Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have received a letter from the honourable member for Watson proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:

The damage of the Government's citizenship proposals.

I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places.

More than the number of members required by the standing orders having risen in their places—

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The report by the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee has now come down on the government's changes to the Citizenship Act, and it is absolutely clear now why the government should withdraw the changes that they have in front. When they first put these proposals forward, they asked for public submissions. They got thousands of public submissions and then they decided to keep them secret. We wondered why that would be. Public submissions ordinarily are public things, but they decided to keep them secret. So the Senate inquiry went through a new exercise in receiving public submissions. They received more than 14,000 submissions. Guess how many were in support of the government's proposal.

An opposition member: How many?

Two. One of those two was from the department—it's a bit tough for them to put in a submission that's not in favour of the legislation—and the other was from the Monarchist League. They were the only two.

There is a reason why the government are in a situation now where their citizenship changes should simply be withdrawn. We have in front of us legislation which should be withdrawn because it deals with a problem that does not exist. The arguments that they have put forward for it don't stack up, and the arguments against it are overwhelming. There are two principles that the minister puts when he talks about citizenship. When you hear each of them, in the first instance they sound reasonable. One is that you should have to wait four years before you become a citizen. The other is that you should have competent English. They both sound like reasonable arguments.

Here is the problem: you already have to be here for four years. What happens at the moment is: for one of those years, you need to be as a permanent resident, but you have to have been here for four years. Many people come to Australia initially on a temporary visa, and they are often here on consecutive temporary visas before they end up getting permanent residence. The real-life impact is not going from one year to four years, because everyone has to wait four years already. The real-life impact of this will be people waiting in Australia for more than a decade before they are asked to make a pledge to this country. How on earth is that good for the country—to have people living here for more than a decade and not being asked to make a pledge of commitment to Australia? It's certainly not good for them, and I don't see how it's good for the rest of the country.

But the problems with the delay almost pale into insignificance compared to the problems with the English-language test. When the minister says, 'You should have to have competent English,' most people would hear that and think, 'That's reasonable. You should have to have competent English.' The problem is that the word 'competent ' as it has been defined in this bill has a very precise legal meaning. It refers to level 6 on the IELTS test, a test created by the University of Cambridge, a test that costs hundreds of dollars to sit, and thousands of dollars to get the training for, to get your English up to that level. The government provides English-language training. It doesn't get people anywhere near level 6. You can do your 500 hours—and not every visa holder is entitled to that, but some are. Many people will get to level 2. Some people will get to level 4. No-one, through that course, is trained to get to level 6.

There is no shortage of people who have been living in Australia their entire lives who would not pass this test at level 6. The minister then says that there are two streams, an academic stream and a general stream, and they're going to use the general stream, not the academic stream. I went to the web page of IELTS, where you can get examples of the test, to test the level. I will read from the comprehension test. And it's not just a comprehension test—there's a reading test, a listening test, a writing test; you have to be able to write an essay. All these forms of tests are part of getting to a level in IELTS. This is from the comprehension test:

Calisthenics enters the historical record at around 480 B.C., with Herodotus' account of the Battle of Thermopolylae. Herodotus reported that, prior to the battle, the god-king Xerxes sent a scout party to spy on his Spartan enemies. The scouts informed Xerxes that the Spartans, under the leadership of King Leonidas, were practicing some kind of bizarre, synchronised movements akin to a tribal dance. … It turns out their tribal dance was not a superstitious ritual but a form of calisthenics by which they were building awe-inspiring physical strength and endurance.

For one, that's not the academic test; that's the easier one. But, where they're both marked, you end up having to get to the same level of proficiency with the English language. But what on earth does that have to do with being a good Australian? What on earth does that have to do with being a decent Australian citizen? We agree that you have to have what people would generally regard as competent English, because there is already a test, and the test is in English. Guess what—if the test is in English, I reckon it's pretty hard to pass if you have no English. If you asked me to pass a test that was written in a different language, I would struggle, I admit. I would not be able to do it.

In the same way, if you don't have conversational-level English, you already can't pass. But, as a demand, university-level English (1) is ridiculous and (2) is an act of extraordinary snobbery that sends a message to every Australian who doesn't have that level of English that this government, if it had the choice, would prefer they weren't here.

But here's the catch: not everybody will have to reach university-level English. There are lots of countries in the world that have English as one of their official languages, like India and Singapore. But there are only five where, if you're a passport holder from one of those countries, this will result in you not having to have university-level English. They are the UK, New Zealand, Ireland, Canada and the United States. It just so happens the five white English-speaking countries are the only countries where, if you're a passport holder from one of those countries, this will result in you not needing university-level English.

