is not a personal right of free speech. It is a restriction on legislative power. The freedom extends only as far as necessary to preserve and protect the system of representative and responsible government mandated by the Constitution.
Complexities and Expansion
In a well established Federal Systems, such as those here in Australian, the United States of America and the United Kingdom, national governments offer independent benefits to create dual citizenship in those countries. Other countries such as Canada, they allow dual national citizenship with other countries. Along with the growing involvement of the European Union, there has been heightened attention to what “multinational” and “international” citizenships legally and culturally mean within today’s society. With that being said, there is an even more prominent proposal that indorses a program of “world citizenship” Various complexities within the understanding of modern citizenship and what it should include. In an ever increasing mixed world, with a variety of populations, cultures and beliefs already integrated into many countries is there a need for multicultural dual citizenships. In the Western world, the meaning of citizenship is continually changing with the notions and creativity of legal, political, economic, and social change. Citizenship very much remains both a wanted status and a valued ideal of many people. Within the twenty-first century, in a wold culture of growing claims for political and social inclusion, citizenships will hold a greater meaning as a deliberate notion from the smallest of communities to the largest of communities.
Conclusion
When it comes to immigration and citizenship there would be no multiculturalism without it. It enables countries, like Australia, to embrace other cultures and beliefs. As seen in the Potter v Minghan case, if you are born in Australia you are an Australian Citizen. I am firm believer in that, without that rule of law more and more people would become non-citizens.
