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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I continue in Rachael's words:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Debate adjourned.