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

Mr Speaker, thank you for being in the chair during this debate, and—I am not sure if I'll get him for the whole of the speech—I thank the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection for being at the table at this point as well. The concept of Australian citizenship is effectively how we define what it is to be Australian. There's lots of legislation that will go back and forth in this parliament where people will have strong and passionate views, and a lot of those issues will be relevant to what sort of country we are. But it's rare that we have a debate that is about quite directly defining what it is to be Australian. The changes that the government is proposing do very much change the definition of what it is to be Australian and change the definition of what sort of country we will be.

I was the shadow minister in this portfolio when the Howard government were in place and they made changes to citizenship. When they did, we were able to support the changes that they made. The changes that are in front of us now are of an altogether different order. The changes that are in front of us now represent a fundamental change in the sort of community Australia will be. People tried to make these points to the government when the government first released its discussion paper, and people made submissions to the government, but the government decided to keep those submissions secret. The government decided that what the Australian people had said in response to its ideas should not be allowed to be known, and so the government then introduced legislation.

Labor, during this whole process, played a responsible role. We said: 'The concept of more people speaking English—if that's something that the government's got a way of doing—may well be a good thing. Let's have a look at the legislation when it comes.' We reserved our judgement. During that time of reserving our judgement, the minister kept taunting, thinking, 'Maybe there's going to be some sort of division within the Labor Party on this issue.' Once we saw the legislation, once this government put these changes in writing, Labor were able—within a few days, at our next caucus meeting—to resolve unanimously that we will oppose these changes. There are a whole series of changes in the Australian Citizenship Legislation Amendment (Strengthening the Requirements for Australian Citizenship and Other Measures) Bill 2017. Some of them may well turn out to be more routine; some of them may well turn out to be reasonable, and the whole thing will be referred to a Senate inquiry. But there are two changes here that, in the way they are being implemented, are fundamentally unfair and change the character of the country.

I have to say: they are not the issues that the government ran on when they first made the announcement. When they first made the announcement, the argument from the government was to say that the big shift they were making was that they were going to start introducing all these values questions. Then they put questions out there and provided them to the papers. Of course, all of those questions were already available under the current legislation, and the government of the day can change those questions whenever it wants without coming back to the parliament. So that's not going to be the issue that's before the parliament. But the parliament will have to decide whether or not a large number of potential citizens will be here for more than a decade before they are ever asked to pledge allegiance to Australia and will be here for more than a decade before Australia ever says to them, 'You are welcome here.'

And that's the first of the changes I want to talk about: the delay. Labor is opposing this bill because of two key elements: the delay and the English language test. On the delay: the government puts it forward by saying, 'Look, we're just changing it from one year to four years.' Most people, when they hear that think, 'Well, waiting four years doesn't sound completely unreasonable.' What the government doesn't say is that there is already a four-year wait. There is already a requirement to wait four years before you apply for citizenship. That's because it takes into account the real-life experience that happens for a very large number of people who end up becoming citizens of this country—they arrive on their first visa as a temporary visa. There is a very large number of people who want to apply for permanent residency, but are only eligible at first for a temporary visa and gradually find a pathway to permanence.

Now, the argument from the government about why they wait for four years is, they say, 'Well, that's a reasonable length of time for the country to get to know the person and for the person to get to know the country.' But that is already delivered; that's already there. And because so many people arrive on a temporary visa first, what this change means is that if you end up, as many people do, on one or two temporary work visas or one or two temporary student visas, or a mixture of both, you will have been here, easily, for eight years before you get your first year of permanent residence. But instead of being able to apply for citizenship at that point, the response from the government is that you have to wait until you have been here for more than a decade in the real-life experience.

Now, what does that mean from the perspective of the country? It means there is a conscious decision from this government to delay people pledging allegiance to Australia when it has already been decided they will permanently be here. There is a deliberate decision by this government to tell somebody who we have said will be here permanently, that they are not yet fully welcome for a longer period of time. I don't, for the life of me, see how that is in the interests of the individual or in the interests of the country, to increase the number of people living here who do not pledge allegiance to Australia.

I can't see how that's clever. I can't see how that's good for the national security arguments that the government tries to appropriate in this debate. How does it make sense to have a situation where somebody will have to wait for that length of time, living here in Australia the whole way through—us knowing them and us having decided they are here permanently—but then adding a further delay? And of course we have all heard the cases of people who were ready to apply and have now been told, 'No, you might have thought you were eligible, but the government has decided to implement this law before it has passed the parliament and delay your citizenship anyway.'

I understand that we do that with tax law all the time because with tax law, if you are going to change it and you do not make the change immediately, the danger is that people will reorganise their tax affairs to be able to avoid the taxation. But what was the risk here when the government decided that this would be retrospective? The risk was that people who were eligible for Australian citizenship might apply. People who were eligible and legally able to become Australian citizens might apply, and that was the risk that has caused this government to implement, without any legislative authority, the law that is now before us—the bill that is now before us. But the delay only gets us part of the way, because that is a temporary change in terms of the impact that it has on people's lives. It is something that is not in Australia's interest and not in their interests, but eventually they get to become citizens.

The change to the English language test is fundamental. When I have spoken at community forums I have had people interject, saying that it sounds like a dictation test—and we all know what they are referring to when they make that reference. The change to the English language test is huge. The minister, in his speech and in his interviews, has said, 'Well, we're requiring a competent level of English.' I think most people, if they hear that, think, 'Well, yeah, that sounds reasonable; yeah, your English should be competent.' And most people would believe their own levels of English are competent. But of course under this bill, 'competent English' has a very specific and precise legal meaning. It refers to level 6 of the IELTS test—the level of English required for an overseas student to get into university. Some universities have even lower levels. That's the level of English that is being required. It is an extraordinary act of snobbery for this government to claim Australia only wants you if you are at university level. That does not just send a message to potential immigrants, that does not just send a message to potential citizens but it sends a message to a whole lot of people who were born here, who have lived in Australia their whole lives, who will never reach university-level English, that this government reckons they are second-class. University-level English: why would a normal Australian come up with that? Well, they would not, but an elitist snobbish government has brought that to the parliament.

Those opposite already effectively have an English language test because the test which the Howard government put in place, which the government of the day can update the questions on whenever they want, is a test in English. So if you cannot complete a test in English, you do not get to become a citizen. But the level of English required at the moment is conversational English, and most people, myself included, view that as reasonable. To have to have conversational-level English is good for the country and good for the citizen. It means that individual will be able to much more easily engage when they are shopping, engage when they are dealing with government services and engage when they need to report something. Conversational-level English is a completely reasonable requirement. But you do not need to change the law for that because that has been there since the days of the Howard government.

The IELTS test is not a conversational-level English test. It is a test that looks at speaking, listening, comprehension, writing—you need to be able to write an essay. How many times does the Prime Minister try to associate himself with the Snowy Mountains Scheme without ever once acknowledging that, at the same time, he has got a law in this parliament that would mean a large number of the people who built that scheme would never have been accepted as Australian citizens? How many members of this parliament have parents who would not reach university-level English and yet are currently contemplating voting for legislation that would mean their own parents would not have been able to become Australian citizens?

Once you set the English language test at a level that some people will never meet, you guarantee something we have not previously seen in Australia for generations because, at the moment, everybody who is a permanent resident is in some way on a pathway to citizenship. But once you set it at a level that some people, with the best efforts and the best of intentions, will never be able to reach, you establish a new underclass of people in this country, who will go through their entire working life in Australia without ever being told they belong, without ever being able to pledge allegiance to this country, when the country has said 'You should be here as a permanent resident, but we are going to let you go through your entire working life without you ever saying you pledge to this country and without us ever saying you belong.'

Lots of countries in the world do have a permanent underclass of noncitizens. We do not and we should not. And the only thing that is standing between that change and how Australia works now is this bill. Some people say, 'Well, university-level English, is it that hard?' I have read this about five times. I am better at it now than I was at first—I bumbled this on TV a few times. Let me read to you an example of the IELTS test. It is based in Cambridge University. You can go online and find different sample tests. They are all to this level of complexity.

Calisthenics enters the historical record at around 480 B.C., with Herodotus’ account of the Battle of Thermopylae. 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.

What on earth does that have to do with being a good Australian? What on earth does that have to do with whether or not you should be able to pledge allegiance to this country?

Who can honestly argue that a test like that should be a requirement for whether or not you pledge allegiance to Australia? That is an act of snobbery—nothing more, nothing less. And when I first raised university-level English, the minister came back and said, 'Oh: no, no, no! Tony Burke is wrong, because there's a university stream of the IELTS and there's a general stream of the IELTS and we'd use the general stream.' The one I just read from is from the general stream. That's the easier one; that's the easier passage. But the difference between the university stream and the general stream isn't the complexity of the testing when you get to the final mark, it's the language that's used. So the university stream would be more likely to use language that you'd find at university and the general stream uses language like that which I have just read to the House. That's the difference between the two. But the level of proficiency represented by the IELTS 6 is exactly the same. The level of proficiency is still the university level of proficiency.

If that were the standard alone, it would be pretty bad, but there is something else that has been snuck in, which you can find in the explanatory memorandum and which I have to say is straight-out offensive. Not every potential citizen is going to have to pass that test. Not everybody is going to have to reach university-level English. If you are applying for citizenship and you are a passport holder of certain countries, the minister has flagged that you will be okay. There are many countries in the world, something like 50, that have English as one of their official languages. But guess which the five countries are that they have flagged in the explanatory memorandum, that if you are a passport holder of one of those countries you won't have to pass the English test? New Zealand, the United States, Canada, Ireland and the UK. It just so happens that of all the countries in the world that have English as one of their official languages, Singapore doesn't make the cut and India doesn't make the cut. But the five countries deemed as a majority population that is white are the five countries listed in the explanatory memorandum from where you won't have to pass the English language test.

I do not know how on earth members of parliament on that side who are here representing seats representing multicultural communities—where they are here as the representatives of people in their local area—could vote for that. How on earth could the minister? I have arguments with the minister at different times, but I've got to say that I didn't think he was capable of this one! What possesses someone to say, 'You need university-level English unless you come from one of the five white countries where English is an official language'? That is what is in front of us. That is what is in front of the parliament.

I met a couple at one of the community meetings in Perth and he said to me, 'I was a highly sought-after skilled migrant.' He is not a citizen yet. He said to me: 'Canada wanted me and Australia wanted me. I chose here, and I love it here. But what I now realise that I did not realise when I was coming here is that because of the English language test I will get to be a citizen and my wife won't.' He said, 'If I'd known there was going to be different treatment of us as a couple—it breaks my heart to say it—but I would have chosen Canada.' What the government is doing here will divide which family members get to become Australians and which don't. It will divide people based not on their proficiency of English in the first instance but on what country they came from.

I'm not going to pretend for a minute, and I do not believe for a minute, that every member opposite believes in this sort of stuff, but I do suspect they are currently intending to vote for it. This is much more offensive than what we were dealing with with 18C and racial hate speech, and that was pretty offensive. That was arguing whether or not people in the street, in the public square, would be allowed to say something racist. This is about whether we entrench those views in the law of Australia. This is of another order altogether.

Now, I should acknowledge the arguments that the government have put. They put two arguments. They've said this is about national security and this is about integration. I want to deal with each of those two in turn. In the first instance: national security legislation, when it comes to this parliament, is dealt with very seriously. It is referred to the intelligence committee, and we do everything we can to provide bipartisan support. So when I had my briefing from the department—normally I wouldn't refer to briefings from the department because I view that confidentiality very seriously, but the minister then went and started talking about my briefing from the department and so I really think it's my obligation to open that up—I asked, 'Was this a recommendation from ASIO?' No. 'Was this is a recommendation from the Australian Federal Police?' No. 'Was this a recommendation from any of our defence or security agencies?' No. I said, 'Well, where did it come from?' It's a recommendation from a report by two members of the Liberal Party: Senator Connie Fierravanti-Wells and Philip Ruddock. National security advice does not come from them. But, moreover, how can it be a national security issue if everybody applying for citizenship is already here and already a permanent resident? If they are a security problem, what are they doing here? This is not about national security, and national security issues—which are important, which are serious, and there are real threats—should not be thrown around with a debate that is irrelevant to it.

The government has also argued it's about integration. Well, let's look at this in two ways. First of all, integration is important. I think 'assimilation' is a dreadful word; 'integration' is a good one. Assimilation is about people losing their identity. Integration is about people keeping their identity, who they are, and it's weaving together the fabric of a community and a nation. That's integration. Integration is a good thing. This is the opposite of integration. Integration is not when you establish a permanent underclass of noncitizens. Integration is when you bring people together, not divide them. And there is a provision with integration, not often spoken about, where the government wants to claim, 'Oh well, but setting a high standard gets people to work harder to become citizens, to keep trying to get to that threshold.' If that was the case, why is it that, buried in this legislation, if you fail the test three times you're not even allowed to apply for another two years? How is that about integration?

What's in front of the parliament in this bill is a huge and fundamental change. It is not lost on members of the community how significant it is. On many issues, from time to time, we launch online petitions to see if there's much take-up, to see what sort of interest there is from the community. I started the online petition once Labor had fallen into position on this. It hasn't been that long, it's been a bit over a month, but in that time we've had 27,000 people sign the petition to make clear that they do not want the change—there are more folders, but you won't be able to see me; I will disappear, buried beneath the folders.

There is a huge community outcry, including from people who when they first heard the government talk about this thought it might probably be OK, but what people have started to realise is the government is changing expectations in ways that mean they wouldn't have got to be Australians, that mean their neighbours who are good citizens wouldn't be Australians, that mean their parents wouldn't have been welcomed here. That is a huge change. And also they realise now that it cannot possibly be good for integration or good for national security to have a permanent group of people for their whole working lives being told actively by the government that they don't belong.

One of the things you get to do when you are minister for citizenship is put forward a message that is read at every citizenship ceremony. The character of those messages always reflects the minister of the day. I have never seen a dreadful one. The one from the current minister has some good moments in it. There was a line that I had in my very brief time as minister for citizenship that was taken away immediately at the change of government, and I think it's significant to point to it now because, if that line had been kept in, I don't know how anyone could have contemplated the legislation that is before us now. It was shorter than most citizenship messages. It just said: 'In a few moments time Australia becomes a better nation. Your decision to make the citizenship pledge sees you take on the privileges and responsibilities of Australian citizenship. From that moment your journey and heritage will become part of our shared Australian story. Australia welcomes you as a full member of one of the most diverse nations on earth, where our citizenship is a bond which unites us all. Australia welcomes you and the talents, diversity and vitality that you bring to Australia. Today your new nation says to you, "Welcome home."' The words 'welcome home' disappeared the moment there was a change of government, and we have legislation before us now that says to a whole lot of people, 'You're not welcome and it's not home.'

