Submission on the discussion paper 'Australian citizenship: much more than just a ceremony'

Submission on the discussion paper 'Australian citizenship:
much more than just a ceremony'

September 2006

Submission of: The Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission

To: The Citizenship Taskforce,
Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs

On the
Discussion Paper 'Australian citizenship:
much more than just a ceremony'

Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission
Level 8, 133 Castlereagh St
GPO Box 5218
Sydney NSW 2001

A:
INTRODUCTION

The Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission
(‘the Commission’) provides this submission to the Department of
Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (DIMA) in response to the discussion paper Australian Citizenship: Much more than just a
ceremony, September 2006 (‘the Discussion
Paper’).

B: SUMMARY

The Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission submission
to the Discussion Paper is divided into Part 1 and Part
2.

Part 1 – Should Australia
introduce a formal citizenship test?

The Commission considers
that, in order to comply with its obligations under international law, the
government must ensure that the proposed citizenship test is

pursuant
to a legitimate aim;

proportionate
to achieving its aims; and

based
on reasonable and objective criteria.

Although the Discussion Paper proposes some
legitimate aims for the introduction of a formal citizenship test, the
Commission considers that it does not provide adequate justification for the
introduction of the proposed test to meet these aims.

The Discussion
Paper does not provide convincing evidence of problems with or inadequacy within
the current system, and does not explain how the proposed changes would better
achieve its aims.

It also fails to consider the negative impact of
the proposed changes and whether other approaches would alleviate these risks
whilst achieving the same
goals.

Part 2 – Safeguards
should a formal citizenship test be introduced

Should a
formal test be introduced, the Commission submits that the government would need
to seriously consider the format, content and implementation of such a test to
ensure that it did not have a discriminatory impact on certain communities
within Australia.

The government should ensure that

the
content and format of the proposed test does not have a discriminatory impact on
certain groups and individuals wishing to apply for
citizenship;

alternatives
to a formal test are
provided;

appropriate
services and assistance are provided to citizenship
applicants;

certain
categories of people are specifically exempted from the proposed
test;

there
are appropriate safeguards in place for those who fail the proposed test;
and

it
introduces programs and education campaigns which promote human rights and
responsibilities and the need to respect diverse cultures, as part of the
government’s obligations to assist people from other countries to
successfully integrate into the
community.

In addition,
the Commission submits that there is no demonstrated need to introduce a similar
test for permanent residents across the board, as visas need to be tailored to
meet specific needs. This is currently provided for through the existing
Australian Migration Program.

C: RESPONSE TO THE
DISCUSSION
PAPER

PART
1- Should Australia introduce a formal citizenship
test?

Overview
of Part 1

The government’s Discussion Paper considers the merits of introducing a formal citizenship test that consists of the following elements:
- English test which will test English to the level that allows the applicant to participate in education and employment (para 26).
- Test of the applicants knowledge of the Australian way of life and values (para 28). The values aspect of the test will ensure the applicant understands common values such as:
  - our respect for the freedom and dignity of the individual;
  - our commitment to the rule of law;
  - the equality of men and women;
  - the spirit of the fair go; and
  - mutual respect and compassion for those in need (para 26).

The test will also ensure that prospective citizens understand the Citizenship Pledge, their responsibilities, privileges, what they are committing themselves to and a greater understanding and ability to take up the opportunities which Australian citizenship provides (para 37).

The Commission considers that the proposed citizenship test involves an implicit differentiation between citizen and non-citizen. There is also a real prospect of the proposed citizenship test having a discriminatory impact on the ground of language, national or social origin and/or birth. That is, the Commission is concerned that a person from a non-English-speaking background is likely to be at a disadvantage in passing an English test compared with a person from an English-speaking background. Likewise, the Commission is concerned that a person from a developed country is likely to have a greater level of education and therefore at an advantage in passing a formal test compared with a person from a less developed country.
Accordingly, for the reasons set out below, the Commission considers that the government must, in order to comply with its obligations under international law, ensure that the proposed test is: pursuant to a legitimate aim;

Discrimination
under international
law

ICERD

The International Convention on the Elimination of
all forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD) prohibits discrimination on
the basis of race. Pursuant to Article 1(2), ICERD expressly excludes from its
scope:

distinctions,
exclusions, restrictions or preferences made by a State Party to this Convention between citizens and
non-citizens.