The minister will say, 'But there are visas that pick out individual countries.' There are lots of visas that are organised on a bilateral basis. For example, there is the backpacker visa. There are a series of visas that we negotiate, but, as a country, we have never dealt with citizenship in a way that says, 'If you come from any non-white English-speaking country, you'll have to have university-level English. But, if you come from a white English-speaking country, it's all okay.' I don't know how many people other than the minister knew about this, but none of them have spoken out. From time to time, some of the members opposite have spoken out about issues like 18C, but when you think of something as prejudiced as the measures within these proposals, why have we heard nothing from the member for Reid, the member for Banks, the member for Bennelong, the member for Chisholm or the member for Deakin? Why are they so comfortable with the thought of having people in their electorates who know that if these members had their way they'd rather these people had never become citizens. All the bravery that used to be there on those backbenches has disappeared on this. It has disappeared completely.

The minister will argue that it's all because of national security. I asked about this when I had my briefing from the department. Normally, I keep briefings from departments confidential, but the minister decided to tell the media about my briefing, so I think I'm pretty much off the hook. I asked the department, 'Did this come as a recommendation from the ASIO?' No. 'Did this come as a recommendation from the AFP?' No. 'Did this come as a recommendation from any national security agency?' No; it came from none of them. Where did this come from? It was a recommendation from a report written by two people, both of whom happen to be members of the Liberal Party: Senator Concetta Fierravanti-Wells and Phillip Ruddock. This entire proposal is based on consultation with them only. When they go out to the rest of the community, they discover it's 14,000 to two.

What's in front of us here is a proposal that changes who we are as a country. There are lots of countries in the world that have people who are there as permanent residents who become a permanent underclass of noncitizens. Australia has not been that sort of country ever since we got rid of the White Australia policy. We should not go back to being a country with a permanent underclass of noncitizens, a permanent underclass of people who live here their whole lives but are told they will never belong. The welcome note that is read out at every citizenship ceremony when people become Australian citizens used to finish with the words 'welcome home'. The moment this government got into office they took those words back. Let me tell you and let me make it clear: citizenship is meant to be the way we build ourselves as a society, not the way we divide.

Alex Hawke (Mitchell, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Immigration and Border Protection) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It's stirring stuff, I must say. It stirs the blood. It is a bit of patriotism from the shadow minister for immigration and for citizenship, who comes into this House to stir us all up on the government's latest proposals on citizenship. I want to note that today is the national accounts day. It's the day when we see the most data come out on the state of the nation's economy. In question time we didn't have one question on the state of the national accounts or the economy, because they are in good shape under this government. We didn't have one economic question.

On the day when the national accounts showed good economic news, the opposition decided that it would be a good day to seek refuge from the economy—because they have no good news on the economy—in immigration and border protection. Well, we welcome a debate in the immigration portfolio. The same people who are today railing against this government's citizenship proposals railed against our border protection policies for 10 years, as well. They railed against us at every turn. First, it was temporary protection visas. They were the greatest evil on the planet. Then the offshore processing centres that the Howard government ran were cruel and unusual. It is this opposition that, on immigration and border protection, cannot be trusted.

We will not take a lecture on how to administer the immigration portfolio from a former minister who was in office for 79 days. He was one of the conga line of immigration ministers under the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd years that saw 50,000 people arrive on 800 boats and over 1,000 people drown at sea. The reality of these proposals is that the government is firmly committed to these citizenship arrangements. In listening to the shadow immigration and citizenship spokesperson, you would think there was something wrong with our proposals. He put this whole contention to this House, and he has put this whole contention in public: 'Oh, that sounds reasonable, but it's not very reasonable at all.'

I want to go through this just so that every single member of the House has their eyes completely wide open about the reality of these proposals. Four years is entirely comparable and reasonable for a person to be here before they get citizenship. The reality is you can do it in one year now—it's not four years. Keeping in mind that we only have a one-year requirement, let's look at comparable countries: the United Kingdom, five years of permanent residence; Canada, four out of six years of permanent residence; France, five years of continuous permanent residence; Germany, eight years of habitual legal residence. So the contention put by the shadow minister that we're doing something out of step with comparable countries is absolutely unacceptable. He mentions members on the government benches. They're happy to take this proposal to their electorates. If you look at these comparable countries, you will see that some of them are paradigms of the Labor Party's virtue signalling—the Netherlands has five years continuous permanent residence, if you didn't already know. In the United States it's five years permanent residence. Denmark—another country those opposite may feel proud of—has nine years continuous residence. New Zealand has five years permanent residence. And, of course, Australia has only one year as a permanent resident and three years of continuous residence.

