Tim Hammond (Perth, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

If you say so.

We are all political realists in this place—well, you would like to think so—certainly, they seem to be on this side of the divide. We all know that, if the numbers hold as they normally do, then this legislation will pass through this place and on to the other place. But there are some times and there are some occasions where it is entirely appropriate to make a stand, regardless of where the numbers hold. I have to say that I am very proud to be standing on this side of the divide in opposition to this bill.

This is one of the pieces of proposed legislation that truly speaks volumes as to the difference between us and them. The difference will be shown for what it is through an analysis of just a few of the proposed amendments in this bill. These proposed amendments make it very, very clear that what we have with this government is a lazy government, a government that is determined to try to draw a tenuous link between matters of national security and proposed changes to citizenship in order to sell itself to the community as being, perhaps— ostensibly—conscious of a security factor upon which they will act and we will not. But nothing could be further from the truth. Upon close inspection of what this proposed legislation reveals, nothing could be further from the truth. That is articulated as well as anywhere in the proposed amendments put by the Labor Party to this bill.

In relation to those proposed amendments, let me take you through a couple of them. As is set out in the Labor amendment, the bill is not a response to national security agencies. Instead, it is merely a response to a report by two members of the Liberal Party, one of whom has left the parliament—and I will have more to say in relation to that later. Most importantly, again, the context of this bill needs to be shown up for what it is. This is not groundbreaking vetting here. As is set out in clause 6 of the amendment, people applying for citizenship are already living here permanently. Their entry has already been subject to strict character-and-security background checks. If these permanent residents are a security concern, they should not be living here in the first place.

Let's have a look at the timing involved in relation to this proposed legislation. The government cannot have it both ways. They cannot on the one hand say, 'This legislation is necessary in order to ensure that our national security stocks are bolstered', without making the concession that they have been failing to do precisely that in relation to appropriate character checks upon credentialing visa requirements in the first place. So either the government is not doing the job it should have been doing for the last four years in relation to appropriate security checks and needs this as a stop-gap, or this legislation ought be shown for what it truly is, which is simply the emperor's new clothes and a desperate and grubby attempt to try and smear those who are simply seeking a better life with a subjective, inappropriately high and retrospective examination of character which, if it had shown up any flaws in the first place, should have done so upon a visa-vetting requirement.

We go on in the proposed amendments that the citizenship test is already in English and we are committed to assisting immigrants to attain English language levels that allow them to take full advantage of the opportunities and benefits available to all members of the Australian community. Let's just reflect on that for a minute and let's reflect upon what makes us so proud to be the truly multicultural society that we are today. That evolution of consciousness did not occur in the last five years or in the last 10 years. It has occurred over decades, if not hundreds of years, in relation to this country being stronger, being richer, being more culturally diverse by the manner in which we have welcomed immigrants into this country so we can all ensure that our communities in Australia thrive, prosper and reach their full potential.

It strikes me very close to home that the federal electorate of Perth is an electorate which is incredibly multiculturally diverse, not just with new migrants but with migrants who have been there for generations. The home that I lived in with my family and young daughter before the one I am currently in—in Highgate, which is in the heart of the federal electorate of Perth—was in one of those terrific little communities that is undergoing transformation, truth be told, and had a very high density of Vietnamese and, prior to Vietnamese, Italian migrants who had chosen to make their life in Highgate. Across the road from our house, on the other side of the street, on Chatsworth Road lived this absolutely beautiful old Italian couple. The fellow's name was Guiseppe. He insisted on me calling him Joe. Joe would have been 75 if he was a day. Joe had the most amazing set-up at the front of his house. Whereas most people use their verge to park on, Joe used his verge as a fully fledged market garden that in any particular season, on any particular day of the week was overflowing with produce. Bear in mind, this is just off the Northbridge strip, not too far away, with plenty of general traffic and foot traffic moving along Chatsworth Road. It was there for anyone to sample if that was what they wanted to do. Joe would spend days and days on his verge cultivating his little market garden, growing garlic, growing tomatoes, growing corn—you name it. It was the kind of thing that brought people together. Many times I would stop and have a chat with Joe about how he was going, how his wife was going. They would get dressed up for mass and make their way very slowly around the corner in order to go to church. The service was spoken in fluent Italian.

