Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Mackellar, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I think the debate on our new citizenship laws is timely because it lets us reflect upon things that are of fundamental importance to us as a nation. I speak very frequently at citizenship ceremonies in my electorate and I do so because I think it is one of the most important moments in a new citizen’s life. It is the moment when they make a decision that they will become loyal to Australia above anything else and that they will take on the responsibility that goes with being a citizen, as well as taking the bounty of Australian policy that comes with it. I frequently say that we have invited people from all over the world to bring with them their culture, background and knowledge and it all goes into a big cauldron, a big melting pot, and what comes out is uniquely Australian. But there are some things that are just not welcome in the pot, and the first thing is anyone who does not believe in, subscribe to and uphold the fact that men and women in Australia are equal. That is not welcome in the pot. Anyone who comes and has a prejudice on the base of race or religion is not welcome in the pot.

In Australia we have, over a long period of time, come together and agreed on the rules and the laws that govern us and when we agree with those rules and those laws we feel free. When we talk about being free in this country, that is what we mean; we have agreed on these fundamental laws and rules, and in that society we feel free. It is possible for a slave to feel free if they agree with the rules and the laws that determine they shall be a slave. And so it is possible for people to say they will accept a lesser standard than we have here and claim that they have a freedom, but it is not the benchmark that we have set here in Australia. As I said, fundamental to that is an understanding of the equality of men and women in Australia and freedom from prejudice on the basis of race and religion.

I said that I attend citizenship ceremonies because I believe them to be important in the lives of those people who are taking up Australian citizenship. It is a great honour to take it up and that is the way, for the most part, they feel. It is an exciting moment and I always like it to be a ceremony where they can indeed feel that something special is taking place.

There was an awful moment at one stage when those people taking the oath and the affirmation were instructed by some bureaucrat down in the bowels of the earth that they could all mutter it together. What came out was a jangle of language which nobody understood and it took away from the importance of that ceremony. Fortunately, that foolish edict was withdrawn and now the oath and the affirmation are taken separately so that you can hear a person professing the statement that comes with the conferring of citizenship.

I suppose that, of the most debated issues relating to this bill, the first is that we are increasing the period that you need to be living in Australia legally to four years. That four-year period has been opposed by the opposition. Personally, I think the four years is an improvement. I think when you are dealing with something as important as citizenship it should have a decent length of time. When the Labor Party reduced it to two years it was done for political purposes, not good citizenship purposes. Many of us objected to it being done at the time. To raise the period firstly to three years and then to four is a good move.

The second point that has raised some discussion—adverse, from some—is the fact that there will be a prohibition on the minister approving applications from those assessed by ASIO to be direct or indirect risks to Australian security. This prohibition will apply whether or not citizenship is by descent, conferral or resumption. I also think that is a very wise provision in the circumstances. I do think that we have to be particular about who it is we offer citizenship to, that they are the sorts of people who will truly make good Australians.

The citizenship bill also introduces provisions to revoke citizenship acquired as a result of third-party fraud and strengthens the revocation provisions relating to serious criminal offences. This is also important in giving proper backup to our concept of what citizenship means. Again I go back to my citizenship ceremonies and what I might say there. One of the things that I do is to encourage people who become citizens to take up an activity of a voluntary nature, which again is very much the mark of what makes an Australian citizen. Indeed, in this country, we could not function to the degree we do without volunteers, whether they be volunteers in surf-lifesaving, in the rural fire service or the SES, in Boy Scouts, or Girl Guides or service clubs. Whatever the range, there is someone somewhere who can fit in and can in fact add to what the Australian community enjoys, and in turn they will become part of that community and become known in the community. I have often said that I think that voluntary activity is the mortar between the bricks that build the edifice of our nation, and so I do encourage all who become new citizens to join and partake of the activities in the community they have chosen to reside in, to become a part of the Australian citizenship body.

The new citizenship act sets out that someone who is applying for citizenship by conferral should be over the age of 18 at the time of applying, should be a permanent resident at the time of application, should understand the nature of the application—and that, too, is a very significant point: that they understand that they are indeed swearing allegiance to this country—should possess a basic knowledge of English, should have adequate knowledge of the responsibilities and privileges of Australian citizenship, should be likely to reside or continue to reside in Australia or otherwise maintain a close and continuing association with Australia and should be of good character at the time of the minister’s decision to grant the application. Those are serious points which need to be highlighted. They are the sorts of points that should be the essence of making a decision as to whether or not a person is suitable to become a citizen of this country.

I cannot not comment on the comments of Sheikh al-Hilali when we are talking about the concept of citizenship. There is a person who ought never have been allowed permanent residency, let alone citizenship, in this country. This man was allowed to remain here because it was politically expedient at the time. I think one of the most offensive parts of the speech he made at the close of Ramadan was where he said that the rape would never have taken place if the girl remained alone in her room with her headscarf on—in other words, a prisoner, not free. He said that she had the vice of enticement. Therefore, if she is locked up she cannot entice a man, who must be at all times free. They are concepts of freedom which are totally against what this country stands for.

Men and women are equal. That means women are able to pursue the ability that they have, to disport themselves in accordance with the laws that we have and to not be treated like they are slipping into slavery. There may be some who wish to go on the slippery slide to slavery. We have to be vigilant and we have to protect the rights of those who are seen to be oppressed. I want to put this very strongly: to live in a community where that dictum is being taught, presumably to young men who adhere to the following of that sheikh, is something that is not acceptable in our nation.

When we consider what action needs to be taken, what reaction is required, we have to look at the sort of ideology that is being preached—and I make a distinction between that ideology and religion observance. It is an ideology, just as communism was an ideology or Nazism was an ideology. It is about the oppression of people. There were people under the Nazi system who may have felt free because they agreed with what Hitler was saying, yet it was abhorrent and we went to war to stop it. Yet here is a man in our midst preaching hate and preaching that women are to be oppressed. He is in hospital now. He will be being looked after by nurses—female nurses. Under his version of things, if they look him in the eye that is an unacceptable offence and consequences will flow. That is not acceptable in my country.

As we consider this citizenship bill, we have to do so not only in light of how many years people have to be here and whether they are of good character but also in light of what it means fundamentally to be Australian. And what it does mean is that men and women are equal and that we are free of prejudice on the basis of race and religion. It means that we create a society where people can reach their maximum potential and where the individual is considered an important person in their own right—not part of a collective where decisions are taken for the collective and the individual can be sacrificed to those collective decisions.

This is a critical time in the development of Australia. We have invited people here in good faith and asked them to be part of us. But we cannot allow that to be a subversive influence; one that will say that in Australia we have some citizens who are lesser than others because there is a dictum being preached by a man who has control over his own community and whose followers suffer. We have to make sure that the rules that we have agreed on that make us feel free remain the dominant rules and laws irrespective of how they are challenged or attacked. That is our responsibility and it is our responsibility as members in this parliament.

The only reason that I as a woman can stand in this parliament today representing my electorate—and having been a minister of the Crown—is due to my forebears, my father and generations before him, who fought for this country and gave me the gift of freedom. It is an obligation we should protect on a daily basis to ensure that the next generation has at least as good a gift as I had—any less and we have all failed. We have a great job to do to ensure that that gift goes to the next generation and the one after that.

See this speech in context