So this is an entirely reasonable proposal in line with the expectations of the Australian community—that we take more time to get to know someone before we accept them as a citizen. Given that we are a migrant nation, it is entirely reasonable that we do take time to get to know people properly. We assess the values that make someone an Australian. Do they contribute? Do they work for our society? Are they willing to integrate into our community? These are important questions in 2017. They go to the heart of security matters. The shadow minister is wrong to say that this has nothing to do with national security. All of these countries—comparable countries, reasonable countries—around the world have a higher standard on this citizenship requirement precisely because they want to be thorough in understanding who people are before they become citizens of their country. It's reasonable for this government to propose it. I believe it's in step with the community's expectations about the standards that the government should set on citizenship.

Let all of you go to your electorates and say you oppose these measures. I welcome it. You go and tell them that you support Australia being at the bottom of the pack in terms of citizenship and the length of time required for people to become citizens. Let's see how that goes. Then let's get to the next furphy that the Labor Party has been promoting up hill and down dale. The government remains absolutely 100 per cent committed to the measures in this bill.

I will put forward some of the things that that shadow minister has been saying. I'll start by referring to a bit of past history. You would think that a person who had said the following things would be strongly in favour of increased English language requirements. Why has the government put forward stronger English language requirements? It has done so because the Productivity Commission says that the better your level of English the better your chances and prospects—your economic chances and your societal prospects. That's why the government funds 500 hours for the humanitarian program of English lessons—to ensure that people get English language skills so they can do better in their community. Let's just have a little look at who said this: 'We need stricter English language requirements.'

Andrew Wallace (Fisher, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Who said that?

Alex Hawke (Mitchell, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Immigration and Border Protection) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Who would have said, before this bill was put forward by the government, that we need stricter English language requirements? Well, of course, that's the shadow minister sitting opposite. He said, 'We need stronger English language requirements.'

Opposition members interjecting—

Oh, you didn't mention it? Who said, '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'? I'm not reaching into the distant past. I'm not reaching back to 10 years ago, five years ago or one year ago; I'm reaching back to 20 April this year. I'll read it again. This quote is directly from a member of this House: '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.' So don't listen to me, don't listen to Minister Dutton and don't listen to the Prime Minister: that was the Leader of the Opposition in April this year.

So when did you decide to make English competency and a period of four years of permanent residency a political issue? Why is this a political issue? It's in line with community expectations. There's no issue with greater English language proficiencies. There's no issue that you raised in your presentation today. Yet you've been running around in forums across Australia telling people that they have to get university standard English—a proposition you absolutely know not to be true. You absolutely know that that's not true. The way we can establish that that is not true—and I can easily establish it to members here in the House today—is that 72 per cent of people pass to the current standard of level 6 in IELTS sitting the current English test. That's a fact that the shadow minister failed to mention. So it is not as if people are not required to meet level 6 on the IELTS general test standard. I can confirm to this House that 72 per cent of people pass that test.

The shadow minister read out a passage and was trying to make some contention about ancient history. The reality of that passage was that it was a comprehension test. You're obviously not comprehending, Shadow Minister—English language comprehension; not comprehension about Thucydides and the Peloponnesian War.

Opposition members interjecting—

You laugh and you cackle, but it is an English proficiency test, not a history test. We know exactly why Labor is being so political about this. It is because they think that by politicising this issue they will get some sort of reward. The reality is that these measures are supported by Australians. We know that competent English proficiency is important. It matters to the economic and social success of migrants. It is a very important standard that will benefit our new citizens.

We also know that we are setting a standard that is in line with the rest of the world in relation to taking the time to get to know someone. It is to the Labor Party's shame that they are politicising this issue. The government stands by its measures. The government stands by making these citizenship requirements stronger, in support of Australian values and making sure that people will come here and integrate and have a high standard of and high proficiency in English.

Linda Burney (Barton, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I stand with my colleagues in the Labor Party and the member for Watson in saying to this government: withdraw this legislation. It is unfair and it is odious. The member for Mitchell has just shown his absolute ignorance of what Australia is and who we are as a nation. It wasn't any of the security agencies that asked for this. We have been told by the Minister for Immigration and Border Security that somehow or other this legislation was necessary for national security. That was clearly a falsehood. We know very clearly that this has not been requested by any of the security agencies. In fact, it has been put together—as the member for Watson said—by two members of the Liberal Party.

