Matt Keogh (Burt, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker Coulton, when I left off speaking earlier today on the Australian Citizenship Legislation Amendment (Strengthening the Requirements for Australian Citizenship and Other Measures) Bill 2017, I had just reached the part of the bill which deals with the concept of a pledge of allegiance, and you will remember that I said, at the beginning of my remarks on this bill, that we already have that incorporated into the process of citizenship. But I know my time is short and so I just want to make two final remarks.

The first is this. The government says that this bill is about national security. Yet this bill deals with people that are already in Australia. They are permanent residents. They are already here. If the government is serious in saying that there is a national security issue to be dealt with in this bill, it is on their head that they have caused that problem already by letting those people into the country as permanent residents. If there is a problem, they need to deal with it straight away, right now, under their existing powers. It does not get dealt with under this bill. If there is a problem, it's already sitting there.

Finally, I want to say this. This morning I attended the ACU interfaith breakfast with the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition and many other members of this House and members and representatives of many faiths across this country. The Prime Minister said this, echoing remarks he has made in this place and many other places before:

We are the most successful multicultural society in the world. That there is no doubt.

…   …   …

And our immigration nation has come from every corner of the world and obviously from every faith. Now all of that diversity enriches us. …

Everybody's culture enriches everybody else's.

If it is the case—which I do not disagree with at all—that we are a successful multicultural nation, as I believe we are and as the Prime Minister says we are, and that has occurred under our citizenship laws and processes as they are now, that do not set an unrealistic barrier, that do not make people wait forever, that do not create a second class of residents that have no pathway to citizenship, then there is clearly nothing wrong and there is no need to make a change as this legislation proposes. We don't need this bill.

Luke Howarth (Petrie, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker Coulton, you know how proud I am to be an Australian. Australia is the best country in the world. And I know I say that all the time, but that's because it's 100 per cent true. I know from the people I speak to in my electorate that I am not alone in saying that national security, citizenship and increased opportunities for Australians are all big issues that go right to my call. Any challenge, any potential threat whatsoever, to the Australia I know and love ignites my defences and my passion spills over. I take a firm stance on protecting our nation and values because, when I think of how lucky we are in Australia, I know it's no accident. Generations of Australians have fought for our freedom, and some have paid the ultimate price.

I was fortunate to represent the Minister for Defence, Marise Payne, recently at the conclusion of Exercise Talisman Sabre on board the USS Ronald Reagan when it was in Brisbane recently. The ship was impressive and the troops even more so, and I was humbled to be with such fine men and women. I was proud to hear many times that day of the high regard in which our troops are held by our United States allies.

Sadly, we were tragically reminded of the dangers these people face, even in training, when an MV-22 Osprey aircraft crashed in the Shoalwater Bay training area near Rockhampton this week, killing three US marines. I am sure I speak for all of us when I say our thoughts and deepest sympathies are with the colleagues and families of those involved.

When our troops put their lives on the line, day in, day out, the least we can do is to come in to back them—to join them in their dedication and commitment to protecting Australia and Australians as a priority. And that's what we're doing with this bill, the Australian Citizenship Legislation Amendment (Strengthening the Requirements for Australian Citizenship and Other Measures) Bill 2017. It bolsters our approach to border protection and to counterterrorism, and it preserves the Australia we know and love for generations to come. The measures contained in the bill form part of the coalition government's response to the final report, Australian citizenship: your right, your responsibility, of the National Consultation on Citizenship conducted by Senator the Hon. Concetta Fierravanti-Wells and the Hon. Philip Ruddock in 2015. The national consultation on citizenship teased out some important issues and highlighted the extent to which the community values Australian citizenship. It demonstrated that Australians view citizenship in a much deeper sense than just what it offers in the way of formal privileges. The consultation showed the community sees Australian citizenship as a privilege that extends to Australians a stake in our future as a prosperous and diverse nation and in the values that underpin this.

We want new Australians to get that, to understand how much it means to us, and we want it to mean just as much to them. The coalition government makes no apologies for refusing to be drawn into compromise. I'm not the least bit sorry for the tough stance we take when it comes to who we invite to become an Australian. It's a privilege, not a right. Citizenship is a vital institution, and the national consultation adds even more voices to reviews that consistently show there's a sense in the community that in some parts of the country it's undervalued. That is certainly what I hear in the electorate from my constituents and it's not good enough.

Australian citizenship involves a commitment to Australia, its people and our shared values, and so it should. Australian citizenship, as I said before, is a privilege. So I welcome this bill as a way to ensure that we protect Australia, its values and people and that our approach is consistent with community view of the people that I represent and that we represent in this place that we need to get tougher.

The bill strengthens the requirements to become an Australian citizen, amending the act to increase the general residence requirement to require citizenship by conferral applicants to have been a permanent resident for at least four years before they are eligible to apply for citizenship. It gives a proper length of time. This is something the Leader of the Opposition has said in the past he supports. It is another issue he backflips on.

The bill also requires that most applicants will need to provide evidence of competent English language proficiency before they can make a valid application for citizenship. In his own words, the Leader of the Opposition says:

I think it is reasonable to look for English language proficiency and I think it is reasonable to have some period of time before you become an Australian citizen.

And it's not just the Opposition Leader singing from our songbook. His colleague who has just walked out of the chamber, the member for Watson, Tony Burke, was once on the right path. He told the Daily Telegraph, 'We need stricter English language requirements.' That's what he said, straight from his mouth. When he asked why is it that no-one is asked on these forms to commit to respecting Australian values and abiding by Australian laws, the member for Watson himself was spot-on. He said former Prime Minister John Howard's focus on the need for people living in Australia to learn English was spot on. That was from the member for Watson.

I love it when we agree, but unfortunately now we hear the member for Watson in this place rubbishing all that. 'It's not important. The English test is too hard.' The Leader of the Opposition and the member for Watson have traded good sense for hypocrisy. They are here one minute saying this and the next minute, when it comes to voting on legislation, saying, 'No, we disagree now.' We see this on so many different issues, whether it's same-sex marriage, whether it's company tax cuts, whether it's workplace relations and the Fair Work Commission. 'Respect their independent advice,' he says. He changes his mind regularly. This guy is a flip-flopper, and the Australian people are awake to him, as the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection so often says in this place.

What the member for Watson failed to say in his speech today is: yes, we're a multicultural country, but our main language that we speak here is English, and to get a job here in this country you need to be able to speak English, write English and understand English. I just think the member for Watson is saying one thing when he's in front of a TV camera in parts of Australia, and then when he's back in his own electorate he's somehow saying to his own multicultural Australian residents and permanent residents, 'Oh, this is no good.' What he should be saying is, 'We embrace you just as the government does, but we want you to learn English and comprehend English and we want you to be efficient in this so you can get a job and integrate into society.' The people in my electorate believe this as well; they regularly talk to me about this. The bill introduces measures that the opposition leader has publicly supported and improvements in English proficiency requirements that the member for Watson himself called for previously.

The Turnbull government reforms will ensure we honour not only those that fought and fight for our nation but also those who call our country home, by protecting Australians and the values that they hold dear. Requiring aspiring citizens to demonstrate both an ability and a willingness to integrate is fair enough, but it goes further than that. We know that English proficiency assists opportunities for new Australians. There is a good bank of research that shows social and economic outcomes are assisted by a good grasp of the language of a country you call home. As a new Australian, being proficient in English is crucial to finding a job, building a new life, thriving and prospering, which is what we want, after all, for all Australians, including new Australians. If you listen to Labor's lies, you'd be forgiven for thinking we're closing the door, but it's just not the case. What we want is to be able to offer opportunity for those who require it, a fresh start and a warm welcome, extending to them the rights and responsibilities that Australians all hold.

Australian citizens have responsibilities to respect the rights and liberties of the Australian community, uphold and obey Australia's laws and serve on juries. In order to do so, it helps to speak English and understand it well. Citizens hold the right to vote, to serve our country in the Australian Public Service or the Defence Force and to run for public office. These are important positions of privilege and influence, and I want to know who is in them.

Since September 2014, 13 terrorist plots have been disrupted, and it has been almost three years since a successful people-smuggling venture has arrived. The member for Burt went on before about people already having arrived here and how it would be the government's fault. He failed to mention that 50,000 illegal arrivals came to this country under Labor. It is illegal to pay a people smuggler to come to this country by boat. Let's not forget that. And what did the Labor government do? They gave more permanent residency, with very few checks. Maybe the member for Burt should have mentioned that when he spoke before.

I just want to acknowledge that there have been many government ministers that have been involved with the three years of success in making sure that people smugglers aren't able to come to this country: the Treasurer, the current Minister for Immigration and Border Protection, the justice minister and the Prime Minister. All of these people have done a good job in trying to make sure we maintain our Australian values and that we have sovereignty over who comes to this country. That's what residents that I represent want to make sure continues to happen. It is very important to them, and this strengthens it.

It's a shame that Labor isn't voting for this, by the sound of it. They should be, because this will help people better settle in here and it will make them be able to do that extra work in the four years that they're permanent residents before they become a citizen to be able to get that. Is that what the members opposite are saying, that four years is not enough time to be competent in English—to be able to speak it, to be able to write it, to be able to understand it?

Anne Aly (Cowan, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Do you know anything about English language testing?

Luke Howarth (Petrie, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I know that many people would do it and those opposite, including the member interjecting, are selling these Australians short. They are selling these Australians short, absolutely.

Opposition members interjecting—

Jeez, we've hit a nerve! Just vote for it then.

Australia is the most successful multicultural society in the world, with people from a range of nationalities proud to call Australia home. I represent some of them in my electorate, and they all tell me the same thing: thank you for what you're doing on the sovereignty of our borders and for making sure that you're tough. The coalition government intends to keep it that way. Australians now come from nearly 200 countries, represent more than 300 ethnic ancestries, and one in four was born overseas. As of last year, nearly half of all Australians were either born overseas or had at least one parent who was born overseas. More than five million people have become citizens since Australian citizenship was introduced in 1949, and one of the highlights of being the member for Petrie is being able to welcome new Australians at citizenship ceremonies around my electorate. I've had the opportunity to speak at these and meet many people. I congratulate them and I welcome them with open arms.

As I said, the coalition government makes no apologies whatsoever for taking a tough stance on who we let into our country and why, and the Australian people expect us to do so. And, no, we won't make it easier. Why should we? As I said, I love this place. Australia is the best country in the world. No wonder everyone wants to move here. The opposition might be happy to leave the doors open to anyone who wishes to step through them, but the Australian people are not and I can tell you that it's not happening under our watch.

Anne Aly (Cowan, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

These are the words of the citizenship pledge:

From this time forward, under God, I pledge my loyalty to Australia and its people, whose democratic beliefs I share, whose rights and liberties I respect, and whose laws I will uphold and obey.

They are words I will never tire of hearing, no matter how many citizenship ceremonies I preside over. In particular, it’s the words pledging loyalty to Australia and her people that I think are very touching, because it is not just to the nation of Australia but also very much to Australia and the people of Australia. Our people are what make us who we are.

Over the course of the last couple of months, from the time that the government introduced this legislation, I've been approached by many people, and overwhelmingly they oppose this proposal. Who are these people who are approaching me and asking me to oppose this proposal and saying they hope Labor will oppose it? They're not people who want to open the flood gates to illegal immigration, as those on the other side want us to believe, as the member for Petrie wants us all to believe. They are people who believe, as we all do, that a command of English is necessary for full participation in our country. They are people who want to see Australia thrive, as it has for many decades, as a vibrant multicultural nation. And they are people who are concerned about Australia and where it's headed.

There are a lot of points that I want to speak on about this particular bill, but I am going to start with the English language test. I must take issue with the minister for immigration's suggestion that the English language test, at an IELTS level 6, is not university level. That comment in itself demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding by the minister of exactly what the IELTS exam entails. The IELTS exam, whether it is for academic English or for general English, entails that you test to the same standard. How do I know this? Because in my youth, which wasn't that long ago, I was an accredited IELTS examiner. That means I used to teach English. I used to test people, using the IELTS scale and the ISLPR scale, and grade peoples' English according to the IELTS scale. I do not blame the minister or the member for Petrie—in fact, I do not blame anybody on the other side—for their lack of understanding, knowledge and expertise in English language teaching or English language testing. But I am very happy to offer them my services to test their English language on the IELTS scale. I have observed some of those on the other side speaking English right here in the House. Just listening to some of the speakers, I have noted repetition, hesitation and imperfect use of the past perfect continuous tense—all of which would make them not pass an IELTS test at level 6, which is what this government proposes as the standard for those coming to Australia. When we teach English and when we test English—

Mr Sukkar interjecting—

Ed Husic (Chifley, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary to the Shadow Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

He'll do the test. He said he'd do it!

Anne Aly (Cowan, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Fantastic! I do offer my services, in absolute sincerity, to test all of you and give you an IELTS score so that you can see exactly—

Michael Sukkar (Deakin, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister to the Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Are you that arrogant?

Anne Aly (Cowan, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am not arrogant. I actually have the expertise to do it because I am an accredited IELTS examiner, unlike anybody on the other side.

Ed Husic (Chifley, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary to the Shadow Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

She's accredited, mate. She can do it!

Mr Sukkar interjecting—

Anne Aly (Cowan, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I can do it. Can you do it?

Mr Sukkar interjecting—

There you go. It is an offer made in all sincerity. I am very, very happy to test you. When we teach the English language, and when we test the English language, there is something called communicative competency versus accuracy. The thing is that, when we test with IELTS, we are testing for grammatical accuracy. But you do not need grammatical accuracy to be competent in communicating ideas, whether in the work place or right here in this very House—as we have observe from some of those on the other side when they get up to speak. That is my first point.