However,
the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD), the body
responsible for administering ICERD, has confirmed that Article 1(2) must be
construed to avoid undermining the basic prohibition against discrimination
under international law.[1] It therefore
concluded:

Under
the Convention (ICERD), differential treatment based on citizenship or
immigration status will constitute discrimination if the criteria for such
differentiation, judged in the light of the objectives and purposes of the
Convention, are not applied pursuant to a legitimate
aim, and are not proportional to the achievement of this aim. (emphasis
added)

ICCPR

Article
26 of the International Covenant on Civil and
Political Rights (ICCPR),
states:

All
persons are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to
the equal protection of the law. In this respect, the law shall prohibit any
discrimination and guarantee to all persons equal and effective protection
against discrimination on any ground such as race, colour, sex, language,
religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth
or other status.
The
Human Rights Committee (HRC), the body responsible for administering the ICCPR,
has confirmed that Article 26 does not merely duplicate the guarantee of freedom
from discrimination contained in Article 2 of the ICCPR. Article 26 also
requires State parties to ensure that its legislation is not discriminatory on
the grounds of race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other
opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other
status.[2]
However,
the HRC went on to qualify the scope of Article 26, concluding
that:

not
every differentiation of treatment will constitute discrimination, if the
criteria for such differentiation are reasonable and
objective and if the aim is to achieve a purpose which is
legitimate under the
Covenant.[3]

These qualifications are also reflected in the
jurisprudence of the HRC.[4]

Conclusions on the
application of ICERD and Article 26 of the ICCPR to the proposed citizenship
test

The
Commission considers that the proposed citizenship test involves an implicit
differentiation between citizen and non-citizen. There is also a real prospect
of the proposed citizenship test having a discriminatory impact on the ground
of, most relevantly, language, national or social origin and/or birth.

Accordingly,
in line with the comments of ICERD and the HRC referred to above, the Commission
considers that the government must, in order to comply with its obligations
under ICERD and Article 26 of the ICCPR, ensure that the proposed test
is:

Does
the proposed Citizenship Test have a legitimate aim?

The
Discussion Paper suggests that the aims of the proposed citizenship test are
to:
In
the Commission’s view these are, on their face, legitimate aims and are
not contrary to ICCPR and ICERD. Nevertheless, the Commission considers that in
order to demonstrate that it is pursuing a legitimate aim, the government should
provide a cogent and convincing justification for the proposed amendment to the
current citizenship laws. This should
include:

These
issues are discussed
below.

Evidence of
problems with or inadequacy within the current system and an explanation of how
the proposed changes would better achieve its aims

The
Commission considers that the Discussion Paper does not provide adequate
evidence of problems with or inadequacy within the current system or an
explanation of how the proposed changes would better achieve its aims. The paper
does not provide a proper evaluation of the capacity of the current system to
achieve the stated goals nor an analysis of how the proposed changes would
overcome any perceived inadequacies in the current system.
In
relation to the current system, data appearing on the Department of Immigration
and Multicultural Affairs (DIMA) website and the Australian Bureau of Statistics
(ABS) website indicates that a high proportion of people born overseas wish
to become Australian citizens, in
that:
In
addition, under the current system there are already mechanisms to ensure that
many migrants entering Australia are proficient in English. For instance, to
obtain a visa through the General Skilled Migration Program, the majority of
applicants need to pass an English test to ensure they have the requisite level
of English to aid employment opportunities upon arrival in Australia. The
2005-2006 Migration Program accepted between 130,000 and 140,000 migrants to
Australia. Of these places, 97,500 were migrants coming through the Skill
Stream.[7] Hence English language testing is an
unnecessary imposition for a number of people.
Further,
the majority of people in Australia that are eligible for citizenship are from
Mainly-English-Speaking Background (MESB) countries, therefore rendering English
testing superfluous. It is interesting to note that people from the U.K and New
Zealand were the two largest groups to take up citizenship in the last three
years. However, when considered in the standardised citizenship rate, they have
a much lower take-up of citizenship than their Non-English-Speaking Background
(NESB) counterparts.[8] This infers that barriers
to citizenship take-up and benefits that this brings to the individual and the
Australian society are not necessarily related to a lack of English language
skills.