The electorate of Barton, which I represent, is an electorate—as many electorates are, particularly on our side—that is made up by waves of migration. They are people who have made the most difficult choice of leaving their country of their birth, of leaving everything that they know for many different circumstances, to come to Australia to give their children a better life. This government has taken it upon itself to make it impossible for those people, who love this country and who are committed to this country, to ever become citizens. I will tell a case history about that in a moment.

We are being told that, somehow, the introduction of an unreasonable English language test—

Mr Hawke interjecting—

And it is unreasonable, member for Mitchell; you probably wouldn't even pass it!

We are being told as well that increasing the residency requirements from one year to four years is about national security. Well, hello? The people who become citizens have already been vetted twice, because they are permanent residents—a slight fact that has been overlooked by the ignorance on the other side.

You said, member for Mitchell, that our people should go out and tell our constituencies what our view is. We have, and you know what? They are backing us in, because they know this is wrong. They know this is unfair. We knock on doors, and many of those people—we all have them, as do you—are women who are middle aged, have come here post-World War II and will never, ever pass these English language tests, and yet they have contributed, paid taxes, raised families and sent their children to school.

Let me tell you about one particular personal story. At a community forum we held in Rockdale, where the member for Watson came along, we had over 100 people. We didn't have enough chairs in the room that night for the people who wanted to hear about this so-called 'necessary' citizenship rebranding. At that forum, there was a woman there called Penny. Penny and her partner, who is an Australian citizen, have a little boy. He's 20 months old now, and he is an Australian citizen. She is from Canada, but these new rules will force her into not being able to return to Canada until 2020, even if there is an emergency with her friends or family, because it will put her capacity to apply for citizenship in jeopardy. Penny understands, as many people do, what the implications are of this particular piece of legislation.

This legislation is symptomatic of what this government is about. This government is about trying to cast Australia in its own image—in your image, member for Mitchell—and guess what? Australia is a very different place to the one that you described. Australia is made on the wonderful foundation of the oldest continuous surviving culture on earth. This nation is built on migration, and that is our strength, our diversity, our beauty and who we are. Through this piece of legislation—as the member for Watson has described—you want to create a permanent group of people who will be virtually stateless in this country because they will never be able to comply with the citizenship requirements.

Mr Wallace interjecting—

Mr Howarth interjecting—

You be quiet, buddy! Let me be very clear about this: Labor objects to this bill because it is wrong and it is unfair. The member for Watson has travelled the length and breadth of this country talking to people about this particular piece of legislation. If there were a need for it for national security, fair enough, but it's based— (Time expired)

Honourable members interjecting—

Mark Coulton (Parkes, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Before I call the member for Fisher, I will remind members that it's disorderly to be yelling across the chamber, and I will be treating people accordingly.

Andrew Wallace (Fisher, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is interesting, indeed, that the Labor Party raised this issue today, on a day when, undeniably, we do have a fantastic economic story to tell. But, true to form, all they want to do is pull things down and wreck them. I can't believe those opposite would be so sad to hear that this country is growing in the way that it is. Our economy has grown by 0.8 per cent in the June quarter alone, more than double the pace since the March quarter. Growth in the June quarter came despite the impact of Cyclone Debbie. In year average terms, the measure we publish in the budget, our economy expanded by 1.9 per cent in 2016-17. These are absolutely outstanding figures, but those on the other side put their heads down. They don't want to talk about how good the economy is, because that's not what they want to talk about. Labor is absolutely divided on this issue. All they are doing—

Opposition Members:

Opposition members interjecting—

Andrew Wallace (Fisher, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Well, look at how strongly your colleagues are supporting this motion! Just look around. There will be more to come in shortly! All you've got to do is look at what your own colleagues have said, your own leadership team: 'Why is it that no-one is asked on these forms to commit to respecting Australian values and abiding by Australian laws?' Who said that? Who do you reckon said that? Let's go on: 'In terms of a declaration to respect our laws and way of life, anyone who has a problem signing that shouldn't be allowed here,' and, 'In response to then Prime Minister Howard's focus on the importance of English, his focus on the need for people living in Australia to try to learn English was spot-on.' Were those three quotes from one of the members of the government? No, they were taken word for word from comments made by the member for Watson. His confected outrage is just unbelievable. As has already been quoted, the opposition leader said, '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.'