My second point in relation to English language testing is that the current system we have in place through the Adult Migrant English Program aims to teach to the level of ISLPR 2—that is, level 2 of the International Standard Language Proficiency Standard Rating—which is the equivalent of IELTS level 4 or 5. New migrants coming to Australia who are eligible for English language classes are currently provided 510 hours of tuition. But that is only if you are tested at a level that is below ISLPR 2. If you are below level 4 or level 5 in the IELTS, you are not entitled to English language classes. But this government is proposing that you must pass an English language test at level 6, which is university-entry level.

For somebody who arrives in Australia with zero or limited language proficiency, 510 hours of tuition is not enough to get them to the point required to pass the proposed test. Some research that I have done in the past suggests that it takes up to a year of full immersion in a language to gain one point of competency in English. So somebody with zero or limited English language literacy has either no chance or a very slim chance of passing at an IELTS level 6, even if they are here for the full four years.

Many Australians who have lived here for many years, and many who were born here, would not pass the IELTS test to a level 6. Of course English language is important. It is absolutely essential to full participation and full participatory citizenship—not just formal citizenship, not just the bequeathing of citizenship through a certificate, but participatory citizenship in Australia. That means full participation in economic, social and political life. Research that I have done shows that the vast majority of migrants and refugees want to learn English. They understand the need to learn English and they view it as essential to their participation. I'm quite happy, again, to pass on that research to those on the other side. So why are we putting barriers in their way? Why make it impossible for them to ever be able to pledge allegiance to our country and to our people, as they desperately want to do?

The other point I want to make about this bill is the residence requirements, because the residence requirements don't just impact on those from the countries 'what don't speak English good'. They don't just impact on those 'brown people what come from those countries where English is not spoken language of what they say every day' and they need a 'centre for people who don't read and write English good'. They impact everybody.

Ed Husic (Chifley, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary to the Shadow Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Like in Zoolander.

Anne Aly (Cowan, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Like in Zoolander. I love a good Zoolander quote. They impact everybody. I've had approaches from people from countries all around the world who have come here to settle in Australia, who have been here for four years and who are now unable to attain citizenship or who are confused by these amendments to citizenship and who are already experiencing long delays in their citizenship applications. To think that they will now have to wait maybe up to 20 years before they can pledge allegiance to a country that they are already contributing to! I know that my colleagues have made the point that this creates a second class of people here who can never attain citizenship. Don't we want to integrate those people? Don't we want those people to be able to take that pledge for Australia? Don't we want them to be able to say that they pledge allegiance to Australia and its people, share in our democratic beliefs and respect our rights and liberties? Don't we want them to do that? I think we do. I think we all do. I think everybody in this chamber does. I don't think there is anybody in this room here today or any other day—there are not many here today—who would disagree with that. The residency requirements don't just impact a small number of people; they impact a whole range of people coming from a whole range of countries, including those who are coming here from English-speaking countries.

The third point that I want to make is in relation to the Australian values statement. Of course, all Australians should sign up to our laws and our values. Labor is committed to that. But here's the thing: the law already allows the government to put forward any questions in the citizenship test that they like. So what exactly is this amendment for? Why is it included in this bill? To me, it seems that all it is is an attempt to hoodwink Australians into thinking that the government are doing something effective.

I want to stress two words here, I want to stress the words 'reasonable' and 'effective', because they're not just words; they really should describe any measures that we take in relation to whole a range of things. All measures that we take here in this House should be measures that are reasonable and effective, because you can't have one without the other.

This brings me to the point of national security and the fact that conflating this legislation with national security is neither reasonable nor effective, because this bill does not come on the advice of the national security agencies. Time and time again, we see this government trying to pass legislation that appeases their far right and win votes by playing the politics of race, by inserting measures that are neither reasonable nor effective. They don't just impact on the minority that One Nation and the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection want to target; they affect everyone in Australia.

Let me demonstrate why this is neither reasonable nor effective in relation to national security. There is not one shred of empirical evidence that suggests that proficiency in English language is some kind of resilience factor to violent extremism and terrorism. I challenge the minister for immigration and those on the other side to produce for me the empirical evidence that says that, if you know English well, you are less likely to become a terrorist. I challenge them to produce the empirical evidence that says that those with better English are less likely to become radicalised. I will tell you, Mr Deputy Speaker, they won't find that evidence, because it does not exist. It does not exist; there is not a shred of evidence. In fact, most of those who have gone overseas to fight for Daesh speak, read and write English very well. It's the very reason why ISIS produces propaganda in English—very well-written English, I might add, level 6 English and above, as a matter of fact.

So we don't support this bill. We don't support this bill, and it is not because we're soft on border security, it is not because we want to open the floodgates and it is not because we don't want people to learn English. It is not because of any of those reasons that those on the other side keep telling us and the Australian people. Of course we support strong national security; we have always been bipartisan on that. Of course we want people who come to this country to be able to fully participate as citizens. Of course we understand that citizenship is not a right, it's a privilege. And of course we want to make sure that those who come here and who take up citizenship do pledge their allegiance to our values and believe in our democratic system. We want to ensure that they are able to do that, we want to ensure that they are able to get jobs and we want to ensure that they are able to fully function as Australian citizens—not just get a certificate that says they're an Australian citizen. We want to help them do that.

But this legislation does not do that. This legislation does not make that better. This legislation is neither reasonable nor effective. If we want to govern here in this House for all Australians we must continue to ensure that everything we introduce is reasonable and effective. So we don't support this bill. We don't support this bill, because we see through it. We stand for being smart. We stand for being smart about immigration and effective on national security. And it is because we listen. We listen to the people of Australia when they tell us that they do not want this legislation. (Time expired)

Julia Banks (Chisholm, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am so proud to rise today as representative of Chisholm, one of the country's most diverse electorates, and of immigrant heritage myself, to discuss the Turnbull government's citizenship reforms in the Australian Citizenship Legislation Amendment (Strengthening the Requirements for Australian Citizenship and Other Measures) Bill 2017.

These reforms are about maintaining the integrity in our migration and citizenship programs. It is in the Liberal philosophy and in our DNA to support a nondiscriminatory immigration policy and to embrace and include those of migrant heritage. It is the Turnbull government that has always provided clear direction and policy in relation to ensuring any reforms are always made with one key consideration: what is in the best interests of Australians and future generations of Australians?

Reforms are just that, they reform existing laws. Reforms are to ensure that our laws are consistent with a modern Australia. Australian citizenship involves a clear commitment to this country, its people and our shared values. Australian citizenship is a privilege to be given by the Australian people. When you listen to the confected arguments by Labor, their views seem to align more to the view that citizenship is an individual right to be claimed rather than a privilege. It is not an individual right to be claimed; Australian citizenship is a privilege.

There are intrinsic links between migration, border protection and citizenship. It took the Turnbull government to clean up the chaotic mess Labor left the country in in relation to border protection. It is the Turnbull government that has provided strong and secure leadership. It is the Turnbull government that has maintained a nondiscriminatory migration policy and it is the Turnbull government that is tightening our citizenship laws to ensure maintaining the integrity of everything it means to be Australian and our Australian values.

Labor are hell-bent on creating division in the Australian community. They want to block this for the sake of blocking it. They are good at that. I have spoken to literally hundreds of people in my electorate of Chisholm whose ancestry is from all over the world. I say here today that just as Labor recently blocked the opportunity for Australians to have their say only a few hours ago on same-sex marriage—something which may not align with their cultural norms and values in their faith or religion—now they are blocking these reforms as well.

The people I represent in Chisholm know that I represent our Prime Minister's and our government's warm embrace of different cultures and languages, be they Chinese, Greek, Italian, Indian, Vietnamese, Korean, Japanese or the like. They know that the Turnbull government's view is that being of a different ethnic origin is a fundamental pillar of 21st-century Australia. They know that the Turnbull government's focus is on building a strong economy and creating more jobs for Australians and working to encourage increased participation of women in the work force. They know that, above all, the strength and leadership of our Prime Minister is to do everything in our power to ensure our national security and keep all of us safe.

Importantly, the people of Chisholm know it is important to maintain public confidence in our migration and citizenship programs by demonstrating the government is committed to the highest level of integrity. Australian citizenship involves a commitment to this country, its people and our shared values, and it's a privilege to be given by the Australian people. There are several elements to these reforms, but fundamentally they are about ensuring that absolute priority is placed on respect for Australian values and demonstrating a willingness to integrate.

In my experience, it's the Labor Party and their union officials who do not hold back in discriminating, name-calling, assault and bullying. It's the Labor Party who use fear and scare tactics to try and win their argument no matter the issue, because they can't do it any other way. It's they who are quite happy to say that all Australians will engage in hateful debate in relation to issues such as same-sex marriage. And now the Labor Party are trying to confect an argument which makes no common sense for a modern Australia. Unbelievably, they are trying to argue against the reforms for which the clear objective is merely to harness the privilege it is to become an Australian citizen in modern Australia to ensure all aspiring citizens align to our values, integrate into our society and abide by one rule of law in this country. It is the Labor Party who would rather values and laws of other countries seep into our country's psyche—values and laws which fly in the very face of the Liberals' principle of equality for all.

Recently, an otherwise unremarkable scene in a Box Hill shopping centre in my electorate of Chisholm made memories come flooding back. I observed a young girl alternating between speaking Mandarin and English acting an interpreter for an elderly woman whom I assumed was her grandmother. This took me back to the 1970s, when as a young girl I would always act as my grandmother's interpreter. My grandma, like many migrants of her era, couldn't speak, read or write English at that time even though it was some 40 years since my grandparents had migrated and settled in Australia in the 1930s. Together they'd made their livelihood from their small business, a small fish and chips shop.

Grandpa was the front-of-shop man and, like many migrants to Australia, had on-the-job English lessons from his many customers, suppliers and work mates. Granny, on the other hand, worked just as hard in the business but was very much in the background and had the primary responsibility of raising the children. Theirs was a very typical arrangement for many migrants, where the woman either stayed in the home or worked in the small business behind the scenes or in jobs that didn't require communication in English. This meant they couldn't speak, read or write English, their independence was thwarted and their integration into the general community diminished. They couldn't learn to drive or access services. They were denied the most basic of things such as driving, and they were limited to jobs of unskilled labour.

There are many people who are still in this predicament. Our ageing population necessarily includes an ageing migrant population. In speaking to my constituents of immigrant non-English speaking heritage, be they Chinese, Indian, Greek or Italian, one of their worrying concerns is the isolation felt particularly by their parents and grandparents as they age, and it is glaringly worsened by the fact that they cannot speak English. This is particularly the case for migrant women, and a consequential benefit of the changes the Turnbull government is making with regard to proficiency in English will be a change in the scenario for future generations of Australian citizens.

There are those in the Labor Party who say their ancestors would not have passed the English test. The fundamental flaw in this argument is they're not comparing apples with apples. They are comparing the migrant experience of today to the migrant experience of up to 100 years ago. At that time, the participation of women in particular in the workforce was nowhere near what it is today. Increased participation of women in the workforce is necessary for our economic growth and to create true equality for future generations of those with immigrant heritage. There are many migrants today, particularly women, who still have no command of the English language, and, as a result, their independence and especially their financial independence is thwarted. Aspiring citizens of this country, male or female, can really only truly embrace the opportunities this country offers if they are competent in our national language, the English language.

Introducing a requirement for applicants to demonstrate competent English language through listening, speaking, reading and writing skills is essential for workforce participation. Contrary to Labor's fear-mongering and false claims, as we just heard from the member for Cowan, the higher-level academic test is not required for migration or citizenship purposes but rather a general training test at a competent level.

Specifying a requirement to sign an Australian values statement essentially requires applicants to make an undertaking to integrate into and contribute to the Australian community in accordance with Australian values, and we make no apologies for requiring this. Values based questions will be also be added. These are good reforms that align to the future of modern Australia, which, again, the Labor Party rejected, for the sake of it—they are just blocking this.

I'd like to demonstrate, just by one example, why I wholeheartedly endorse the signing of an Australian values statement. Earlier this year, I was on the stage at a local primary school, about to give out awards. I reminisced about my childhood at primary school and about taking my children to primary school on those February Melbourne mornings which indicated that a very hot February day was about to be upon us. I reflected that the sea of hundreds of young and excited faces before me represented a wonderful microcosm of the diverse population in Chisholm, one of the most culturally diverse electorates in the country. As the young students stood and sang our national anthem proudly, while senior students marched in the hall bearing our flag, there was a buzz and an air of excitement, as the students knew this was no ordinary Monday morning assembly. Proud parents lined the perimeter of the hall to watch the assembly as the children received their leadership badges.

As each student's name was announced they came up onto the stage, but I noticed that a few of the kids didn't know what to do. What I noticed more was how subtly and kindly the principal taught them—what is commonly called, in the business world, 'in-the-moment training'. To these students she quietly said, 'You need stop, look Julia in the eye, shake her hand and say, "Thank you," when she says, "Congratulations." Then you'll receive your badge.' The principal taught them an Australian tradition, a value, a principle, respect for the occasion and the honour of receiving an award.

MPs are routinely invited to such events, but this was no ordinary assembly for me either. The event stuck in my mind because it was in stark contrast to something which, only weeks before, had been depicted in a video, published on social media by an Islamic group, of two women, one of whom was also a primary school teacher, claiming that men were permitted to hit women and, for the Sydney schools that hadn't established an agreed protocol, that Muslim boys didn't need to shake the hands of female presenters or teachers. None of this is okay under Australian values. These attitudes have no place in modern Australia and represent a blatant disrespect of our laws and our values.

