Madeleine King (Brand, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise today to speak on a bill the consequences of which I can barely fathom. It is a bill that says so much about the type of government Malcolm Turnbull leads: a government that will go to any lengths, and introduce any manner of ministerial restructure or legislation, in an attempt to appease the far right of the Liberal Party, and a Prime Minister that will do anything to keep his job.

Without any regard to the consequences for individuals and families, for the future success of the Australian migration program, for the cohesive social fabric of the nation, this government has brought into the parliament the Australian Citizenship Legislation Amendment (Strengthening the Requirements for Australian Citizenship and Other Measures) Bill 2017. It is this sad piece of work that I speak on today. Much has been said about this bill. I spent a wintry Saturday afternoon reading through all the speeches that have been made on this bill so far. There have been a great deal more speakers from the Labor opposition than from the Liberal-National government that has brought this bill forward. Those opposite in the government spend an awful lot of time telling us all about their commitment to strengthening the requirements for Australian citizenship and about what Australian citizenship means to them, but they fail to go on the record in this place in regard to this abysmal bill. Sure, some have; but given the number of backbenchers on the Liberal side, it does strike me as odd that there are not more of you standing up for this legislation.

We all know why you aren't speaking on this bill: you don't like it. You know there isn't any evidence supporting this legislation from any government departments, let alone national security agencies. The other side know as well as we do that this is a shocker and an affront to a great multicultural nation, a country whose prosperity has been built on the labour, intellect, perseverance, hard work and contributions of new citizens and Australian-born children of migrants. But what Duts wants, Duts gets—sorry, what the member for Dickson wants, the member for Dickson gets. How many of those opposite are counting the days and dreading the day when the member for Dickson challenges the Prime Minister for the leadership? At last, at that time, to quote an epic movie, your journey to the dark side will be complete.

My colleagues have set out very eloquently over the past few parliamentary sitting days the appalling troubles with the bill and the reasons why it should never have been brought to this parliament and why no-one in here and the other place should support it. I won't go through all the reasons to reject the bill, but I support the words of my Labor colleagues in this regard. Each of my colleagues has brought to this debate their personal experiences, that of their families, their expertise from lives before entering the place. I thank each of them for sharing some very emotional moments with the parliament and the public. Citizenship is an emotional thing. We only have to observe the tears of joy and the broad smiles at the citizenship ceremonies that we all attend right across this country. From this we know what obtaining Australian citizenship means to people and, in the obverse, what it means when you take the opportunity for Australian citizenship away.

A person living in my electorate of Brand in Western Australia has been moved to get in touch with me about this sudden new policy of this moribund government. Her name is Rachel Lemon. Rachel did not vote for me—she cannot vote for me or anyone else, because she cannot participate in our democracy as we encourage all adults to do. Sadly, she and her family will now not be able to participate for some time yet because of this bill. Rachel, her husband and four daughters packed up their life in the UK and moved to Baldivis in Brand, in WA. They arrived in July 2003 with dreams of making Western Australia their forever home. Rachel's husband, as she put it, was invited by Kleenheat Gas, part of Wesfarmers group, to fill a position as a temporary skilled visa holder. They sold their family house in Britain, packed up their lives and belongings, said goodbye to families and friends and started the courageous journey to start a new life in a new place in Baldivis. When they arrived, the rules changed unexpectedly and now they are required to pay school fees in full, something they had not anticipated when making the move to Australia—nonetheless, they stuck with us. In August 2016, not that long ago, the permanent residency application of Rachael and her family was approved.

They had lived, worked, integrated and contributed to the growing community of Baldivis for three years. As Rachael put it to me: 'Feeling relieved and more secure in our future here, we invested in building our first family home, which is still in its construction stage. We are finally building a secure life here, or so we thought.' Overnight Malcolm Turnbull and the Australian government want to change the requirements for citizenship from one year to four years as a permanent resident. Incredibly, they decided the rule change starts immediately, as he announced it even before it became law.'

I continue in Rachael's words:

We are perplexed as to how an additional four years in addition to the years already spent here can make any difference to how we assimilate to life in Australia. We are already a part of this community. We have worked hard to try to make it better. What difference does it make what type of visa we had while living, working, paying taxes and volunteering here? We love living in Australia, and Baldivis is where we chose to settle almost four years ago. My husband works hard at the company that sponsored us to come here in the first place. Our daughters all attend the local public schools and are in years 2, 5, 11 and 12. I'm an elected board member of Rivergums Primary School, the school that our younger daughters attend. I put myself forward as I want to be proactive within the community and hope my children will see me making a positive contribution and consequently aim to do the same. I also work teaching art to children and adults of our local community. I utilise the local community centres and school by leasing space to provide fun and educational activities. Is this not assimilating into the local community?

But it's getting worse with more hurdles being thrown our way to living and building a life for our children here. The Australian government have also announced university fee reforms for permanent residents. These reforms see permanent residents paying full international student fees instead of the reduced rate for Commonwealth students. Students could pay around $36,000 per year instead of the current $9,000.

Rachael's eldest daughter is studying year 12 this year and hopes to go to the University of Western Australia next year, but this sudden change of policy has put the family in turmoil as now they have to find $36,000 per year in fees and right when they are building a new family home. They quite rightly ask where will they find this money. As Rachael says, 'I really don't understand the short-sightedness of these reforms.' Well, neither do I, Rachael, neither do I.

