Is citizenship in Australia an individual’s legal status?

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Table of Contents

A brief overview of citizenship in Australia
Patriotism versus preceduralism
Permanent residence versus citizenship
Conclusions
References

Citizenship in Australia has been considered as a new concept in spite of the prevailing politics that has existed for many years. The political factors often raise questions on the relationship between the state and its citizens. In addition, the validity of Australian citizenship has also been argued out on the perspective of whether it acts to safeguard an individual’s legal status or that of the state.

Short and Mutch (2001, p. 114) point out in their publication that while citizenship in Australia is an important component that draws individuals and institutions together in order to share aspirations and values as well as to exercise social responsibilities, issues of individuals’ legal status, ability to perform duties and enjoy certain rights in Australia have been of concern for some duration of time now.

Citizenship has been described as a legal entity which should create a balance between individuals and state while allowing equal access to rights and protection by existing laws.

In addition, citizenship in Australia has in the past decade been affected by conflicts both in terms of its practical meaning and in relationship to an individual’s legal status. It is against this background that this paper critically examines the citizenship in Australia and its legal role among Australians in general.

A brief overview of citizenship in Australia

The history of the creation of the current Australian citizenship can be traced way back in 1949 when it took effect after it was formed through the Nationality and Citizenship Act (1948). Studies reveal that earlier on, before its formation, Australians did not have any form of well recognized legal status in their own country which could be granted to them as proof of citizenship.

As a result, they mainly relied on the one which was being offered to the British nationals. However, with an increase in immigration practices that became common after the federation, migration programs were developed which saw the rise of citizenship laws that were addressing immigration policies.

The trend of migration in Australia has over the years risen significantly with 153, 648 in 1949. The latter was the number that was granted citizenship at that time. This figure rose to 22 million individuals in 2009 (Dutton 2000, p. 333).

According to Chauchat and Cogliati-Bantz (2008, p. 193), citizenship in Australia may be obtained in several ways. Some of the key ways include grant, adoption, descent as well as birth. It is important to mention that many permanent citizens in Australia today have attained their status through grants.

However, obtaining citizenship by grant saw the introduction of new rules that made acquisition of citizenship in Australia harder than it was some 30 years ago. Today, over thirty amendments have been made on the Australian citizenship legislation.

This has led to less regard of the Australian citizenship status since it is being regarded as an important component of identifying oneself with the country. In other words, it is a way of showing commitment and loyalty to the country.

Boreham, Stokes and Hall (2004, p. 100) argue that even with the rise in provision of citizenship to individuals in Australia, its practical impact on legal rights and material situation has very little effect on individuals.

This is attributed to the manner in which it impacts negatively on the legal status of individuals and poses the threat of its ability to grant individuals their rights and protection. This has been worsened by myriad of amendments that have been done in the past.

Patriotism versus preceduralism

The amendments carried out in the Australian citizenship legislation have been subject of great debate in legal and academic circles bearing in mind that its symbolic and legal changes have impacted on individuals’ legal status. The amendments have also made the cost of acquiring citizenship to be a lot easier.

This has made its expected impact on provision of support and legal protection to be less felt and robbed Australians the sign and status of feeling like distinct people with a unique culture, evolved memories, history and a common future.

The citizenship has ceased being associated with loyalty and patriotism, rather it demands adherence to procedures and laws. Dutton (2000, p. 333) argues that proceduralism has replaced the aspect of an individual’s legal status.

Its call for obedience to laws and tolerance seems to be the only value which it demands from citizens. While proceduralism has received much credit from many analysts who feel it fits well with multiculturalism, others feel that citizenship ought to be light and prescriptive and not complex and oppressive.

As Cook, Walsh and Harwood (2009, p. 45) indicate, Australia has a highly diverse population similar to other countries.

Unlike other countries that highly restrict their growth and development only to their people, Australia is open to all who have basic history of the country and English understanding, good moral characteristics, no criminal record and readiness to swear allegiance to the country’s constitution.

Among individual Australians, their belonging in Australia is based on legal status and patriotism and not tolerance in living as a community or side by side as this does not just rob them of some of their rights, it also allows newcomers to interfere with their cultures.

Permanent residence versus citizenship

McGregor (1997, p. 64) argues that the introduction of permanent residents in Australian citizenship impacts on the legal rights that an Australian individual reserves on its provisions. Being largely symbolic, the Australian citizenship and its material benefit like education, welfare gains and access to Medicare which were legally enjoyed by Australian citizens have now been opened to permanent citizens.

