Andrew Giles (Scullin, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

Australian values. We've heard a lot about them this week from government members. We've heard a lot of hypocrisy and a lot of cant as, in this place, in Australia's parliament, they've been trashing a core Australian value: that of representative democracy. It is clear now that the only thing our craven Prime Minister really values is clinging onto his office. Not to power, because it's pretty clear he has very little of that, but to office.

The people who three years ago supported the right to be a bigot, have now gone several steps further. They have licenced further bigotry in walking away from parliamentary democracy when it comes to equal marriage because the Prime Minister is too weak to do what he knows to be right—that is, for this parliament to do its job, for its members to be allowed to make a law in support of another great Australian value, that of equality. How we treat one another is at the very heart of what it means to be Australian. It is to me, anyway.

I'll state my attitude to Australian values: I cherish our egalitarianism and I cherish our diversity. So, too, the PM apparently. He says often that we are the most successful multicultural society. He's right. And he's also right to say so. But these words have been belied by his actions and by those of his government, which have undermined our multiculturalism and undermined our social cohesion already. We remember, on this side of the House, the awful hurt inflicted by the 18C campaign, the incessant dog whistling. These have been steps to the journey that has taken us to this unnecessary and deeply unhelpful and divisive legislation. We have before the House a proposal designed to fundamentally create two classes of Australians, to make citizenship more difficult to obtain for some people, but not others. Generally, these are vulnerable people: people who have entered Australia through humanitarian programs or as refugees. This is not my sense of Australian values.

Of course, what it means to be Australian is an important question and one which should inform our careful consideration of how we approach Australian citizenship as a matter of law, but this government has this the wrong way round. As the member for Eden-Monaro said, this bill is 'an answer in search of a question.'

Here's a history lesson for members opposite: values evolve. The views of our founding fathers—indeed, the absence from the records of our founding mothers—show the journey that Australian views have undergone. The views of those men cause me great discomfort in many respects. My own party—our own party—saw the world very differently at the time of Federation than we do today. I'm pleased that our values and Australia's values have developed, that we have seen things and people differently, that we have resolved to expand the boundaries of social, economic and political participation of our social compact and, indeed, of citizenship. Let us have this conversation and use it to inform any reform we make to our formal recognition of citizenship. Let's not go through a hurtful, divisive and unwarranted process such as this.

What this bill and this debate show us, sadly, is that members opposite are not really conservatives so much as they are reactionaries. They are not concerned about preserving Australia's values, no matter what the Prime Minister may say of multiculturalism, but about winding back the clock. I felt privileged to have been here for the contribution of my friend the member for Fremantle, who spoke very movingly of what exactly winding the clock back means for too many Australians. But winding back the clock is at the core of this bill in its presentation, in the journey it has taken to get here and in its substance, and so I am very proud to join all my Labor colleagues in opposing the bill.

It is a wide-ranging and very complex piece of legislation. Many of those matters it seeks to address deserves careful scrutiny, so I look forward to the consideration of the Senate inquiry and those recommendations, but some of its core components must be rejected outright. I refer in particular to the question of the English language requirement which is imposed—and I will go on to make some further comments about that—and the pointless imposition of a delay for people who are already permanent residents being able to progress their citizenship.

I am also deeply concerned about some other aspects of the bill and in particular the expansion of the discretionary powers of the minister. Such an expansion would be troubling in any set of circumstances but under this minister is doubly so, particularly—indeed, this was touched upon briefly by the member for Eden-Monaro—in circumstances where discretionary power is increased and accountability is diminished. We are seeing fewer checks on the executive authority. The Liberal Party used to be concerned about these matters. The Liberal Party used to be concerned about rights. They have put all of these things in the dustbin of history.

On that matter again I raise one other specific concern about the bill, and that is, of course, its retrospective operation. It has ordinarily been a principle that laws having retrospective effect should present a particular standard of justification as to why such effect is to be given. No such justification has been given.

More broadly, justification for the measures set out in this bill is lacking to say the very least. The submission by the Andrew & Renata Kaldor Centre for International Refugee Law is more generous than I would be in expressing its support for what it described as the 'broad objectives' of the bill, by which I take them to mean some of the words spoken by the minister in his second reading contribution and in particular those references to social cohesion. But in their very useful submission they go on to say:

…we do not believe that the measures adopted in the Bill address these objectives in a proportionate and evidence-based manner. This is particularly problematic because the proposed changes have significant implications for prospective citizens, their families and society more broadly. Given these implications, it is incumbent on the government to justify why these changes put forward are necessary.

