Matt Keogh (Burt, Australian Labor Party) Share 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.

See this speech in context