The words Rachael wrote to me, very eloquent words, were of her story and that of her family, but it is one of the many such stories across my home town of Rockingham, Kwinana and Baldivis, across the state of Western Australia and across the whole country. So many people and families made plans to make Australia part of their bright future and, in so doing, make Australia's future brighter. These people have been betrayed by this government. They've had the mat pulled out from under their feet. They've had the goalposts moved so dramatically that they know not what to do. They doubt the decision we asked them to make—to move to this great country and help us grow. Rachael and her family, and many like them, left a life behind.

While I was reading the speeches on this bill, my husband, Jamie, was reading an article, and he read some of it out to me. It goes:

Everyone who comes to Australia gives up something. Some more than others. What they don’t tell you is that cultures evolve and leave you behind: in diaspora, you’re holding on to an image that is outdated and out of sync with the place you have left. When you leave you stop belonging, and if you are not accepted in your new home you are not accepted anywhere.

This reflection reminded us both, immediately, of my late father who migrated to Australia and left England behind. He would sometimes express sadness for an England that only existed in his memory and that had moved on without him, just as he had moved on without England. The reflection I quoted are those of my colleague and migrant to Australia Senator Dastyari. They are an important insight into the migrant experience, and it is an experience shared by migrates from Iran, from England and from everywhere.

If the government persists with these changes to citizenship laws that put more barriers in the way of migrants, that make it more difficult for new Australians to swear their commitment to this country and become Australian citizens, that delay by many years when people can become Australian citizens—if the government persists with this meanness, people like Rachael and her family will find that they are not accepted anywhere. They cannot get back the life they gave up to come here. They will not be accepted here, and they will not be made welcome. This is not Australia, and this is not who we are. The bill should be condemned.

This government maintains its support for our extensive migration intake. This government is not closing the doors to migrants. But what it is doing is its level best to ensure migrants—skilled, resourceful and productive migrants seeking some small piece of our freedoms and democracy—do not darken the door of Australia's immigration program. This legislation can only serve to discourage migrants from choosing Australia in what is a globally competitive market for the best and brightest people. The 45th President of the United States had a point when he said to the Prime Minister, 'You're worse than I am.'

Speaking of values, this government is seeking to test people with questions about Australian values, as if Australian values were not basically values of human decency that, for the most part, most people around the world live by. Who decides what the Australian values of this government are? Perhaps a postal survey would help! Many people coming here to Australia are trying to leave places where free speech doesn't exist and where democracy doesn't flourish. These people have shown a great deal more commitment to and desire to live these values than any of us, so who are we, and how dare we legislate, to delay any further the opportunity for these people to state their commitment to this country and participate in the democratic freedoms they have made such sacrifices and effort to participate in.

I have a confession: I don't like Vegemite. I really don't. I prefer Promite. I enjoy Promite on my toast. There you have it! Some of my friends tell me that for this, I am un-Australian. They say this in jest—I hope!—but I wonder if, in any absence of any information from the government on this notion of integration into Australia, maybe there'll be some assessment as to what extent a migrant enjoys Vegemite. Heaven help them—I hate the stuff! My colleague, the member for Isaacs, is also wondering how someone might demonstrate their integration into this nation. Can they cook a barbie? Can they withstand five days of Test cricket? Can new Australians withstand the overcooked lamb roasts and boiled vegetables we were subject to before migrant cuisines broadened our culinary horizons? This is truly ridiculous.

In bringing this legislation to the parliament, I think the government has forgotten what a compliment migration is to a nation. When migrants choose this liberal democracy over others, we know we are onto a good thing. I commend to my parliamentary colleagues a book by respected Australian journalist and writer George Megalogenis, Australia's Second Chance. In it, he makes the evidentiary case for the proposition that this country has been at its most successful when immigration is strong, and we experience division and poor economic performance when it is not.

There is stiff international competition for migration. The origin of Australia's overseas population is greater now from Asia than from anywhere else. In the US, the greatest percentage of their overseas-born population is from Latin America. These facts reflect our respective geographies. The languages of Australia are English and Asian languages. The US speaks English and Spanish. Economic power has shifted to Asia. Our geography, our Asian migrant future and our Asian migrant heritage mean we have an important advantage over our principal competitor, the US. The comparative advantages we must be live to are our location in Asia and our people with strong links to Asia. This is where our future and prosperity lies.

But this new citizenship regime puts barriers in the way of citizenship that, for some, will provide no pathway at all for Australian citizenship. This regime proposed by this government put our advantages, and, therefore, our prosperity at risk by saying to all: 'We really don't want you to come to Australia and make it your home. We will put every barrier we can find in your way.' Megalogenis puts it best when he says:

If the economy remains strong, migrants will come. But if they do not feel welcome, they won't, and the economy and society will count the cost of their absence in lost demand and output, and a diminution of national creativity and energy.

We've been here before. This country has introduced policies before that encouraged a decline in migration and served only to accelerate economic downturns and social division. At this critical point of global change and development, I urge this parliament to resist introducing laws that will ultimately discourage migration, that make people unwelcome in this country, that are not globally minded, and that threaten our economic growth, harmony and prosperity. I condemn this bill and I urge the parliament to reject it outright.

Debate adjourned.

See this speech in context