I can tell those opposite that people in my electorate of Fisher are cheering these provisions—certainly not everybody, but they are very, very happy that we are putting in stronger provisions. The two greatest lotteries in life are the family to which you are born and the country in which you are born. We are so very fortunate in this country. Many of us were born here, and those who weren't been born here have ended up here, and good luck to them. Those are the two greatest lotteries in life. With Australian citizenship comes so many rights—for example, the right to Medicare—which you lot lied about at the last election, absolutely disgraceful lies—and of course, the right to vote to decide who your next government will be. None of these things should be taken for granted. In other countries around the world, they don't happen. So there are many, many advantages—the ability to serve on juries; that's always a good one. But there's absolutely no doubt that citizenship is undervalued in this country. There's absolutely no doubt. The report that Philip Ruddock and Conchetta Fierravanti-Wells put together showed that citizenship is undervalued. It is well past time that these laws were tightened up. (Time expired)

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

That's one of the more outrageous contributions I've heard in this House in a long time. I want to deal with a few things. I live in one of the most diverse electorates in the country. People from all over the world have come to Parramatta to make it their home, and I don't find people who have spent years to become an Australian citizen wandering around my community and undervaluing that right. In fact, they're proud of it, and I am very proud of them.

The previous speaker wanted us to talk about the economy today. Let's do that. Let's acknowledge that the two million people who have come as migrants to this country since 1901 have contributed greatly to the economy of this country. Some of our biggest companies were built by migrants who would not pass the test that this government wants to impose. Out there in the world, in spite of the protestations opposite, very few people support the proposal. We know that from the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee inquiry, where over 14,000 submissions were made. Two submissions were in favour and one of those two was from the government, so let's ignore that. One submission was in favour of the test and 14,000 were against. That's the view out there. What causes 14,000 people to get off their bottoms, go to their desk and start writing submissions to the Senate? I'll tell you: some of the most appalling changes to citizenship that I could have imagined.

The citizenship changes will prevent many, many people from becoming citizens, even after they have committed to this country with their hearts, with their families, with their minds, with their investment, with their taxes, with their work hours and with literally the fruit of their loins and wombs—sometimes with 35 grandchildren; I have them in my electorate. They would not pass the English-language test. They have spent their lives here building businesses. They have had children, they have raised them and they have sent them to university. They have had grandchildren and great-grandchildren, and would still be without citizenship if this English-language test had been in place when they migrated to Australia. It's outrageous. It doesn't recognise who we are and it doesn't recognise the reality that our economy is built in large part by people who come here from around the world, brought their skills, which we didn't even pay for, to this country and used them for the benefit of this country. They came here with education, or came here without it, and worked their bottoms off—because I can't use the word I'd like to use—to make it work for their family. There are people who worked two jobs and people who turned up here like the Vietnamese boat people. I was working in the Golden Circle cannery at the time to pay my way through high school. They turned up in boats and, in their thousands, turned up at the factory. They worked every hour they could to get their family ahead—any hour, any overtime hour. They were extraordinary people who would not have passed this test.

This is outrageous. Let's look at what exactly the rationale for this is. The government says it's about national security, except there's no evidence that these changes would improve national security. There's no request from any of the security agencies at all and none of them put in submissions to the Senate inquiry. There's a claim that it's about improving integration. How does it improve integration? You could have a mum staying at home and looking after children, with a husband who is an Australian citizen and children who are Australian citizens, and, 15, 20 or 25 years later, she still can't pass the English-language test. How does that make us better? How does that improve integration? How does it do that? It doesn't. It is ridiculous. You can see an example in my electorate of a business person who came here on a business visa and set up their business and who probably wouldn't pass the English-language test because it is, in spite of the protestations on the other side, IELTS 6, which is a university-level entrance test. It's administered internationally by a private company. It's used all around the world for universities to test whether a person has the appropriate international-level English. It's not based on Australian language; it's based on an international level; it's designed for university entrants. It effectively puts the requirements for English language in the hands of a foreign company that has built a test for a completely different reason. It makes no sense. It's incredibly unfair. We will be a worse country that is less integrated and less safe because of these changes. It simply does not make any sense and it's profoundly unfair.

Chris Crewther (Dunkley, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There is no doubt that Australian citizenship and values are extremely topical at the current time, especially given the recent decisions of a couple of local governments in Melbourne. I want to put on the record, first and foremost, that I oppose those councils' decisions to change the date of Australia Day. Furthermore, I fully support the decision to remove those councils' rights to conduct citizenship ceremonies. Councils should be focusing on local responsibilities, not on issues relating to the federal government.