Another area of change is full access to employment and old age pension. These have made citizenship and its legal rights not to be fully enjoyed by Australian citizens. Jaensch (1997, p. 90) argues that there are a few legal barriers that prevent full participation of migrants with or without citizenship in the Australian society.

The problem of citizenship on an individual’s legal status as put forward by Dutton (2002, p. 86) is that it has not been thoroughly debated in terms of how Australians are supposed to benefit. Rather, it is about commitment and levels of loyalty to the nation.

Citizens in Australia confer the right to a passport, service on juries and right to vote and work. Besides, citizens and non-citizens alike may work in public offices and have immunity from deportation. The problem posed by these provisions on the legal status of Australian citizens is the slightness in their practical difference with permanent residents.

The element fostered by the Australian citizenship legislation is one that strongly supports proceduralism over individuals’ legal status. This has drawn sharp arguments from different supporters and opponents with the former seeing citizenship as more inclusive and a component that grants everyone full community and political membership.

While critically evaluating the problem of citizenship and individuals’ legal status, Sifa, (2000, p. 154) argues that addressing it should largely be considered from an economic outset. The very reference of minority groups invokes a sense of poor social economic overtone that restricts their ability to move up the social economic hierarchy towards the top.

Therefore, the manifestation and outlay of citizenship and its effects is a paradox in the sense that demanding people at the top to reflect their own cultures and those of the minority groups is indeed cumbersome. Donoghue and Tranter (2010, p. 493) posit that through economic empowerment, the minority groups and their representative cultures become easily represented in important developments and societal demands.

The numerous amendments in the Australian citizenship laws largely sought to protect possible bias towards people of a given group or culture in Australia in terms of enjoyment of basic rights and protection by the law. Such amendments are critical because they reduce possible sense of inferiority for the minority groups and their cultures.

Though some analysts indicate that such laws may present possible crashes between the dominant and the minority groups, the same consideration is not always true.

Chesterman and Galligan (1999, p. 64) indicate that the Australian local administration creates effective checks and balances that require strict adherence and sets up major penalties if faulted. Though it often takes place involuntarily, the resulting orientation depicts key tolerance and eventual acceptance based on mutual respect.

Conclusions

To sum up, the arguments above were based on the thesis statement that citizenship in Australia has been considered as a new concept for many years in spite of its political theories that have been advanced by the political class. This factor has elicited more questions especially in regards to the relationship between the state and its people.

In addition, an individual’s legal status has also been inquired on whether it is an integral component that affects the acquisition of Australian citizenship. From the discussion, it is clear that citizenship may be obtained in several ways such as grant, adoption, by descent and birth.

It is also evident that the Australian citizenship law has gone through many amendments, a consideration that has seen citizens in Australia and other residents, permanent and non-citizens, receive equal treatment.

As noted in the essay, while this has received a considerable support from multiculturalists, it is without doubt that it has impacted on individual legal rights of Australians raising questions on whether Australians should continue existing as a community besides immigrants or as individuals who have full legal status.

References

Boreham, P., Stokes, G., & Hall, R 2004, The Politics of Australian Society: Political Issues for the New Century, Pearson Longman, Sydney.

Chauchat, M., & Cogliati-Bantz, V 2008, “Nationality and Citizenship in a Devolution Context: Australian and New Caledonian Experiences”, University of Queensland Law Journal, vol. 27, no. 2, pp. 193-220.

Chesterman, J., & Galligan, B1999, Defining Australian Citizenship: Selected Documents, Melbourne University Press, Melbourne.

Cook, I., Walsh, M., & Harwood, J 2009, Government and Democracy in Australia, Oxford University Press, Melbourne.

Donoghue, J., & Tranter, B 2010, “Citizenship, Civic Engagement and Property Ownership”, Australian Journal of Social Issues, vol. 45, no. 4, pp. 493-508.

Dutton, D 2000, “Defining Australian Citizenship: Selected Documents”, Australian Journal of Political Science, vol. 35, no. 2, pp. 333-333.

Dutton, D 2002, One of Us? A Century of Australian Citizenship, University of New South Wales Press, Sydney.

Jaensch, D 1997, The Politics of Australia, Macmillan Education Australia, Melbourne.

Short, P.M., & Mutch, A 2001, “Exchange, reciprocity, and citizenship–principles of access and the challenge to human rights in the third sector: An Australian perspective”, Social Justice, vol. 28, no. 4, pp. 114-127.

Sifa, S 2000, “Citizenship and Indigenous Australians: Changing Conceptions and Possibilities”, Pacific Affairs, vol. 73, no. 1, pp. 154-155.

Click Here To Order Now!