Wilson Tuckey (O'Connor, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

They sure did, because they learnt that lesson—and I might add that they did it by hiring a couple of Australian coaches. But the reality is that you cannot neglect your own sporting community because there are better people from overseas—and, of course, you include them in the national team. I guess speed skating is not an area where Australia will ever be highly represented, simply because we have to battle a bit to find the ice. The fact of life is that, in other circumstances, to bring someone into the country for a year and declare them a citizen to compete as a national hero raises some questions in my mind.

But what should we be debating in this place in terms of the administration of our citizenship laws? I wrote to the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship the other day. I wrote to him because I do not raise individual constituent matters in this House. I believe constituents have a right to my help and I have a responsibility to resolve their difficulties, whether I have to deal with a Labor minister or a Liberal minister. I have seen Labor members stand up in this place over time and expose the concerns and difficulties of their constituents to make a political point. I have never seen it advantage the individual, because of course when you pull that trick you do not get any cooperation from the minister of the day. Consequently, I will be very generic.

I have had to put a proposition on behalf of a person known to me, actually, who does not even live in my electorate. His future daughter-in-law was going to be kicked out of the country because she is English. She had come here on a work visa and had fallen in love with my acquaintance’s son. She was 8½ months pregnant and they were going to send her back. She would probably have had the baby on the plane. That is silly, silly administration, but I am glad to say that through the representations of my office that matter was changed. But how could it be? This lady was a genuine resident. I know the department gets concerned about ‘wives for cash’, residency and the difficulties that arise from that. I can understand their suspicion, but this young woman had even been back to England to make a permanent residency application. She had not just tried to get into the country. She and her partner had bought a house, and yet until we intervened they were going to kick her out of the country.

I got another letter about an elderly lady who has been here under the appropriate visa. She must be reasonably wealthy and is clearly not one who wants to impose herself on our social welfare system, which for elderly immigrants is usually not available, and I endorse that situation. This lady has paid $126,000 in tax since she has resided in Australia. She has lived out all the appropriate periods and wants to at least have permanent residency or other rights that entitle her—obviously a person of some wealth—to travel and to return to Australia, where her children are residents, and the approval is still being delayed. Here we are, saying we should give more power to public servants, when those sorts of circumstances arise!

We seem to have gone upside down on 457 visa entrants, a lot of whom have come to my electorate as meatworkers, for instance. And why are they here? Because Aussies do not like working in meat works anymore—and that is fair enough, if they can get jobs more attractive to them, as they certainly have in recent times, more particularly under the Howard government. But why should we close down meat works? People in my electorate have been here four years, and there was a clear understanding that after four years they could apply for residency. They have gone and bought houses. Their wives have been working in the communities, doing the jobs that need doing and, furthermore, both the men and the women have taken positions in sporting clubs and other things and have become excellent citizens. Yet they are getting letters asking them to go home while this parliament deals with whether the law should be changed for one sporting identity.

The other matters are similarly available to the minister’s discretion and do not need specific legislation in this place of the nature offered, and I support entirely the amendments proposed. (Time expired)

See this speech in context