Luke Simpkins (Cowan, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I certainly welcome the opportunity to speak tonight on the Australian Citizenship Amendment (Citizenship Test Review and Other Measures) Bill 2009. I think many of us have been involved in citizenship ceremonies and have welcomed new Australians to the team at local government offices or even in our own offices around the country. That is always a great moment. When I have the honour of conferring citizenship as part of the final ceremony for people who are becoming Australians, what I always like to emphasise is that the good thing about being an Australian is that you have rights. There are a lot of rights. There are a lot of benefits to being an Australian; there is no doubt about that. But there are also great responsibilities. I think it is important that all Australians, whether they are new citizens or whether they have been born citizens, acknowledge those responsibilities. The citizenship test was one of those responsibilities. It was an obligation for people to appreciate this country on a number of different levels.

During the citizenship ceremonies within the electorate of Cowan, I sometimes wonder whether in making the pledge to Australia some people truly understand what it all means. That is the reason I think the introduction of the citizenship test was actually quite a positive thing. Indeed, you might also consider when people sit the citizenship test, particularly if they have come through the humanitarian stream with a non-English-speaking background, that it is a test or an assessment of the English language programs that are provided. You could almost look upon it as a test of whether our systems are working in bringing more people to Australia and helping them to integrate into the community, with the advantages and the opportunities that this great country offers.

I think it is important that I now speak a little more specifically about the bill. As I said before, I do welcome the opportunity to speak on the subject and particularly on the Australian Citizenship Amendment (Citizenship Test Review and Other Measures) Bill 2009. I preface my remarks with comments that a lot of people in Cowan bring to me. These are not just my feelings; there are a number of topics that the people in the electorate of Cowan feel are important enough to bring to me, whether it is in the shopping centres I visit, in my office, by email or by telephone calls. There is a concern about the integrity of the Australian immigration system and our border security measures, which a lot of people, including me, feel have been severely damaged by the attitude of this government and the changes that have been made to our immigration policies.

Eighteen months ago there were reports of the Christmas Island immigration facility being something of a white elephant—yet how things have changed. It is now full to overflowing, and the reason is clear. It seems that out there on the Arafura Sea the Australian government has effectively turned on the green light to people smugglers. The people smugglers have been putting up ‘open for business’ signs, and it seems like the federal government has handed them to them.

To restate my position on these matters, I will go back to previous speeches I have made with regard to certain people who try to arrive here on boats. I remind the House that Afghanistan has no ports. You cannot get on a boat in Kabul or Kandahar, but you can drive into Pakistan. You can go to an airport in Karachi or Islamabad and fly to Malaysia or to Jakarta. That is possible, but I cannot reconcile the claim of fleeing alleged refugees waiting in an airline departure area when a stop somewhere along the way would allow a claim for refugee status to be handled in the normal and legitimate ways. Although that point is a departure from this bill, given the strains on the existing facilities caused by the government’s soft and equivocal approach, it is entirely relevant.

I will, however, turn to the bill now, and there are three components of particular interest in it which I will cover. Firstly, I would mention that the bill provides for a reduced period of residence for certain persons in special circumstances so these persons can then become eligible for Australian citizenship. I believe that this is referred to as the ‘special event’ amendment. The second component is to amend citizenship residency requirements for people engaged in particular kinds of work requiring extensive travel outside Australia, including oil rig workers, pilots and, I believe, professional athletes. The third component is with regard to people with a permanent or long-term physical or mental incapacity being exempt from sitting the Australian citizenship test where they cannot understand or complete the test.

I will begin with making comments on the special event amendment that, as I understand it, has been included in this legislation to give consideration to a Russian speed skater, Ms Tatiana Borodulina, who requires Australian citizenship by next Tuesday, 22 September, in order to meet the qualifying period for competing in next years’ Winter Olympic Games. The legislation in this part would serve to reduce the residency requirement after the minister receives a notice in writing from a person in a senior position in the Australian Olympic Committee or in Tennis Australia. After that notification, the minister can allow citizenship if the applicant has been a resident in Australia for two years and, broadly speaking, has collectively spent 180 days within the country.

It is worthwhile to examine this component of the legislation. I worry a little bit about whether there is a greater risk of further doors being opened and a precedent being set by enshrining this in this manner. I think that the ministerial discretion—what we are proposing, what the member for Murray has proposed—can examine these matters on a case-by-case basis. I just feel that it may be an athlete now, but the risks included in passing control beyond the minister, as is proposed by the government, may include a long line of imported athletes as well as claims beyond the Australian Olympic Committee and Tennis Australia. As it currently stands, if we leave just the Australian Olympic Committee and Tennis Australia in there, then I worry further about what other sort of person—that we might otherwise consider, or that the minister might consider as a good, appropriate, very beneficial person for Australian citizenship—might be lost. It is my view that this is a risky course of action and that the minister should be prepared to justify decisions on a case-by-case basis, utilising the delegations that have been proposed by the member for Murray.

With respect to the second component, which relates to certain persons engaged in employment that requires them to travel outside Australia and who previously have become residents, I can say that I support this sort of consideration. Certainly, if oil rig workers or pilots cannot satisfy the time requirements for eligibility of citizenship and they cannot do that because of their employment, some consideration is warranted under the way that we propose it. I say that because in Western Australia we have many oil rig workers and pilots, and certainly we do in my electorate—there is no doubt about it. They should not have their citizenship delayed or suspended because of the necessity of their employment and earning that living for their families. It is right however that those in these forms of employment should have such consideration. However, it would be better for this bill to be amended to allow ministerial intervention in individual cases as proposed by us. That being said, before each case comes to the minister they should have been here for four years, including having spent a minimum of 16 months onshore. I therefore advocate the use of ministerial intervention in this case.

I will now turn my attention to the third component of the bill. That component relates to people with a ‘permanent or long-term physical or mental incapacity’ being exempt from sitting the Australian citizenship test. Although it is understood that the government has agreed to recognise our concern and remove any reference to ‘torture and trauma’ on refugees as the only qualifying criteria for exemption of people from the test, they have done that only where this condition is not permanent. Beyond that change, the coalition will seek to amend the bill, replacing the government’s amendment to ensure that an exemption will only occur for those with a permanent or long-term physical or mental incapacity, not those with a temporary disability.

I have made my position and the coalition’s position clear on this bill, but before I conclude I would like to reflect on the feelings of my constituents regarding related matters. A great many of my constituents continue to raise with me the issue of border security and the integrity of the immigration system. They do that because they are sick of the boats arriving in our waters and they remember when this was not the case.

With regard to the bill, I urge the government to accept the coalition’s amendments, because they will preserve the integrity of our immigration system and ensure the accountability of the minister, in whom responsibility for this system must in all cases reside.

See this speech in context