Equality for all is a core Australian value, and the Turnbull government has zero tolerance for those who endorse the breaking of laws, do not align to our values and commit crimes such as violence against women. All Australian values are underpinned by respect, which is demanded regardless of people's ethnicity or gender. The current Australian values statement includes an understanding of respect for freedom of the individual, freedom of religion and equality for all. And the English language, our national language, is an important unifying element of these values.

Finally, those on the other side weakly argue, 'It ain't broke, so don't fix it.' Indeed, it ain't broke. We are the most successful nation on earth because of the people of immigrant heritage—the people who, in the words of our national anthem, came across the seas and toiled with hearts and hands. This is not about fixing something that is broken. Rather, it is about harnessing the privilege of becoming an Australian citizen and cementing our success as an immigrant nation for future generations. It's about taking what has essentially become an administrative process to encourage a more meaningful participative journey which supports and enhances the lives of those who choose to become Australian citizens.

The Labor Party are merely doing the same old thing: disagreeing with change or reform for the political point scoring and for the purposes of being obstructionist or negative, whilst engaging in their Labor hypocrisy, saying one thing to people's faces but actually meaning another. To every person in my electorate of Chisholm, of any migrant heritage, regardless of whether they voted for me or not, I say: ignore the critics, the discrimination, the taunts and the name-calling like I've received from the Labor Party and the unions. Being an Australian citizen, being true blue and of an ethnically diverse background at the same time, is the foundation of 21st century Australia. The whole purpose of these reforms is to further build on our successful immigrant nation in the context of a more modern world. Part of the beauty and vibrancy of Australia's diversity is that we can freely and openly express our opinions in the context of our different cultures through different languages.

These freedoms are based on respect and equality for all, and speaking English is intrinsically linked to our culture. Equal opportunity is the hallmark of liberalism, and the modern overlay of requiring people to pass an English test and commit to our values is a core element of the Turnbull government's reforms. The Turnbull government's strengthening of our citizenship laws are practical and sensible reforms, whilst harnessing the integrity of a successful multicultural Australia. They convey that, to call Australia home and be a part of the Australian family, one must be able to speak our language, obey our laws and respect our values. And core to this is equality for men and women.

I am so proud that in Chisholm over 136 different languages are spoken every day. Chisholm includes the suburb of Oakleigh, which has earned the title of epicentre of Greek culture. Given my Greek heritage, Oakleigh is close to my heart. Also in Chisholm is the suburb of Box Hill, where roughly 100,000 people attend the magnificent Chinese New Year festival every year. Language is the key source of communication between people in different cultures, so it's not surprising that part of the beauty, vibrancy and diversity is that we can freely and openly express our different cultures. Notwithstanding the rich and vibrant diversity of cultures in Chisholm, and the concentration of certain cultural events and traditions in certain suburbs, the common bond is the values, laws and national language of our country.

Australian citizenship is a significant honour and brings with it responsibilities and privileges. It's the official welcome to our home. It has to be respected and earned. This is our Great Southern Land, an immigrant nation, the most successful multicultural nation on earth because of the millions of people who have come from lands far and wide. (Time expired)

Steve Irons (Swan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Member for Chisholm, I'm sure your yaya is very proud of you! I call the member for Whitlam.

Stephen Jones (Whitlam, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Regional Development and Infrastructure) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Every Australian child learns the words to our National Anthem. The opening stanza says:

Australians all let us rejoice,

For we are young and free;

And the second verse says:

For those who've come across the seas

We've boundless plains to share;

That speaks to everybody who applies for citizenship. Never has the gap between the words in our National Anthem and the deeds of this national government been so great. We have before us today a bill in search of a purpose. They want us to think it's about national security. But it's not. They want us to think it's about creating an environment where you have greater adherence to national values. But it's not. They want us to think that the Australian Citizenship Legislation Amendment (Strengthening the Requirements for Australian Citizenship and Other Measures) Bill 2017 is about ensuring the people who live in Australia can speak English. But it doesn't. It does none of these things. But the noise and the debate that will surround it will send out the message that this government, a desperate government, wants to send out—that they care about and are trying to do something about all of these things, when they are not.

Malcolm Turnbull often boasts that Australia is the most successful multicultural society in the world. I agree; we are. So what's the problem here that we are trying to solve? This is not going to help strengthen Australian society but it does threaten to create greater divisions. We're happy to work with the government to create an adherence to Australian values, to have more people able to be fluent in English and to increase participation through citizenship. This bill does none of those things.

The gap between residency and citizenship is not a new problem. Ever since the great post-war migration boom, successive governments have put in place strategies which attempt to ensure that people who are living in Australia permanently, people who are permanent residents, are able to take out Australian citizenship.

In fact, it was the Menzies government that put in place a raft of changes in the 1950s—in 1955, in 1958 and again in 1961—which made it easier for people to obtain Australian citizenship, and for permanent residents to join the society of Australian citizenship. This bill is going in the exact opposite direction. The Menzies government introduced shorter qualifying periods of residency, eliminated the English dictation test and made the applications form simpler for those with basic English yet this government is scrapping all of those reforms and wants to reverse all of those changes. Malcolm Turnbull, the Prime Minister, is fond of quoting Menzies. Maybe he should stop just quoting Menzies and start listening to him.

I want to talk about the English language test. The previous speaker, the member for Banks, focused on this. Let's be very clear. Labor supports programs which will ensure migrants who come to Australia have more than a stamp on their passport, have more than a visa so they are able to participate fully in Australian society by speaking fluent English. In fact, it was the Whitlam Labor government that put in place the English training programs because it was the Whitlam government that understood that we owe more to the people that come to this country and help us build this great society than stamping their visa. We need to help them integrate fully into this country, and English is a critical part of that.

The problem with this bill is the level that those opposite are setting. This legislation provides band 6 proficiency on the International English Language Testing System. Now you may or may not be aware of this but band 6 proficiency is the level of proficiency equivalent to a university education—somebody who has passed a university education level test. I doubt there would be some MPs in this place who would pass a level 3, never mind a band 6 proficiency in an English language test. I doubt that every MP in this place would be able to meet band 6 proficiency in the International English Language Testing System. So let's not have this argument that's been put up by members of the other side that this is not going to be the requirement within the new tests. It is; and it's exactly the message that the government is trying to send out there. It won't do anything. It will do nothing to ensure that people improve their English language skills, but what it will do is put another barrier in place for somebody who is already a permanent resident in taking out Australian citizenship.

What needs to be understood is that what is being proposed here is out of step with every other OECD country. In comparable countries—the European Union, the UK, the US and New Zealand—the Applied Linguistics Association of Australia makes it very clear in its submissions in relation to this legislation that the common English language test that is held in other comparable countries is for holding basic English conversations. Let's not have this nonsense that's been put out by those on the other side that somehow that's not what the legislation means. It is what the legislation means, and it's the absolute intention of this minister.

The member for Banks gave a very personal story, a heart-felt story when she spoke of the circumstances facing her grandparents when they moved to Australia and it's a story that could be repeated time and time again by one-third of the people in my electorate who were born in another place but who have come to Australia and have come to the Illawarra and the South Coast to make these regions their home. It was a very common situation that the female would be at home, looking after the children, looking after a small business but it was the male, the husband, who would be in the front rollers, out in the work force picking up proficiency in the English language while the woman would not become as proficient in the English language.

The member for Chisholm—and I thank the clerks at the table for correcting me: it was Ms Banks, the member for Chisholm—is absolutely right in the story that she tells, but she has drawn the wrong conclusion. Merely putting in place a higher barrier at the citizenship test level is not going to encourage those people to take up the English language. It is going to discourage them from taking out citizenship. It's the English language assistance programs that are the very programs that are under attack by both state and federal governments as we speak. They are the programs that are going to be put in place that will help the people in the same situation as the member for Chisholm's grandparents, and the many, many hundreds of people in my electorate, to attain the level of English that is necessary for them to take up a full role and to be fully active in the Australian community.

The other argument that is put is that somehow asking somebody to sign a statement about adherence to Australian values is going be a meaningful statement by them and is somehow going to create greater cohesion in the Australian community. Well, there are many of us who doubt that very much and have doubts about who sets these tests and whether that is a valid test. I don't think anybody could seriously argue that the mere signing of a statement, as this bill proposes, is going to create a greater cohesion in and of itself.

I want to get to the crux of the matter, because, in the minister's second reading speech on this bill, he alluded to his concern that somehow this legislation was being brought forward and made necessary because of national security concerns. No expert who has looked at this agrees with those conclusions. Not one expert agrees with those conclusions, for this very fact: the new citizenship test requirements, by their very definition, only apply to somebody who is a resident in Australia. They only apply to somebody who is a resident in Australia. In fact, if the bill gets through, it will apply to somebody who has been a resident in Australia for four years or more. If that person is a threat to national security, you have to ask the minister if he has been doing his job, because they are already in the country. They have been given permanent residency, and they are now at the stage of applying to take out citizenship. So let's not have this fallacious argument that somehow these new measures are being brought forward because of the need to toughen the citizenship test to ensure that we have greater measures to enforce national security. It's not a credible claim. The people that are going to apply are already resident in the country and presumably have gone through all the vetting programs brought forward by the minister and his department.

But there is a deep concern—and some of my colleagues have spoken to this—that this legislation actually has the opposite effect to that. By creating this regime it is very, very likely that we will see, within the one family, the proficient speaker of English being able to pass the test and being able to take up citizenship, whilst another member of that household is not able to do that—divisions within the one household; those who feel included and those who feel excluded, and within the one family.

I have great concerns that this new test, particularly the English language test, will have the obverse effect—the absolute opposite effect—to that proposed by those who proposed it. Let me make this point very clear: there is not a person on the Labor side of the House who doesn't want to see more effort being put into ensuring that people can speak English when they come to this country from a non-English-speaking country. We want to ensure that everybody adopts the language and is able to use proficiently the language of English in the workplace, in the home and in education so they are able to fully participate in the Australian community. But let's not kid ourselves that new citizenship test requirements are going to fulfil that objective; they simply aren't. What will fulfil that objective is putting in place the sorts of programs that were introduced by the Whitlam Labor government in the mid-1970s, which successive governments, coalition and Labor, have supported for 30 or 40 years since. But, sadly and regrettably, at the state and federal level many of those programs are being underfunded, defunded and closed down.

This is a bill without a purpose. If it does have a purpose, its singular purpose is to enable members of the coalition parties to run around their electorates and say, 'We're going to do something to ensure everyone who comes into this country speaks English, we're going to do something about your national security concerns and we're going to do something to ensure we're all going to be adhering to some amorphous and unspecified set of Australian values.' But the truth of the matter is that this bill will do absolutely none of those things. In fact, many of the other steps, quite separate to this legislation, that the government is doing and the government members are voting for are driving Australians and the Australian community in the other direction.

We'll be voting against this bill in the House. It is going to a committee for thorough investigation in the other place. Perhaps if some sensible amendments can be suggested in the other place, it may enjoy our support there. But in its current form I can't support it, and I'm absolutely certain there's not a Labor member in this place who will support it either.

Jason Wood (La Trobe, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Australian Citizenship Legislation Amendment (Strengthening the Requirements for Australian Citizenship and Other Measures) Bill 2017. I am Chair of the Joint Standing Committee on Migration. I have worked with the opposition to get broad terms of reference up for the committee's current inquiry into migrant settlement outcomes.. A number of those terms of reference look at settlement services, and there is strong consideration of young migrants who've been involved in crime. This is a bipartisan committee. We are endeavouring to come up with a strategy that best helps migrants who arrive in Australia, but we are also looking at section 501(6) of the Migration Act—the character test.

The reason the inquiry is giving special consideration to youth migrant crime is that, sadly, young people from the South Sudanese community are overrepresented for certain crimes in Victoria. When it comes to aggravated crimes or home invasions, South Sudanese born young people are the next group behind Australian born young people. When it comes to serious assaults, again they are in second position behind Australian born young people. It has become very apparent, too, that, a number of South Sudanese immigrants did not have the English skills they required when they arrived in Australia. What has happened was that, if they had the English ability of a grade 6 student, they were put in to year 9. Eventually, a number of them have fallen out of the education system and, through no fault of their own, have failed to gain employment. The situation has become very bad for a number of them.

We have spoken about what this bill is trying to look at when it comes to citizenship in Australia. My personal view is that Australian citizenship is an absolute badge of honour. All members of parliament talk about citizenship—the responsibility to respect the rights and liberties of the Australian community and to uphold and obey Australia's laws , serve on juries et cetera. This is always spoken of at citizenship ceremonies.

The first thing I'd like to discuss is increasing the general residence requirement, which means an applicant for Australian citizenship will need to demonstrate a minimum of four years as a permanent resident prior to the application for citizenship. In New Zealand it is five years; the UK, five years; France, five years; the US, five years; Germany, eight years: the opposition would have to agree that a four-year term is fair and reasonable.

We hear the concerns raised about English. Every single group that has come before the migration committee, whether it be a refugee support advocacy group or others, has advised the committee of the importance of English when it comes to getting involved in the Australian community as well as in the education system and for getting jobs. It is just so vital. With regard to those on humanitarian visas, initially the number of hours provided by government was 510. Prior to that, there was an extra 400 hours of special assistance package. The good news is, and this was going to be one of the recommendations of the committee, that young migrants, especially those on humanitarian visas in particular, need extra hours and this year the government, under the Adult Migrant English Program, has, from 1 July, included an extra 490 hours, which is an excellent measure.