Citizenship is not something to be taken lightly. Australian values, indeed, should be treasured, along with an appreciation of our history and how Australia as a country was shaped. It is a shame to see statues representing our history being defaced, calls for plaques to be changed or statues pulled down. The fact is: our history is our history. We need to acknowledge the good with the bad, but not eliminate that history. We are a nation of immigrants from all over the world, so it is critical that we ensure that citizenship affirms the values that we share and seek to further in our everyday lives.

The government's citizenship reforms support this view and place a crucial emphasis on the values that guide how all Australians should behave, interact and go about their lives, whether they are new Australians or if they have been here for a long time. Just a few weeks ago, I attended the Frankston City Council's most recent citizenship ceremony and was struck by the number of people who were having citizenship conferred on them that day. It was such a pleasure to see the delight of so many new Australians and the way so many of them dressed so formally and with pride on the occasion. Many came up to speak to me afterwards. In speaking to these new constituents and learning about where they came from and their backgrounds, this impressed upon me the significance that they clearly understood citizenship to have. Indeed, one thing I always raise at citizenship ceremonies is that my own wife came to Australia from South Korea at the age of three and then became a citizen. Without the benefits of citizenship, I would likely not be married to her or have my own two-year-old daughter at this time.

From what I've seen, many of our new citizens value citizenship much more than those opposite, who, we've seen, are so divided and so dismissive of the expectations that are placed on each and every Australian. Those opposite are so set on playing political games that they can't see the wood for the trees. Their view is so clouded by their narrow focus that they can't see that these reforms reinforce the value of citizenship. The member for Watson's own comments going back over a decade have emphasised the importance of the values to which new Australians are asked to commit to. As he aptly pointed out in 2006:

Why is it that no one is asked on these forms to commit to respecting Australian values and abiding by Australian laws?

The Leader of the Opposition also recently expressed exactly the intent of the citizenship reforms back in April, stating that he thinks proficiency in the English language and time to integrate is entirely reasonable.

I've also had contact to my office from local residents, as well as prospective citizens, on this subject. Many are very supportive. For example, Tony of Frankston South and his wife, Gill, are aspirational citizens. They contacted me in late April when the citizenship reforms were first proposed. He made a good point in his email to me, stating that:

Arguably the strengthening of the test should have been demonstrated much earlier; respect to and for others, freedom of speech and religion and adherence to the rule of law should always be the foundations of a civilized society. Integration in to the community, and evidence thereof, is to be applauded. Since emigrating from England, I have joined the local groups involved with promoting cleanliness at our lovely foreshore (through Frankston Beach Patrol) and highlighting the need to conserve our environment …

So I put to those opposite that these reforms are entirely appropriate and should have been put in place long before now. These changes seek to refocus the importance of citizenship and ensure that people who aspire to it will be able to integrate into Australian society seamlessly and able to build our shared culture while adding to the rich culture of Australia, which is enhanced and grows every day. Our English language requirements do help to fulfil this.

Australian citizenship is a privilege. It is important that the Australian public has confidence in our migration and citizenship programs. And it is important that the Australian public can be confident in the commitment of all of our new Australians.

Tony Zappia (Makin, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Manufacturing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The government's citizenship legislation is flawed and it is discriminatory. It is flawed because there is no national security evidence that there are any problems whatsoever with the existing process. It is flawed because there is no justification for this legislation at all. It is flawed because it flies in the face of the Nationality and Citizenship Act 1948. It is flawed because it goes against every notion of justice and fairness that people in this place would like to believe we stand for. And it is flawed because it has been roundly criticised by almost every community organisation out there, including industry sectors and the like. Indeed, there is no major community group out there at all that has come out in support of this legislation. In the second reading speech from the minister, he couldn't point to a single one. It is also flawed because a Senate inquiry has found so, and a committee chaired by Senator Ian Macdonald has agreed that the English literacy test needs to be changed.

This legislation is even worse, because it is discriminatory. The coalition governments in this country have form when it comes to playing the race card when they are tracking badly in the opinion polls. In 2007, the Howard government brought in the Australian citizenship test for the first time, at a time that the government was in trouble politically. The tactic didn't help that government at the time, and it will not help this government either.

It is flawed and discriminatory because this legislation affects a particular cohort of migrants. They are the migrants that have come to this country in more recent years, migrants who have come here from China, southern Asia and from the Middle East. I will quote the chair of the Federation of Ethnic Communities' Councils of Australia, Mr Joe Caputo, who said: 'We have fought for months to oppose this oppressive bill. The bill seeks to create a permanent underclass of residents, denied the rights and opportunities of being welcomed and included as Australian citizens. There is no place for the kind of extremist ideologically-driven provisions which will be included in this bill'.