The reason why we have a church that delivers a service in fluent Italian is because we have a whole swathe of migrants who have done nothing but contribute to our community to make it better, to make it richer but who do not have a level of English that would get them close to a level 6 requirement in order to pass the proposed tests that this government wishes to impose upon new Australians. So if Joe or Guiseppe decided he wanted to make a better life for himself and his family by coming to Australia today, he would not have a hope, not a snowball's chance of becoming a citizen of this great country and contributing in the manner that he has otherwise contributed for the last 50 years.

Why is it that we have come to a place where we are so determined to create this veneer of artificiality to say that there is a causal connection between your ability to hold a conversation at tertiary level and your ability to contribute to our community? How is it that we have come this far when there is absolutely no empirical evidence to suggest that one equals the other, particularly insofar as national security concerns go? But it's actually worse than this, because not only is a logical analysis of this legislation revealing that it does not pass muster insofar as making our community a better place; this legislation is so cack-handed and was so lazily introduced to this parliament that we're not even seeing anything remotely new to adopt that is supposedly in response to recent events.

I will show that up for what it is in a very simple example. I know that a lot of people in this place—particularly a team I am incredibly proud of on this side of the dividing line—have spoken very eloquently in relation to citizenship changes, in relation to permanency and in relation to time lines. I would like to spend my remaining time showing this government up for what it is in relation to a complete denunciation of the meaning of the rule of law. That is in relation to a section which isn't getting terribly much airing in this debate, but it should, because it demonstrates just how lazy this government really is. It is in relation to a proposed amendment which introduces a new section, 52B, relating to a decision setting aside Administrative Appeals Tribunal decisions.

As if it were not enough that we already had an enormous amount of discretion in relation to the minister being able to set aside decisions of the AAT in relation to refugee claims—I completely get that; I understand; that boat has sailed, for want of a better term; it is simply part of where we are—this section seeks to extend that power to the minister to be able to set aside decisions of the AAT in relation to citizenship changes. 'Where's the harm in that?' I hear you ask. Well, it's kind of a big deal, because, firstly, it is yet another way in which this place is seeking to erode a separation of the executive from the independence of the judiciary and completely thumb its nose at the rule of law. Coming from this mob, I kind of get it, sadly.

But what's worse than that is that, when you look at their supposed justification for why and you look at their explanatory memorandum for 2017, what they say at paragraph 330 is that this section is being introduced because:

In the last few years, the Administrative Appeals Tribunal has made three significant decisions outside community standards, finding that people were of good character despite having been convicted of—

a number of offences. Just park that there. In paragraph 330, it goes on to say:

Three other recent decisions of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal have found people to have been of good character despite having committed—

other offences. Again, you look at that and you say, 'I think I know where they're coming from.' Then we realise how slack this mob are, because, if any of that sounds remotely familiar, it's because it is.

This mob tried to do exactly the same thing in 2014 through exactly the same proposal, which did not get anywhere, because of the proroguing of parliament. Just in case you thought that someone might have had a fresh look at this in relation to the reasons why we might need an introduction of a section which, again, seeks to usurp the rule of law, let's have a look at the explanatory memorandum from 2014. It goes like this, at paragraph 451:

In the last few years, the AAT has made three significant decisions outside community standards, finding that people were of good character despite having been convicted of—

particular offences. It continues:

Three other recent decisions of the AAT have found people to have been of good character despite having committed—

other offences. They are exactly the same paragraphs.

The explanatory memorandum that seeks to justify such a significant legislative change to usurp the rule of law on the basis of three recent decisions in the last few years in 2017 is based upon identical attempted justification in the explanatory memorandum of 2014, which also refers to 'the last few years' and 'three significant decisions' of additional recent review from the AAT. This government is lazy and determined to shine a light on something other than its complete ineptitude with economic management, education and certainly in relation to the simple ability of couples to get married regardless of their sexual orientation. They are so determined to shine a light away from all of that ineptitude that the best they can do is hit control-alt-delete or cut and paste 2014 justifications for changing the rule of law in to 2017 and saying this is all okay. Have things got so bad, have you all slipped so far in relation to your command of English, that the best you can do is cut and paste justifications from 2014 into 2017? Is that the best you can do? The standard you walk past is the standard you accept. If this is the standard you accept, then shame on this government.

See this speech in context