English is also important when we talk about security. I, along with a number of colleagues from both sides of politics, recently visited the US, the UK, Germany and Sweden. We heard firsthand, when it comes to extremism, how important it is to ensure that young people who may be radicalised have a certain level of the native tongue, whether it be Swiss or German, or English for here in Australia. It is vitally important, especially in the UK. There's always a danger that when young people get into boroughs, as they are called in the UK—as we heard in Sweden, one of the greatest concerns the intelligence experts told us about was that if a person's not working and is hanging around with other people who aren't working, and all they do is talk jihad all day, then eventually bad things happen.

When it comes to what the government is doing with the English test, I concur it is definitely the way to go. You have to put some responsibility back onto people to make the grade. It's something that is so important, to become an Australian citizen, to make sure you that have English to back you up. There will be exceptions for those over the age of 60 years and under the age of 16 years. When it comes to signing a values statement, applicants undertake to integrate into and contribute to the Australian community in accordance with Australian values. Values based questions will be added to the citizenship test. The current Australian values statement includes the understanding of and respect:

… for the freedom and dignity of the individual, freedom of religion, commitment to the rule of law, Parliamentary democracy—

as well as—

… the English language, as the national language, is an important unifying element of Australian society.

That is very true.

When it comes to countries around the world that are regarded as on par with Australia when it comes to compassion, I don't think you can go past Sweden taking in 250,000 Syrian refugees. And yet in Sweden they have 100 hours that they set aside to cover what does it mean to become a Swedish citizen. What we are doing here, and what Minister Peter Dutton has done here, is no doubt very much in line with what the Swedish government has done, and I cannot see why the opposition would not support this measure for the best assimilation with the Australian community and to understand our laws. We have seen what's happened in Victoria, and, when we have had representatives from the African community, they have explained to us that young people who migrate to Australia quite often do not have an understanding of how Australian law works. So, again, I strongly support this statement.

In addition to the existing police checks which are undertaken as part of any application for citizenship, an applicant will also be assessed for specific conduct that is inconsistent with Australian values, such as domestic or family violence; criminality, including female genital mutilation; or involvement in gangs and organised crime. To me, that is a very fair and reasonable thing to do. I have put it out there before that, if a person is on a visa and is committing violent gang-related crimes, whether it be in Melbourne or anywhere else, or is an extremist, whether an Islamic extremist or a right-wing extremist, then, as far as I am concerned, if they are on a visa and their character is bad, they should have their visa cancelled automatically, especially if they commit serious crimes. At the moment, if someone on a visa commits a sexual offence against a child or receives a term of imprisonment for 12 months or more, then they have their visa cancelled automatically. In my view, that should be changed to include any term of imprisonment, especially for violent and serious gang-related crimes.

Other key measures include expanding the power to revoke citizenship when satisfied that a person has become a citizen as a result of fraud or misrepresentation by allowing revocation without a prior criminal conviction of fraud. The minister must be satisfied that it would be contrary to the public interest for the person to remain a citizen. Each person being considered for revocation of their Australian citizenship would be given natural justice. Again, if a person wants to be an Australian citizen, we do not want them, before they become a citizen, committing crimes of fraud to assist with their application.

Amendments to the provisions would require applicants aged under 18 to also meet the good character test requirements and would extend the bar on approval for criminal offences to all citizenship application streams. Currently only those over the age of 18 years are required to do that. Going back to the situation in Melbourne, we have seen very violent crimes committed by people aged 16 years or even younger. Sometimes they are on five lots of bail. To me, it is only fair and reasonable that a person who wants to become an Australian citizen must be of good character and must not be involved in serious and organised violent crimes.

So, overall, I think these are very worthy changes. It sometimes seems that, for the opposition, this is the debate they do not want to have. But, if you listened to the evidence to the migration committee—and I say it has been a bipartisan committee—I think you would find that, overwhelmingly, No.1 is the requirement to have English to fit into Australian society. In particular, we had evidence from refugee advocates who said that, when it comes to a person getting a job, it is important to have that basic English understanding, to get in the door, to get that job, and for occupational health and safety. So what the government is doing here is very much in line with what we have heard in the migration committee. Obviously when it comes to the character test, there has been a different view from, say, police, compared to the view from refugee advocates, but, in saying that, overall, I keep coming back to the importance of English in the view of all those who appeared before the committee, including the need to actually push someone to make sure that they do everything they can to understand English so as to fit into Australian society.

I congratulate the minister for putting this legislation forward. I will be very interested to hear what comes back from the Senate inquiry, because I am sure they will hear a lot of evidence similar to the evidence I have heard through the migration committee.

Mark Dreyfus (Isaacs, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Attorney General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak against this terrible bill that seeks to divide people in Australia from one another and to deny immigrants the most powerful symbol of belonging in this country that is available to them: citizenship. There are no constructive proposals in this bill. It is in fact a destructive bill. It tries to link citizenship to national security when there is in fact nothing at all to link the two. It tries to pretend that somehow citizenship should be viewed in a negative light rather than a positive light and it tries to pretend that increasing the number of people who can call themselves proud Australians is a bad thing rather than a good one. It is anything but.

Citizenship is about inclusion. It is about giving people a stake in the country they already call home so that they can feel a part of it, so that they can feel that they have rights but also responsibilities. It brings them into the tent. It helps to combat feelings of otherness. It reduces distance and it encourages integration and learning.

I don't know if the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection has been to any citizenship ceremonies lately. In fact, I would be surprised if he had even in his own electorate, because, if he had, he would see that they are joyful affairs. They are all about family, togetherness and unity. People are so proud to become Australian. You can see it in their huge smiles and sometimes in their tears. I've attended three citizenship ceremonies in my electorate in the last few months. I've shaken the hands of parents with young families whose kids are excitedly waving Australian flags, of thirtysomethings and of one British man who'd lived in Australia for more than three decades. It was a privilege to be part of what was such a happy occasion for them. It always is.

When it comes to belonging, symbols matter. That certificate of citizenship means a lot to people. It particularly matters to people who have escaped hardship or persecution overseas and have expended an inordinate amount of effort to come to Australia.

It mattered to my father, who came as an unaccompanied minor escaping from Nazi Germany at the age of 11. He was also stateless. As a Jew, when he left Germany he was stripped of his German citizenship and his passport was stamped with a J. For a short time he belonged nowhere. His English, he says, was poor, but Australia to him and to his parents—my grandparents, who were incredibly lucky to escape Germany themselves and join him later—was a refuge and a safe haven. He became a citizen and has lived his life as a proud Australian. He has contributed immensely to this country. He is a well-known composer of classical music and of scores for film and television and received an Order of Australia in 1992. He is also, I might proudly add, a life member of the Australian Labor Party.

Stories like my dad's are not unique. There are people across Australia who are themselves naturalised Australian citizens, or the children of those people, who understand just how important citizenship is and how much it means to them or their parents. So let's have a look at the different ways that this bill tries to undermine citizenship.

This bill increases the wait time for people to apply for citizenship to a minimum of four years permanent residence. It sets a higher standard for English language tests, meaning applicants will need university-level English to pass. It amends the Australian values statement to include a reference to 'allegiance to Australia' and changes the test for Australian citizenship to include questions about Australian values. It introduces a requirement for applicants to demonstrate their 'integration' into the Australian community. Finally and most relevant to the shadow portfolio I have, it gives the minister power to set aside citizenship-related decisions made by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. I will go through each of these in turn, starting with the extension of the wait time for citizenship.

It makes no sense to me why it might be said to be in the nation's interest to force people who are already permanent residents to wait longer than they already do to become citizens. Permanent residents already have to wait at least four years before they become Australian citizens. That does not include the time before they became permanent residents, which itself can take years. This bill will make all of these people wait even longer. Let us be clear: we already make it pretty hard for people to become permanent residents and then to become citizens. The bureaucratic hoops they must jump through are immense and the fees they have to pay are prohibitive.

The Minister for Immigration and Border Protection says, 'Strengthening the residency requirement is intended to support integration and facilitate a more thorough evaluation of a person's commitment to Australia'. What rubbish! How on earth is alienating a new arrival from the rights of citizenship a way to promote integration? How many more years than four do you need for a person to prove they are worthy of living in Australia? I repeat: this law is going to affect people who are already permanent residents of our country. In truth, these changes will not promote integration at all. They will have the opposite effect. They are designed to make citizenship feel out of reach to a certain class of people and to exclude them. The result will only be more division and fractiousness in our country if new arrivals are made to feel that they do not belong as Australians.

Now to the English language test. The new requirements also raise the bar for citizenship to university-level English. Citizenship applicants will have to pass IELTS level 6 test in listening, speaking, reading and writing. Of course, Labor agrees that understanding and speaking English is an important part of being an Australian. That is beyond question. What we are talking about is the level of proficiency required. This new level is far too high. It is the same level required by some universities to enrol in their courses. Indeed, the University of Melbourne's Language Testing Research Centre says it would be too high for many Australian-born citizens with low literacy levels. We are not talking about some way of facilitating people to become citizens here. We are talking about putting another block in their way.

There are some people who have been living for decades in Australia who have contributed greatly to this country who have limited English or, indeed, have great English now but would not have been able to pass the proposed test when they first applied to become citizens. As I said earlier, my father believes he may not have been able to pass such an English test when he became a citizen, and what a loss that would have been to our country. This is discrimination at a base level. The new English test will hit different people in different ways. Those who are wealthy with access to education and private language tutoring will be fine, but imagine those who have come from war-torn countries on humanitarian visas. Will we deny them citizenship because they have not had the same educational opportunities? Apparently, under this government's proposed regime, we will.

I turn now to the government's proposals to require new citizens to demonstrate their integration into Australian society and for questions about Australian values to be included in the citizenship test. We know nothing about what this so-called integration test may look like because the government has refused to provide any detail. We may not know what it is but, my goodness, I don't think I have heard anything proposed in this chamber that sounds more Orwellian. How will we require new citizens to demonstrate their integration? Make them play a game of cricket? Determine if they can cook a barbecue? Sing Waltzing Matilda? Seriously, it is just ridiculous. I am sure the details of this test, should they ever be made public, will be even more alarming than the examples I have just offered.

To top this off, the government also wants to test new Australians on Australian values. I suppose the government, or even the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection, gets to decide what those are. Or will they hold a plebiscite to determine what everyone thinks an Australian value is? I shudder at what the current immigration minister might define as Australian values. This is the same 'Team Australia' rhetoric we heard from the former Prime Minister, the member for Warringah. There is a reason we have moved on. It is divisive rhetoric which sends exactly the wrong message to people. It is exclusionary, not inclusive and designed for cheap political gain.

Finally, and most relevant to my shadow portfolio, I am horrified at the new powers this bill proposes to give to the minister to overrule the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. The minister has demonstrated his contempt for the AAT very clearly in recent months. This government hates independent umpires interfering with its agenda. Just have a look at the narrow escape three Liberal ministers had from charges of contempt for attacking the integrity of the judiciary. That is how bad things have gotten under this government.

This bill provides that the personal decision to the minister regarding citizenship cannot be reviewed on merit by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal and gives the minister the power to override AAT citizenship decisions on the basis of character or evidence of identity. This is a truly worrying expansion of the powers of the minister without an avenue for appeal. I find it hard to understand the vendetta this government, and this minister, is presently levying against the AAT, especially considering that over 90 per cent of the current members of the AAT are, by now, people who have been appointed by this coalition government.

Under this new bill, a minister would be able to cancel citizenship approval or revoke citizenship with no right of review. The only condition the minister must satisfy is that this was done on the grounds of some—unnamed—'public interest'. This is acceptable, according to the explanatory memorandum for this bill, because 'the minister represents the Australian community and has a particular insight into Australian community standards and values and what is in Australia's public interest'. This justification is flimsy in the extreme. In fact, I would argue this current minister is hugely out of touch with the values of the Australian community. Do we really want him cancelling someone's citizenship because of some feeling that he has that the person in question does not fit in? Because that is what we are talking about here. Let's be clear as to what a merits review is. It is a review of the facts of the case. It seeks to correct where the minister has got something wrong. How can the minister think himself above such a basic process? It says a lot about the mentality of this minister and his obsession with gathering power, that this provision should even be included in this bill. It is not good governance, and Labor won't support it.

The second part of the AAT-related changes is a new power by the minister simply to overrule any decisions by the tribunal which he does not like. This is on the basis, it would seem, of a few tabloid front pages which the government has refused to provide a factual basis for, decrying so-called 'fake refugees'. This again undermines the role of the AAT as an independent umpire. What is the point of that if the minister can just reverse its decisions? These overruling powers are given to the minister on matters of 'good character', yet the term is not even defined under the act.

The overwhelming impression I get from this bill is that it is driven by a minister obsessed with power, with no obvious rationale beyond dividing this country and seeking to use nasty political tactics. I can barely think of a lower political act than this bill in the time I have spent in this parliament. It is the product of a minister who has lost touch with reality and lost touch with his country. Indeed, he has apparently lost touch with the heritage and history of his own party, given that it was Menzies who relaxed citizenship requirements. That's right. Menzies thought citizenship was a good thing and that it was a good thing for permanent residents to become citizens sooner, not later. There was a succession of changes from the mid 1950s onward by the Menzies government to make it easier for people living in Australia to become citizens; because, by living in Australia as citizens, they were going to feel they belonged to our country, and the sooner that that happened, the better. The Menzies government understood this.

What has happened to this minister's party, the party of Menzies, on Malcolm Turnbull's watch? It is barely recognisable as a party that stood for inclusion, as a party that stood for participation, as a party that wanted as many people as possible to become Australian citizens as soon as possible. I condemn this bill. I condemn the divisive ideas behind it and I condemn this government for bringing it to the parliament.