In his second reading speech, the minister praised the success of the Australian citizenship process over the years. That process has indeed been changed many times over the years, possibly 30 or so. But if the process has worked so well and the minister comes into the House and applauds and lauds it, then why change it? There has been no call to do so by the community, no security advice to do so and no evidence that it is needed. The process is indeed working well for Australia and the minister wants to change it. He wants to change it on a falsely based perception that changing the Australian citizenship laws will increase security for this country. I want to raise three matters in respect of that.

Firstly, if security is the issue then the real test, and the test that really matters, is the test we apply when a person is granted entry into this country, regardless of which type of visa they are given—particularly when they are given a permanent visa to this country. Secondly, if a person has been in Australia for four years and has worked in this country for four years, what difference does the type of visa make to the person's understanding and integration into Australian life? It makes no difference at all, because the person is in the very same country, working amongst the very same community. Thirdly, under the existing laws, no residential period, none whatsoever, guarantees citizenship at the end of it. If there are any doubts about a person's character at the time they apply for their citizenship then their application can be deferred or rejected. So no period of time provides the certainty that members opposite would have you believe.

It is not a tougher citizenship test or a meaningless values test that makes a good citizen. Half a century of nearly five million new citizens successfully settling into Australia without the draconian measures proposed in this bill proves that. What more evidence is needed than to understand that the government's citizenship legislation is flawed and politically driven? It does not unite Australia, it indeed divides it.

I will finish on this point: there are about a million Australians who currently do not have citizenship. Most of them don't have it because they are not confident of passing the current test. If you make the test harder, that will mean that even more people will never, ever become Australian citizens.

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

The government has introduced the Australian Citizenship Legislation Amendment (Strengthening the Requirements for Australian Citizenship and Other Measures) Bill because we made a commitment to the Australian people that we would ensure citizenship is much more than formal privileges. We live in the greatest country in the world. Often, when I'm out and about I thank the older people in my electorate, those senior people, for the wonderful country that they've left me and younger people—like the people in the gallery up here above. Without those older Australians, those generations before us that have left us with the greatest country in the world, the young people—my children and other young people—wouldn't have the country we do today. But we can't take that for granted. Those opposite take it for granted: 'We can't change anything. We can't make any changes, because they're unfair.' I want to make sure that those young people watching up there today, and the young people in my electorate that I represent, continue to have the best country in the word.

The key changes to strengthen requirements for citizenship include the English test, increasing the general residence requirement and making sure that the unelected AAT don't have more say than the minister. With the English test, I believe the Labor Party sells migrants short. They sell them short: 'Oh, they can't pass it. They'd never been able to pass it.' What rubbish! They sell these people short. It is so important to ensure integration into the workplace, and not just into the workplace but social integration as well, by being able to speak English, being able to write English and having a bit of history and understanding of our great nation. It is terribly important. At the moment, it's a simple 20-question multiple-choice test and some of the questions are quite reasonable. They need to go through them. They need to study, but there is no English test requirement. And those opposite say it's not needed. Yet the member for Watson said something completely different.

Increasing the general residency requirement—and the assistant minister before named many countries that have a lot more than 12 months' permanent residency, including Canada at four years. We want to make it that there's a minimum of four years' permanent residency. In the last three years, over 1,100 people with permanent residency have had their visa cancelled for offences, including murder, manslaughter and rape. So over 1,100 people in the last four years have had their permanent residency cancelled for those crimes. Once a person is a citizen, we can't send them back. We can't cancel their visa. Once they're a citizen, that's it: they're here to stay. There are many in our community today who became citizens under old rules, who have committed crimes and are unable to be sent back. It is important that we make this change so that we are in line with other countries, like Germany, New Zealand, France, the UK and Canada, that all have four years-plus. At the moment, 12 months is not long enough. And those opposite, rather than being political, could make amendments. They could go and talk to the minister about it.

Finally, in relation to the unelected AAT, the legislation has also provided the minister with the power to personally set aside decisions by the AAT. For those in the gallery, let me tell you who the AAT think are good citizens. People found of good character by the AAT include an applicant who pleaded guilty to, and was convicted of, eight sexual offences with a minor—with a minor!—two counts of having sexual intercourse and three counts of assault. It goes on, and asks that a further five matters be taken into account. The eight offences took place over a period of 14 years and involved four boys between the ages of nine and 14. The applicant was sentenced to six years' imprisonment. He was released on parole. The AAT set aside the delegate's decision to refuse the application for citizenship and remitted the application with a direction that the applicant should be now be considered for a person of good character.

