Pauline Hanson (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Hansard source

I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

I seek leave to table an explanatory memorandum relating to the bill.

Leave granted.

I table the explanatory memorandum and seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard .

Leave granted.

The speech read as follows—

The Australian Citizenship Legislation Amendment (Strengthening the Requirements for Australian Citizenship and Other Measures) Bill 2017 passed through the Lower House on the 14th of August 2017 and was introduced into the Senate the following day.

Amendments to this Bill were proposed by me and by Senators Bernardi, Gichuhi and Leyonhjelm, but on the 18th of October 2017 the Bill was removed from the Notice Paper, a consequence of a little used manoeuvre initiated by the Greens and supported by Labor.

These two parties wanted to deny a Senate debate on the rules which govern access Australian citizenship but the issue is too important in these unsettled times.

I want a debate on this Bill and consequently have amended the original Bill and re-introduced it as a Private Senator's bill.

Australians want a conversation about the interrelated issues of immigration rate, population size and citizenship. They are deeply concerned about social cohesion, because for many years we have been home to the highest per capita immigration program in the world, taking more than 200,000 migrants annually from over 250 countries.

I have been talking about the impact of immigration on social cohesion since I gave my maiden speech in 1996 and said "we are in danger of being swamped by Asians".

This statement has often been used as evidence of hostility towards Asians and Asian immigration but this has never been my view. Rather it was an assessment that the level of immigration was too high and that we needed to take migrants from a wider range of countries.

I did no more than mirror the views in surveys like the one done by the AGB McNair poll done on the 19th of June 1996.

In 2016 I was elected as a Queensland Senator and said "we are in danger of being swamped by Muslims who bear a culture and ideology that is incompatible with our own".

These are the facts. This is not stereotyping. It is not racism.

Half the people in Australia are worried about immigration from Islamic countries. We know that from recent surveys done by independent research firms.

The Essential Research survey done between 27 July and 1 August 2016 asked "what is the main reason you support a ban on Muslim immigration? Forty-one per cent said they don't integrate into our society, 27% said they were a terrorist threat, 22% said they don't share our values, 4% said Australia is a Christian country, 4% said none of the reasons mentioned so far and 2% said they did not know.

The reasons given by Australians for supporting a ban on immigration from Islamic countries tell the political class that we need laws to ensure applicants for citizenship will integrate, and share our values because evidently Australians in the real world are finding that not to be the case.

Australians know I am a very good listener and this Bill represents the views of the majority of Australians.

The Australian Citizenship Amendment (Citizenship Testing Act) 2007 introduced the requirement of a four year residency with one year on a permanent visa and a sixty per cent pass rate on a 20 multiple choice question test, but these requirements are now inadequate.

Every poll I have looked at for twenty years says speaking English is very important for migrants. Not one poll has said speaking English is unimportant because without English in this country you cannot integrate into the broader society.

Given our experience we need to make sure applicants for citizenship have already proven themselves before they are granted citizenship.

The Bill asks that applicants for citizenship demonstrate their suitability for citizenship by obeying our laws, respecting our culture and assimilating into broader society.

The Bill is not about access to welfare benefits, because permanent visa holders can access all the same welfare benefits as citizens, but it is about providing evidence that applicants for citizenship have already integrated into Australian society.

The consequence of low entry requirements for citizenship still haunts Australia, in the form of pockets of organised crime and ethnic enclaves.

If this Bill had been law we could have avoided the social problems in south-west Sydney, Melbourne and other parts of Australia.

Many of the decisions made by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal are out of step with the expectation of most Australians and this Bill goes a small way to addressing these types of decisions.

It is far too common that we are unable to deport criminals and those who work against Australia's interests because they have the protection of certain kinds of visas or recent citizenship.

The commitments sought from applicants for citizenship in this Bill are very reasonable when compared with those sought by other countries, but I know from the positions taken by the Australian Greens and Labor that they believe the increased residency period and the increased level of proficiency in English proposed will discriminate against some people and in particular refugees.