If you do that on the basis of a security assessment, we are there with you, but, if you do it on the basis of a snobbish attitude to university levels of English, we will fight you. You do it on the basis of having exemptions for people from particular nations that you have decided are OK? We will fight you. You do it in a way where people—good people who had already decided to be here permanently—were excited, looking forward to putting their citizenship application in and then discovered in the blink of an eye that they had been told, 'No, you're not welcome for another three years'? We will fight you. You bring in legislation that has nothing to do with national security and claims that it does? We will fight you every step of the way. You bring in legislation claiming that something is about integration when it delivers the exact opposite of integration by establishing a permanent underclass of noncitizens? We will fight the government every step of the way on this.

We have seen moments of bravery from members of the backbench opposite. We have seen moments of bravery on an issue that the House has been discussing and has been in the media this week. We saw moments of bravery last year with respect to 18C and racial hate speech. I hope we can get some bravery from those opposite who are willing to say they are proud of modern multicultural Australia and they will not let this minister wreck it. I want to see some bravery from those opposite who will say that conversational-level English matters and that university-level English is ridiculous, who will say that we should be a nation where, if someone has been decided that they will be a good Australian and we've decided by making them permanent residents that they will be a good Australian, we will say to them, 'Welcome home.'

It's not often that the parliament actually defines what it is to be an Australian, but we're about to do that, and for many members of parliament it might not be the most high-profile vote they have, but it will be one of the most significant. I urge members of parliament to oppose the bill.

Ted O'Brien (Fairfax, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Well, the member for Watson has certainly put on some theatre, full of symbolism and absolutely lacking substance. Clearly the member himself must not have spent any time in a foreign market, struggling to catch a bus or a train, look up a timetable or find a doctor. I have. I've spent years doing just that in non-English-speaking countries where there is not one English sign.

The English proficiency requirements outlaid in the Australian Citizenship Legislation Amendment (Strengthening the Requirements for Australian Citizenship and Other Measures) Bill 2017 have two streams: a study stream and a general stream. So, when the Leader of the Opposition and the member for Watson carry on about there being a need for university-level proficiency, that is a dishonesty. It is wrong. And the very people that they purport to represent are the ones in whose hearts they are driving fear.

We are an open political economy in Australia. We welcome people to this country, and what we do not need is the Labor Party misrepresenting responsible legislation, driving fear into those people who we should be welcoming here to Australia. It is their words to suggest university-level proficiency. There is no such thing required, which makes one wonder about the increasing importance of Australians deciding whether the blind negativity, the opposition for opposition's sake that comes from Labor on virtually every government bill, is simply wilful, destructive obstructionism or whether it comes from an entrenched hypocrisy that has become the hallmark of today's Labor Party. Australians should consider and make a decision on that question as they listen to the member for Watson and Labor debate bills in this parliament in the lead-up to the next election, because, if they do, they will perceive the extent to which the Australian Labor Party is not only bereft of solutions but, more importantly, totally unworthy of their support. The Australian Labor Party, once a great and worthy part of our polity, has shown repeatedly that its aim is to make this country ungovernable, because it perceives in that behaviour the creation of a disenchantment that will grease its way back into office. This is a despicable approach to governance in this country and is on display yet again in Labor's response to the bill we're debating today to strengthen the Australian citizenship legislation by amending it.

All elements of this bill have broad support outside the soft left that now dominates Labor and the hard left which has otherwise deserted the Labor Party for the Greens and which Labor now desperately wants to claw back by relentlessly sliding further and further to the left. This bill establishes a considerable yet totally reasonable English language test for would-be Australian citizens, a test closely in line with similar tests in countries like the United Kingdom, Canada and New Zealand, using precisely the same template, the International English Language Testing System. In all the criticisms from the member for Watson, he was not able to suggest any other template. There was no proposal—just blind criticism.

The bill extends the amount of time new arrivals must legally reside in this country before they can apply for citizenship from one year to four. It requires applicants to sign an Australian values statement. It requires that applicants demonstrate an ability to integrate into the Australian community, including by behaving in a manner consistent with Australian values, reflected in the Australian values statement. It requires applicants to pledge their allegiance to Australia, their fellow Australians, and Australian values, and allows the minister to determine eligibility criteria for sitting the citizenship test, which may consider the fact that a person has previously failed the test or did not comply with one or more of the rules related to the test, or if he or she cheated. It also enables the minister, in certain circumstances, to overrule decisions made by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, an extension of his authority made necessary by the fact that the tribunal has determined people to be of good character even after they have been convicted of child sexual offences, manslaughter, people smuggling and domestic violence—extraordinary, extraordinary decisions!

Labor opposes all of these steps, despite the fact that submissions to the 2015 inquiry into the citizenship test undertaken by this government showed strong community support for this sort of response. Why, therefore, is Labor once again just opposing, opposing, opposing? It is increasingly obvious that the answer is: because of the almost total capitulation of the Australian Labor Party to the socialist left. For example, when the proposal for a more realistic language test was introduced and a longer period before an immigrant could seek Australian citizenship was proposed, back in April, the opposition leader actually supported the thrust of it. He said this:

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

That was just in April. Now he has backflipped—backflipped because he has outraged the socialist left of his own party and they have brought him very meekly back into line.

The member for Watson, from whom we just heard, a former minister for immigration and border protection, no less, and a card-carrying leftie, too, of course, has said in the past: 'We need stricter English language requirements.' That was the member for Watson in 2006. In the same year, which was when the Howard government was considering toughening up some of the citizenship requirements, he said that nobody who was not prepared to sign a declaration to respect our laws and our way of life should be allowed into the country. John Howard at the time promoted the importance of English for new immigrants, and the member for Watson acknowledged that John Howard was 'spot on'—spot-on in 2006, but not today, apparently. It seems that these leopards of Watson and Maribyrnong have changed their spots, yet again, because that is what has been ordered by the ringmasters of Labor's caucus circus, the socialist left, and so to the left they creep.

As Troy Bramston, the former Labor insider and now, often, commentator on the ALP, recently observed, the left is now running the Labor Party, both organisationally and in this parliament, because Labor members are at the beck and call of the organisation and the left now dominates. So the measures that the members for Maribyrnong and Watson so strongly supported just a few years ago are now, to use their word, 'snobbery,' because that's the word they've been instructed to use.

The Labor Party's failure to comprehend or honestly represent the way the English test works is irresponsible. Let me explain it to them, yet again, in simple terms. There are two distinctly separate strains of the testing system. That shouldn't be hard to comprehend. There is a separate testing system for those applicants who wish to study here in Australia, and then another, separate strain for the wider immigration program. So there is one for an academic stream and one for general applicants. The levels of proficiency required under these two streams are different and fit for purpose. There are degrees of capability, registered by the testing authorities on a scale of 1 to 9. The proposed English test does indeed require proficiency to level 6 for both tests, but they are different sets of tests themselves. In other words, the general stream test is far less onerous. This is where the Labor Party is being irresponsible and creating fear among the very people who are trying to master the English language enough to pass level 6—not level 9, level 6. Labor simply says that because we want would-be citizens to achieve level 6 we are measuring them against university-level regimes. That's not what is being proposed. That is why we have that second general stream.

The second stream does require at least a basic understanding of the language. A person should have an ability to understand it when they are spoken to; an ability to be orally responsive to other people in a way that is understandable to the listener, and if there are some errors or mispronunciations, et cetera, that may make understanding them a bit difficult; and an ability to write it at a basic level. There is no problem with people struggling with a language, including English, but it's in their vested interest for them to integrate, for their families to be part of our society and for them to have a degree of proficiency that allows that to happen. An ability to read, for example, encompasses such things as reading a train or bus timetable to be able to get around, or reading a tabloid newspaper or popular magazine to help develop an understanding of how Australians tick. It is nothing outrageous or unreasonable. What is required is simply and sensibly a clear indication at a person has enough proficiency in the language to get by in a society where the principle language used both as a spoken and written form of communication is in fact—wait for it—English.

Another equally spurious, equally hypocritical position being adopted by the Labor Party in relation to this bill is a demand for a longer period of residency before citizenship. They wish to make that shorter. Again, you just have to consider what the members for Maribyrnong and Watson—the member for Watson especially, as the principle Labor spokesperson in this area—have said in the past. Once again, there are blatant contradictions. Perhaps they used to think for themselves before surrendering to the tight leash from the left. Have these multiple backflips meant the Labor Party has genuinely lost its way and it wishes to totally rebrand as a pinko socialist left party?

To the members for Watson and Maribyrnong, to the future members who are going to be standing in this House and to the Labor speakers who will speak after me, I ask a few questions. If they do not wish for new Australian citizens to speak proficient English, what language do they wish for them to speak? If the Labor Party does not want new citizens to sign up to Australian values, what other country's values do they wish new citizens to sign up to? If the Labor Party does not want new citizens to pledge allegiance to the nation of Australia, then what nation do they wish allegiance to be pledged to?

Australia is bound by a common set of values and we need to ensure that those values are upheld and respected, just as we must ensure the rule of law. What is being proposed in this bill strengthens the citizenship test for Australia and, therefore, strengthens the very values that bind us as a nation. If the Labor Party wishes to keep sliding to the left and reject it, then it only serves to weaken the country and the very people they purport to represent.

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

That has to be one of the most strange, weird and odd speeches I have heard in nearly 10 years in this place!

I will say from the outset that we won't support the Australian Citizenship Legislation Amendment (Strengthening the Requirements for Australian Citizenship and Other Measures) Bill 2017. We referred it to a Senate committee for inquiry, which will report in September. If you were listening, the Turnbull government would have you believe that they are strengthening Australian values. They are actually undermining them and preventing individuals and families who wish to pledge allegiance to this country from becoming Australian citizens.

The government has failed to provide any coherent or cogent case as to why the proposed amendments are necessary. They have attempted to silence those individuals, organisations, peak bodies, businesses and even foreign embassies who made submissions in relation to the discussion paper on Australian citizenship. They refused to release or to make public those submissions. The only conclusion is that they do not want the public to know what was being submitted. We know that the Refugee Council of Australia has said in relation to this particular matter:

The inclusive nature of Australian citizenship is a crucial element in the success of our multicultural society.

Like many other Australians, I have been deeply concerned by the chorus of voices on the other side who have lined up to offer their answers to the question: what makes a good Australian? This is as if somehow they are some authority on the topic—as if, somehow, on that side of the chamber they are patriots and on this side of the chamber we are not. That is just nonsense, the stuff we heard from the member for Fairfax.

By this bill, the government wants to make people wait even longer before they are eligible to apply for citizenship. The Turnbull government has already become known to go slow with respect to processing of visa and citizenship applications. They have ripped away resources and savaged staff from the Department of Immigration and Border Protection—frontline staff. We know that from the budget papers of the last couple of years. Now those time frames are only going to grow longer because of this particular bill.

People who migrate to Australia, regardless of where they come from, have already been permanent residents for 12 months before they become Australian citizens. Further, they have to live for a total of four years in Australia on some form of visa before even being able to apply for citizenship. This means that they have already been living here for four years—often already speaking English in the case of people who have come here, or learning English. We provide English language training of up to 510 hours and are increasing that to a thousand hours, often in community hubs or in circumstances being provided by those authorities who provide English language training. But that's simply not sufficient for this government. Instead, they have brought forward legislation which says that anyone who wishes to become an Australian citizen needs to demonstrate a minimum period of four years permanent residence immediately before making an application.

Now, they're seeking to do this by amendments to the Migration Act and the Citizenship Act. The government has failed to explain why it believes delaying someone's pledge of allegiance to Australia any further could be considered to strengthen our citizenship laws. People who wish to declare their affinity with and love for this country will be forced to wait even longer before they can do so. It's really a slap in the face to our history as a migrant nation and to those migrants who built their lives here, received Australian citizenship and enriched our communities. It's not beneficial to impose further hurdles, which will further isolate migrant communities and refugees in this country.

In a submission to the Senate inquiry, the Federation of Ethnic Communities Council of Australia, FECCA, stated:

Permanent residents should be encouraged to seek citizenship as soon as practically possible to foster a sense of inclusion and belonging and to encourage integration.

FECCA continued by saying that 'anything which delays or deters should be resisted'. Labor has adopted that principle.

Concern has also been expressed by the Forum of Australian Services for Survivors of Torture and Trauma for those on safe haven enterprise visas—SHEVs. Under the government's proposed amendments, those in Australia on SHEVs would have to be in Australia for a period of five years and permanent residents for a minimum period of four years, a total of nine years before even being eligible for citizenship.

The Turnbull government has brought forward this legislation, which will impede those people who wish to have a sense of belonging and who wish to be connected to this country. Of course, it goes without saying that all Australians, whether they were born here in this country or migrated here, should abide by Australian laws. Labor believes that; I dare say that there would not be a person in this chamber who doesn't believe that. The Australian Citizenship Act 2007 already allows the government to put forward any citizenship questions about Australia, including what Australian values are, under section 23A, which states:

The Minister must, by written determination, approve a test for the purposes of subsection 21(2A) (about general eligibility for citizenship).

Amendments such as in paragraph 21(2)(f), that insert references to Australian values, have been inserted by the Turnbull government as a distraction from other unfair and poorly considered measures in the bill, of which there are so many. It should be noted that the current citizenship test is already in English and that these proposed changes by the government are an additional test being added to the list of desired requirements. We believe on this side of the chamber that being an Australian citizen should be about your values and commitment to this country and not whether a person can speak a university level of English, and that's exactly what the government proposes.

New paragraph 21(9)(a) empowers the immigration minister to determine the circumstances in which a person has competent English. It says of the English requirement that examination is administered by a particular entity and the person achieves a particular score. First the government wants to make migrants and refugees wait longer to become Australian citizens, and then they are saying that you have to achieve a university level of English to become an Australian citizen. The Forum of Australian Services for Survivors of Torture and Trauma stated in their submission to the Senate inquiry:

The Government’s proposed changes to the assessment of English proficiency has not been accompanied by a commitment to provide resources to assist people to prepare for the new test.

Labor believes in helping migrants to obtain English language skills, because having conversational English allows those people who come to Australia to benefit themselves and other members of the Australian community to get jobs and integrate into society. There is no denying it helps families participate in their communities, reduces potential vulnerabilities and allows people become part of Australian life.

I have met refugees and I have had the privilege of sitting in on English language classes—support they are offered when they first come to Australia. Many of those support services were introduced by the previous Labor government. In those classes I learnt that success is not about teaching grammar proficiency. Real success is about feeling included; it is about the self-worth of what it means to be a student. For some individuals, this was the first time in their lives they had that experience. There is also the challenge of learning something new. I heard from mothers who took pride in being able to help their children with schoolwork, and fill in forms their kids brought home from school. And fathers who had pride in securing their first job in Australia. These tasks did not require a university level of English; it needed guts, determination and the help of a supportive teacher. It is those attributes we should be fostering, not a public debate about the use of a semicolon brought on by the Prime Minister.

As shadow minister for immigration and border protection, I have been fortunate to meet many families and individuals who have moved to Australia and who now call this country home. Many permanent residents dream and aspire to become Australian citizens so they can fully pledge their commitment to this wonderful country of ours and its shared values. It would be a disgrace if the actions of the Turnbull government prevented people who have worked so hard to make this country their home from becoming Australian citizens just because they do not have university-level English.

The government has attempted to deny the requirements are university-level English. Dr David Ingram, of Griffith University, was one of the original developers of the IELTS test in June 2015. He said that this test was 'specifically designed to assess the English proficiency of international students seeking enrolment in English speaking universities'. Although Australia is a nation built on migration, the Prime Minister and the immigration minister want to impose on new migrants an English language requirement that many of those born in this country would not have been able to pass themselves. I wonder how many members of the Liberal and National Party caucus rooms—because the previous speaker, the member for Fairfax, was talking about caucus rooms and caucuses—could pass the government's proposed English language test. Has the immigration minister trialled the test in his own caucus? I note that the immigration minister issued a press release on 20 July using the word 'baldly' in a sentence, rather than 'boldly', which I assume was the correct word he intended to use. The immigration minister also incorrectly used the word 'mislead' instead of 'misled' in the same release. How would the Deputy Prime Minister, for example, fare in this English language test, if you heard him at question time? A university-level English requirement is an absurd proposition by the Turnbull government. It just shows that, if they'd had their way, those who wouldn't satisfy this requirement wouldn't be in this country.

We're acutely aware of the repercussions of tying a particular high level of English language requirement to our citizenship process. If this bill is successful, it will set a course for a new group of permanent residents to be established who will never be eligible to become Australian citizens. They are permanent residents who work hard to make a life for themselves, permanent residents who enrich our communities and contribute to our society, permanent residents who are our friends, our colleagues and our neighbours, all of whom we can chat with and share stories with.

But, under this government, making permanent residents wait longer isn't enough. The government wants to force a situation in which these migrants will never be invited to become Australian citizens and will never be invited to pledge allegiance to Australia. This isn't an exaggeration. The Refugee Council of Australia agrees with this sentiment. It said:

For many, achieving an academic level of English is impossible, effectively denying them citizenship no matter how much they contribute to Australian life or however long they live here.

The government thinks conversational English isn't enough for those who wish to become Australian citizens. It thinks university-level English is sufficient to become an Australian citizen.

FECCA stressed their concern in regard to this bill, saying:

FECCA believes that this Bill will create a permanent underclass of Australian residents …

How is creating a permanent underclass good for this country? How is it good for Australian society to fail to recognise the past contribution of migrants and refugees when assessing their future as citizens of this country? This government, in my view, under this bill, is attempting to divide this country. It's sad. The Prime Minister himself has said of his government's English language requirements, 'We're doing people a favour by making it a requirement.' I will be the first to say to the Prime Minister that I don't want him to be doing this favour for me or for anyone else that I know.

Today we are faced with a choice about what type of nation we choose to be, and that's why Labor's opposing this bill. The government claims it's about national security. If you heard the previous speaker, he alluded to it. We're committed to keeping Australia safe and keeping all Australians safe as well. We've consistently demonstrated a bipartisan approach with respect to national security. We recognise that the national security legislation comes on the advice of national security agencies. They're our experts entrusted with the task of keeping Australians safe, regardless of the government of the day. It's because national security is bigger than politics and because the national security agencies are the best in the world that Labor listens to what they have to say.

But this legislation before the chamber did not come as a result of the advice of national security agencies. It came because of the advice of a current Liberal senator and a former Liberal member of the House of Representatives. It's a blatant example of this government prioritising politics over the national security of Australia and its people. The Prime Minister, in his desperate attempt to keep his position, is allowing this power grab by the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection while attempting to placate the far right of his party.

We've seen no cogent or consistent evidence for this legislation. We've received no briefings from national security agencies as to why this is necessary, nor have there been any public statements in relation to it. Labor has not seen anything in any way offered by the government about how this would substantially benefit national security concerns. This is about fearmongering, sadly. We are concerned about where the government's going in relation to this issue. We think the government has simply got it wrong.

But there are issues being raised about the increasing power of the immigration minister, and we've raised those issues in the past. I quote the President of the Law Council of Australia, Fiona McLeod SC, who says:

This new legislation effectively allows the minister to override citizenship decisions or to render his own decisions unreviewable.

It's for these reasons that Labor has established the Senate inquiry. It is because Labor's about keeping Australians safe and about a cohesive, consistent and multicultural community. We won't stand by while the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection seizes power in a quest to be judge, jury and anything else in relation to these issues. So we await the outcome of the Senate inquiry; we oppose this legislation; and we call on the government to rethink this bill.

Luke Hartsuyker (Cowper, National Party, Assistant Minister to the Deputy Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I welcome the opportunity to speak in support of these important reforms that are so important to so many Australians, because Australian citizenship is a privilege. Some of us are lucky enough to be born here and acquire citizenship by birth. Some of us come to this country through migration and take the opportunity to acquire Australian citizenship.

My father is one of those who came to this country in 1951. I mentioned in this my maiden speech. He was 17. He was on his own. He had an old guitar, his possessions in a tool box and 25 pounds in his pocket. For those in the younger generation, 25 pounds is $50. It's not a lot of money. He certainly talked for many years about the importance of having money in your pocket. And that's why he worked so very hard, contributed a great deal to this country and still does today. He still works 7 days a week. He is 85 years old and works seven days a week. That's very much part of the values that he has brought to this country.

I think one of the great things about citizenship of this country is that we don't require people to neglect their heritage. We very much encourage them to reflect on their heritage and to preserve their heritage, but we also wish that they would adopt our values and the Australian way of life and contribute as Australian citizens who are born here. Regardless of whether we came here or were born in Australia, it is a privilege to call ourselves Australian citizens. We view the importance of democracy, the rule of law, the right to express ourselves and the right to free speech as parts of what it means to be an Australian and very much parts of what makes this country great. I think that every parliamentarian in this place enjoys the opportunity to go to a citizenship ceremony and see the enthusiasm that our new Australian citizens are bringing to this country, see the enthusiasm with which they embrace the notion of Australian citizenship.

These reforms that we are debating today are important because they place a priority on respect for Australian values and on demonstrating a willingness and an ability to integrate into this great country, Australia. This is about making sure that citizenship is only awarded to the right people. If we award the privilege of Australian citizenship to those who don't respect our values, institutions and the Australian way of life, we are opening ourselves to becoming a nation of division and disunity. We are very much focused on the importance of ensuring that Australian citizenship reflects Australian values.

This bill ensures that every new citizen signs an Australian values statement, but this builds on what is currently in place by requiring applicants to demonstrate they are attempting to integrate with and contribute to the Australian community in accordance with Australian values. Merely signing a form is not enough, as it does little in determining whether these individuals are really serious about their commitment to Australian values and the Australian way of life. The measure in this bill requires them to demonstrate exactly what they are doing to join our Australian family—for example, getting a job, looking for work or paying tax on the work they are doing to contribute financially to their new home. These are practical signs that the applicants for citizenship are genuinely committed to their role in Australian society.

In addition to the police checks currently conducted, the government of the day will also evaluate whether those applying to be Australian citizens have previously engaged in activities that are inconsistent with Australian values. Domestic and family violence is a scourge in this country and something we need to fight, so it would be detrimental to allow violent individuals who have a propensity to conduct themselves in such a way to gain Australian citizenship. Failing to stand for a judge in a court of law in this country would be something very inconsistent with our Australian values. Being involved in heinous or organised crime and being part of a gang are not consistent with Australian values. So it is curious that the Labor Party won't stand up and vote for amendments that will place barriers to those who would not act in the way that I think most Australians think appropriate. The good old Labor Party is pandering to the Left rather than standing up for the important institution that is Australian citizenship.

As to the former Minister for Immigration, Multicultural Affairs and Citizenship, the member for Watson, I was quite bemused by his contribution. I will take a moment to reflect on his contribution when he was immigration minister, presiding over the arrival of 83 boats, some 6,634 illegal maritime arrivals. That was his contribution to immigration: an immigration system that was out of control. This government fixed that. This government made sure that our borders are secure and continues to do so.

But it's important that Australians speak English. We had some promising signals sent by the member for Watson, but unfortunately that was when he was in opposition. When he was in opposition, he said, 'We need stricter English language requirements,' as reported in the Daily Telegraph on 12 September 2006. He also said, again in 2006:

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

Yes, this was all from opposition. He went on, in terms of 'a declaration to respect our laws and way of life', to say:

Anyone who has a problem signing that shouldn't be allowed here.

Mr McCormack interjecting—

Yes. It's quite interesting to hear what the member for Watson said in opposition, as opposed to his pontification this morning in this very place. Then he said in response to Prime Minister Howard's focus on the importance of English, 'His focus on the need for people living in Australia to try and learn English was'—and I quote the member for Watson—'spot-on.' 'Spot-on,' he said of Prime Minister Howard's requirements. But what happened when he left the halls of opposition and went into government? He was far less supportive.

Michael McCormack (Riverina, National Party, Minister for Small Business) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

He squibbed it.

Luke Hartsuyker (Cowper, National Party, Assistant Minister to the Deputy Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

He squibbed it, absolutely squibbed it. Then there is also the member for Maribyrnong, the Leader of the Opposition, who said, 'I think it's reasonable to look for English proficiency and reasonable to have some qualifying time period before becoming an Australian citizen.' Well, they seem to be singing from a different hymnbook today.

So I think it's appropriate that the changes that the government has made in this legislation should be supported, and it is most disappointing that we are seeing the members opposite flip-flopping on this. We had the member for Watson, when he was in opposition previously, saying how important it was to have strong English language requirements. He was saying how important it was to declare to respect our laws and way of life. That is what he was saying previously, but he seems to have changed his tune.

This is important legislation. It is legislation that should be supported by this House. It is disappointing to see the Labor Party once again pandering to the Left, failing to support what is good legislation, what is good policy, what is good practice, to ensure that Australian citizenship remains as a privilege for those who respect our Australian way of life, who are willing to integrate into this country, who respect our values and who will contribute strongly to this nation. I commend this legislation to the House.

Cathy O'Toole (Herbert, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise in this place today to state my absolute disgust regarding the message that the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection, along with his government, is sending to our communities in relation to citizenship. The government have been persistent with their message of fairness, yet their actions tell the opposite story, as they are proving time and time again. They do not know the meaning of the word 'fair'. How can the government sit back and say that what they are proposing for Australian citizenship is in any way fair? How is it fair that my granddaughter's mother, who is a contributing member in her community, working and paying taxes, cannot become an Australian citizen for another four years?

I have been contacted by numerous and very distressed people in my electorate of Herbert, who are gravely concerned about the changes that this government intends to make to citizenship. One particular family has been living in Australia for five years and has held permanent residency for 11 months. This family were intending to apply for citizenship in July 2017, as that was when they were eligible. This family has been adhering religiously to the requirements that were outlined to them by the government when they applied for residency in 2016. They completed their medical examinations and criminal background checks accordingly, and yet on 20 April this year they were contacted to say that everything could change, even though they were already in the system. They were two months away from applying for their citizenship and, because of this government's completely heartless approach to citizenship, they now have to wait an additional three years before they can reapply. I will reiterate: they have been living in Australia for five years.

To add insult to injury, the government has proposed in its higher education reform paper that from 1 January 2018 subsidies for most Australian permanent residents and most New Zealand citizens enrolling in a Commonwealth supported place will be withdrawn, making them fee-paying students. Once again, this is impacting on this family. Their son hopes to enrol in university in 2018. He will now have his access to the CSP removed; he will be classed as an international student and pay three times the average university fee rate than he would have paid under the current rules. This young man came to Australia at the age of 12. This is simply not fair to this family or the many other families who may be affected in the same situation around the country. This government must consider the impacts when making such decisions, and they must allow appropriate time for adjustment.

I expected to speak on this amendment during Refugee Week. Refugee Week recognises people who have fled violence and war to seek a safer place to live and now call Australia home. During Refugee Week, it is important that we reflect on the contributions that refugees genuinely make in our communities. Migrants and refugees have played a significant role in our communities. This is particularly the case in my region, where migrants from the South Sea islands, the Kanakas as they were known, were sugar slaves because they were blackbirded, kidnapped or sold. They developed the thriving sugar industries in towns like Ingham, Ayr and Home Hill. Migrants and refugees have contributed both socially and economically to this country, and, as such, Australia is known internationally to be a very successful multicultural society. Key multicultural refugee stakeholders such as the Federation of Ethnic Communities Council of Australia, the Migration Council of Australia, the Refugee Council of Australia, the Settlement Council of Australia, Welcome to Australia and the Australian Law Council have publicly expressed their concerns about the changes that this government is proposing. We are a nation that values and celebrates diversity, yet it appears that the Turnbull government has forgotten this.

I come from a migrant background myself. Both of my parents are first-generation Australians on the paternal side of their families. My father's father came to Australia on a boat as a ten-pound Pom and my mother's father came here from Lebanon. Both of these men worked hard and contributed to their communities and provided for their families and, in turn, provided for their grandchildren. My parents worked hard to ensure that my siblings and I would have every opportunity to be contributing citizens of this great nation. My parents raised five children: two high school principals, one in the state school system and one in the Edmund Rice system; a family law barrister; a railway traffic controller and trainer; and me, who has the privilege to serve in this place. In fact, my mother's father's family did not speak English at all well when they came to this country. English was at least their second language. My grandfather was barely literate through no fault of his own, but I can assure you that did not prevent him from working hard and contributing and paying taxes. He fought proudly for this nation in the Second World War. The story of how his family was treated does not make for pleasant reading.

I understand the struggles families may have when transitioning from their former home to Australia. What I don't understand is the apparent lack of compassion and understanding that this government has shown in introducing what seems to be a very high-level English language test, when what is needed is conversational English. This government is taking a sledgehammer approach. It wants a level required by nearly all undergraduate degrees in James Cook University, which is in my electorate of Herbert, which is far higher than conversational English. My own family's experience demonstrates that not being able to speak or write perfect English does not mean a person does not or cannot work hard and contribute to their community. Malcolm Turnbull and his government are saying to all Australians that unless your command of the English language is at university level, you are simply not welcome to be an Australian citizen. This is just not fair. It is an elitist attitude to who is welcome to live in this country.

There is no argument that refugees and migrants living in Australia should be able to or be learning to speak conversational English, and we should be helping them to do so. Being able to make conversation enables people to communicate with others in the community and it makes settling into a new environment much easier. The use of language is central to effective communication and inclusion. Everyday communication does not mean International English Language Testing System level 6 in English. There is absolutely no doubt that a very large number of Australians would never reach IELTS level 6. Labor believes in supporting new citizens to possess a conversational level of English, which the existing test already achieves.

It seems the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection is confused over the English test matter. The minister's own media release revealed that, in the last sitting week in June, he at no stage specified whether IELTS level 6 would be achieved through academic or general training. Everyone takes the same listening and speaking tests. The reading and writing tests differ in the specifics of their content and focus, depending on whether you are taking the IELTS academic or IELTS general training. However, the level of English required to achieve level 6 is similar. The content may differ, but the level required is comparable. Whether the content of one stream is easier, the scoring system is made harder to balance the level. That's because the general test components are marked harder.

In his media release, Minister Dutton completely misrepresented what level 6 of the general stream requires. His media release pretends to quote IELTS standards, saying level 6 'focuses on "basic survival skills in broad social and workplace contexts"', but this is an overall description of IELTS general training. It is not a description of what level 6 requires. The IELTS website says this of those who are able to achieve level 6: 'They can use and understand fairly complex language, particularly in familiar situations.' I highlight 'complex situations'. The minister has misled the public by using watered-down language to describe the true requirement.

I suggest maybe the minister needs to sit his own English test. In fact, why doesn't the entire government sit the level 6 IELTS test and see if they score the required 75 per cent pass mark? It might be a novel experience. I would also be curious to know if they could answer some of the questions proposed for the test. I would ask the members opposite if they have considered their own heritage when it comes to the high level of this test. Would their parents or grandparents be able to pass this test, for example?

Being an Australian should be about the person's values and commitment to country, not the level of the person's English skills. The Turnbull government says the test will adhere to Australian values. I would like the minister to let us know who the government is consulting in relation to identifying Australian values. Has the minister consulted with our first-nations people, who are the oldest culture on Earth and the original inhabitants of this country? Has there been any consultation with any of the multicultural groups that are settled here in Australia in order to determine what is useful in terms of the English language? If not, why not? How can we stipulate Australian values if we are not talking with the diversity of community members living in this country? These are questions that the Turnbull government needs to answer. Minister Dutton needs to step up to the plate and be open and honest with the public on this issue.

Labor and the government are united when it comes to national security. There is no question that we will always act properly and promptly on the advice of security agencies in the national interest. However, the national security advice received by the government has not come from a national security agency; it has come from Senator Concetta Fierravanti-Wells, the Minister for International Development and the Pacific for this government. Here lies a perfect example of why this government needs to go back to the drawing board. In order to improve an area that may be of concern, you need to discuss those matters with those who actually know, like the national security agencies. We are yet to receive any advice from security agencies regarding whether or not these proposals will improve national security. Again, I think that there are more questions left unanswered by this government than answered.

Surely the question is: do we want to become a country that values and welcomes diversity, or do we want to become a country that allows people citizenship because they possess a high level of English? I, for one, want to live in a country that welcomes new citizens—citizens who have shown their commitment and allegiance to fully embracing their new country's way of life.

We must also be sensitive to the fact that a vast number of our own citizens are illiterate, for numerous reasons, and ask: what are we doing to assist them to improve their situation? Of course, a properly funded needs-based education would be a very good place to start. Australia has benefited enormously from the blood, sweat and tears of hundreds of thousands of migrants and refugees. We must maintain our hospitable spirit whilst, at the same time, taking every step to ensure our national security. But I am certainly not convinced that the government's proposal will deliver a positive way forward, because this government's proposal would not have let my mother's father and his family into this country.

I would also like to raise this issue. On Friday evening, I had a mobile office on Magnetic Island where I met with a family that was beyond distress: a man, his wife and young daughter. His wife was also ready to apply for her citizenship and now she has to wait an additional four years. The distress in my community is great, and I really urge this government to go back to looking at this citizenship issue from a point of compassion, not the heartless approach that we are seeing.

Andrew Hastie (Canning, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

By the end of the Second World War, Australia was exhausted. Alongside our allies, our country had withstood the onslaught of the Axis powers, the fall of Singapore and the bombing of Darwin, and the Pacific campaign had taken its toll. Despite winning the war, the threat of foreign invasion still sat at the forefront of many people's minds.

At the time in Australia, our population was less than 7½ million. We were a small nation exposed to large nearby neighbours and dependent on the protection of strong but distant allies. These factors contributed to a report commissioned by the Chifley Labor government which concluded that there was an urgent need to grow our population for both defence and economic development. At the time it was believed that Australia needed to increase its population by two per cent annually—one per cent by birth and one per cent by immigration. Consequently, the Department of Immigration was formed in 1945 under Minister for Immigration Arthur Calwell. The slogan of the day was 'Populate or perish.' This sentiment carried on through the Menzies era, and through most subsequent governments to the end of the 20th century.

Although many of our early migrants from this time were British, very quickly the door was opened to other nations. Consequently the requirements for migration were often eased. This was made easier, for example, by lowering the time required as an Australian resident before applying for citizenship from five years to two, and easing the English language requirement from adequate to basic.

We have proved ourselves time and time again to be a generous nation. We have welcomed migrants from the world over, from Eastern Europeans fleeing the Red Army in the 1940s to Vietnamese escaping Communism in the 1970s or thousands of Chinese students and visitors confronted with the Tiananmen Square crisis in 1989. From 1947 to 1998, a net total of 4,257,700 people migrated to Australia. We are an open and welcoming nation, and we will continue to be so.

In modern times, the coalition has strengthened the requirements for becoming an Australian citizen. This began under former Prime Minister John Howard, who introduced a test for Australian citizenship. The coalition quickly understood, in the wake of 9/11, that Islamist terrorism was going to change the status quo of international migration. As a Liberal, I take pride in Prime Minister Howard's legacy as the architect of our modern immigration system. It is his Pacific Solution that forms the basis for Australia's safe, orderly immigration model. This was thrown into chaos by the former Labor government. Need I remind everyone of 50,000 illegal arrivals on 800 boats with 1,200 deaths at sea? Order was restored only under the coalition, thanks to the work of Prime Ministers Abbott and Turnbull and Immigration Ministers Morrison and Dutton. Our system is now the envy of the developed world.

There is, however, always room to improve our system of immigration and the pathway to becoming an Australian. We must be clear-eyed about the dangers we face and unashamed in acting to safeguard both the Australian people and our liberal democracy or way of life. We live in dangerous times. We have witnessed Europe under siege due to its very lax approach to migration. There have been terror incidents across the UK and continental Europe over the last decade. In this month alone, more than 500 people around the world have died at the hands of violent, non-state actors.

While we have felt the effects of terrorism on our shores, we have been lucky compared to others. From September 2014 to April of this year, 63 people have been charged as a result of 28 counterterror operations around Australia. That's over half of all terrorism-related charges since 2001. In the same period, 12 major terror plots were disrupted. Australians are worried, and rightly so, for that is the point of terrorism: to create fear in order to compel people, Australians, to do the will of the terrorists. Last week's foiled attack on a plane at Sydney Airport, one of the most sophisticated terror attacks ever attempted on Australian soil, is a case in point.

This government has already taken extensive action to ensure the safety of the Australian people. We have increased counterterror funding for law enforcement, intelligence and security agencies and passed eight tranches of legislation to strengthen our response to the threat of terrorism. This bill complements the work already done. Where those measures are designed to stop immediate threats to the Australian people, this bill helps form a preventative approach. It creates a high bar of expectation and allegiance for our culture and values for those who would call Australia their home.

The measures in this bill form part of the government's response to the 2015 national consultation on citizenship report, Australian citizenship:your right, your responsibility, which indicated strong community support for strengthening the test for Australian citizenship. As the minister has said, the Australian community expects that aspiring citizens demonstrate their allegiance to our country, their commitment to live in accordance with Australian laws and values, and their willingness to integrate into and become contributing members of the Australian community.

As a representative of the people of Canning in Western Australia, I can absolutely affirm that community sentiment. I frequently canvass the views of my constituents. Since April I've done 21 community forums, and the most consistent feedback I receive is concern about the bar we set for immigration and integration into this country. For the overwhelming majority of people, this is not motivated by racism or prejudice, as some on the left will no doubt suggest. Rather it comes from an almost instinctive understanding that Australia is the country that it is thanks to a shared set of values and freedoms that are affirmed and practised by the whole community in day-to-day life. They understand that, if Australia opens its doors, potentially to people who do not share those values and who live by a different ethic, then the political and social consensus that makes Australia such a great country will be under threat, and that will ultimately change the character of our nation.

There are key measures in this bill, and I'll just go through them briefly. The residency requirements are increasing from one year to four years so prospective citizens have spent a reasonable amount of time living in Australia, and only a maximum of 12 months can be spent outside of Australia during this time. This is a measure designed to ensure that applicants are familiar and happy with the Australian way of life. The provision also gives applicants time to appreciate the commitment that they are required to make as citizens of Australia. There are no human rights implications, as permanent residency does not limit freedom of movement domestically or internationally.

We've introduced English language proficiency requirements to increase the requirement to 'competent' which is the equivalent of the International English Language Testing System general training test level 6. This focuses on basic survival skills in broad social and workplace contexts. Incidentally, it is the same requirement held by Canada, New Zealand and the United Kingdom. It is not the same standard for university entrance, as is suggested by those opposite. Currently a basic level is required but it is not directly assessed. And I think it goes without saying that proficiency in the English language is essential for economic participation, social participation and integration into Australian civic society. Historically, Australia has had a higher English language requirement for citizenship.

Applicants for citizenship are also required to sign an Australian Values Statement. Without this statement the application is deemed invalid. The Australian Values Statement includes an understanding of and respect for: the freedom and dignity of the individual; freedom of religion; a commitment to the rule of law; parliamentary democracy; equality of men and women; equality of opportunity for individuals regardless of their race, religion or ethnic background; and, of course, the English language as the national language, which is an essential unifying component of Australian society. It requires applicants to demonstrate their integration into the Australian community, including by behaving in a manner consistent with the Australian values that applicants commit to when they sign the Australian Values Statement. For example, they need to send their children to school, they need to seek employment, they need to be earning income and paying tax, and they need to be contributing to the larger Australian society.

An applicant will also be assessed for specified conduct that is inconsistent with Australian values, such as: domestic or family violence; criminality, including female genital mutilation; and involvement in gangs and organised crime. I think we can all agree that we want none of those things in Australian society. The pledge in the act will refer to allegiance to Australia. Its use will be extended to all streams of citizenship by application, including citizenship by dissent, adoption and resumption.

What Australians want is security. They want economic security, jobs, lower power prices, wage increases, national security, strong borders and a capable Defence Force. I am proud that this government is increasing defence spending to two per cent of GDP by 2021, which is a complete reversal of what those opposite did whilst in government. Disgraceful! You treated defence like an ATM, and I won't let you forget it.

Australians also want cultural security. They want to know the government is protecting the great Western democratic traditions that make our country function and that enable this House to function every day, albeit imperfectly. Nonetheless, it does its job. Last week The Sunday Times in Western Australia editorialised on the threat of terrorism and commended this government for the safeguards it enacted. The paper spoke about the ongoing tension between liberty and security, saying, 'We are living in an age where jihadists seek to exploit our soft underbelly of freedoms to inflict as much carnage as possible.'

The unique freedoms of Western society do indeed leave our nation exposed to those who would do us harm. However, those freedoms are our strength, not our weakness. Those freedoms have: ensured the contest of ideas which takes place every day in this House; guaranteed the scrutiny of government by media; allowed the formation of unions; protected religious liberty; promoted scientific discovery; and fostered free enterprise. They are what has made us great, strong and prosperous as a country. But they do not exist in a vacuum. The values and freedoms that we take for granted are only made possible by broad community consensus and Australians who self-govern, self-regulate and don't need government interfering in their lives.

Australia did not just happen. I've seen parts of the developing world. I've been involved in nation-building. Australia is very, very unique. It's precious and it's something that needs preservation. If we water it down or remove a common belief in the freedoms of religion, speech, association and conscience then we fundamentally alter the character of our country. And if we allow concessions to the values that have formed us, we condemn our nation's future. That is the very purpose of this bill. It is about ensuring that our country, our economic system, our political system and the freedoms that we enjoy as an Australian community will continue long into the future by ensuring that those who come to this country—and we welcome them—also sign up to those values and freedoms that we hold dear.

Peter Khalil (Wills, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Australian Citizenship Legislation Amendment (Strengthening the Requirements for Australian Citizenship and Other Measures) Bill 2017. My electorate of Wills is one of the most diverse in the nation. The data we have recently received from the 2016 census shows that close to 80 per cent of the people in Wills classify themselves as having culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds and 37 per cent of them speak a language other than English.

Since the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection first announced his intention to make changes to Australia's citizenship laws, my electorate office in Wills has been inundated with questions, genuine fears and uncertainty about these proposed changes. People are afraid, uncertain and frustrated. It's important to note that many of these fears were a result of the conjecture, hearsay and speculation that came from the proposed changes having been announced long before any bill was available for scrutiny or even put to the parliament. Many people's fears were confirmed once we had a chance to look at the government's bill.

I and the Labor Party oppose the bill on the basis of the proposed changes to link the English language test to residency requirements and the government's dubious claims—some of which we've heard from the previous speakers—around national security. Of course, the government should do whatever is within its means to help people learn English. There's a level of isolation and extra challenges for people in their own lives if their English skills are limited. But that's about training people. A commitment to training, rather than elimination, is an investment in Australia's future. Labor is committed to assisting immigrants to obtain a level of English language that allows them to take full advantage of the opportunities and benefits available to all members of the Australian community. That's why Labor included additional funding of $24 million in our election commitment for the Adult Migrant English Program.

But this bill would mandate that migrants obtain a level of competence in English equivalent to that required to gain entry to many elite universities. That standard of English competency is defined in this bill as level 6 in the IELTS test. This is an absurd proposition. The government is not just sending a message to new immigrants; it is sending a message to all Australians who don't have university level qualifications that, if the Liberals had their choice, these people would not even be here or that they don't deserve to be here despite their hard work and contribution to this nation and don't deserve to be citizens. Impeccable grammar doesn't automatically make you a good citizen, nor does a university-level English education.

My family, like the families of many people who have contacted me, came from overseas. My family came to this country from Egypt for a better life and looking to contribute to and participate in the fabric of Australia. If the proposed English language testing had been implemented when my parents and grandparents arrived in Australia, none of them would have been allowed in. They worked hard and paid their taxes for over 50 years. They raised their children and never did anything but contribute to the cultural wealth of our country. Their story is not unique. In fact, it's shared by millions of Australians. Many people who have conversational English may never pass this English test at that level. So our concern is that these changes would develop an underclass of people who will always live here but never have the opportunity to pledge allegiance to Australia and be told that they actually belong.

Are we to deny citizenship to millions of people who would make such a contribution to this nation? Is that what we are saying here? These are potential Australians who deserve to have their voices heard. They deserve equality of opportunity to succeed, not to be told they aren't educated enough to participate. It is the Aussie ethos of 'a fair go for all' that is one of the great strengths of our multicultural society—and not just for those who are skilled enough to pass a university-level test. I have always said, and firmly believed, that our cultural and linguistic diversity is one of our country's key strengths. This bill will only is serve to tear that fabric, not strengthen it.

Conversational English has served Australia very well. Raising the requirement only serves to isolate and bar so many potential Australians—so many migrants—from becoming productive, contributing Australian citizens as so many millions have done over the past hundred years.

I come to the second egregious amendment, which could see an additional four years wait placed on those who live in Australia as permanent residents seeking citizenship. It is what the government has described as 'a need for further integration', and we've heard some of these arguments from the previous speakers. How can delaying someone's pledge of allegiance to Australia be beneficial? Of course it won't. It only further isolates that individual from Australian society. They live here and are good enough to pay their taxes, good enough to raise their families, good enough for the government to accept their taxes and good enough for other Australians to accept their contributions to their community but not good enough to be a citizen. You've got to wait another four years because apparently you haven't fully integrated.

