Andrew Hastie (Canning, Liberal Party) Share 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.

See this speech in context