Consideration
of the negative impact of the proposed changes

There
are a number of significant public policy and human rights concerns in relation
to any test that has the potential to increase the grounds for withholding
citizenship from non-citizens residing within Australia. These concerns arise
from the increased vulnerability of non-citizens politically, socially and
economically.
The
vulnerability of non-citizens is highlighted in the Discussion Paper at
paragraphs 7 and 8, which outlines the value and benefits of citizenship as;
The
Commission also considers that there is a further important benefit of
citizenship that has not been referred to in the Discussion Paper – the
freedom from deportation enjoyed by citizens.[9] The Commission refers in particular to the broad discretion of the Minister
under s 501 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) to remove non-citizens from Australia by cancelling their visa on
‘character
grounds’.[10]
The
significance of these concerns is borne out by a consideration of the relatively
recent history of citizenship policy in Australia which includes the de facto
withholding of citizenship from Aboriginal people up until 1967 and the
introduction of the ‘White Australia Policy’ from the 1850’s
through to 1973. The broad heading ‘White Australia Policy’ refers
to a number of policies introduced to restrict non-European immigration to
Australia and promote white, European immigration to Australia.
In
view of this history and these concerns it is important to ensure that adequate
consideration is given to the risks of introducing a formal citizenship test and
to weigh this against the aims that the proposed test is seeking to achieve. In
particular the Commission is concerned that there is a risk that the proposed
changes will increase social disharmony and divisiveness.
As
a result of the national consultations that the Commission conducted with Arab
and Muslim Australians through the Isma project in 2003-2004 and through further
consultations with African communities and Middle Eastern communities in 2006,
the Commission is of the view that there currently exists in Australia an
increased level of fear and discrimination directed towards particular sections
of Australia’s ethnic communities. In this climate there is a risk that
the introduction of a formal test on English language and
‘Australian’ values will have the effect of further marginalising
these groups rather than encouraging social cohesion. For instance, it may send
a message to the broader Australian community that certain migrant groups and
refugees do not value the Australian way of life or understand its values and
hold values that are different to the rest of Australian society. These messages
can only exacerbate the current climate of fear and discrimination and reinforce
the negative stereotypes on which this fear and discrimination is based. The
potential risk of increasing social disharmony and divisiveness is directly
contrary to the stated aims of introducing the citizenship test.
The
Commission also submits that the concept of testing Australian values is
ill-defined and divisive rather than inclusive. While the Commission
acknowledges that there is merit in educating prospective citizens about
Australian law and government, the testing of values raises a number of
difficulties, not least of which are defining what the values are, determining
which ones are core values and how they can be tested. Further, citizenship does
not guarantee the practice of “Australian values” and it is an
un-evidenced assumption that Australian values are commonly shared. The
Commission questions the ability to test whether applicants know these values
and more importantly, whether passing such a test would indicate or lead to a
greater acceptance and adoption of these
values.
The
values deemed important by many Australians and considered to be fundamental to
an Australian way of life may include tolerance, fairness, compassion and
respect for difference. These are not unique to Australia but are values held by
many peoples across the world. Testing these values is inherently difficult and
the failure to pass this test should not be interpreted as the inability of the
applicant to fit into Australian society or respect its values.

Whether
other approaches would alleviate these risks whilst achieving the same
goals

In
view of the potential risk to social cohesion through the introduction of a
formal citizenship test it is necessary to consider other approaches for
achieving the stated goals of the proposal which do not incur the risks
associated with the proposal.
The
Commission submits that a commitment to Australian values and way of life
develops through positive interaction within the community, through school
education, community activities and employment. Such endeavours are viewed by
the Commission as a more positive and successful approach to integration than
the study and completion of a formal citizenship test.
One
approach to consider would be to augment the current incentives available and
create a course of study directed to participation and inclusion through
citizenship, which could be compulsory for applicants for citizenship. A course
of similar nature to the Adult Migrant English Program (AMEP) course Let’s participate: A course in
Australian Citizenship, is considered a better approach to achieving the
goals of the changes proposed in the Discussion Paper. Participation in a course
would be a more inclusive and constructive way of ensuring that people wishing
to become citizens have adequate English and the knowledge of Australia to fully
participate in Australian society. However, the granting of citizenship should
not be contingent on passing a test at the end of the course. As mentioned in
Part 2, paragraph 39 of the submission, such a course would need flexibility and
appropriate services to cater for the various needs of participants.

Conclusions
for Part 1

The
Commission does not suggest that the government is pursuing an illegitimate aim
in seeking to introduce a formal citizenship test. Nevertheless, the Commission
considers that, to date, the government has failed to adequately articulate its
aims in introducing the proposed changes.
For
the reasons discussed above, the Commission submits that the Discussion Paper
fails to demonstrate
that:

The
Commission considers that, as the Discussion Paper fails to make a case for the
proposed test, the government should not introduce a formal citizenship test.