When someone's already been living here for multiple years—for example, three years on a work visa and then 12 months as a permanent resident—making someone wait an additional four years before they pledge allegiance to Australia cannot be good for national security or social cohesion. It can't be good for the person or their sense of belonging to this country either. I know the doctors, the teachers, the parents, the students, the children, the retail workers—real people with real lives whose clock on the path to citizenship has been reset—are more frustrated with the government than ever. It is impossible for them to plan for their futures, to travel or to raise their kids with stability when the rug is being pulled out from underneath them.

As an example, I recently met with a couple in my electorate who are both working as doctors after having moved to Australia from India nine years ago. One doctor submitted their application prior to 20 April, the arbitrary date announced by this government to reset the clock. The other submitted the application after that date. So now they sit in limbo, waiting to find out what their pathway to citizenship actually looks like, having had the goalposts suddenly shifted. Of course, one family member—one doctor—can move to the citizenship ceremony within months. The other will have to wait four years. I can assure you that the government's changes are already proving to only further isolate, not integrate, individuals and their families.

The government is using fear to make their case as is often their wont. They make the dubious argument this is a matter of national security. Of course the Labor Party and I are absolutely committed to keeping Australia and all Australians safe. I have spent most of my career working in foreign policy and national security, and we have consistently stated our bipartisan commitment to doing so—for example, through the work of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security and through the support of other legislation in this place. But national security legislation comes on the advice of national security agencies, and we have seen no evidence or received any briefings from the security agencies that the measures proposed in this bill will benefit national security outcomes. In fact, there are some concerns from some community groups that the measures proposed in this bill will alienate sections of our community, not integrate them.

It must be said that, if there's an element of national security in this debate, there are real concerns this bill will be detrimental to national security outcomes. Leaving people in limbo as to their final status without the prospect of ever being given the opportunity to pledge allegiance and gain citizenship does not promote social cohesion. If there are legitimate national security concerns that this bill resolves, of course they should be considered, but this advice must come from the experts in our national security agencies.

And here is the kicker: those who apply for citizenship who are permanent residents are already here. They've already undergone rigorous character tests and security checks to come here. Otherwise, they wouldn't be here. If they are a security risk—if this is a national security issue—they should not be living here at all. If there are problems with this process, the government should be up front about them with us and focus on preventing people who present security risks from coming here in the first place, not isolating already-contributing members of our society and their families. I will give you a cynical interpretation, Mr Deputy Speaker: to me and, I think, to many of us on this side, this looks like a cynical attempt to appease the far right of the Liberal Party; a further power grab by the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection, soon to be the super minister for home affairs; and an attempt to placate people like Senator Pauline Hanson on the far right. National security measures should be bipartisan on the whole. The government should not be playing games with this important issue, trying to link it to issues that are related to national security in order to shore up its own politics fortunes and to cover an obsession with the far-right fringes.

I think it is safe to say that this has been an atrociously handled process. It has demonstrated that the government is not genuinely interested in developing a well thought out, practical and consultative policy to ensure the best outcomes for our community as a whole. This is clear in the way this government has been talking about this for months—in vague, opaque terms, demanding that everyone support the measures without even giving detailed proposals. It's run a sham of a community consultation process, and it won't even release the findings of that process, of course, being afraid of airing publicly the flaws identified in the package. The government finally presented the bill on 22 June, only two weeks after finalisation of its community consultation process and the submissions that came from that process. It's actually keeping these submissions confidential. There's no way of knowing how they factored into the final bill or the thinking behind it, if at all. Despite the claims by the government that it already briefed Labor on the package, many measures in this bill were not flagged in any briefing our frontbenchers received. Given the government's poor handling of this package, the attempts to stifle public discussion and the complexity of the measures it is proposing, it is important that this bill be considered in detail through parliamentary inquiry so that relevant experts and community groups are able to air their views publicly.

This bill cannot be left unchallenged. It is flawed, it's inherently unfair and it's unacceptable, and that is why we oppose it. On behalf of the many people I have met who fear for their futures because of this government's proposed changes, I say this to the government: we will certainly not yield to you on the basis of a vague, opaque press conference or a deeply flawed and tardily presented bill. I say to the government: enough spin and enough smoke and mirrors on national security. It's too important to play political games with. Enough isolation and humiliation to hundreds of thousands of migrants to this country who are living in Australia, who are working, who are paying their taxes, who are raising their families and who are, by all definitions, integrated into this country already. They are already integrated. As such, they deserve and I believe they are entitled to have an opportunity to pledge their allegiance to Australia. Most of them would love so much to do so at a citizenship ceremony. All the people I have met and who have come to me over the past few months are committed to becoming Australians and are being denied that opportunity by these proposed changes. They are entitled to make that commitment and to pledge their allegiance to this country they have committed to. We should give them that opportunity. We should give them what we, as Australians, believe in deep in our hearts: a fair go.

Andrew Gee (Calare, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to support the Australian Citizenship Legislation Amendment (Strengthening the Requirements for Australian Citizenship and Other Measures) Bill 2017. As we have heard in this debate, the bill implements the commitment made by the Liberal and National government to strengthen the test for Australian citizenship by putting Australian values first.

Michael McCormack (Riverina, National Party, Minister for Small Business) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Hear, hear!

Andrew Gee (Calare, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I note the support of the member for Riverina. I know that this legislation would be warmly supported by not only his electorate and his constituents but also the constituents of the neighbouring Calare, who have shown widespread support for the content of this bill. I have had a number of discussions with constituents who have spoken to me and expressed their support for the government and what they are trying to do with this legislation. I will focus on a few of the facets of this bill this morning. One of the key elements is that it puts into effect requirements that applicants will pledge their allegiance to Australia, undertake to uphold Australian values and demonstrate their contribution to the Australian community. What could be wrong with that?

I see the member for Riverina nodding in agreement.

Australian citizenship is highly sought after, and people from all around the world seek to become Australian citizens, to build and share in our prosperous and modern society. And we are a warm and inclusive society. Since 1949, more than five million people have chosen to become Australian citizens. We have welcomed people from all over the world, and the Calare electorate is no exception. I know—I regularly attend our citizenship ceremonies, from those in our largest cities like Bathurst and Orange to those in our smaller communities like Molong, and, without exception, those citizenship ceremonies are warm, and those new Australians are left in no doubt that not only are they welcomed but also their contribution to our country communities is very warmly welcomed and highly regarded.

The success of our nation is based on our shared values, rights and responsibilities, and the measures contained in this bill will help us build on this success. It puts into effect requirements that applicants will pledge their allegiance to Australia, undertake to uphold Australian values and demonstrate their commitment to Australia and its communities. It will ensure that we as a nation continue to welcome new Australians who are committed to making a positive contribution to their communities. It incorporates a number of key integrity measures to ensure that people who are granted citizenship in this country meet the key standards that the Australian public expect of our citizens.

The new measures have come about because of the government's 2015 National Consultation on Citizenship, and its Australian citizenship: your right, your responsibility report. This report indicated that there was very strong support in the community for strengthening the citizenship test.

The key changes to strengthening the requirements for citizenship include: increasing the general residence requirement, from one year as a permanent resident to at least four; introducing a stand-alone English test involving competent reading, writing, listening and speaking; and strengthening the citizenship test itself with new questions that will assess an applicant's understanding of and commitment to our shared values and responsibilities. There is a need for prospective citizens to sign an Australian values statement which makes explicitly clear those things that all Australians hold dear, and they include: respect for the freedom and dignity of the individual; freedom of religion; commitment to the rule of law; parliamentary democracy; equality of men and women; equality of opportunity for individuals, regardless of their race, religion or ethnic background; and the English language, as the national language, as an important unifying element of Australian society. That list aligns with the values of constituents in Calare and, indeed, in Australia generally, and I do not see how anyone could take issue with those values being highlighted to prospective citizens.

As I've said, the bill also requires aspiring citizens to demonstrate English language competence, through listening, speaking, reading and writing. This enables prospective citizens to become more integrated into our communities, and it obviously has advantages in helping to gain and maintain employment—and not only in that but also in assisting in building those important social links with other Australians. A 2016 report by the Productivity Commission backs this up, with its finding that English language proficiency is important for positive settlement and integration outcomes.

The bill also sets out an increase in the general residence requirements prior to Australian citizenship. As I have noted already, prospective citizens will be required to demonstrate a minimum of four years of permanent residence in Australia immediately prior to their application for citizenship, with a maximum of 12 months outside of Australia during this period. This will enable greater scrutiny of potential citizens and their potential integration into our communities, as well as an increased ability to assess their adherence to our values and laws. This integration includes a range of activities that align with the values that have been outlined earlier. They include sending children to school, seeking employment, earning income and paying tax, and contributing to the Australian community.

The increase in the years required for permanent residency will also bring Australia more in line with the general residency requirements of similar countries. The current requirements mean that only aspiring citizens over 18 years of age are required to meet the good character requirements, which involve a criminal history check, and this bill will amend those provisions and will require all applicants, including those under 18, to be of good character. As the minister pointed out when he introduced this bill to the House, only a small number of people would fail to meet that requirement, but the reality is, if you are seeking Australian citizenship, which is a huge privilege, and you have been involved in violence or crime, even if you're under 18, most Australians would say you should not be eligible for citizenship. So, if you've been involved in violence or gang violence, this provision is designed to make sure that people like that aren't able to become Australian citizens. It's extending the bar on approval for criminal offences to all citizenship application streams, and it amends the offence provisions to reflect modern sentencing practices. Australians can rest assured that these amendments reinforce the integrity of our citizenship program, at a time when national security is at the forefront of people's minds.

The bill expands the cancellation powers and provides that approval must be cancelled if the minister is no longer satisfied of an applicant's identity. It provides for the revocation of citizenship where a person became a citizen as the result of fraud or misrepresentation. Most Australians, including those in country New South Wales, would say, 'Well, what is wrong with that?'

Many would also query why the opposition would not be supporting this bill. There are many examples of those on the opposite side of the aisle being hypocritical on this issue. The member for Watson is on the record as saying we need stricter English language requirements and we should be asking potential citizens to commit to Australian values and abiding by Australian laws. The Leader of the Opposition himself has said:

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

So hypocrisy is rife on the opposition benches, as it often is.

Michael McCormack (Riverina, National Party, Minister for Small Business) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Writ large.

Andrew Gee (Calare, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Sadly, it is writ large, as the member for Riverina points out, on the opposition benches, and it's this churlish and negative approach to the legislative agenda which has become a hallmark of the parliament and the way the opposition is approaching the passing of legislation in this House. They are hypocrites on this issue, and sadly they're also weak on national security, which is, I think a disturbing development which will concern many Australians.

But the reality is this bill does have widespread community support. It's certainly supported in the Calare electorate, and I would like to commend the hardworking minister on bringing this bill forward into this place. I commend him and I commend this bill to the House.

Milton Dick (Oxley, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Let's be clear from the outset what the Australian Citizenship Legislation Amendment (Strengthening the Requirements for Australian Citizenship and Other Measures) Bill 2017 is all about. Government members who are now leaving the chamber, including the member for Calare, who just spoke, would have you believe this is somehow about strengthening national security—it's not—and that it's somehow about enshrining Australian values—it's not. And they would somehow lead the Australian people to believe it's about strengthening the integrity of the citizenship program. It does not. There is only one purpose behind his bill. If you listen closely to what government members are saying, they don't give any reasoning behind the purpose of the bill. It's like a vibe. It's like a feeling. It's sort of like making us safer, but they do not exactly explain how or why. It's just this feeling that the government has that talking about this issue will somehow make Australia stronger and safer. It does not.

There's one reason behind what the government's doing, and this is to prop up the member for Dickson, the minister, in some sort of bizarre leadership campaign that's going on, the hunger games that is this government—the hunger games of ripping each other apart, dog against dog. Time and time again we are now seeing issues being played out, whether it be immigration or citizenship, or even whether Australians have the right to marry the person that they love, all through the prism of this twisted leadership campaign that is going on inside the government.

We have seen no evidence presented for this, and I will sit down now if the minister at the table or any government member can table advice from the national security agencies or from any government agency that says we need to strengthen the provisions in this bill. I will sit down right now if that advice can be tabled here and now. I will yield my time to those opposite if that evidence can be presented.

Well, I am waiting! There are officials here from the department. Where is it? Where is the advice? It does not exist! There is no evidence. We have seen no briefings provided from our national security agencies, that somehow these provisions will substantially benefit national security outcomes. The government cannot point to one document or one authenticated piece of information that even remotely suggests that this bill will enhance Australia's security.

I do not want any more lectures from government MPs about how they 'feel' that this is the way to go or that this is the right 'vibe'. Provide the evidence! What are you basing this on? Because you think it's a good idea?

Government Member:

A government member interjecting—

Milton Dick (Oxley, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Because you think that someone in the minister's office or the Prime Minister's office in an episode of Utopia rang up one day and said: 'We've got this great idea! Let's get back to citizenship. Let's talk about immigration. I know what we'll do—we'll just put a bill into the parliament. We'll wait. We'll talk about it for a couple of weeks, we won't provide any legislative framework; we'll just bang on about it in the media and bang on about it in the parliament as some sort of twisted wedge issue, but won't actually provide any data or hardcore evidence.' I will say it again: I will resume my seat now if the minister will come to the table, or if any of the government backbench members can provide evidence as to why this bill is required. Silence. Absolute silence! That says it all.

So let's go through the bill. Let's talk about the poor handling of the package, its attempts to stifle public discussion and also the complexities of what this bill will mean. Now, the English test: a key element of this bill is, as we know, the introduction of an English-language test which is so difficult that many Australians—perhaps, dare I say it, even members of those opposite—would struggle to complete it successfully. The English test at the IELTS level 6 sits at the same level required by many of Australia's top universities. And here is this bill, saying to people who come from all parts of the world, many from non-English speaking backgrounds, 'If you want to become one of us, you must speak at university level. We will value your level of English higher than your willingness to contribute to our country.' Being an Australian should be about your values and your commitment to your country, not how fancy your English is.

Currently, many visa streams already have English language requirements, with visa holders attending adult migrant English programs. These programs aim to teach level 4 to 5, which is referred to as 'proficient'. The government should do whatever is in its means to help people learn English—absolutely; I agree with that. Currently, we offer 510 hours of free English tuition through the AMEP program. That is at least five years' short of what the research says is required to reach English-language competency. For a migrant, we know that there are levels of isolation and extra challenges that come if their English skills are limited. But that's about training people, not about setting benchmarks so ridiculously high that they will only further serve to isolate more people. No doubt this test would be targeted at migrants who speak English as a second language, and would have a negative impact, particularly on women, refugees and parents who cannot afford child care or time off from work to study. I want to be very clear: this is a serious concern to many ethnic and multicultural community groups, as well as to humanitarian organisations.

