Page 2388 - Week 08 - Wednesday, 22 June 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MR STEVENSON (5.30): I need to refer to the wording of the Bill. The clause states in part:
the person is an Australian citizen or a permanent resident of Australia;
The key word there is "or". To put a qualifier on the second part of that choice, that is, "a permanent resident of Australia", is what I have done. The qualifier is the words "who has applied for Australian citizenship which is subsequently granted". The word "applied" is relevant. If you check subclause (2), you will see that a person can be appointed to the public service if he is a permanent citizen who has applied for Australian citizenship which is subsequently granted.
If you are suggesting that you cannot have something in there that says "subsequently granted", that is not my advice. My advice is that there is no problem with that; that after a period of time, if that is not granted or if it is withdrawn, they would then not meet the criteria and, if they had been appointed, they would be unappointed. I covered those two specific points by saying that, if they put an application in and then withdraw it, it shows that they do not have the commitment. If they do not receive citizenship, it suggests that we would not want to have them anyway.
As to being discriminatory, it is important that we look at the definition of the word "discrimination". It is to be able to tell differences. Everything everybody does, every day of their lives, discriminates against one thing. You might eat an apple instead of a banana. You are discriminating against one or the other. If anybody does not know that they should read the dictionary. So everything is discriminatory. The Chief Minister says that my amendment may be discriminatory. If you suggest that that is logical, you have to say that the discrimination is already in the Bill. The Bill discriminates against anybody who is not a permanent resident or an Australian citizen. As far as that point goes, I do not think it is relevant either.
I note that the Chief Minister did not say anything at all - not a single word - about the points I raised in relation to pledging commitment to Australia, to the people and to our laws. That did not surprise me because it is a very hard subject to answer. That is why I believe that we should require people to be Australian citizens. They should have that commitment. I have not surveyed it, but I would think that would be the majority view. Why should not someone make that commitment if they want to work directly in the service of the nation or part of it? No-one has handled that point.
The other two points I heard I do not consider to be relevant. The major point I raised, which is why I moved the amendment, is particularly relevant; but no-one has handled it. We have some people over the other side. How about mentioning a reason? At least have a go at it.
Amendment negatived, Mr Stevenson dissenting.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .