Richard Marles (Corio, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Immigration and Border Protection) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak against the Australian Citizenship Legislation Amendment (Strengthening the Requirements for Australian Citizenship and Other Measures) Bill. There is hardly a more important regime of legislation that is contemplated by this place than that which makes us Australian in the first place—and that's, obviously, what our citizenship legislation does. It goes to our very sense of being a nation; it goes to our very identity as a people. It's absolutely certain that we should not be conferring citizenship upon people lightly. To become a citizen of our country is an enormous step for individuals to take, and it's to be noted that, as the law currently stands, there is no sense in which citizenship is conferred in a light way. It is a solemn, important, significant step, as anyone who has gone through it knows very well.

It's also a factor in conferring citizenship on people that we do have an eye to questions of national security and questions of character. It's absolutely critical that we are considering those matters, and, right now, as our legislative regime stands, that is exactly what occurs. But the way in which we ultimately confer our citizenship also reflects upon us as a people, and that legislative regime ought not be tampered with lightly. It has been developed over a long period of time, it is very solemn in its nature, and it shouldn't become the basis upon which people, within the context of a contemporary debate, pursue partisan politics—because this, as much as any other piece of legislation, ought to be above partisan politics.

Australia is a country which has a very high proportion of our population who were born outside our shores. Something like one in four Australians meet that criteria, and that makes us second only to Israel in the world in terms of countries which have such a large proportion of their population born beyond their shores. It means that the very question of how we confer citizenship is as critical to our national story as it is to any country on the planet. It is absolutely fundamental to the way in which we go about our existence as a nation. It also means that there are many people who are in this country right now as permanent residents—those who are not citizens but are here as permanent residents.

In terms of how our citizenship laws operate, permanent residency is the step prior to becoming a citizen. Permanent residency is not a visa or a status which is accorded lightly either. It is done, very much, with an eye to questions of security and character. And, indeed, there are many celebrated cases where people, by virtue of perhaps criminal behaviour or other behaviour, fail the character test that applies to any person holding a visa within this country, including people who are here as permanent residents. In those circumstances, it can, ultimately, lead to people being evicted or removed from our country.

The tests around being granted permanent residency are very significant. These are the tests which apply before we even start talking about whether or not we accord someone citizenship within our country. So there is a robust system in place as it stands. But it is also the case that, given how many people live in this country as permanent residents, we ought to be encouraging those people to take the step of pledging themselves to our nation and becoming Australian citizens. That is a step which we should be encouraging people to take, not doing the opposite. As I said, going back to the very question of the nature of the Australian project—one in four of us was born outside of our shores—means that it's absolutely essential that the way in which our legislative regime around citizenship is constructed is such that it encourages people to take citizenship and not the reverse. It's for these reasons that I oppose the bill before the House today.

In so many respects, this bill actually stands against the very proposition that we ought to be advancing as a nation, and it does so in two particularly egregious ways. The first is in respect of the requirement which increases the requirement around residence and permanent residence in Australia prior to being able to become a citizen. What this bill will do is make it a requirement that you have been a permanent resident in the country for four years before you can take out citizenship. Right now, there is a four-year residency requirement, but not necessarily as a permanent resident. The rule which applies to the period of time that needs to be served as a permanent resident is 12 months. This extension of the residence requirement is in fact a significant hurdle that many people, particularly those who may travel, will struggle to overcome, and it may indeed see people spinning out the time in which they would be able to acquire citizenship for a very long period indeed, if indeed they are not in a position to be spending four continuous years as a permanent resident in this country prior to being able to take out their citizenship.

This has an impact on the way in which we present to the world and on the way in which those who live in this country as permanent residents continue to maintain their life in Australia. For example, this may well become a disincentive for students who choose to study in Australia and who may see themselves ultimately becoming a permanent resident and then a citizen of Australia—that's a well known pathway to citizenship—to study in Australia if that pathway is nowhere near as clear, which this residency requirement would have the effect of making it. There are many who come here as temporary skilled migrants who, ultimately, become permanent residents. This is a well-worn pathway to them becoming a citizen. This may well be a requirement which gets in the way of that pathway and again makes it hard for people in those circumstances to ultimately become an Australian. Having people make the commitment, pledging themselves to our nation and becoming an Australian citizen is something that we should be encouraging. This provision will make it far more difficult.

But perhaps an even more egregious proposition which is contained in the bill goes to the question of the English language test. At the moment, there are a number of visas that operate that have English language proficiency as a requirement for gaining those visas, and that's appropriate, particularly if people are at work and need to be performing operations in an environment where they understand language and understand instructions. But, by and large, the adult migrant English programs which go to the question of the English level proficiencies associated with those visas pitch that level at IELTS level 4 or 5, which describes a proficient level of English. What is being proposed in this legislation is that, prior to taking out citizenship, people would need to demonstrate competent English—in other words, IELTS level 6 English. So that people understand what that level is, we're talking about university-level English in order to obtain citizenship in this country.

That is patently absurd, and it portrays a real prejudice on the part of the government about how they see not only those seeking citizenship in our country but, indeed, the country as a whole—that what ought to define whether or not you're Australian enough is whether you have a university-level understanding of English. It is completely inappropriate that that be the basis upon which one becomes a citizen of this country. You can look at a whole range of Australians who were born outside our country, who have gone through the process of citizenship, who have gained their citizenship and who have made a huge contribution to our country who would not have passed this English language level. Indeed, for many older people, it's a struggle to learn to speak English, as it is for those who come here as dependants of primary visa holders, who perhaps spend more time at home and do not engage with the public as much. There may be a whole group of people who will never gain English proficiency at the competent level, at the university standard, such that there would be a whole range of people in this country who are here as permanent residents but will never be able to take out citizenship because they can't meet this standard or qualification.

How on earth does that make sense in a country where one in four of our population are born outside of our shores? How on earth does that make sense in terms of promoting national security within our country? The adult migrant English programs that I just described provide for 510 hours of teaching. No-one out there is suggesting that that is enough to attain a university-level quality of English, yet that is what we're talking about as the barrier now for people becoming Australian. It says everything about how this government views what it is to be Australian. It is discriminatory, it is unreasonable and it is unjust, and it is for those reasons that I and those on this side of the House will be opposing this bill as an appalling proposition to put before this House.

We understand national security considerations, and there's no question about the degree to which the opposition have been willing to work with the government on a whole raft of national security pieces of legislation. Indeed, holding the portfolio responsible for citizenship in the last parliament on behalf of the Labor Party I cooperated with two ministers for immigration in respect of a range of national security legislation which would tighten up our national security framework. There is absolutely a unity ticket when it comes to that. But, when we walk down the path of national security legislation, the very first question that we ask, as I'm sure the government ask in their private moments as well, is: what do our national security agencies advise us in terms of what they need from this chamber and from this parliament in respect of laws to help make us safe? It's an obvious question and it's a question we should be asking in respect of this bill as well. Is there any suggestion, any suggestion at all, that national security agencies in this country have advised that, as a matter of keeping Australians safe, we need to set the English language test at university standard for people who are currently living here and have a right to live here for the rest of their lives as permanent residents to make a pledge to our country and become citizens? Surely a barrier that prevents them making that pledge, which runs the very real risk of alienating them, actually flies in the face of national security. Surely that raises the proposition that we might be alienating a whole lot of people whose incorporation into our nation, into our citizenry, is a critical component of keeping us safe and building a culture of national security within this country. So the idea that there is a national security dimension to what is going on here is complete bunkum.

The government well knows that when it needs support on national security measures it has a partner in the opposition. We give that support, obviously, with our eyes open and looking at all the dimensions of it, but we do it without hesitation. But that's not what we have here. What we have here is a piece of legislation which really strikes at the very heart of our national identity, the very heart of what it means to be an Australian. It will act in a very discriminatory way and will work against the modern Australian project of a country where one in four of our population are born outside our shores. It does nothing to provide empathy in the process to become an Australian citizen. It actually works against people making a pledge to our country. I cannot see how on earth that could be good law.

See this speech in context