I want to talk about my electorate of Oxley, where there are around 56,000 people who were born overseas and who now call our community home. Included in this figure are over 8,000 people who were born in Vietnam and who now call Oxley home. Oxley also has the fifth highest number of residents with Vietnamese ancestry, with just over 12,000 people—representing eight per cent of all Oxley residents. I want to be very clear about what these changes will mean. We hear a lot of lectures from those opposite about the great influx and the contribution of the migrant success stories, and they pinpoint the Vietnamese community. They often do this. But their changes would mean that many of the thousands of people that I represent, who have been hugely successful in our community, would not be granted citizenship under these changes. So stop wanting to have a pat on the back about multiculturalism and about the great contribution of ethnic communities, because what you're proposing means that, in the seventies, eighties and nineties, those people would not have become citizens of Australia.

On top of the great work of the Vietnamese in my community, we have also got flourishing Samoan, Philippine, Indian, African and many more multicultural communities with members who aspire to be Australian citizens. There is no greater honour than arriving in a new country, contributing and pledging allegiance and being welcomed as a citizen. But for many of these aspiring migrants, that dream will now be out of reach thanks to this government. Requiring university level English language is just an absurd proposition, and I believe the members opposite believe that. The Prime Minister and this government, through this bill, are not just sending a message to new migrants, they are also sending a message to all Australians who do not have university level qualifications that if the government had their choice those people would not be here. Talk about a bunch of snobs! Talk about an absolute bunch of snobs!

Let's take a close look at some of the example questions on the actual test to meet the IELTS band 6 standard. The first of these asks applicants to:

Write a letter to the accommodation officer complaining about your room mate and asking for a new room.

This is the test those opposite want. An applicant will be marked on the 'length of the response, its cohesion, vocabulary and grammar'. This is a response, which I will read to the chamber:

Dear Sir/Madam,

I am writing to express my dissatisfaction with my room-mate. As you know we share one room, I can not study in the room at all any more if I still stay there.

That response 'does not meet the benchmark' and, as such, would not be acceptable for Australian citizenship.

Let's take another look at the actual exam that those opposite are wishing to place as a new barrier to migration. Applicants are asked to read an essay about bee behaviour and respond, needing to get at least 30 out of 40 questions correct on an accompanying test. The passage reads:

The direction of the sun is represented by the top of the hive wall. If she runs straight up, this means that the feeding place is in the same direction as the sun. However, if, for example, the feeding place is 40 [degrees] to the left of the sun, then the dancer would run 40 [degrees] to the left of the vertical line. This was to be the first of von Frisch's remarkable discoveries. Soon he would also discover a number of other remarkable facts about how bees communicate and, in doing so, revolutionise the study of animal behaviour generally.

I agree that this sounds more like the zigzagging of this government's approach to government, which does not surprise any on this side of the chamber, but with examples like these there will be a large number of people who will never pass the English test. This will only develop an underclass of people: people who will always live here, but who will never have the opportunity to pledge allegiance to Australia and never be told they belong to this country.

If we look at this bill in real terms and what it would mean for Australian students, the results are startling. Currently our national test results from NAPLAN show 15.3 per cent of year 9 students are below benchmark in writing—talk about needs-based funding, but that's for another day. This means they would not achieve a band 6 on the IELTS test, the same benchmark set by the minister for this new English test. That means, of the 267,000 year 9 students around the country, that approximately 45,000 would be ineligible to become Australian citizens. That's the new test that you're applying. If there was ever a more damning piece of evidence showing the overreach of the immigration minister, this is it. What does that sort of message send to young people in our schools? The minister's claim that his citizenship changes don't require university level English is wrong. Clearly he has no idea what's actually in this legislation. And a quick check of the Department of Immigration and Border Protection website would have you believe that the minister believes this bill is already in force, that it's been signed off. It states: 'The changes outlined in this bill apply to citizenship applications lodged on or after 20 July 2017.'

The other thing we have heard from speaker after speaker is that, somehow, this is about improving national security. As I said, we have seen no evidence nor have we received briefings from our security agencies that the measures proposed in this bill will substantially benefit national security outcomes. We note from concerns from the community organisations that some of these measures will actually further alienate sections of our community, which is counter to national security outcomes. If there are legitimate national security concerns this bill resolves, we will consider them, but this advice must come from the experts in our national security agencies, not from the Minister for Immigration.

It is important to remember the national security measures should remain bipartisan. The government should not be playing games with this important issue and trying to link this more to Liberal Party extreme right wing ideology. It is important to note that those who apply for citizenship are already permanent residents and undergo rigorous character and security checks. If there are security risks, if there are character risks, they should not be here at all. If there are problems with this process, the government should be up-front about those and focus on preventing people who present security risks from coming here in the first place.

There are also provisions in the bill to increase the residency requirement of applicants having four years of permanent residency. There is already a four-year waiting period to apply for citizenship which takes into account time already spent in the country under visa streams along with a mandatory one-year permanent residency period. By imposing a further four-year residency period, the government will only further delay people the chance of becoming Australian citizens when they have already contributed so much to our country. This is creating two classes of citizenship in this country, two classes which I and my community will not support. The delay has no evidence that the government will provide and is simply unfair. This issue is a concern for groups that have arrived in Australia on student or business visas. It also impacts residents who want to attend university.

Let us be clear: Labor is absolutely committed to keeping Australians safe from serious criminal offenders and violent criminals. Such individuals should not become citizens and should be sent home where practical to do so. We note this bill contains additional measures such as the ability for the ministers to set aside decisions of the AAT concerning character and identity if it would be in the public interest to do so. While a decision to set aside would be open to judicial review, we note legal experts have raised concerns that this bill would undermine the role of the tribunal as an independent body which provides for review of administrative decisions by the government. Labor will, of course, consider any measures that might improve law and order outcomes through the Senate inquiry. We will support measures that genuinely serve to keep our community safe.

Mr Wallace interjecting—

I am listening to the member for Fisher. He can get up when I conclude my remarks, provide all the evidence and data from the national security agencies, from the government itself and table it all about why this bill is necessary—not because he would like these changes or because he thinks it is a good idea but actually provide the data. That is what Labor is saying and that is why we are not supporting the bill. (Time expired)

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

My electorate of Fisher on the Sunshine Coast perfectly embodies the words of Australia's national anthem 'Truly our land abounds with nature's gifts' from the spectacular and fruitful hills of our hinterland to the golden beaches of our coast. There is a wealth and opportunity to be worked for in our abundant fishing stocks, our bountiful agricultural land and our growing population. On the Sunshine Coast, as much as anywhere in Australia, our warm and inviting seas permeate our lifestyle. Sunshine Coast residents certainly have every reason to rejoice in our country and that is why so many Australians, both those born here and those who were not, choose Fisher as their home, and why wouldn't they? However, this bill is about securing and fulfilling the other sentiments of that anthem. The familiar words of the composer of our national anthem, Peter Dodds McCormick, celebrate our nation but they also challenge us to live up to it. Our anthem calls on us to combine with courage for our country and it enjoins us to keep Australia not only young but also free.

This bill invites us to look again at how we fulfil our nation's promise and proposes a way forward that I believe all Australians can get behind. This certainly remains a young country. Formal Australian citizenship has existed for less than a lifetime. Membership of our nation is still not defined by our families' generations of history on our land. According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, 28 per cent of us today were born overseas. That percentage has increased every year for the last 15 years. In fact, only 51 per cent of Australians were born here to two Australian parents. Among our Australian citizens today are representatives of more than 300 original nationalities. One in 20 of us nationally, and more in Queensland, were born in the United Kingdom. Many others were born in New Zealand, China, India, the Philippines or Vietnam. Two hundred thousand of us are from Italy, 180,000 from South Africa and 150,000 from Malaysia. In recent years, we've added to these numbers with compassion for those in the world's growing conflict zones. Our annual intake of humanitarian and refugee visas has risen this year from 13,750 to 16,750, and next year it will rise again to almost 19,000. This is in addition to the 12,000 Syrian refugees that the government has committed to take.

Nearly a third of us were not born here, while almost half of us are the children of one immigrant parent. We come from varied countries and diverse cultures from all over the world. Yet few, if any, countries with a democratic make-up like ours have our social harmony and our cultural integration. We boast that ours is the most successful multicultural society on earth. So what binds us? What is it that can bring us together and mould from this diversity a shared community and a common identity as an Australian? There are two things that unite us: the legal instrument of citizenship and a shared commitment to Australian values. We appreciate our common future through our common status as citizens, while we ensure the success of that future through our commitment to an Australian way of life. The two must go together, and both must be universally strong.

When it comes to the institution itself, since 1948 we've recognised that our shared way of life needs its own legal recognition. For almost 70 years, we have agreed that a system of citizenship is necessary to give form and focus to our sense of community. No-one today, I would suggest, would deny that Australian citizenship is crucial to our immigration system, to our representation overseas or to our sense of nationhood. However, to be effective in cementing our common identity, citizenship must be meaningful in itself to all Australians, both those who were born here and those who joined us later in life. It must have significance and integrity. It is a serious concern that, in the government's 2015 consultation, 64 per cent of respondents believed that Australian citizenship is undervalued. When it comes to our identities, perception is extremely important. When people do not believe that citizenship is meaningful to their fellow countrymen and countrywomen, it loses its power to bind us. In part, this bill is about repairing that perception and returning the unifying force to Australian citizenship.

In the consultation, people identified a range of reasons why they believe that citizenship is undervalued. Some identified that the rights and responsibilities of citizenship are taken for granted. Respondents said they felt that Australian citizenship was too easily won and that it was too open to those who want to game the system, getting the economic and legal benefits without making any substantive commitments to our country. While our people are happy to look upon new citizens as Australians just like them, they rightly expect those who hold citizenship to ensure that the term retains meaning by putting in the time and effort to become one of us.

With the rights of citizenship, however, there must come responsibilities. This bill will go a long way to making that a reality. The bill will ensure that all applicants for citizenship have a record of four years of permanent residency. Applicants will have four years to learn about life in our country and demonstrate the considered seriousness of their commitment to Australia. During those four years, the bill will also require that applicants demonstrate their active efforts to integrate into our society by sending their children to an Australian school, getting a job here and otherwise contributing to our community.

The bill will require them to speak English to a competent standard. How can an Australian citizenship bring us together when already more than one in five Australians do not speak English at home? This percentage has been rising since 2011. While people would never demand that all citizens speak English at all times, and nor should they, they rightly expect that they should be able to communicate successfully with all of their fellow Australians. That is one thing this bill will help to achieve.

Others in the consultation believed that citizenship was undervalued because of a fundamental contradiction that there are people in our country who hold Australian citizenship while maintaining allegiance to a culture or a way of life that explicitly rejects our values. I know that this is a concern to many of my constituents. Every week, I receive letters, emails or messages online which express local people's concern that the values of our society are being undermined by individuals who are permitted to become Australians while rejecting so many of the beliefs that we hold dear. I don't want to exaggerate the size of this problem. Most new Australians embrace our way of life and integrate well into our society. However, there are a minority who cling to views on issues like the role of women in society or the place of extreme religious interpretations in our institutions that most Australians would consider unacceptable. I will say more about this, but it is certainly the case that this reality undermines the perceived value of citizenship for those who do adhere to our values.

The bill will go a long way to repairing that perception by requiring all new Australians to take a pledge of allegiance to our country and to its people. Firstly, we will reassure all citizens that those that share their privilege have been required to think carefully about their allegiances and to commit to Australia. Secondly, by requiring all new Australians to sign a statement of values and demonstrate that they have lived in a manner consistent with those values, we will reassure all citizens that their country men and women have made a decision, a decisive commitment to what makes us all Australian. With the four-year period of residency as a prerequisite, we will be able to track an applicant's commitment to those values.

This bill will do a great deal to restore the integrity and the meaning of Australian citizenship. It will restore faith and confidence in what it means to be an Australian and ensure that this legal instrument can play its part in bringing us together and supporting our national identity. But this bill will do more than that. It will ensure that Australians believe in our citizenship.

The bill will also contribute, in itself, to ensuring that our community genuinely pulls together in upholding and promoting our shared Australian values. We are clear on what those core Australian values are. They are listed in an Australian values statement which is available on the Department of Immigration and Border Protection website and in their Life in Australia booklet. It is worth reading the relevant section of this statement. It is clear and succinct. This House, like our prospective citizens, would do well to know exactly what we are signing up to. It reads:

Apart from it being an extraordinarily lengthy sentence, who could argue that those are very important values that we should all share?

It also states:

Which of us would not support such a statement? Which of us could not sign that statement today? Most importantly for this debate, which of us could honestly say that Australia would not be a better place if every member of our society had the same commitment to those values? We can never guarantee that, but, when it comes to those from outside Australia that we welcome into our society, we have an opportunity to ensure that they are made aware of their responsibilities and that they have agreed to uphold them. This bill facilitates that opportunity.

It also requires applicants to match their words with their deeds. Not only will they have to sign the statement of Australian values but their conduct over their years of permanent residency will need to demonstrate their commitment to upholding them. Integration is more than sending your children to school and getting a job, though these are undoubtedly important. We cannot accept as Australian citizens those who use the privilege of being here to advocate for discrimination, for violence, or for oppression of others. In particular, we cannot allow those who have acted in direct contradiction of our values to become citizens. We cannot allow those who have committed domestic violence, engaged in the dreadful practice of female genital mutilation or become involved with organised crime to join us as Australians. These things would be specifically assessed by the department under this bill and would constitute grounds for rejecting an application for citizenship.

Today 80 per cent of eligible immigrants in Australia become citizens. Australian citizenship remains one of the world's most prized and sought after identities. That fact is a testament to the success of our society, but it is also a challenge. It is the responsibility of all Australians to preserve what it is that makes Australia fair. It is in particular the responsibility of those of us in this place, whose unique privilege it is to set the terms under which we accept new people into our community. Our citizenship system gives us an unparalleled tool to support the society that Australians want to be part of. It is the system of our togetherness and a means to promote it. This bill restores the significance and the integrity of our citizenship system. It will help us to preserve the Australia that we want, and I commend it to the House.

Darren Chester (Gippsland, National Party, Deputy Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Name names!

Kevin Hogan (Page, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise in support of the Australian Citizenship Legislation Amendment (Strengthening the Requirements for Australian Citizenship and Other Measures) Bill 2017. One of the primary roles of government is to provide a safe and secure country for our citizens. Citizenship is a privilege. It comes with responsibilities. You need to share our values. You need to celebrate our freedoms. You need to appreciate our way of life. And, if you don't, you are not welcome.

I'd like to go into what some of these values are, because they are described in the legislation. This bill is not, as the previous speaker said, about demeaning multicultural societies. This bill is about strengthening our multicultural society. We are a successful multicultural society—one of the best in the world. We all want to maintain that, and we want to celebrate people coming from everywhere to our country, but to do that successfully we have to have guidelines and values that are understood by every citizen in this country. I want to list them as they're listed in the legislation.