Tim Watts (Gellibrand, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As a member of parliament, I go to plenty of citizenship ceremonies. In my part of the world, they are very big affairs. Since I was elected, I have had a practice of starting each ceremony with an acknowledgement of country, paying my respects to elders past and present of the First Australians of my region of Australia, the Wurundjeri people of the Kulin nation. I tell those assembled that it is particularly important to make an acknowledgement of country at a citizenship ceremony because it is a reminder to all of us that, unless you are a First Australian, we are all migrants to this land.

As Victoria's former Premier Steve Bracks used to say, 'There's nothing more Australian than being a migrant.' You can feel this in the room at a citizenship ceremony. There is more passion for Australia in these town halls, in these community centres, pound for pound, than you will find at a Boxing Day test. Indeed, one that I was at just last month featured an individual live streaming the ceremony to his relatives on the other side of the world. I viewed the broadcast and I could see a crowded room of people watching this young man make the decision to become an Australian citizen. Indeed, it is rare you will get through an Australian citizenship ceremony without someone being in tears.

In my experience, people who have chosen to make Australia their home have a much keener appreciation of what our country offers its citizens, of what our country means than those who are born into it. As a result, I know they feel a much greater sense of obligation to their country of choice. I have seen how much Australian citizenship means to people coming to our country. That is why I am angry that the Australian Prime Minister is now seeking to use Australian citizenship as a political tool. That is why, along with all members of the Australian Labor Party, I will be fighting this divisive, un-Australian bill in the parliament and in the Australian community.

This bill makes a number of changes to the process of obtaining Australian citizenship. The Turnbull government says that Australian immigrants should sign up to Australian values and respect Australian laws before they get citizenship. That is fair enough. Indeed, every new Australian has to do that now. Here is the current citizenship pledge, a pledge all prospective citizens make before receiving citizenship:

From this time forward, I pledge my loyalty to Australia and its people, whose democratic beliefs I share, whose rights and liberties I respect, and whose laws I will uphold and obey.

Every Australian citizen already pledges this during their citizenship ceremonies. Our current citizenship laws already allow the government to put forward any questions about Australia, which includes any aspect of Australia including our values as part of this process. The provisions of the bill before the House simply are not needed. The only practical effect the provisions of this bill would have in this regard would be to delay the time before which prospective Australian citizens can formally commit themselves to these values. If we believe making such a statement of commitment to Australian values is important, and I do, shouldn't we want people to do this sooner rather than later? These provisions in this bill are a cheap political distraction, nothing more.

The bill makes changes to English language requirements for prospective Australian citizens. It is fair enough to ask people coming to Australia to learn English when they arrive and for the government to support them to do so. It helps them participate as a citizen in our democracy and helps them get work in the economy. Government should always do whatever is within its means to help people living in our society to learn English. But, as acclaimed author and celebrated voice of Melbourne's Alice Pung has so beautifully written, it does not define people's ability to make a contribution to our nation. Alice wrote:

I think my parents have a fair idea of what a shared sacrifice for the common good means. They worked all the time when I was growing up. My father started a small watch shop and, as his business grew, he was able to give more jobs to more people. My mother worked from home, Aussie-battler-style, in the back shed.

As an outworker, she spent almost 20 years in the darkness of that shed. Most of the money she earned went into our education, so that I would have the opportunity to become a lawyer, teach at university and write books. Without knowing much English, our parents pledged their loyalty to Australia and its people the only way they knew how — through decades of tunnel-vision hard work, so that we are now doctors, teachers, dentists, speech pathologists, social workers, researchers and Rhodes scholars.

… … …

People tell me that migrants like myself are successful because we have made it to the outside world. But I am only here because someone invested in my education. Someone spent all their pay on a good school for me. Someone gave me space to write a book even though they would never be able to understand how important that was, because they had never read a book in their lives.

… … …

I was lucky enough to be born here. I would be accepted as one of the educated, professional migrant Australians of which the country can be proud, while my mother would be regarded as a foreign outcast. As an Australian, I am not sure I could ever be proud of citizenship on such terms.

Plenty of members of parliament would fall into this category. Indeed, there are members of my family who cannot speak English. I wonder how those on the opposite side of this House who fall into that category can look these family members in the eye while also voting for the bill.

While English is undoubtedly an advantage to helping new migrants to Australia integrate and developing their economic and civic agency, we should be careful about using it as a black-and-white test of whether someone is able to make a contribution to our nation. But, again, the test that people need to pass today to receive Australian citizenship is in English. You already need to be able to speak conversational English in order to pass it. What we are talking about in this bill today is the level of English we require, and setting the bar for Australian citizenship at a university level of English just isn't right. It demeans the contribution of millions of Australians to our nation. This provision isn't just an insult to prospective Australians either. It's an insult to all Australians who don't have university-level qualifications. It says that in the snobbiest Australia imagined by the coalition if you can't read, write and speak English at a university level they don't want you here.

Despite the minister's dissembling, the standard of English attainment required to pass this test is very high. Many will struggle to pass it. Misty Adoniou, Associate Professor in Language, Literacy and TESL at the University of Canberra, has written about her personal experience preparing students for this test. She writes:

I prepared students for the IELTS test when I lived and taught in Greece. They needed a score of 6 to get into Foundation courses in British universities. It wasn’t an easy test and sometimes it took them more than one try to succeed.

My students were middle class, living comfortably at home with mum and dad. They had been to school all their lives and were highly competent readers and writers in their mother tongue of Greek.

They had been learning English at school since Grade 4, and doing private English tuition after school for even longer. Essentially they had been preparing for their IELTS test for at least 8 years.

They were not 40-year-old women whose lives as refugees has meant they have never been to school, and cannot read and write in their mother tongue.

Neither were they adjusting to a new culture, trying to find affordable accommodation and a job while simultaneously dealing with post-traumatic stress and the challenge of settling their teenage children into a brand new world.

As Labor's shadow minister for citizenship and multicultural Australia, the member for Watson, has noted, there are a large number of people who will never pass this test. Are we then to have an underclass of not-quite Australians living in our country, people who will always be here but never have to pledge allegiance to Australia and who will never be told that they truly belong? It is abhorrent, and not the egalitarian Australia that I grew up in.

In a similar vein, the extended residence requirements of this bill—requirements that will force some people living in our community to wait four years as a permanent resident on top of however many years they may already have been living in Australia on a temporary visa—will serve only to divide and marginalise people in our community. If asking people to pledge their allegiance to Australia and its values is a good thing, let people do it as soon as possible. Don't create arbitrary hurdles to someone's ability to make a commitment to our nation. This can only serve to alienate people from our country, to exclude them from the society that we are asking them to commit to.

The Minister for Immigration and Border Protection says these changes are about national security, but no national security agencies have asked for them. Labor is absolutely committed to keeping Australia and all Australians safe, and we have consistently demonstrated our bipartisan commitment to do so through the work of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security. But the proposals in this bill have not been through the PJCIS, nor have they come from the Australian Federal Police, nor ASIO, nor our state counterterrorism authorities. That's no surprise, given that these tests will be applied to people who by definition will have been living in Australia for at least four years. People who are applying for citizenship will by definition already be permanent residents and have undergone rigorous character and security checks in order to come here in the first place. If they are a security risk, they should not be living here at all. Is the government suggesting that these people only become a security risk after they obtain citizenship? If so, how will denying them citizenship address this risk? If it thinks this whole class of people were security risks before they became citizens, what is it doing about them before they apply for citizenship? The security arguments for this bill are plainly a nonsense. It is all about tarring all prospective migrants to our nation with the slander that they are a national risk to Australia. This isn't a national security assessment; it's a political smear. The impetus for this bill came not from national security agencies but from a report by a Liberal senator. Its pursuit in this parliament comes from a power grab by an ambitious conservative minister in the face of a weak Prime Minister—a Prime Minister who is willing to allow Australian citizenship, the foundation of our democracy and our civil society, to be used in a political game to temporarily prop up his leadership.

The shameful political nature of the provisions in this bill are clear for all to see from the shameful process that produced this bill. The government spent months talking about this bill without providing a full briefing to the Labor Party about its contents, without providing any public detail about its provisions and all the while demanding that the Labor Party endorse it sight unseen. It ran a sham community consultation process and then refused to release the findings, sweeping the bill's flaws and the community's concerns under the mat. Given this, Labor has made it clear that this bill now requires detailed consideration in this parliament. The Senate committee process should be empowered to fully inquire into the detail of this bill, and experts and community stakeholders should be given the forum they deserve to share their concerns about this bill.

I'm proud to represent a diverse migrant community in this parliament. Two-thirds of the constituents in my electorate were either born overseas or have a parent born overseas, and this is the story of my family, too. I like to tell people that Footscray, in Melbourne's west, is like Australia's welcoming mat. Over the past hundred years we have welcomed wave after wave of new arrivals to this country; it is their first stop when they arrive in Australia. We have seen the Irish, the Maltese, the Greeks, the Italians, the Polish, the Turkish, the Lebanese, the Vietnamese, the Filipino, the Chinese and now the Indians, the Sudanese, the Eritreans and the Ethiopians. They come to Melbourne's west on their first stop to becoming members of the Australian community. Whilst some have only paused for long enough to get their bearings and to get established in this country before moving on to put down roots in other parts of our nation, the presence of each generation has left sedimentary layers that shape our community to this day. Across Australia, these waves of migration have shaped our national identity across the generations.

For a shamefully long period in our early history, the waves of immigration that made Australia the vibrant, diverse nation it is today—the nation we all celebrate—were distorted by a different English language test. The 50-word dictation test that for many decades underpinned the Immigration Restriction Act—the white Australia policy—is looked back on as a shameful period in our history. We have come a long way as a parliament and, indeed, as a nation since those days, but we should not be under any illusions. Bills like the one before the parliament today and policies like the ones we debate in the parliament today will define the kind of nation that we are and the kind of nation that we will become in the future.

What we are debating in the parliament today is whether Australian citizenship will be something that brings us together as a nation—an inclusive concept that makes us stronger as a community and as a country—or whether Australian citizenship will be used as a tool to divide our community and to exclude members of our society from having a shared stake in the future of our country. I know the kind of Australia that I have grown up in. I know the kind of Australia that I want my children to grow up in. It is an Australia where citizenship remains a common touchstone—something that we all share and revere as a symbol of our shared values and our shared ambitions as a nation. I will do everything that I can in this parliament to protect that for the future, and that is why I will be voting against this bill.

Julian Hill (Bruce, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Australian Citizenship Legislation Amendment (Strengthening the Requirements for Australian Citizenship and Other Measures) Bill 2017. I will say at the outset there is no doubt, as more detail of this emerges and, indeed, as submissions to the Senate inquiry become clearer, that this bill to attack Australian citizenship is a truly appalling piece of legislation. Even for this Minister for Immigration and Border Protection it's a shocker, and that is a big call. It attacks viciously the egalitarian ideals that have underpinned Australian citizenship for decades—the notion, the hope and the promise that migrants we select can come, settle as permanent residents and gain citizenship to build a life and contribute to enhance our permanent settler multicultural society where people speak many different languages.

If passed, this bill would introduce a university-level English language test at a level so high and difficult that I bet millions of Australians would not pass—we now have expert advice to the Senate committee that that is not an assertion, but it is fact—including many in this parliament. It would massively increase the period that permanent residents need to be living in Australia before being able to apply for citizenship. There is no evidence of why this is needed; apparently it is just a good thing. It would condemn hundreds of thousands of permanent residents, tens of thousands of whom live in my electorate, to a life as an underclass, living here, working, running a business, paying taxes, raising families but not able to pass a grammar test and be counted as full members of our diverse Australian community. How on earth does that make us a better society? How on earth does it make us a more cohesive society, a more secure society?

We have every right to expect that permanent residents who have been here take the pledge of allegiance sooner rather than later. That's a good thing. The minister's overblown rhetoric of this being some national security initiative was shown very quickly to be false. There was no advice from national security agencies. It is just a scare.

This matters to me a lot as the member of parliament who represents the electorate with, I think, the highest percentage of people born overseas. Around 55 per cent of people in the Bruce electorate in the last census said they were born somewhere else. And this includes many skilled migrants, business migrants and refugees. Interestingly, I have 157,000 people in my electorate, but there are only 95,000 on the voting roll because we are such a diverse community and include many noncitizens. I feel it's my responsibility to represent all people, not just voters.

At a recent public meeting in Springvale that the member for Isaacs, the member for Hotham and I hosted we had over 500 people turn up on a dark and stormy night to express their outrage and opposition to this legislation, to urge us to take a stand and not back down. I note that these were not all noncitizens who turned up. Indeed, the majority of the meeting, I'm absolutely confident, were citizens: people associated with family and friends, many just insulted, others simply worried about their community cohesion and fabric. In my view, from what I have seen, the government has seriously miscalculated politically and should quietly hope the Senate buries this terrible bill.

But I'm also here as a citizen born here who passionately believes, as I said in my first speech, that Australia's human diversity is an enormous strength for this nation. The different cultures enrich us, but it's also of great economic import. Welcoming and valuing people who speak other languages and who bring other cultural understanding and networks has been shown time and time again to underpin trade and investment growth, particularly as we forge our way in Asia in the coming decades. And this nonsense undeniably will deter thousands of the brightest people from coming here. There's nothing wrong with highly skilled migrants, researchers and so on coming here aspiring to Australian citizenship, but many of these people will never have the time to learn to pass an IELTS 6 English grammar test.

I will start with the worst aspect. The English language testing provisions I can only conclude are deliberately over the top. We need to be clear what's actually proposed, because the government is engaging in spin. An IELTS level 6 test that the minister calls 'competent' is not a test for everyday English. It was designed for university admission. It's interesting that in the last few days submissions from the Senate inquiry have emerged. I'll read a couple of quotes from the University of Melbourne's language centre, who have said it is unsuitable for establishing readiness for citizenship and the proposed level is too high.