PART
2 – Safeguards should a formal citizenship test be
introduced

Overview
of Part 2

As
noted above in Part 1, the Commission is yet to be convinced that there is a
need to introduce a formal citizenship test as proposed in the Discussion Paper.
Indeed, at this stage the Commission considers that any potential benefits are
likely to be outweighed by the negative impact the changes will have on social
cohesion within our community.
Notwithstanding
the above, this Part of the Commission’s submission sets out the
Commission’s views should such a formal test for citizenship be
introduced.
The
Commission considers that the comments below are important for ensuring that any
differentiation on the ground of language, national or social origin, birth or
citizenship arising from a formal citizenship test
is:

Content
and format of test

In
Part 1 the Commission has outlined its concerns with the testing of values. In
light of these concerns, the Commission submits that the testing of values not
be undertaken as part of the Citizenship Test.
Even
if the Test includes the testing of knowledge of Australian way of life and
Australian law, the government should carefully consider what type of material
should be included as an adequate reflection of the stated aims of the proposed
test. The Discussion Paper included sample questions from various international
citizenship tests, covering history and way of life, such
as:
- Which
  of these statements is correct – a television licence is required for each
  television in a home or a single television licence covers all televisions in
  the
  home?[11]
- Which
  President was the first commander in chief of the US
  military?[12]

The Commission queries whether the
ability to answer questions of this type is either indicative of a person being
a good citizen, or necessary for citizenship. Indeed it is questionable whether
a test of this type would be passed by all current Australian-born citizens.

The
format of the proposed test should also be considered carefully. Certain types
of tests could disadvantage some groups. For example, the introduction of
on-line testing (para 70) could create
difficulties for applicants without the necessary computer skills, for example,
the elderly and those from developing countries. Many applicants from developed
countries will have greater proficiency than their counterparts from developing
nations. While the Life in the U.K. test [13] website offers instruction in Mouse training and Keyboard training, a certain
amount of computer proficiency is needed to access this training. In order to
minimise the risk of the proposed test having a discriminatory impact on persons
who, because of their birth or previous nationality, have not developed computer
literacy skills, the Commission considers that the government would need to
ensure that all applicants for citizenship had access to personal help in the
most basic of computer skills. Alternatively, the format of the proposed
testing should not be exclusively on-line, but could include more traditional
types of testing, such as in paper
form.

Alternatives
to formal testing

Even
if a formal test were to be introduced, there should be alternatives and
flexibility to testing for those who wish to become citizens. As discussed in
Part 1, the Commission suggests that a course-based approach could meet some of
the aims of the Discussion Paper. The government could provide a course as an
alternative to certain groups unable to sit the test for various reasons.
If
the government were to implement such a course, consideration would be needed to
ensure that non-citizens are provided with appropriate services and assistance
to attend the course. The Commission submits that the following arrangements
should be implemented to assist attendance at English/citizenship
classes:

Another
possible alternative is to offer applicants for citizenship the chance to gain
citizenship through an interview process. This would ensure that those unable to
pass a formal test would be given an alternative method to demonstrate their
eligibility for citizenship. Within an interview, an applicant could be tested
for English proficiency and given the opportunity to provide supporting evidence
of participation and integration in the community, for
example;

Provision of
appropriate services and assistance to citizenship applicants.

The
Commission considers that, in order to advance its stated aims of enhancing
skills, employment and participation of new citizens, the government must ensure
that citizenship applicants are provided with appropriate services and
assistance to assist them to pass the proposed test.
In
relation to the provision of such programs the Commission notes with concern the
recent statements made by Ms Anna Burke in Australian Parliament recently, to
the effect that the government has cut funding to the AMEP. As stated in
Hansard:

But,
if we are to encourage people to ensure that they have English when they take up
their citizenship, surely we must be putting in the resources so they can
actually do it. The government has in fact slashed money from English classes by
$11 [$10.8] million. It has under funded programs. It does not ensure that there
are sufficient hours. It does not ensure that the classes are at flexible times
and it does not provide child
care.[14]
Cutting
of funding to migrant English programs and Migrant Resource Centres, another
invaluable tool in helping new arrivals in Australia to integrate, is
counter-productive to the government’s desire for new citizens to be
highly proficient in English, in order to fully participate in Australian
society.