The first one is respect for the freedom and dignity of the individual. You might say, 'Of course,' but that isn't how all people think. When you look at the many battles, wars and disputes around the world, not all people think individual have a right to freedom and dignity. The second value is very important as well: freedom of religion. We are okay with anyone coming here and celebrating and practising the religion that they feel is right for them. But do not be fooled: there are many people, including some in this country, who believe that our country should follow the religion that they do and do not recognise the validity of other religions. That is not okay for a successful democracy either. Then there is commitment to the rule of law. We all have to adhere—even though we might not agree with it—to the very distinct separation of church and state in our country which contributes to the fabric of our very successful multicultural society. Every citizen in this country has to respect that we have laws administered by the state which may be different from the rules and laws of your own churches. Parliamentary democracy is one of the foundations of our successful multicultural society which we need everyone to respect. Equality of men and women is one of the foundations of the success of our nation, as is equality of opportunity for individuals regardless of their race, religion or ethnic background. Having English as our national language is an important unifying element of Australian society, and in the legislation there are parameters around that.

Applicants will need to demonstrate—which is obviously why there is a qualifying period—their integration into the Australian community in accordance with the values I have just spoken about. To do this, they would have to demonstrate that they have abided by our laws, are competent in the English language, are sending their children to school, are seeking employment when there is a capacity to do so—rather than relying on welfare—and are involved in wider community groups. One of the wonderfully unifying things about our country—and I would like to acknowledge this because it is a very important part of the fabric of our community—is the role that public education has played in our community. Public education has meant that people from all races and all walks of life have played in school grounds together and have been in classrooms together. This has been very important for first-generation Australians, and indeed second-generation Australians, as they assimilate into our country.

The measures contained in this bill will help us build on our success as a multicultural society. It will make sure that we are committed to both welcoming new Australians and making sure they make a positive contribution through the many opportunities that our country affords. We as a government are committed to maintaining strong public confidence and support for our migration and citizenship programs. We are proud of our heritage and our generosity as a nation. We look forward to welcoming new migrants—irrespective of race, religion, nationality or ethnic origin—who are prepared to embrace our Australian laws and values and seek to contribute to them. The Australian community expects that aspiring citizens will demonstrate their allegiance to our country, their commitment to live in accordance with our laws and their willingness to integrate into and become contributing members of our community.

In accordance with the announced measures, there will be an increase in the general residence requirement. An applicant for Australian citizenship will need to demonstrate a minimum of four years of permanent residence immediately prior to their application for citizenship, with a maximum of 12 months outside Australia over that period of time. This represents a change from the current requirement of a minimum of 12 months as a permanent resident. Strengthening this residency requirement is intended to support integration and facilitate a more thorough evaluation of a person's commitment to Australia, our values and adherence to our laws. It also brings Australia—I have some comparisons here that I will not go through now—much more in line with the general requirements of other nations. What we are proposing in this legislation is very similar to many other countries throughout the world.

The national consultation found:

A residence requirement in citizenship law is an objective measure of a person’s association with Australia. It also serves as a probationary period, so that a person’s word and deeds across this time can be considered should the person apply for Australian citizenship. Increasing the value and integrity of citizenship by changing the residence requirement from four years lawful stay to four years permanent residence is appropriate, …

Much has been said about the English language parameters. The English language is essential for economic participation and social cohesion. In 2016 the Productivity Commission highlighted the importance of English-language proficiency for integration and settlement outcomes. There is also strong public support to ensure aspiring citizens are fully able to participate in Australian life by speaking English, our national language. Obviously—it goes without saying—this will very much break down any isolation a person would have if they were not able to speak the English language.

Aspiring citizens are currently required to possess basic English. This is indirectly assessed when an applicant sits the citizenship test. Aspiring citizens will now be required to undertake a separate, upfront English-language test with an accredited provider and achieve a level of 'competent'. There will be exceptions for applicants, such as for applicants over 60 years of age or under 16 years of age at the time they apply for citizenship, or for those with an enduring or permanent mental or physical incapacity. There will be other exemptions from testing, such as are currently the case for skilled migration assessments and for those applicants who have undertaken specified English-language studies at a recognised Australian education institution.

They will be required to sign an Australian values statement in order to make an application for citizenship. Applicants will be required to make an undertaking to integrate into and to contribute to the Australian community and, as I listed before, its values and the demonstration of those values. The bill provides that the minister may determine changes to the text and requirements in relation the Australian value statement by legislative instrument. The values base will also be added to the citizenship test.

The Department of Immigration and Border Protection will assess the information based on documents provided as part of an aspiring citizen's application, and may also asses this at interview. In addition to existing police checks which are undertaken as part of an application for citizenship, an application will also be assessed for specified conduct that is inconsistent with Australian values, such as domestic or family violence, criminality and any involvement in gangs or organised crime.

The pledge will be extended to all streams of citizenship by application, including citizenship by descent, adoption and resumption. Applicants over 16 years of age will need to make the pledge before they can become a citizen. Applicants for citizenship by conferral on the grounds of being born to a former citizen or under stateless provisions will no longer be exempt from making the pledge. Exemptions will include permanent or enduring physical or mental incapacity. It will also refer to allegiance to Australia. The government has passed legislation separately to provide for the loss of citizenship for dual nationals who betray their allegiance through involvement in terrorist related activity.

Consistent with measures introduced in the last parliament, the bill contains additional measures to improve the integrity of the citizenship program. Currently, only aspiring citizens aged 18 years and over are required to meet the good character requirement, which involves criminal history checks. There is a small minority of people under 18 who clearly do not meet community expectations of good character and who have been involved in serious or violent crimes, such as gang violence. The bill amends these provisions to require all applicants, including those under 18, to be of good character. The bill also amendments the offence provisions to reflect modern sentencing practices, including where a person is subject to a court order, or for home detention or where they have not been sentenced to prison but are nonetheless under obligations to a court.

The bill provides that approval must be cancelled if the minister is no longer satisfied of the applicant's identity or they have become a risk to national security. The minister may also cancel approval if satisfied that the person no longer meets other eligibility requirements: The bill extends the maximum period of time when the minister can delay an applicant making a pledge of allegiance from 12 months to two years to better align with time frames for some complex investigations.

The bill provides for the revocation of citizenship where a person became a citizen as a result of fraud or misrepresentation. The minister must be satisfied that it would be contrary to the public interest for the person to remain a citizen, while law enforcement agencies, for a range of reasons, may not be in a position to prosecute all forms of fraud and misrepresentation of the citizenship process. The government is committed to providing the highest levels of integrity where possible. Each person being considered for revocation of their Australian citizenship would be given natural justice before the minister makes a decision. The decision to revoke citizenship on these grounds would of course be open to judicial review.

The act provides that a person is deemed never to have been an Australian citizen where they attained citizenship by descent but were later found not have had an Australian parent at the time of birth. There have been difficult cases in recent times in relation to this. There have been people who are registered as Australian citizens by descent and thought all their lives that they were Australian but found later in life they were not eligible in the first place and consequently were deemed never to have been a citizen. The proposed amendments repeal the operational law provision and insert a discretionary power. This will allow the circumstances of a particular case to be taken into account when deciding if citizenship by descent should be revoked.

Children acquire citizenship automatically under the current act if they are born in Australia to an Australian citizen or permanent resident parent or if they are ordinarily a resident in Australia until their 10th birthday. The bill specifies that automatic acquisition of citizenship on a person's 10th birthday applies to those persons who have maintained lawful residence in Australia throughout the 10 years, including maintaining the right to return if they travel outside Australia during those years. These amendments will not affect access to citizenship for children born in Australia to New Zealand citizens or for children who are stateless. The changes also remove the automatic acquisition of citizenship on the 10th birthday of a child born to a parent with diplomatic or consular privileges and immunities.

The provision of citizenship for children found abandoned in Australia is also amended to be consistent with the original policy intent, which is to reflect the international obligations under the 1961 Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness. It also amends the definitions of 'spouse' and 'de facto partner' to be consistent with the Migration Act and to reflect the policy position that the relationship between the applicant and the Australian citizen spouse or partner must be continuing.

In summary, I commend this bill to the House.

Tanya Plibersek (Sydney, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

():

From this time forward

I pledge my loyalty to Australia and its people,

whose democratic beliefs I share,

whose rights and liberties I respect, and

whose laws I will uphold and obey.

At every citizenship ceremony I attend I say those words proudly along with our new citizens. It really never gets old for me, because, like a lot of children of migrants, I am very alive to the sliding doors alternative: the life that I would have had if my parents hadn't left behind everything that was familiar to them and taken the greatest gamble of all.

Like most children of migrants, I'm also acutely aware of the challenges that my parents overcame, the sacrifices they made and the fact that they did all of that to give their children a better life. I love saying our citizenship pledge, because it is such an elegant reminder of what is expected of us, what it takes for me to repay this country for all that I've been given. It remind me of my duty to value and protect our precious democracy—not to take it for granted but to be an active participant in it. It reminds me that I need to respect the rights and liberties of others and to understand that every one of us is equal. It renews my commitment to fight against sexism, against racism and against homophobia—indeed, to fight against discrimination of any kind. It reminds me, of course, that I need to obey the law. But, more than this, it reminds me that I need to work hard to ensure that our legal system itself is robust. I need to respect the separation of powers. I need to ensure that all Australians have access to justice, not only those who can afford to pay.

I love saying the pledge at citizenship ceremonies because those of us who were born here should not take our great good fortune for granted. In 2011, in a speech at the Sydney Institute, I suggested that Australian school children should learn this citizenship pledge at school and say it at assemblies as American children do with the pledge of allegiance, because to be Australian, to be born here or to be brought here, and to grow up here, in one of the most favoured nations on earth, all you really need to do are three things. No doubt, in this place, from those on the other side, we will hear all sorts of nonsense about what Australian values really are and what a real Australian is like and how people should prove their loyalty to this country. I thought it was interesting to hear the Prime Minister open this debate some months ago by calling on newcomers to join us as Australian patriots. Apparently, not knowing that Donald Bradman's batting average was 99.94 is as bad as burning the flag or something. But it is actually not more complicated than this: participate in our democracy, respect the rights of others and obey the law. It is a quite remarkable return on investment. We couldn't be luckier. We couldn't be prouder to be Australians. And these three things that are expected of us give us a remarkable return.

Much of the debate in this place has been around the new English language requirements of this bill. There is absolutely no doubt that learning English is vital. It is vital for economic and social participation. Learning English means being able to work. It is the best protection against vulnerability and isolation. It enables participation outside of one's language group or community and intercourse at all levels of society. It protects against exploitation. It protects against loneliness. It connects older migrants with younger generations from their own community and the broader Australian community who were born here and perhaps don't speak the language of their parents and grandparents. It makes work, volunteering, friendship with your neighbours and community engagement possible.

But this bill goes too far in setting that standard at IELTS 6—university-level English. Requiring migrants to learn university-level written English is too high a bar to jump before people can become citizens. Had this bar been in place, we would have lost many great Australian citizens who have gone on to make a phenomenal contribution to our Australian society. Frank Lowy has often spoken about the fact that he had no English when he came to Australia. He left school at 14 and no doubt would've failed this test had he been asked to sit it before he became an Australian citizen. John Kaldor had his education interrupted by World War II and, instead of going to school, as a refugee in France he spent his days with his mother visiting Paris's galleries and museums, educating himself and developing a lifelong love of art that has made him one of Australia's most generous art philanthropists.

My own parents, like most postwar migrants and refugees from Europe, spoke no English when they got here. And, in those days, settlement services did not really run to much. My father learnt English at work, although that was not that easy because most of his colleagues who were working on the Parkes to Broken Hill railway or, later on, on the Snowy scheme did not speak much English either when they arrived here. My mother took even longer to learn English than my dad because, after her first few years here, working in factories or working as a domestic, she was at home raising a family. My mum learnt English from the patient, kind women who were her neighbours, she learnt it at the school gate and, when we eventually got a television, she learnt it from the television too. My parents put up with people saying to them, when they were quietly speaking Slovenian to one another on the train, 'Speak English here!'

Of course people who live here should learn English. The best way we can make that happen is to make sure that each one of us extends the hand of friendship in the same way that our neighbours in Carvers Road did. The best way the government can do its bit is to properly fund adult migrant English services. This is precisely the opposite of what those opposite are doing. The government's introduced contestability of funding in the Adult Migrant English Program which has meant that the traditional provider, the Adult Migrant English Service has lost much of its work. Of course, some of the funding will go to private providers, but the difference is that the Adult Migrant English Service had run its program for 60 years, assisted by an extensive network of volunteers. It was not just about learning English; it was about helping migrants and refugees adjust to their new life in Australia. This means that at a time when we are actually increasing the English language requirements the traditional provider is losing its funding and hundreds of English language teachers are losing their jobs.

The new test obviously does not affect people from English-speaking countries, so it particularly discriminates and makes citizenship harder for people from countries where English is not the first language spoken. The thing that particularly worries me about this is that where you have a family that migrates together and the dad finds work quickly and practises his English every day at work whilst the mother is at home raising children, it particularly discriminates against women. We have seen that for generations of women in Australia.

In fact, what's interesting about setting the English language bar at this level is that it would mean around 13 per cent of Australians would not actually pass this test. According to the Survey of Adult Skills published by the OECD in 2013, some 12.6 per cent of adults in Australia attained only level 1 or below in literacy proficiency in a different test to the IELTS test. Are we really saying that those people also aren't good Australian citizens?

How are new migrants supposed to get a university-level English proficiency with just 510 hours of English language support provided by the government? We have seen Christine Mooney, who has taught new migrants English as an additional language for nine years in Heidelberg West, quoted in the ABC's Fact Check website as saying:

To reach a standard of English equivalent to IELTS six within the 510 hours of tuition provided by the Government to new migrants, an applicant would probably have to be either a skilled migrant or highly motivated.

Many new migrants, especially women who were refugees escaping persecution, might struggle to reach a "competent" level of English without having to undertake further paid tuition.

My dad learnt something new every day. He brought me up and taught me that it was important to learn something new every day. His favourite magazine was New Scientist. His favourite radio broadcaster was the great Australian astronomer Professor Fred Watson. When the Chinese government sent out the terracotta warriors for the first time, we queued for two or three hours for our family to see them. Every Sunday morning he woke me up playing classical music. He took us to the opera. My father left school very early. His education was disrupted by the war. He completed his plumbing apprenticeship in Austria, and he had to do all of that again when he came to Australia because his qualifications were not recognised here. It was the same for my mum. Her education was interrupted by the war, but she learnt Italian in six months when she lived in Italy. She learnt English when she came here too but, like I said, more slowly than my dad did because she was at home, raising a family, and not interacting at work every day.

I don't know whether either of them would have passed a university-written English language test, but you could not find more conscientious, hardworking, honest, law-abiding Australian citizens than my parents. For their gratitude, loyalty and love of their new home, I think this country was lucky to get them too, and millions like them. Of all that post-war migration from southern Europe—Greece, Italy, Yugoslavia—how many of those people would have passed this test? Yet they have raised their families here to be great Australian citizens. All they wanted to do was work hard, pay their taxes and raise their families in safety and peace.

I don't think my mother could have written an essay in English, but she can communicate in six different languages. She couldn't write an essay in English, but she's raised three kids who became a lawyer, a geologist and a member of parliament—and, more importantly, honest, hardworking members of our community. She couldn't write an essay in English, but the neighbour's children she looked after when we were growing up still visit her 40 years later. The teenagers who made our home their second home—because they could not talk to their own parents—still bring their children to visit.

