Ann Sudmalis (Gilmore, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I speak today about the Australian citizenship legislation amendments, which are all about strengthening requirements. I think it's unfair for any member in this House to cast slurs and aspersions on other members while they're not present and can't stand up for themselves. I know that particular member is better than that, particularly the person who said it.

As you can imagine, citizenship has become a serious issue for me in particular as my mother was a British citizen, and the media went into a frenzy trying to say I was a dual citizen. What a complete farce and time-wasting exercise this has been. I don't hold British citizenship; I never have; and that's the complete story. But, more to the point, I am fiercely loyal to my country, stand proudly with the defence personnel that I meet on a regular basis, honour our Indigenous first people with every welcome to country and I'll work to assist every single Australia who walks through my door if they need my advocacy—all those who wish to become an Australian. I love my country so much that I want every person who comes to this great country to feel part of that community, to share our values as much as they share our lifestyle and social support systems.

Labor's been openly critical of the importance of Australian values. While they have raised concerns about the style of the test, this has not been presented as a constructive criticism but as a reason to stop the whole process. Prominent members of the Labor Party are more interested in appeasing the complete Left rather than standing up for our national interest. The Leader of the Opposition, many years ago, was quoted as saying:

People who make a declaration to respect our laws and way of life … Anyone who has a problem signing that shouldn't be allowed to be here.

It might be 11 years ago, but people in Australia feel that this is a core Australian value and most would be silently cheering this and wondering why the Labor Party would now see it as a problem.

Our changes are designed to make Aussie values a priority and for our language to be more inclusive. There is strong community support for strengthening the test for Australian citizenship. A recent inquiry into work opportunities for immigrants stated strongly that not having English as a language was a block for them in finding meaningful and well-paid work. Australian citizens have the right to vote, to serve their country, to work in the Public Service or the Defence Force, to run for public office, to apply for an Australian passport and to seek consular assistance, but we as Australians also need to respect everybody in our community. If that means helping to make them feel included, then that's what we should be doing.

Increasing the residential requirement will ensure there is a better understanding of who that person is and it will also allow those who are having difficulty learning the language just that little bit more time to actually integrate with our community. Introducing the requirements for applicants to demonstrate reasonable language skills will help them become true-blue Aussies. The Productivity Commission has said that this is what we should be doing. Of course, applicants who are over 60, who might find it hard to learn, will be exempted and those under 16 will be exempted because they probably will learn the language by osmosis. Contrary to Labor's false claim, the academic test is not required for the migration or citizenship process. That one is a training test—it is for skilled migration, not for citizenship. It's a test for writing, reading and listening and it is only a competency test. So we probably need to sit down and make sure we really understand what we are talking about here.

Potential citizens will need to show they are participating in the Australian community, and ideally that means talking about sending their children to school, seeking employment rather than relying on welfare, earning income, paying tax and contributing to the Australian community, as do my girls at The Leaf in Berry. Other factors such as domestic violence or criminality, including female genital mutilation, may cause the minister to revoke citizenship. I think that's pretty fair.

The potential for citizenship really needs to be part of what we're doing. It is in line with Canada and New Zealand and the UK. There is a lot of change happening that will help many of our New Zealand permanent residents who will now be able to get citizenship, and that will make a vast difference to their way of life.

Finally, I'd like to commend the multicultural volunteers and the coordination work Jan Frickham does with our migrants. I speak to the group frequently, and we welcome the women from the Philippines and particularly from our new Tibetan community, who are establishing in Nowra. I commend them; they want to become true-blue Aussies. (Time expired)

See this speech in context