Exemptions
from the test for certain individuals and groups

If
the proposed test were to be introduced the government would need to implement
appropriate safeguards, in the form of exemptions, to ensure that the government
meets its international obligations. The Commission submits that the following
groups should be exempt from the
testing:

The
Commission is particularly concerned about the possible outcome of formal
citizenship testing rendering a child stateless. The Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) seeks to ensure that a child is protected from discrimination regardless
of the status of his or her parents, guardians or family
members.[15] The CRC also sets out the right of
every child to acquire a nationality (Article 7) and the right of every child to
preserve his or her identity (Article 8). Article 24 of the ICCPR also protects
a child’s right to a nationality. The government should make certain that
a child would not be denied any of the rights in the CRC because his or her
parents cannot obtain citizenship.
Refugees,
by their very definition, do not have effective protection of their original
nationality and it is therefore imperative that they have access to a new
nationality. Article 34 of the Refugee
Convention requires Australia to tale steps, ‘as far as possible,
to facilitate the assimilation and naturalisation of
refugees’.[16] A citizenship test should
not be a bar to this right.
The
Commission submits that steps should be taken to protect the family unit if
formal citizenship testing were to be introduced, in accordance with Article 23
(family life) of the ICCPR.[17] In addition,
Article 10 of the CRC emphasises the importance of family reunification. All
family members should be entitled to citizenship without all having to pass the
proposed test.
The
government should ensure that the failing of a citizenship test would not lead
to statelessness, in accordance with the Convention relating to the Status of Stateless
Persons. [18]
The
Commission submits that exemptions should also be granted to older applicants,
incapacitated persons, persons with a mental, learning or other relevant
disability and long term
residents.

Safeguards
for those who fail the test

As
noted above, the Commission is concerned that the proposed citizenship test may
have a discriminatory impact on certain groups of persons, particularly on the
grounds of language, national or social origin and/or birth. In light of these
concerns, the Commission considers that it is appropriate that the proposed
citizenship test is accompanied by a clear and effective right of appeal,
including the possibility of full merits review. This is important for ensuring
that persons whose rights and freedoms are violated by the test or its
application have access to an effective remedy, as required under Article 3 of
the ICCPR. It would also ensure that any areas of discretion within the test,
or aspects of the testing open to subjective interpretation, can be reviewed
with ‘fresh
eyes’.
The
Commission also submits that there should be no limit on the amount of times an
applicant is permitted to re-sit the proposed citizenship test and no waiting
period in between failure to pass the proposed test and the opportunity to
re-sit. Many people who repeatedly failed the proposed test would continue to go
on living in Australia as permanent residents. The danger of this situation is
that these people will be labelled as ‘outsiders’, unable to
integrate fully into Australian society through citizenship.

Human
rights programs and education campaigns

One
of the stated aims of the proposed citizenship test is to build social cohesion
and assist people from other countries to successfully integrate into the
community. As indicated above, the Commission considers this a legitimate aim
consistent with human rights principles. One aspect of integration is ensuring
participation in the broader society through employment and other activities.
The Commission acknowledges the importance of knowledge of English and an
understanding of the underlying legal and governing institutions in achieving
these goals. Another aspect of integration, not referred to in the Discussion
Paper are the rights enjoyed by citizens and non-citizens alike to practice and
enjoy their culture and religion and to be protected from discrimination when
they seek to do this.
The
Commission submits that if the government is to implement the proposed test for
prospective citizens it should also, as part of the same process, embark on an
education program for the broader society about human rights and
responsibilities. Such a program would further advance the aim of promoting
mutual respect between diverse cultures, whilst acknowledging the contribution
that migrants and refugees make to Australia.
To
develop this, funding for specific programs to change community attitude, combat
prejudice and discrimination against all Australians would improve opportunities
for new Australians to gain meaningful employment.

Permanent
Residents

Australia’s
Migration Programme currently provides a range of permanent residency
visas tailored to meet both Australia's needs and the needs
of refugees and migrants. The Commission recognises that English
language proficiency may be essential for certain occupations;
however English language is already recognised as criteria in a number
of visa categories. There is no evidence provided in the Discussion Paper
to indicate that the current criteria for visa categories for permanent
residency and long term temporary residency is unsuccessful and should be
replaced by a formal test. Further, introducing such a test would run the
risk of creating a shortage of workers for certain trades and
occupations where high level English is not
necessary.
The
Commission also finds that the Discussion Paper provides no convincing evidence
of a need for testing permanent visa applicants for their knowledge of
Australian values, for the same reasons identified in Part 1 of this
submission. The majority of migrants entering Australia under the Skill
Stream have high rates of participation in the labour
market.[19] As a consequence these same people
are, on the whole, integrating into the wider Australian community through their
participation in
work.
For non-work
related permanent visa applicants, English language and values tests may
be highly inappropriate. Humanitarian applicants should not have to
demonstrate English language competency, or an understanding of values, in order
to find permanent refuge and settlement in Australia. It would also be
inappropriate to require family reunion applicants, such as applicants for aged
parent or spouse visas, to pass a test of English or Australian values. Such
testing may also be counterproductive to encouraging skilled migrants to choose
Australia as a place of permanent settlement, as they, quite reasonably, wish to
have their families join them.