Of course no-one disputes learning English is important, but the current citizenship test is already in English and this conversational English has served Australia well for decades. Particularly embarrassing for the minister is that his very own appointed multicultural advisory council has written that this standard 'is too high and above that needed to achieve the aim of integration.' That's the minister's own hand-picked council telling him he's got it wrong. There are tens of thousands of people in my electorate who would not pass this test, yet they're great Australians. They run businesses, they work, they create wealth, they pay taxes and they raise kids.

The government also implied this is somehow to bring us into line with other countries as if that's a reason in itself for our somewhat unique context as such a multicultural nation. Nevertheless, again the submissions show that this is a complete and total fiction. This test, if introduced, would be by far the highest standard in the world. The conspiracy theorists would say it's deliberately so by the minister to force the parliament to reject this kind of extremism as some kind of dog whistle to certain groups of voters. But look at the facts. The United States requires people to read and write a sentence. New Zealand requires a basic conversation in English assessed by an official. Canada's level is just speaking and listening at a much lower level. The UK, Germany, the Netherlands and Spain do not use these university-graded IELTS at all.

In truth, what the government is saying to migrants from non-English-speaking countries with this legislation is that, if they had their way, they would rather you were not here at all. It's deeply offensive to every migrant for whom English is not their first language. There are passing assertions from the minister that the world has changed since European migrants arrived. They're just facile. Of course that's true. Change is a constant. It's kind of a fortune cookie in that sense. But this has nothing to do with the level of testing proposed. University-level English grammar is not necessary to be a good Australian. That was true decades ago, and it's still true today.

Refugees are our most entrepreneurial migrants. Research from the ABS some years ago showed that. They're more likely to start a business and generate wealth from nothing. In the year 2000, five of Australia's eight billionaires at that point had come to this country as refugees. Many arrived with no English. They get some conversational English and they make their way in the community.

On skilled migrants, I will take the example of university researchers who settle in Australia—global talent. We are in a competition for global talent. This increases our wealth as a society. Brilliant research scientists come with functional English, but they would never pass an English grammar test as proposed. But we're seriously saying with this bill that we don't want them here anymore as citizens. Somehow, because Minister Dutton's introduced this bill, we don't want those people in our country anymore—or are we saying,' We want you to take a couple of years off your world-breaking research and go and study English grammar, and then pass a test, and then you can stay'?

On business migrants, I used to run the business migration program, as a public servant in Victoria. It's an important and valuable economic contributor. People bring capital. They invest. They create wealth. And this is particularly significant for Chinese business migrants, although not only those. They come with functional English, but where on earth are they going to get time while they're running multimillion-dollar businesses in Australia and China to spend two years studying grammar? There is no answer. The community sees this as clearly anti-migrant. It is a clearly anti-Chinese measure according to the Chinese community, but I don't accept that; it's an anti-migrant measure more broadly. Fundamentally, they feel lied to, they feel misled and they feel cheated by this government.

The other significant change, of course, is at least four years of permanent residency in future to apply. The minister's line is that this has increased from one year. On the face of it, you might think that sounds reasonable, but it's spin. The current law already requires an applicant for citizenship to have lived in Australia lawfully for four years, including one year as a PR. So the Prime Minister and the minister are, frankly, misleading people in the way they explain this change.

What it will actually do, as the submissions to the Senate inquiry now make clear, is introduce perverse and damaging distinctions depending on which visa class someone happened to come to Australia in. If you came here and settled on a visa that granted you PR, permanent residency, from day one, fine—there is no change. But if you came and settled here on a temporary visa, and then later you got PR, then you have to wait years more, and again this affects the highest value migrants to this country. PhD students who've come here, paid for their masters and done their PhD to world standard at our universities will then have to wait years more before they can apply for citizenship. We should be making it easier for these high-quality migrants to stay in Australia and pledge their allegiance, and yet we're making it harder to the point of being impossible.

You'd suspect stakeholders had slammed this measure in their submissions to government, but we will never know, because Minister Dutton's secretive black hole of a department has eaten the submissions and won't show us. But the submitters to the Senate inquiry spoke out against this measure. I will read two quotes. The Australian Human Rights Commission said:

The differential treatment based on visa class does not advance the Government's stated objective of integrating aspiring citizens into the Australian community.

The Federation of Ethnic Communities Councils Australia said:

The proposed amendment … will have a detrimental effect on community harmony, social cohesion and weaken the capacity of migrants to be empowered and integrated into Australian society.

It will have an impact also, I note, on Commonwealth government Public Service recruitment. Translators, with skills that we need, can no longer work in the public sector without citizenship in many parts.

The bill comes on top of growing concerns about the integrity of how the minister and department are administering the citizenship function, and integrity, of course, is critical in applying the law and in determining who gets citizenship in the administration. It must be an effective process, free from politics.

This House debated this very topic a few months ago: the growing and inexplicable delays in processing applications, delayed for years with no explanation. A Federal Court case last December exposed the scale of the problem: over 10,000 so-called complex cases, no resources and signs, the court found, of 'a deliberate shameful policy to manipulate the queue'. It may sound like an academic debate or a numbers game, but it's not. It has a very real human impact. I see the pain in my office each week—in fact, most days—when my staff deal with grown men crying at the front counter. There are mental health impacts of living in limbo for years and years, because nothing comes out of the minister's black hole of a department except the same crappy standard letter. They're stuck: unable to travel to visit dying relatives, unable to complete their studies overseas or to take jobs that require citizenship.

Of course only in 'Turnbull land' could such an incompetent minister be promoted. It's a bit like the Prime Minister and the NBN, I guess. Then again, the Prime Minister doesn't even seem to run this circus of a government anymore this week. And so it's in this context that proposals to give this minister more and unchecked powers are so deeply disturbing. I would note in passing that it is pleasing that the Auditor-General has decided to put administration of the citizenship function on his audit list for this year, so perhaps we will get some better insights into what is really going on.

I note also that this bill purports to effect these changes from 20 April, despite the fact that this is just a proposal before the parliament. The department, shamefully, has been turning people away who are trying to lodge their application, saying they don't want them now if they haven't had four years as a permanent resident—even though it's not the current law. The current law of Australia is as it stands, not as this bill proposes. This is not a tax bill where retrospectivity is an accepted form of introducing a new measure. It is a policy bill. Why is it retrospective? What possible reason is there for this? My office, and others, have been advising people to mail the hard copy to the department, keep the record and when this legislation fails they will hopefully be in the queue and processed.

Of course, it's not just business migrants. I had one family in my electorate who came to me in tears because they were due to be eligible to apply a week or so after 20 April. They'd been hanging on because their mother—I think it was their mother—was dying in another country. She had a few months left to live and they'd held off going to spend those last few months of her life with her, waiting because they were desperate not to lose the number of years of residency to get to that four years, with their year of PR, and they are stuffed now. They feel misled. It's a terrible and unspeakably cruel policy.

As with other legislative amendments in the immigration portfolio of late, this policy case has not been made. And there is a pattern of this with this minister. This minister is power hungry. Pretty much every piece of legislation seeks more power for himself. Every problem must be criminalised and securitised. His lust for power was recently evidenced by the home office department. There is no evidence or case that it will make us safer; it's just a powder grab in the government, battered through a weak Prime Minister. Members should really watch this minister.

In closing, it's not our job to unpick and try and fix up legislation that is this bad. The Senate inquiry will do its work. If there are parts of the legislation that are sensible, other parts that I haven't spoken about, then the government should bring them back as a different bill with grown-up justification and evidence so that we can do our work properly. But in the meantime, the only sensible course of action with this bill is to reject it outright. Thank you.

Craig Kelly (Hughes, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am pleased this evening to speak on the Australian Citizenship Legislation Amendment (Strengthening the Requirements for Australian Citizenship and Other Measures) Bill 2017. It's commonly said out there in the public that if a member of the Labor Party tells you it's raining, you need to go outside and check. And we've seen it over and over again in recent years. We saw the 'Mediscare' campaign—completely fraudulent—with member after member of the Labor Party saying something that was completely untrue. And here we go again; it's exactly the same thing during this debate.

Earlier today, the member for Watson said, and I think I've got the quote right, 'You need university English, unless you come from one of the five white countries where English is the official language.' That is what is in front of us. He went on—again, I hope I have the quote right: 'It just happens that of all of the five countries that have English as their official language'—five countries deemed to have a white majority—'Singapore doesn't make the cut and India doesn't make the cut.' There are a few things that need to be said about those words. Firstly, let's look at the claim that this legislation requires university-level English. Let's put the facts on the table and see the Australian people make a decision on whether the Labor Party are again engaging in another misleading and deceptive ploy to deceive the Australian public.

Let's have a look at the IELTS, the International English Language Testing System. There are two streams to this. There is an academic module and there's also a general module. The academic module says: 'The academic module is intended for those who want to enrol in universities and other institutions of higher education, for professionals such as medical doctors and nurses who want to study or practice in an English-language country.' If you listen to members of the Labor Party, you would believe it is the academic test that is being given. But that is simply untrue. Each member from the other side of the House who has spoken on this has misled the Australian public by creating the perception that this is an academic test, when it simply isn't. It is the general training test. The general module says: 'The general test is intended for those planning to undertake non-academic training or gain work experience for migration purposes.' That is the test that this legislation deals with. I repeat: 'The general test is intended for those planning to undertake non-academic training.' Yet we have had member after member of the Labor Party claim that the test is for university English. That is completely and utterly incorrect.

Let's talk about the level 6 that is required. In the actual test, there are nine possible bands indicating the result you get on that test. Remember, this is the non-academic test. If you get a band 9 result you are described as having 'a fluent operational command of the language; appropriate, accurate, fluent and with complete understanding'. That is not the test we are asking for. We are not asking for a band 9. What about a band 8? If you get a band 8 result you are described as having 'a fully operational command of the language with only occasional, unsystematic inaccuracies and inappropriateness; misunderstandings may occur in unfamiliar situations; handles complex argumentation well'. We could ask for a band 8 English test. But we are not asking for that.

What about a band 7? If you get a band 7 result you are described as having 'an operational command of the language though with occasional inaccuracies, inappropriateness and misunderstandings in some situations; generally handles complex language well and understands detailed reasoning'. A band 7 could be a good standard for the test. But we are not asking for a band 7, we are asking for a band 6. If you get a band 6 result you are described as having 'a generally effective command of the language despite some inaccuracies and inappropriateness and misunderstandings; can use and understand fairly complex language particularly in familiar situations'. That is the band we are asking for. It is not a university level of education. It is band 6 under the non-academic test. I repeat: if you get a band 6 result you are described as having 'a generally effective command of the language despite some inaccuracies and inappropriateness and misunderstandings'. Surely that is not too big an ask? We could go down to band 5 or band 4, which maybe the other side are asking for. But let's just have a look at what band 5 says, if they think band 6 is too high.

For band 5 it says:

… has partial command of the language, coping with overall meaning in most situation, though is likely to make many mistakes.

Do we really want to have an English-language test where the result that we ask for is defined as someone who is likely to make many mistakes? I put it to you, Deputy Speaker, that an English-language test where the result of your test is that you are someone that likes to make many mistakes is simply not high enough. And therefore band 6 under the non-academic stream is actually quite the appropriate test that we should use.

So I call on members of the opposition: if you want to debate this piece of legislation and if you want to argue the points of it, do not misrepresent the basic facts. Do not go out and claim there is a requirement for university-level English when that is simply untrue. We are not requiring the university test; we are requiring a band 6, which is effectively a 50 per cent pass mark.

The other thing I'd like to comment on, I will do so but I wish I didn't have to. The member for Watson said in his speech, 'Unless you come from one of the five white countries.' Dog whistling works both ways. False accusations of racism are also dog whistling. If you look at the member's speech, he said, 'The five white countries are exempt,' and implied that it had something to do with the predominant colour of the skin of the people of those countries, which were New Zealand, the USA, Canada and the UK. They are exempt from this English-language test, and to say that it has something to do with being a white country or a non-white country and implying that is the reason that it is put in, well, that is dog whistling and that is a disgrace.

I will tell you why, Mr Deputy Speaker. The example was that Singapore doesn't make the cut. It has nothing to do with whether Singapore is a white country or a non-white country. Recent data—Singapore's own census—says it is only 34 to 35 per cent of homes in Singapore that have English as their first language. So you've got something like more than 65 per cent of people living in Singapore who don't have English as the language that they use at home. The 2010 Singapore census said that about 550,000 people, 10 per cent of the population, has no English at all. That is the reason why Singapore is not exempt. It has nothing to do with whether it is a white country or a non-white country, and to make that accusation in this chamber as the member for Watson did is a disgrace.

For India: again on some of the numbers that I have seen only 10 per cent of the population of India are actually recognised as having a good command of the English language. So there is no discrimination on the colour of their skin to have this English-language test for people who come from India or people who come from Singapore, and yet that is what is being implied by the member for Watson.

The entire purpose of this legislation is to unite us all as Australians, irrespective of what our background is or whether we come from a 'white' country. It is to make sure that the thing we all have in common is that we all have a good command of the English language so that whatever country we come from, we can go out and we can integrate and assimilate—whatever word you want to use. We can all mix in as one society and we can all be Australians. We can all be proud to be Australians. That is what this legislation is about.