But of course they have not even tried—not the minister in the long journey since these changes were initially flagged many months ago and not in contributions to the debate by government members. This isn't good enough.

The citizenship law is absolutely fundamental. It is the bedrock of our society as well as our democracy. We deserve, and Australians deserve, to have the case for change made.

One justification that has been offered by government members makes recourse to national security. But of course there is no evidence before us to suggest that any of the provisions contained in this bill were supported by our national security agencies or by reference to advice from those agencies.

Going to the wider objective, the critical question of supporting our national security through bolstering social cohesion: it is fine for government members to speak of fostering social cohesion, but I am concerned that this bill, in substance and in the manner in which it has been brought before the parliament, will have the opposite effect to supporting social cohesion. This is a concern shared by many others—indeed, by most stakeholders, including the Kaldor Centre.

These questions of process are important. I spoke earlier about the significance of working through the values that should inform citizenship and its place in our society and our democracy. This has to be a conversation, a two-way process—a dialogue. Yet we saw the absurdity of a submission process that was closed in terms of civil-society actors and, indeed, our capacity to consider the views of many community members.

Going to the substance of the bill: there were two elements of the bill that many of my colleagues have spoken of, one being the English language requirement, and the member for Cowan drew on her personal experience in terms of teaching English. On this English language requirement, there are a couple of points that I should make in addition to those made by my colleagues.

I think all of us in this place see the importance of conversational English. We see that in terms of social participation and of economic participation, of course. But, if the government were serious about supporting people in the process of seeking citizenship improving their English language skills, perhaps they might start by offering some support to people to further their English language skills development; instead, decisions made by this government, sadly, take us in the opposite direction.

There is no warrant for the level at which the standard is to be set under this proposition. That is a matter that has been very clearly articulated by the member for Watson and the member for Cowan and many others on this side of the debate, and it is striking that government members have not sought to rebut these evidence-based propositions and, instead, have resorted to the rhetoric of their talking points.

Then, of course, we have the delay, which does not recognise the existing requirements as to permanent residency. We have here a substantial change that sends a very disturbing message to many people, and to many of my constituents in particular—absent any sense of a wider purpose or, indeed, of a particular warrant in respect of the circumstances. This is extraordinary legislation from a government that is supposed to be about smaller government—absolutely extraordinary.

The concerns that have been expressed by almost all those stakeholders who speak for and with multicultural communities deserve to be heard in this place and in the other place. I made a submission in respect of this piece of legislation because of the depth of anxiety in the communities that I represent, and I want to place on the record the sense of betrayal of many older members of the communities which make up the Scullin electorate. They have often been in Australia for a very long period of time and have made very substantial contributions to our community and our society but feel the imposition of this language test sends a message that somehow their citizenship is less worthy and that they would not have been afforded the rights they have today, a status that is so important to them, if they had arrived here some years later. This is a terrible message to send to people and one of the many reasons why this bill must be rejected.

I'm disturbed to have heard, in the course of debate here, government members mischaracterise citizenship and look at this as a privilege. Well, if that is the case, why are we seeking to impose different standards on different classes of people? There are privileges that are connected to citizenship, and certainly, for me, it has been a great privilege, as someone who acquired Australian citizenship through the circumstances of being born here to Australian parents, to have attended many citizenship ceremonies and seen what the journey means to so many people I am very proud to represent in this place. For me, those ceremonies in the Shire of Nillumbik, in Diamond Valley, in Eltham or at the City of Whittlesea or South Morang have been absolute highlights of the time I have been a member of this place. To see what it means to people to join the Australian community is something which is extraordinary. To see this government, absent any justification, seek to impose unnecessary hurdles in the way of them seeking to make real and full their commitment to this country is a retrograde, unnecessary and, frankly, offensive step.

So I say again I am proud to stand here in opposition to this legislation along with every one of my Labor colleagues. I look forward to the comments that will be provided through the process of the Senate inquiry on some of those more technical questions, but this is not how we should be making laws of this nature. The government has not made the case for any of these changes. I stand here proud of our multiculturalism and to represent such a wonderfully diverse community. I say to the members of that community that I stand here ready to fight for multiculturalism and for all of my constituents, wherever they may have been born

See this speech in context