Final
Conclusions for Part 1 and Part 2

The
Commission does not suggest that the government is pursuing an illegitimate aim
in seeking to introduce a formal citizenship test. Nevertheless, the Commission
considers that, to date, the government has failed to adequately articulate its
aims in introducing the proposed changes.
The
Commission therefore considers that, as the Discussion Paper fails to make a
case for the proposed test, the government should not introduce a formal citizenship test.
However,
should a formal citizenship test be introduced, the government would need to
seriously consider the content, format and implementation of the proposed test
to ensure that it did not have a discriminatory impact on certain communities
within Australia. There would also need to be various safeguards and exemptions
in place to ensure that a formal citizenship test is a transparent and fair
process.

[1] Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD), General
Recommendation 30 (Discrimination against non-citizens), paras 2 – 3.

[2] Human Rights Committee (HRC), General Recommendation 18 (Non-discrimination),
para 12.

[3] Human Rights Committee (HRC), General Recommendation 18 (Non-discrimination),
para 12.

[4] See, eg, Broeks v. The Netherlands (172/1984), ICCPR, A/42/40 (9 April 1987) 139 at para. 13; Borzov v Estonia (1136/2002), ICCPR
C/81/D/1136/2002 (2 November 2001) at paras 7.3 – 7.4.

[5] Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (DIMA). Available at
http://www.citizenship.gov.au/resources/facts-and-stats/stats.htm

[6] Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS). Year
Book Australia, 2006. Available at
http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/bb8db737e2af84b8ca25717
80015701e/01408D0F3CFFA83ECA2570DE0006E28E?opendocument

[7] Bob Birrell, Lesleyanne Hawthorne and Sue Richardson (2006), Evaluation on the General Skilled Migration
Categories, Commonwealth of Australia, 2006, p
10

[8] ABS, Year Book Australia, 2006.
Available at
http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/bb8db737e2af84b8ca25717
80015701e/01408D0F3CFFA83ECA2570DE0006E28E?opendocument

[9] The Minister’s power to deport persons under the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) is limited to
non-citizens: see Part 2, Division 9. Similarly, unlike the case with
non-citizens, a citizen can not be removed from Australia on the basis of being
an unlawful non-citizen: see s 14 of the Migration
Act.

[10] The breadth of the Minister’s discretion under s 501 was recently
confirmed by the High Court in Minister for
Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs v Nystrom [2006] HCA
50.

[11] DIMA, Australian Citizenship: Much more than
just a ceremony, Life in the UK Test , p 21

[12] DIMA, Australian Citizenship: Much more than
just a ceremony, United States – Citizenship Test, p 27

[13] Available at http://www.lifeintheuktest.gov.uk/htmlsite/mouse_10.html.
Available at http://www.lifeintheuktest.gov.uk/htmlsite/keyboard_10.html

[14] Ms Anna Burke, House of Representatives
Hansard, Wednesday 1st November 2006, pp 108-109

[15] Article 2: ‘State parties shall take all appropriate measures to ensure
that the child is protected against all forms of discrimination or punishment on
the basis of the status, activities, expressed opinions, or beliefs of the
child’s parents, legal guardians, or family
members.’

[16] Article 34: ‘The Contracting States shall as far as possible facilitate
the assimilation and naturalization of refugees. They shall in particular make
every effort to expedite naturalization proceedings and to reduce as far as
possible the charges and costs of such
proceedings.’

[17] Article 23: ‘The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of
society and is entitled to protection by society and the
State.’

[18] Article 32: ‘The Contracting States shall as far as possible facilitate
the assimilation and naturalization of stateless persons. They shall in
particular make every effort to expedite naturalization proceedings and to
reduce as far as possible the charges and costs of such proceedings.’

[19] Productivity Commission , Economic Impacts of
Migration and Population Growth, , 24 April 2006, pp 59-60

Last
updated 12 August 2003.

Submission on the discussion paper 'Australian citizenship: much more than just a ceremony'