Members of the Labor Party come in here and tell falsehoods about a requirement for university-standard English, when there clearly is not one. They mention white countries as having some sort of special exemption actually divides us. It divides us all and it demeans this parliament. I know there are many members of the Labor Party that, in good faith, want to see Australians all united as one people, irrespective of our backgrounds. I call on you during this debate: please do not use it as an excuse to drive a wedge between Australians, to try and divide us into different tribes. The legislation that we need and everything all of us stand for in this parliament is that we are all united as Australians, as one people. That is the premise of the legislation. I would ask all members of the opposition to consider that when they contribute to this debate and to not engage in the dog-whistling that we have heard. I thank the House.

Steve Georganas (Hindmarsh, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Hughes. The question is that this bill be now read a second time. The member for Fremantle.

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

Perth, Mr Deputy Speaker.

Steve Georganas (Hindmarsh, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My apologies, Member for Perth.

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

That's okay. Sometimes my spiritual home is down that way. It is a wonderful part of the world, but to label me in that fashion would do a great disservice to the honourable member for Fremantle who I am sure is a more upstanding character than me.

Craig Kelly (Hughes, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Not a bit of it.

Tim Hammond (Perth, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to 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.

Adam Bandt (Melbourne, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

One of the unexpectedly best bits about getting elected to parliament is going to citizenship ceremonies. I didn't expect that this would be such a highlight of my job, but going to citizenship ceremonies at Richmond Town Hall and Collingwood Town Hall in Melbourne and up at the Moonee Valley Council is one of the best things that I get to do. For the people who front up, it is something that will happen once in their life. They're there with their family and their friends. Some of them have waited just a few years after coming to Australia—perhaps because of a loved one—and others have been after this for a big part of their life. But, for every one of them, as they take that oath of citizenship and become Australian citizens, you can tell that this is one of the most significant decisions in their lives. Maybe it's love that's got them there. Maybe it's work that's got them there. For many people in Melbourne it's the fact that they're now living in a peaceful society where they're not under threat of war, persecution or famine and they no longer have to wait for several years in a refugee camp in Kenya or in Sudan. They know that they are now able to live a life of peace and freedom.

For many of these people it is a turning point in their lives. I walk around the public housing estates in Melbourne—and we've got more public housing dwellings than any other electorate in the country. Many of the people there weren't citizens when they arrived here and probably did not speak or write very good English when they arrived here. But the ones who've gone on to become Australian citizens are some of the people that express the greatest pride and happiness in having been able to do so.

And then, of course, there are the people in Melbourne who came here after the Second World War. They got off boats from Greece or Italy and they probably didn't speak, write or read very good English at the time they got here. But they are some of the people that help make Melbourne great and they are part of the reason people come from all over Australia, and, indeed, all over the world, to visit Melbourne. When you talk to these people who have taken the journey to become Australian citizens, almost to a person they are so thankful for the opportunity that has been granted to them and they are just itching to say, 'What can I do and what can I give back?'

Pretty much every one of those whom I have met and spoken to at these citizenship ceremonies—and some of the people I have met have had to risk their lives to escape war or persecution, or had a family member who might be under threat of being shot, and some of them have left people behind in their home countries whose lives are under threat because they do not enjoy the kinds of freedoms that we do—has said that they are immensely grateful and asked, 'What can I do next to help work with everyone else to make Australia a better place?' When those people are prepared to risk their lives or sometimes put themselves or their families in danger, the question is: are they the kinds of people we want in this country? You bet! Someone who says: 'Australia is such a good place that I'm prepared to risk my safety or my life to get there, because it's better than the place that I'm coming from, and, when I get there, I want to do everything I can to help make Australia a better place,' is exactly the kind of person we want here.

The government could have turned around and said, 'We're going to use our position as the government, with the biggest megaphone in Australia, to say that people who've made the journey to become Australian citizens are, almost to a person—almost—exactly the kind of people that we want here,' and, 'We're going to acknowledge you and applaud you and celebrate you and do everything we can to make it easier for you to become part of Australian society, because we recognise that part of the reason that you've chosen to come here is exactly because we are a democratic, peaceful society that has the rule of law and that enjoys certain liberties. It is the fact that we're like that that has brought you here in the first place.'

Instead, what does this government do? Well, they're trailing in the polls, so along comes Minister Peter Dutton, the minister for immigration, thinking: 'We're not doing very well in the polls. What are we going to do? We'd better beat up on migrants. We'd better find a new way of beating up on refugees. We'd better find another way of drawing a line through Australian society and putting us on one side and them on the other, because we need something to fill a headline for yet another day.' And so comes this bill to parliament. Instead of working from the presumption that people who want to come here are coming here precisely because they respect Australia's laws and freedoms, they're saying the opposite: 'We're going to make everyone who is in Australia already think that anyone else who wants to come here wants to do us harm.' There is not only no evidence for that—because the overwhelming majority of people who come here are coming here because they want to enjoy Australia's peaceful society—but this bill itself actually does harm. This bill is designed to send a message to the people who are here that we should fear those who are coming, and that we should work from the presumption that someone who sticks their hand up to become a citizen does not actually really want to respect Australia's laws and that somehow this government is going to do something that's going to stop it.

Do you really think that, if someone is intending to come to Australia to do us harm, putting a few new questions on a test is going to make a difference? Of course not. What the government ignores, as they talk up the threat of terrorism in the context of this citizenship bill, is that, in many instances, as we're seeing around the world, the attacks are coming from people who might even have been citizens or born in the country in the first place. To suggest that somehow there is a higher preponderance of threat from a group of people who are coming here who want to be citizens is not only not borne out by the evidence but is just straight out and out dog-whistling.

Dangerously—for anyone who has followed the record of Minister Dutton—this bill gives the minister sweeping new powers. This bill says that the minister can set aside decisions of the quasi-judicial body, the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. In another context, they come in here and say, 'We couldn't possibly overturn the penalty rates decision of the Fair Work Commission'—another quasi-judicial body—'because that would be interfering with the independent umpire, but we're very, very happy, if we think it can boost our numbers in the polls, to give Minister Peter Dutton some more powers to overturn whatever the AAT decides.' It also gives him sweeping new powers to deny a person eligibility to sit the citizenship test in the first place. As Liberty Victoria said in their recent report, it is playing god. It is putting the minister in the position of playing god. He will possess, if this bill goes through, at least 20 individual non-delegable, non-reviewable and non-compellable discretionary powers. Under the guise of saying it is protecting the rule of law, this government is actually diminishing it. This government is saying, 'Let's give Minister Dutton, who most people in this country wouldn't trust with their lunch money, sweeping new powers that can't even be reviewed by a court.' It feigns to call it democracy.

Then the government comes along and says, 'In case we are not being racist enough, let's add in some new requirements for the English language test.' As we have heard from so many people around this country, if this test was in they would not have been here in the first place. It is not because people who came from Greece or Italy had done any harm to this country and not because the people who came from Vietnam on boats, fleeing persecution, had done any harm to this country. Under these new proposals, they might not be let in in the first place because of this English language test. It is why the Federation of Ethnic Communities Councils of Australia makes the important point this is discriminatory and exclusionary.

If the government was actually concerned about people improving their English language skills, I could take them to a number of the neighbourhood houses or learning centres in my electorate where there are people queuing up to do their English language classes. When they reach the end of their allotted hours, they're told: 'That's it. There's no more government support for you. Now you're on your own.' So a lot of them are going out and voluntarily engaging in classes to improve their English. If the government is really that concerned about improving English language, it should provide and expand the support it gives to agencies who are helping people who are here to learn better English. Again, my electorate has one of the largest proportions of people who were born overseas or who have recently arrived in Australia. When I talk to people in my electorate, they say, 'Where can I sign up to improve my English to understand and improve my skills more?' If the government was serious about that or if, somehow, there is a massive crisis in Australia at the moment that there are not enough people who have great English language skills—I do not accept for a moment that that is a problem—then that is what it would do.

I look at my friends whose parents came from Greece or Italy and are now living in Richmond or in Ascot Vale, and I think, 'If this Liberal government had its way, you would not be here in the country with me because your parents or your grandparents would never have got in in the first place.' I would urge everyone in this country, including in this parliament, to have a think about who is in their workplace, who their next-door neighbours are and who has married into their family and just go back a generation or two and ask yourself: would that person, when they got off the boat or off the plane, have been able to pass the high-level English language test this government wants to impose on them? If the answer is no, then your spouse, your family member, your workmate or your neighbour would not be here. That is effectively what this government is aiming to do. It is aiming to say to people, 'You don't belong in this country; we'll send you back,' even though they are people I would call friends and fellow citizens.

One of the other issues that has caused a great amount of angst to people in Melbourne is the retrospective nature of this legislation and the fact there are so many people who have been working towards citizenship for such a long time. They have been making their plans about whether to rent or buy a home, about their jobs or whether to take up jobs and, in other cases, about whether to get married and start a family here. They have been making their decisions and their plans in their life based on the law as it was at the time. Then in comes this government and it says, 'You now need to wait an additional four years before you can apply for citizenship.' This applies now across the board, and it has thrown people's lives into chaos. The stories are hard. There are heartbreaking stories of relationships that now have to potentially uproot or that may not continue to exist. There are employers in my electorate of Melbourne who thought they might have some people signing up to continue working in world-leading medical and health research, but who now find those employees might not be able to be citizens after all. There are brains we are going to lose and there are hearts we are going to lose. Of course, the government doesn't care about any of that, because at the end of the day all of this is just simply some dog whistling.

If there is one silver lining—I don't think there is one, but if there is—to this legislation, it's that it is a sign of this government's increasing desperation. Do you want to know why, Liberals and Nationals, you are on the nose in pretty much every poll? It's because people have had enough of this rubbish. People have had enough of Malcolm Turnbull and his government trying to make people feel scared, when actually people are trying to come together. There is a lot going on in the world that is making people feel uncertain and insecure, and governments can either pander to that, as this one is doing, or they can bring people together. That is what a real and a decent government would do, and that's why this bill must be opposed. We should use this place to unite people, not divide them.

Julie Owens (Parramatta, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Small Business) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Listening to the speakers on the other side of this House, you might be forgiven for thinking the Australian Citizenship Legislation Amendment (Strengthening the Requirements for Australian Citizenship and Other Measures) Bill 2017 is somehow about trying to uphold Australian values. But I tell you, when I look at my community, this bill doesn't meet my definition of Australian values. Look at this country of ours: we are one of the great multicultural nations of the world. When we federated in 1901, one in four of us were born overseas and 40 per cent of us had one parent born overseas. Now, in 2017, the proportion of people born overseas is slightly higher, at 28 per cent, but we have been a multicultural nation that has welcomed migrants since modern settlement. Everybody that has arrived in Australia since that time is a migrant or a child of a migrant.

We have been a country that has welcomed people. We've built our community. We've taken people in. We've brought people in from all around the world to help us build this great country, and we expected them to have full entitlements to enjoy the benefits of citizenship. When we did a deal with the Turkish government back in the late sixties and we brought a whole stack of Turkish migrants to Australia, the Turkish government said, 'No, we only want you to take them temporarily.' We said, 'No, that's not what we do in Australia.' We opened the doors to Turkish migration on a permanent basis in the late sixties. I have an extraordinary community in my electorate of Parramatta, in Western Sydney, that grew from the opening of those doors. That is who we are. We are not a country that asks people to come here temporarily, that brings low-paid workers in and doesn't give them the benefits of citizenship—yet. We are not that country yet. But if this bill passes, we will very quickly become that parliament.

For me, the words of the national anthem are worth repeating today:

For those who've come across the seas

We've boundless plains to share;

With courage let us all combine

To Advance Australia Fair.

Not with fear let us all combine, but with courage. You need to understand that people who choose to leave their country of birth and travel across the seas to build a life in another country are exhibiting extraordinary courage. They are making a choice that many of us wouldn't make, many of us wouldn't be game to make. They are actually transporting their lives to a new country and taking the risk that they can make that life work. And with this bill, this government is pulling the rug out from under so many people that came here in good faith, that made decisions about their lives, transplanted their families here in good faith and with an understanding of what the requirements were to become Australian citizens. However, with an announcement on 20 April, all of those plans came unstuck.

A little later, I will read out some of the circumstances that people find themselves in because of the government's plans to retrospectively apply this change, but I want to remind the House again that we are, in the OECD, a very rare country. We are No. 3 in terms of the number of people born overseas, beaten only by Luxembourg and Switzerland. And one might suspect that tax arrangements are one of the reasons why so many people who weren't born in those countries are technically residents there.

Shayne Neumann (Blair, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Indigenous Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is a reasonable assumption.

Julie Owens (Parramatta, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Small Business) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is a reasonable assumption. But take the tax issues out and you will find that Australia is the most successful multicultural nations in the world. That's who we are. It is our values that have brought us to this place and it is our values that are under threat by this bill—not protected by this bill but threatened by it.

I live in one of the great diverse communities of Australia—Parramatta in Western Sydney. Forty per cent of people living there were born overseas, and about 60 per cent have at least one parent who was born overseas. Geographically, there are some sections of the community that have a greater proportion than that and some that have less. It is an incredibly diverse community. When I look at my community—which includes refugees, skilled migrants, family reunions and people who came as students—I see an incredibly successful and vibrant multicultural community, the community that we need in the modern world.

We generate a lot of wealth from what is in the ground. But, with the speed of change and the way that we all need to adapt to change, what you want in your population at the moment is incredible flexibility and diversity. You want the language skills and the ways of looking at the world that come from cultural traditions that are thousands of years old—and that is what we have. We are the population that you need to flourish in the modern world. We are it. That is why so many head offices are moving into Western Sydney and increasingly picking up 60 to 70 per cent of their staff from the local community. We speak every language, we are familiar with every culture, we know the opportunities around the world, and we have people who see the world from a range of perspectives.

