Shayne Neumann (Blair, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

Yesterday I was making comment on the comments made by the member for Cowan in relation to the Labor Party’s position, particularly the Rudd government’s position, in relation to border protection and asylum seekers. As I said last evening, what the member for Cowan was saying is simply errant nonsense about the Labor Party in terms of its commitment to border protection and the security of our shores. It goes to show that even amongst some on the back bench opposite there remains a devotion not just to Work Choices but also to the Pacific solution and the inhumane treatment of men, women and children in detention. Not everyone opposite holds that view, but certainly some still remain. It is the climate change sceptics, the Work Choices devotees and now the Pacific solution disciples infesting the back bench of the coalition.

The citizenship test was launched on 17 September 2007 by the previous government, allegedly for the primary purpose of ensuring that applicants for citizenship in this country had a basic knowledge of the responsibilities and privileges of citizenship and that they demonstrated the requisite requirements of the act. It is quite clear that the previous government, when it extended the period of time from two years to four years, really had the idea of being a bit more selective, shall I say, when it came to citizenship in this country.

This government, the Rudd Labor government, is committed to reducing the unnecessary obstacles to people seeking to become citizens in this country. The Minister for Immigration and Citizenship, Senator Evans, announced on 28 April 2008 an independent review of a number of very prominent and eminent Australians who would look into the test. There was much media commentary in relation to that, about whether people knew Don Bradman’s average or what is necessary for people to adhere to in terms of their requisite knowledge of Australia and Australiana. I am comfortable with the test that we are coming up with, with the changes that are in this legislation.

I must say that I always have a lump in my throat when I hear people give affirmations or oaths when they become Australian citizens at the many citizenship ceremonies that I attend as the federal member for Blair. When people pledge their loyalty to Australia and its people, the democratic beliefs that we all share, the rights and liberties that we respect and the laws we uphold and obey—it is terrific on those occasions to hear fellow Australians also reciting that pledge, because it is important that all of us, whether we live in Tasmania, the Torres Strait, Palm Beach or Perth, adhere to those democratic beliefs, those rights and those liberties that we respect.

The review committee handed down its report in August 2008 which was entitled Moving forward: improving pathways to citizenship. The review committee was formally known as the Australian Citizenship Test Review Committee. The Australian Citizenship Amendment (Citizenship Test Review and Other Measures) Bill 2009 before the House today has been examined in detail by the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee and the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills. A report was handed down on 7 September 2009. This legislation takes up a number of the recommendations of the review committee and makes very clear that what we are doing is improving pathways for people to become citizens of this country.

This bill amends by way of schedule. Some people, by reason of their physical and mental incapacity, simply are not capable of sitting a citizenship test. These people, and they are few, should not be denied the opportunity to take up citizenship in this country. We want to be a humane, decent and fair society. If we truly believe in social inclusion we should, in all the circumstances, assist those people to become citizens like any one of us in this House. It is appropriate also to ensure that a citizenship test must be completed within a specified period of time. I also think the third amendment in this schedule I am referring to is beneficial and appropriate. The bill provides that to be eligible for citizenship by conferral the applicants who are under 18 years of age must be permanent residents at both the time of the application and the time of the decision. There is a small group of people who will benefit by the changes in this schedule, and they are just and humane changes. I am happy to speak in support of them and to vote in favour of this schedule.

The new second schedule also provides assistance to people who want to become Australian citizens who are engaged in certain professions, who are elite athletes and others—many of whom pay taxes, many of whom also represent the green and gold despite the fact that they have been permanent residents of this country. We have benefited in many sports from people coming to this country from overseas, not just in tennis or in ice-skating. I can also think of soccer players, rugby league players and rugby union players. There are countries around the world that have also adopted the same attitude as us. When I look at the England cricket team, I wonder whether they should be speaking Afrikaans there are so many South Africans in that team.

We live in a global community. We live in a community where people travel overseas from Australia. About one million Australians live overseas. We are also in a community which believes in multiculturalism, which I believe is appropriate and right, and accepts people from other countries. Last night, I said about six million people have come to this country since World War II and about four million have become Australian citizens. Clearly, many of those people who come to this country accept the democratic beliefs, the rights and the liberties that we respect, and want to become Australian citizens. It is one of the great joys of a federal parliamentarian to see the delight on the faces of young and old at citizenship ceremonies throughout our electorates.

I cannot understand the attitude of the member for Murray, who poured scorn on what we are doing in changing the pathway for citizenship for elite athletes and people in specialist professions. I am mystified at the opposition she put forward and the position she has adopted in relation to certain athletes. Why should these people who represent our country at athletics events, in sporting teams around the world and at Olympic Games events be denied that opportunity in their short careers, when we all share such joy at the efforts of Australian athletes and pride in seeing the delight on their faces when they compete on our behalf? I am truly astonished at the member for Murray’s attitude in opposing this sort legislation. There are many people who, by virtue of their residence and the fact that their employment takes them overseas, simply cannot satisfy the requirements here. To ensure these people get the opportunity to represent our country and to show the world how open and accessible we are is a very good thing.

We also need people from other professions in this country. That is why we have skill shortages. We need people to come here. Whether they are doctors, nurses, accountants or IT experts, we have enjoyed the benefits of a skilled migration program for years. We are also a country that accepts refugees. We adopt a humanitarian approach to people from overseas who are in need, often in desperate circumstances because of poverty, war, pestilence and other travails that they have had to endure.

We have a great record historically of ensuring that people with expertise who want to come to this country, take up permanent residence and then go and work perhaps on oil rigs or as airline pilots can do so. It is appropriate, fair and right. It is just plain wrong for people whose work circumstances are often beyond their control to be ineligible for citizenship. We should amend the test to remove these prohibitive residence requirements so that people can travel outside of Australia as part of their employment, still call Australia home and still become Australian citizens.

This is good, appropriate legislation. It is supported by a number of peak sporting bodies in this country, who also are urging the opposition to support this legislation. I urge the member for Murray, the member for Cowan and others to take a more reasonable approach with respect to this legislation so that the pathways to citizenship for the elite athletes who want to represent us and for professionals and other workers can be made easier, ensuring that all of us can enjoy the citizenship that we are so privileged to share.

See this speech in context