I would say to them that they need to take off their rose-coloured glasses and look at the problems and how they can be addressed.

Additionally I would say Australia is one of the most generous countries in the world, in terms of accepting genuine refugees. Once they arrive in Australia we provide lifetime financial support and the provision of 500 hours of free English lessons.

Refugees on permanent visas can stay in Australia indefinitely and would only face deportation under extraordinary circumstances.

Labor and the Greens have said that the standard of English expected in this Bill is just too high. I would say citizenship carries responsibilities and that those responsibilities cannot be fulfilled by ticking the box to get 12 questions right out of 20.

In the Netherlands applicants sit a four hour test and must demonstrate they can read, write, speak and understand Dutch. Additionally they need to have knowledge which permits them to understand what they need to do as citizens.

As I have said before citizenship is one way we can promote social cohesion amongst peoples from very different backgrounds.

In the period 2010 to 2011 a government study found 168,700 migrants arrived here speaking 174 languages other than English. How can we create social cohesion if we do not speak a common language?

Migrants from these 250 countries know very little about Australia's political system, our values and our way of life.

In Australia citizenship is a legal relationship between the individual and the State. It can be acquired by birth, by descent and by the granting of citizenship, but this is not the case elsewhere in the world.

In the Middle East from where we have drawn hundreds of thousands of migrants, citizenship is a matter of religious affiliation and family relationship.

The United Arab Emirates (UAE), like Australia, has high rates of immigration and is resource rich, but here the similarities end. One hundred percent of Australian citizens have access to the welfare state but in the UAE few do and most don't.

This is because only the 13% of UAE citizens whose name is written in their fathers' Family Book can access free health care, subsidised housing, free education and other entitlements.

Why is this the case? Under the rules governing citizenship in the UAE only citizens with an Emirati father can enjoy full citizenship but they still need their name to be written in their fathers' Family Book.

Eighty-seven percent of UAE citizens acquired that citizenship by demonstrating fluency in Arabic, providing evidence of a job and meeting residency requirements of up to 20 years. These citizens have a passport, a work right and the right to remain in the UAE but no access to the welfare state.

The UAE is not alone in demanding lengthy residency periods and mastery of the language. These requirements are also demanded in Denmark, Germany, South Africa and Spain where 8-10 year residency periods are mandatory. I could name many more countries.

In any case I don't see the need to rush the passage from permanent visa holder to citizen. I see benefits in extending the time which is the reason I want applicants to spend 8 years in Australia before applying for citizenship.

When you come from another country like the UAE, where the language and the ways of that country are very different from our own, it takes time to learn about how our country works. It takes time to prove you are worthy of citizenship.

Australian citizens need to work, but the nature of work has changed a great deal.

In 1960, 63% of Australian jobs were in the service sector but today it's 84%. This growth in service sector jobs and the increasing importance of English in world trade is driving the increasing need for better standards of English by naturalised citizens.

The argument that you don't need English to be a productive citizen does not wash with me because English is critical to getting a job and integrating into our society. Study after study supports that claim.

Points based skilled migrants are required to have a competent level of English just to make an application for a visa and 95% of them have jobs within six months of arrival.

We can contrast that outcome with the poor level of participation in the labour force for refugees where English proficiency plays no role in the selection.

It is common ground that humanitarian migrants suffer very low levels of employment. English proficiency is not the only factor in low participation in the labour force but it is an important one.

The benefits of Australian citizenship come with responsibilities including defending our country in time of need and voting in Federal and State elections where the future of Australia is decided.

One Nation represents people who are patriotic. They love this country and they want to keep it safe, secure and stable for the next generation.

In Australia, gender equality is the foundation of our democracy. I don't want to see citizenship given to people who don't understand or don't agree with our law, our values, or our way of life.

I commend the Bill to the Senate.

I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.