For example, we have people within our community who have never lived in a secure environment. They have an incredible flexibility to move when things change because they come from cultures that never enjoyed the security that we have here. We need that. When we go forth as a nation and try to find our place in the modern rapidly-changing world, we need the population that I have. It is not the time to turn our backs on that and turn the clocks back to a situation where large groups of people are excluded because they don't meet some arbitrary new decision about what Australian values are. To say that you need university-level English to get into Australia is quite extraordinary.

These plans that this government has offend current citizens. They offend the people who came here and made good lives here who would not be able to get into Australia as citizens now under these new laws—the Greeks and the Italians. People who have been here for decades and still couldn't pass a university-level English test—and never will—could not have got into this country as citizens if these laws were in place when they arrived.

One of the people I admire most in the world is a woman called Elsa. I met Elsa when I was working at the Australia Council. She used to do our filing. She seemed to me to be an incredibly downtrodden person. She plodded through the day. Her English was fractured at best. Most people didn't talk to her because you couldn't have much of a conversation with Elsa. But one day she stood up at a Christmas party and recited a section of The Iliad. I talked to Elsa. Elsa had come to Australia at 18 years of age. She had two children and at 18 was pregnant with her third child. She didn't speak English. She had come from a Greek village. Her husband came with her. He stayed for six weeks and went back to Greece and left her here. She had three children by that stage. She had no English and no experience of a modern city. She was completely out of her depth. She worked three or four jobs as a cleaner—she worked any job she could get—put her three children through law and medicine. And that is what she was doing when she was working at the Australia Council. This woman, who would never make it through this test, raised three children. And then, when her kids left university, she went back to school, got a high-school diploma and started teaching English as a second language; and that is when her life began. For me that woman is a successful Australian because she knew what she needed to do and she put all her effort into doing it. She was an extraordinary Australian and wouldn't get in.

These tests offend our citizens. They offend people who have made extraordinary contributions to this country but would not get in. This government is saying to them: 'Mistake. Shouldn't have let you in. You wouldn't get in now.' That's what this bill says. It prevents future great citizens from fully participating in our society and it puts up barriers to international travel and study. For people who are doing great things in this country who need citizenship in order to contribute fully and build their lives as Australians, it prevents them for long periods of time from studying and doing the international travel that they need to do. It puts up barriers and it disrespects decisions that people have already made in good faith.

I have a friend who has a local business. I actually didn't know she wasn't a citizen, because I've been going to her for years. She runs her business. She pays her taxes. I know she employs people by the Fair Work Act, because she phones them all the time to double-check. I thought she was an extraordinary Australian. Two days after the government announced this decision, she told me that her husband had just become a citizen and that she was intending to apply but now couldn't. She had to wait another three years because she'd only been a permanent resident for one, which meant that for the next three years they were going to be citizens of different countries. That for her was incredibly frightening because she came from a part of the world which was not secure.

Both of them have built really good lives. They work hard. They pay their taxes. They're a family. You couldn't want more from people. But for them there was this fear that for the next three years they actually weren't citizens of the same country, because when he became a citizen of Australia he had to renounce the citizenship that she holds. So there's an example of a family with a huge problem—and I'm not quite sure that she will pass the English language test either. She has more than enough language to run her business. I've never had an issue with it. But I'm not sure she will pass it. Level 6 English? Incredibly difficult.

More importantly, perhaps, than any of that is that, when we look at this bill and you look for the evidence on which the government bases their decision to introduce these new barriers requiring people to have permanent residency for four years instead of one, there isn't any. It was basically done because a senator suggested it. If the security agencies were putting forward this idea for national security, we would be very interested in having a briefing on that, but we know that's not the case. There isn't any evidence base for this. There isn't a group of evidence that says that requiring people to be here for four years of permanent residence on top of the period they have been here before will make us safer as a nation. The evidence is not there, and it simply does not recognise who we are.

It's also incredibly lazy. It's lazy policy. If the government believes there is an issue that there are a small number of people—and, again, there's no evidence—who may somehow become citizens in their fifth, sixth and seventh years in Australia and then turn bad whereas if you make them wait another three years that won't happen, surely the government could come up with a plan that looks after the security of the nation and honours the commitment that good people want to make to Australia. Surely the government can come up with something that does both, not one or the other.

What we've got here is a government saying: 'Oh, we're concerned about the security issue. There's no evidence, but, you know, we'll make it tougher to become Australian citizens because a senator said so.' In order to do that they are removing the capacity of good people who in their hearts and minds have committed to Australia from doing so legally. They are actually asking people to wait incredible amounts of time, to put their lives effectively on hold, because they can't seem to do both at once. Surely it's possible to have a system that vets people fully before they get to that stage. Hang on; we already have one. By the time a person gets to permanent residence, they are already vetted over and over again. We already have a system that does that.

So what's this about? Why do we have situations like the Palestinian-born doctor in my electorate who is stateless?

He has resided in Sydney for nine years, he's forged a social research and academic network, he's completed his PhD, he's attracted over $1 million in research grants, he's authored 14 publications, won numerous awards, supervises post-grads and is sponsored for permanent residency by the university. Why can't we have him? What is wrong? Why does he have to wait another three years? There is Jilal, who has been in Australia since 2008 as a PhD student on a full scholarship. He then had three years working as a university teacher and has published multiple scientific papers in the field of nanotechnology and engineering. He and his wife have paid tax for four years and their two kids were born in Australia. They got their permanent residency on 9 March and applied for citizenship on 15 March. There was an error in their application, so it was rejected. They applied again on 24 April. 'Oops! You're out! You have to wait another three years.'

Henry, from Granville, was eligible for citizenship. He had all the paperwork but hadn't lodged it before the government made the announcement. His wife had just had a baby so he didn't get around to lodging it, and, by the way, the Department of Immigration and Border Protection's website was down on the two days before the deadline of 20 April. Miraculous, that. So they tried to apply, but couldn't do it. The 20 April date passed and suddenly their application wasn't acceptable.

Sam is of Lebanese descent and his wife has a Syrian passport which expires in 2017. No passport. Why can't these people get their citizenship? Why can't these people commit to the country legally when they have already committed with their hearts and minds and all of their efforts?

Gai Brodtmann (Canberra, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I commend my colleague for her speech and asking the absolutely vitally important question here, and that is: why? Why do we need these changes?

I recently attended a community event, a discussion forum on these citizenship changes. It was organised by the Canberra Multicultural Community Forum. It was well attended, with a broad cross-section of views at that event. The fundamental question for everyone who spoke and also for those who responded at that event was, 'Why the changes?' What is the imperative here? What has broken?

Now, the government has not clearly articulated the reason why we need to change this legislation—why we need these changes. It has not clearly articulated what has broken on the English-language test. What is not working that ensures these major changes to the English-language test will see people required to have English at a university standard? What is broken now? What is not working now that requires this new standard of English?

The other question that people were asking was: why the increased length of time before you become a citizen? Again, what is broken here? What is the imperative here? Now, the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection, in answer to a question yesterday, started at citizenship and ranged all over to get to homeland security and the new government agencies that he wants to set up, even though there are mixed feelings about that here in the bureaucracy in Canberra.

He had a number of meanders around the issue but he didn't actually come to the fundamental question that he was asked by someone from his own side, about why there is the need for these citizenship changes. As I said, what has broken on the English-language test? What is not working? What is causing problems in the Australian community—economic problems or social problems—in terms of the English-language test? What is the imperative?

When it comes to the citizenship issue, what is not working there, Minister? What is the imperative here? And, occasionally, because there's been no clear case for these changes—no clear case in terms of why have changes on the English-language test and no clear case on why have changes on the length of time before you can become a citizen—it has been suggested that they are driven by national security issues. Again, who said that?

The minister has not made the case clear on this front. He has not made the case clear on the changes for the English language test and he has not made the case clear in terms of changes to the citizenship requirements. And there are changes that seem to be embellished or buried in this notion that we are doing it for national security reasons. Who said that we need to make these changes to the English language test for citizenship—which government agencies, Minister?

That question was asked in question time yesterday, and the minister was all over the place in terms of his response. What is the imperative, the reason? Why are these changes taking place? In terms of the national security issue, we can't find any government agencies here in Canberra or throughout Australia that have suggested that we need to make these changes. We have been asking for advice from the minister. We have asked him to table the advice, to publicly release the advice, from the Department of Defence, from the Australian Signals Directorate, from the Attorney-General's Department, from the Department of Immigration and Border Protection, from Australian Security Intelligence Organisation and from Australian Secret Intelligence Service. Is there advice from these agencies that suggests we need to make these changes to citizenship law? It would be good if there was such advice, because at least people would get an understanding—some reasoning, some rationale—as to why these major changes are affecting people's lives each and every day.

These are major changes that are having life-changing impacts on families right throughout Australia, and this government doesn't care. It doesn't care. It can't be bothered explaining the imperative. It can't be bothered explaining why these changes are being made. It can't be bothered explaining which security agencies, if any, suggested we should make these changes. My view is that there was no security agency making the suggestion that these changes should be made. It was just something that popped up, some thought bubble idea, like so much done by this government: 'Okay, we've got to be seen to be tough on national security issues. We've got to be seen to be tough, so we'll target our citizenship laws and come up with these crazy ideas'—without any consultation. There has been no consultation on these significant changes to policy. You will have an interesting time in your electorates on this issue. If my electorate is any guide, there is a lot of angst and anger and pain and hurt out there.

Paul Fletcher (Bradfield, Liberal Party, Minister for Urban Infrastructure) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Your electorate is Canberra! That's no guide.

Gai Brodtmann (Canberra, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My electorate is a guide. It is a community. This is not—

Mr Fletcher interjecting —

No. You are totally out of touch with Australia. Your government is totally out of touch with Australia. Let's not get into that. I'm sure there are many Canberrans listening to this conversation right now and I can go into bat for Canberra all night. What I'm talking about here is Canberrans who are confused, hurt, angered and outraged by the changes this government is making—for no reason, with no explanation and with no clear rationale. These changes are going to have a major effect on the lives of not just Canberrans, but people right across Australia, and those people are rightly outraged. It is one big question mark. This legislation was just dropped—and then nothing. There was the bamboozling, contorted response in question time yesterday, and that was about it. This is like so much done by this government. The thought bubbles get put out there with no explanation. They do not even have the decency to explain why they are doing this. It is just appalling. People are rightly outraged.

If my community, my colleague's community, the member for Parramatta's community—so many of the communities on this side of the chamber—are any indication, then you will have outraged members. And if you are not getting a load of emails on this I would be very surprised. Take the time to actually have a look at your emails rather than getting your staff to look at them.

As I said, I attended this incredibly powerful community forum a few weeks ago that was organised by the multicultural community here in Canberra. These people are outraged; they're hurt; they're angered; they're concerned; they're confused; they're upset—because they don't know why these changes are being made. These changes are going to affect and potentially jeopardise the lives and the futures of their families. Particularly, it is seen by my community as moving the goalposts. People step on a particular trajectory. They make the investment. They come over to Australia. They move their lives over here. They make the investment in establishing their community here, establishing businesses here, establishing their lives and getting their children into schools, and then the goalposts get changed. How fair is that? How welcoming is that? It's breathtaking. Everyone on that side is so glib about these changes, and yet, when you have so many conversations with those people, their stories are tragic.

I am just going to read out a few of them. One is a letter that I received from Robert. He is a British citizen and an Australian permanent resident. He says: 'Although, as a noncitizen of Australia I do not have a vote'—he lives in Theodore, in the south of my electorate—'I have been continuously and legally in Australia as X's partner and now husband since 14 December 2012. During that time, both as part of my commitment to X and to my new country, I have been working towards citizenship'—doing the right thing. He goes on: 'I would have been eligible under general eligibility rules to apply for citizenship on 4 June this year, but as of 20 April, via ministerial fiat pending retrospective legislation, I find that I must wait another three years even to apply. I consider this to be unjust'—as I do too, Robert. He continues: 'My loyalty is to this country, and I'm proud to say that I'm an excellent resident and uphold and abide by Australian values, but this legislation will exclude me and many like me from fully participating in the life and democratic process of our new country.'

Robert explains what so many people—people from every country across the world who are living here in Australia—are going through at the moment and the challenges that they are facing. What is really insidious about this is the fact that the citizenship applications have been stopped. They've been put on hold by the department. From what I can gather—and I'm hearing from a number of people across the community—people have got their citizenship process underway, and everything has been put on ice. Even though this legislation hasn't been passed, nothing is being processed. People have done the right thing; they've got their applications in the system, and yet the whole thing's been put on ice, because the department is obviously waiting for this legislation to come into play.

The legislation hasn't been enacted, so why is everything on ice? Why is the department going slow on this? These people have done the right thing. They've got their processes going; they've got their applications in the system, and yet they've just been completely stalled. It's absolutely outrageous. This legislation has not been passed, and yet these people's applications have been put on ice. How fair is that?

I don't have much time left, but I want to now turn my attention to the submission that the ACT multicultural council made on these changes. The submission came out of a forum that they held in June that was very well attended. They expressed a number of concerns. Also I want to reflect some of the views that were passed on at that forum. A community leader pointed out that most older migrants over 50 will be unable to pass the new English language requirements. They're very concerned about the extent of ministerial discretion, which is perceived by the migrant community as an effort to stop people from non-English-speaking ethnic communities to migrate to Australia. There are significant challenges here with students who have come to Australia to study who are now on temporary graduate visas. There are real questions here about this term 'patriotism' that is being floated around. What does that mean? What values are going to be changed? As you know, there are pledges made by new citizens. What values are going to be changed there?

Debate interrupted.