My parents couldn't write an essay in English, but they were the first ones to take a meal around to someone's house if they were sick or to mow their lawn or do their shopping. My parents were the ones the neighbours came to talk to if their marriages were in trouble. They were the ones the teenagers came to talk to when they couldn't talk to their own parents. My parents couldn't write an essay in English, but my father worked six or seven days a week. They went to church, looked after their family and neighbours and volunteered. How can this government say my parents and millions like them are not good Australian citizens and would not make good Australian citizens? By all means, let's encourage people to learn English. But let's also invest in English language classes and settlement services. More importantly, let's be good neighbours to one another. Let's be kind and extend the hand of friendship.

As for people who break the law, by all means let's make it impossible for them to ever become Australian citizens. But don't forget that one in three Australian women experiences domestic violence in her lifetime. The proposition that adding a couple of questions to the immigration test is going to fix that is ludicrous.

I want to return, in conclusion, to the words of the pledge. We ask new citizens to participate in our democracy, respect the rights of others and obey the law. Every Australian should do this. Those of us who've had the privilege of serving in this place have an extra duty. It's our responsibility as the elected representatives of the people of this nation to make the laws that we ask our fellow citizens to uphold and obey. And it's our duty to make sure that those laws reflect our values as Australian citizens. This bill fails that test.

Nicolle Flint (Boothby, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm sure that everyone in this place and the other place would agree that attending citizenship ceremonies in your electorate is one of the most fulfilling parts of being a parliamentarian. And one of the most special times of year to do this, of course, is on Australia Day. I attended three separate ceremonies on Australia Day, convened by the cities of Mitcham, Marion and Onkaparinga, and I have attended many more since. I was particularly delighted to be there when my wonderful next door neighbour, a young South African family of four, became citizens earlier this year. They make a wonderful contribution to our sporting community in South Australia. As I can personally attest, they are lovely, community-minded people who help to make our nation a better place.

When I am at citizenship ceremonies, I like to take the opportunity to encourage people to think about their contribution to our nation when they formally become citizens. I see it as a chance for people to reflect on what they might do for Australia—to have a fresh start, in a sense, and reassess what they are doing for our nation—and to celebrate the wonderful achievement that is Australian citizenship. This can take many forms—from simply exercising their democratic right to vote at local, state and federal government elections through to working harder than ever to serve our community by, for example, volunteering, which helps to keep our nation great and enhance our social fabric.

As we say in our national anthem:

For those who've come across the seas

We've boundless plains to share …

However, it is a great privilege to be granted Australian citizenship and it is, therefore, right that we ensure that those seeking citizenship believe in and uphold our values. Australian citizenship bestows great privileges and is a common bond uniting us all, whether we are born here or have migrated to Australia. That common bond comes with a commitment to our country and to our people. Membership to our diverse Australian family should be granted to those who support our values, respect our laws and work hard by integrating and contributing to make Australia an even better nation.

I want to share one wonderful migrant's story. One of my constituents, a lady who is now in her 80s, came here post-World War II, when she was in her teens. Her family were fleeing Europe after the war. They were sent to remote Western Australia, where their job was to clean the local pub. She spoke to me about it at length, and it sounded like it was a pretty challenging existence. It would have been an enormous culture shock for her and her family. She was not afforded the opportunity for further education that she had expected she would undertake in pre-war Europe. Despite this, she could not have been more proud to be an Australian. She held no grudges that her life hadn't turned out in the manner in which she might have expected it would have if she'd remained in Europe and if the war hadn't occurred. She was just so grateful to live in such a peaceful, safe, democratic nation. She and her husband worked very hard, raised their kids and are still, in their late 80s and early 90s, volunteering for a range of organisations.

These are the sorts of reasons why we are one of the most successful multicultural nations in the world. We should all be very proud of that. We are an immigrant nation, and we invite over 130,000 people from over 210 countries each year to officially take part in our society that so many generations have worked tirelessly to build. As we know, we were all immigrants once. My maternal grandmother's family settled in South Australia in 1838, two years after its settlement. My paternal grandfather's family arrived two years later, in 1840. We have been in South Australia a long time. My other ancestors arrived in the late 1800s. Australia has welcomed millions of people since then in similar ways. In fact, since 1949 more than five million migrants have become part of our national story; they have contributed to and enriched our Australian life.

But it is a privilege to become an Australian citizen, and one which comes with a responsibility to our shared values that cannot and must not be taken lightly. This bill has been introduced to strengthen the institution of Australian citizenship. It is integral that a priority is placed on respect for Australian values and on demonstrating an ability and a willingness to integrate into our society. This is in the national interest and, critically, it's for the benefit of these aspiring citizens. Reinforcing the integrity of the institution of citizenship has been on the government's agenda for some time. In 2015, Minister Fierravanti-Wells and the Hon. Philip Ruddock launched a national consultation on citizenship. This bill reflects that good work and the community sentiment that it contained.

In our ever-changing and increasingly dangerous world, we must ensure our current hard-working Australians are kept safe and secure. This is one of the most fundamental roles that the federal government has. We also want to ensure that people are going to settle in and integrate well in our society when they come here and when they are granted citizenship. Currently the law requires a basic level of English; however, there is no mechanism for direct assessment. This improvement to the existing requirement is in line with the government's 2016 Productivity Commission report, which highlighted the importance of English language proficiency to integration for migrants to achieve settlement outcomes. The recent national consultation on citizenship also indicated strong support for these changes. It should come as no surprise that being able to speak the common tongue of a nation, our national language, is a crucial part of being a part of it. It's shameful these requirements have been overstated by the opposition, which claim that a university level of competency is required to pass. In typical Labor fashion, they are just trying to scare the community and put fear into people's minds. Perhaps it could be that the opposition, in fact, needs to brush up on their reading skills themselves and are confusing the academic and general streams of the international English language testing system. It is level 6 of the general stream that is required. That level focuses on basic survival skills in broad social and workplace contexts, which I do not think is unreasonable. Without that level, we are just setting up new migrants, new Australians, to fail or at least to have a really tough time integrating.

Of course, it is not surprising that Labor's mantra these days is to never let good policy get in the way of fear mongering and scaring the community. It is unfortunate because they have come a along way from where they were 10 years ago when the Manager of Opposition Business was quoted in the Daily Telegraph as saying, 'We need stricter English language requirements …' Back then, the member for Watson believed so firmly in what we are now doing that Prime Minister John Howard received a compliment from the senior Labor member who said his focus on the need for people living in Australia to try to learn English was spot-on.

Similarly, on the values test we are introducing, the Labor member for Watson lamented in 2006, 'Why is it that no-one is asked to commit to respecting Australian values and abiding by Australian laws?' Later, 'Anyone who has a problem signing that should not be allowed here.' It is no wonder why the member for Watson was in this place putting on quite a display this morning. We on this side, on the other hand, stand by our Australian values, and I support the Australian values statement, which requires applicants to make an undertaking to integrate into and contribute to the Australian community in accordance with Australian values.

Values based questions will also be added to the citizenship test. The current Australian values statement includes an understanding of these really important values: respect for the freedom and dignity of the individual; freedom of religion; commitment to the rule of law; parliamentary democracy; the equality of men and women; equal opportunity for individuals regardless of their race, religion or ethnic background; and English language as the national language and an important unifying element of Australian society. Labor have done a fair bit of backtracking based on their previous statements and the words that we have heard here today in the chamber. In fact, Labor have come a long way since April of this year, when the Leader of the Opposition 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.' It is unfortunate to see those opposite are pitted against the broader Australian community on these changes and, in fact, against the government as well. By contrast, the government's amendments will enhance and strengthen the fabric of Australian society. I look forward to continuing to welcome new Australian citizens into our national family with the knowledge that we are making that family tighter and more integrated than ever.

In summary, it is a great privilege to be granted Australian citizenship and it is, therefore, right that we ensure those seeking citizenship believe in and uphold our Australian values. If there is one fundamental role we have in this place, it is to keep our great nation the peaceful, respectful and free place that it is. It is our duty to keep Australians safe and secure. This bill will help make sure this is the case by ensuring that every single person we grant the great privilege of citizenship to believes in our Australian values.

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

Each month, I attend at least one citizenship ceremony in my electorate. At those ceremonies, I welcome and congratulate our new citizens on taking up citizenship in one of the best parts of one of the best countries in the world. Those new citizens are living out what we all profess is part of the Australian national anthem—that is, for those who have come across the seas, we have boundless plains to share. Multiculturalism is an approach to building our Australian society together, for we recognise and celebrate we are all better off by growing our nation's diversity, and each new citizen is a critical element of that. But multiculturalism is more than simply a diverse population and a non-discriminatory immigration policy.

In Australia, multiculturalism is underpinned by respect for traditional Australian values already. Everyone is invited to continue to celebrate their cultures within a broader culture of freedom but, more importantly, with respect. Respect for each other, respect for freedom, respect for the rule of law. Multiculturalism, though, is about inviting each and every individual member of society to be everything that they can be, as well as supporting all of those and each new arrival in overcoming whatever obstacles they face as they adjust to a new country and society, allowing them to flourish as individuals and our country to flourish as a consequence, because a truly robust, liberal society is a multicultural society.

The Australian brand of multiculturalism is also centred on the concept of citizenship. A pledge of commitment is part of that citizenship; it is part of the citizenship ceremonies that I attend and it is required in order for our new citizens to enjoy the full benefits of Australian society. They do that by pledging loyalty to Australia and its people. Pledging to share our democratic beliefs. Pledging to respect our rights and liberties and pledging to uphold and obey our laws. So it has long been the case that everyone who wants to live in Australia and become an Australian citizen signs up to our laws and democratic values. The Labor Party and I are in favour of maintaining this status quo. This seems to have escaped the member for Boothby as part of her last contribution to this debate. I hold a number of concerns in respect of this legislation that the government now brings forward. I have concerns in relation to its increase in the general residence requirement. The establishment of a university-level English language test and amending the Australian values statement and pledge of commitment to put greater focus on integration into the Australian community.

To turn to the four years extension of time that will now be required of people seeking citizenship, the idea of increasing the general residence requirement for new Australians is actually counterintuitive to the express objects that the government has put forward. If someone wants to become an Australian citizen and is ready and willing to take the pledge of commitment that is citizenship, then why should we make them wait even longer? This would only serve to further isolate migrants to Australia. This is something that the bill is supposed to be opposed to. To make things worse, it will make Australia an even less attractive venue for migrants that we are trying to attract to Australia in the first place because they will have to wait even longer to become fully active participants in our society, the thing that we actually want them to do.

The most common pathway to citizenship in Australia is through employment-sponsored migration visas. In the past, a person would only have to hold permanent residence for two years before being able to then apply for citizenship. But now we are going to add on an additional four years to the process of applying for citizenship under the changes being put forward by the government today. This is, in reality, denying migrants the opportunity of being able to take up their full position in the Australian community that we so want.

This discussion of integration is an important one, because one of the contributors to this debate before mentioned a word that does actually make me shudder; it is 'assimilation'. Assimilation is exactly the opposite of all the things I just mentioned as being the strengths of our multicultural society. We do not want to have a bland, vanilla, homogenous society in this country. What has made this society great has been the diversity that has been created by the diverse backgrounds and cultures that have come in through our multicultural society. We are not The Borg. It is not a system of 'You must assimilate or else'.

We must ensure we have an integrated, well-functioning society, most definitely, but delaying the capacity for people to take up their full citizenship in this country only serves to make that harder. Part of what I want to make clear here today is that we need to make sure that, when people talk about integration, they are not talking about assimilation. We do not want to be that bland country. We do not want to cast out those that can make our country even better than it is today by only accepting a narrow prism of people into this country and making everybody the same. I could probably go on for hours about the philosophical basis for that assertion, but I won't bore my colleagues on this side, though sometimes I think those on the other would be blessed by reading some of that material. But I go on.

One of the other ridiculous aspects of this legislation is the change to the level of the English proficiency test. I read an article that was published yesterday, which I think a number of others in this chamber probably read as well. It was about an Irish veterinarian who had applied for permanent residency in Australia. She is not only a fully-qualified vet but has a double major in history and politics, something for which I have immense respect. As part of the process of applying for permanent residency—so this is even before citizenship—she was required to complete a mandatory test involving writing, reading and speaking, with the oral section scored by voice-recognition technology. When this university-educated vet completed the test, she was told she had a score of 74 points. I think that would get her a distinction in university, actually, but that was below the 79 points required for the residency visa. So Louise now faces a lengthy wait before she can re-sit the test and is considering applying for a more expensive visa in order to avoid having her current skilled migrant visa run out before she is granted a new visa. I think that this story really highlights just how ridiculous is the test that has been proposed by the government for citizenship in this law, because this is not about making sure that people who wish to become citizens of this country can integrate and function well; this is about setting a standard that is almost exceptionally difficult to pass.

Peter Khalil (Wills, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Deliberately?

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

It is deliberately hard. They are setting a standard that is deliberately hard to pass. In fact, it is a standard that, I would dare say, the majority of people in this chamber and those in the other place would have great difficulty in trying to pass, and we are the representatives of the Australian democracy. As we have heard from many contributions from this side of the House, and, in particular, the contribution made by the member for Sydney just a few moments ago, we should just think about what impact that level of snobbery, the setting of a standard that is so high, will have on our country. It would have excluded many people who we know have made a lasting positive contribution to our communities, and not necessarily those who went on to great things in the parliaments of our nation or as business leaders, though there are many examples of that. It would have excluded many who came into my area around Armidale and in the surrounding suburbs in the electorate of Burt—people who came out after the Second World War, lived in migrant camps and went and worked on the orchards, and who ended up buying those orchards and becoming employers of people who needed work during downturns in our local economy. They learnt a sufficiency of English. They worked their guts out to make sure their children could have a better life than the one that they had. They made sure that their children were at school; they made sure that they were getting a good education. And those people were critical parts of our community. They joined local government councils. They were members of Rotary. They would come and pay my grandfather, who was a lawyer, in oranges that they grew in their orchards, because that was all they had. They were the bedrock of our community. They are the exemplars of exactly what we want people in our community to be—people who would come together and work together and go to church together, who would join community organisations and help each other out when they needed it. They could communicate with each other. Some of them spoke broken English, but they all had conversational English; they understood what they were talking about. They didn't sit university exams—though many of their children did—but they were able to fully participate. They integrated into our society here. They are our society here. They are the people of Australia. On the point of citizenship, when we talk about the pledge, and the people that we are having join our society here: you want to become a full member of our society? Well, that's our society that you are pledging to join. So it seems completely antithetical to set a test that is so hard and so difficult that you would be actually excluding people like those who have made Australia great in the first place.

It has to be said that the test is removing us from a test—the test that we've been using to date, which has actually worked and has made our society the great society that it is now.

The legislation also establishes a pledge of allegiance for prospective citizens, who would be required to prove that they hold Australian values and have integrated into society. It is the pledge which, as I mentioned before, they all have to make when taking up Australian citizenship in the first place.

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

Order! The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate may be resumed at a later hour. The member for Burt will be given an opportunity at that time to continue his contribution.