I tell you what, with this legislation the minister needs to have power to overrule the AAT. The minister is an elected member of parliament, not unelected public servants. They should not have the right to overrule this minister. The Labor Party comes into this place, opposes this legislation and makes political point scoring out of it. I tell you what, people in my electorate support this, and I'm quite happy to sell it at the next election. (Time expired)

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

I'm entirely unclear what that has to do with the Peloponnesian War. I have a confession, harking back to where this debate started—I can't even spell 'Peloponnesian'. I wondered if I should give up my citizenship, but then I thought I wouldn't be allowed to be here. But as it turns out, I actually would—because apparently being a citizen is no longer a qualification to be here. This attack on Australian citizenship is a shocker, even for this minister. I think it is starting to dawn on those opposite, judging by who is not here speaking—the member for Banks, the member for Chisholm and the member for Deakin—that this is another Dutton stunt gone wrong. It's based on a lie, as we heard, of national security.

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

Mr Deputy Speaker—

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

It's a stunt gone wrong by the minister for immigration.

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

the member for Bruce should address members by their correct title.

Mark Coulton (Parkes, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

He did correct himself, member for Petrie. I call the member for Bruce.

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

The wedge has backfired. We didn't hear anything from the assistant minister or anyone opposite about what their own senators have said of this bill. They've acknowledged that it's divisive and damaging to individuals and to people in my electorate. Some 55 per cent of people in my electorate were born in another country. This is a bread-and-butter issue for people in my community. They didn't say anything about the Senate report where government senators admitted that the legislation is flawed, and recommended major changes, but then kind of said that we should pass it anyway. That would be lipstick on a pig. There were 14,000 submissions opposing and two in favour. We're still placing bets over here on whether the assistant minister actually wrote the submission for the Australians for Constitutional Monarchy.

Honourable members interjecting—

It's a thing. The community and every expert are rightly outraged. This is an extremist bill. The truth was revealed. Its extremely ridiculous English level—IELTS 6—is university level. Every expert submission—from Melbourne University, from Monash University, from the people who understand what this test actually is—made that clear. It's elitist. I dare say that tens of thousands of people in my electorate who are great Australian citizens would fail this test. It was also made clear in the Senate committee report and in the submissions to the Senate committee that this would be the hardest, the most impossible English test in the entire world for citizenship. That's a fact. Have a read of the report.

People in my community and in many multicultural communities have said, quite clearly, that this is racist legislation. That's what's being said in the multicultural press around Australia. It's extreme. It's retrospective. Hundreds of thousands of people are affected. Even the government senators acknowledged the current trend—unfortunately like this—of legislation by media release. They've acknowledged the anger in the community and made a clear recommendation that the government back down and not make this retrospective, at the very least. They also made a clear recommendation that:

… the required standard should not be so high as to disqualify from citizenship many Australians who, in the past, and with a more basic competency in the English language, have proven to be valuable members of the Australian community.

That's your own government senators agreeing with Labor's fundamental point about this bill.

We've also acknowledged that this bill imposes unreasonable delays. To become an Australian citizen you already have to be in this country for four years. People pay tax, they study, they work, they raise a family and they fall in love—they have all the quintessential Australian experiences year after year after year. The government through all of this debate has not answered the key question: how does it make us a better, safer community to have hundreds of thousands of permanent residents living here banned from citizenship? It doesn't.

The final point I'd make is that the minister for immigration, if you ring the betting agency of those opposite, may well be the next Prime Minister—before the next election. So you would think he would be politically smart. We had a meeting in the Springvale town hall a month ago and 500 people turned up. They were not all non-citizens; most of them were citizens. Many of them were Liberal voters. They were outraged because they care about their neighbours. They're married to non-citizens that have disrupted their family plans.

In my view we should send a thankyou note because finally, from the four months of this debate, every non-English-speaking background person, everyone from another country, every migrant and even your own party members, and supporters in the meeting I held in the seat of Chisholm—and people have now quit the Liberal Party over this, people who made the mistake of helping the member for Chisholm get elected and are now helping us—now know what you truly think of them: they're not good enough to be Australians, they're not welcome and they're not wanted. At least the minister for immigration has been honest for once and given people a chance to know where they truly stand with this government.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The time allotted for this discussion has now expired.