Tony Zappia (Makin, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Manufacturing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In 1948, Immigration Minister Arthur Calwell, bringing into parliament the Nationality and Citizenship Act, stated:

When this bill becomes an act … It will symbolize not only our own pride in Australia but also our willingness to offer a share in our future to the new Australians we are seeking in such, vast numbers. … My aim, and the aim of the Government, will be to make the word "Australian" mean all that it truly stands for to every member of our community. We will try to teach the children that they are fortunate to be British, and additionally fortunate to be Australian. We want to … encourage our young but very vigorous traditions of mateship, cooperation, and a fair deal for everybody.

Since that time, some 7.5 million people have come to Australia from overseas. Of those eligible, around 80 per cent have taken up Australian citizenship. That means that one in five people eligible to become Australian citizens have chosen not to do so. My understanding is that currently around one million eligible people have not pursued Australian citizenship—the figure may be higher. I know that for many the barrier is the current citizenship test.

Now, the Turnbull government wants to make it even more difficult for them by bringing in a tougher English competency test and a four year permanent residency requirement. The government's rhetoric in support of a four year residency requirement has also been characterised by a deliberate misrepresentation of the situation. Applicants are already required to have lawfully been in Australia for four years to qualify for Australian citizenship, with one of those years as a permanent resident. Under the changes, the requirement will be that an applicant must be a permanent resident for all of the four years.

If a person has been living, working or studying in Australia for four years, the category of visa will not make any difference to that person's understanding of Australia and its values. Furthermore, what does it mean to be Australian and what are the values which define us that are commonly referred to? The Australian citizenship pledge does not mention values. Values is a term that is not defined and which all people have a different view about.

Values also change. The non-British migrants who came to Australia immediately after World War II did not have to pass a citizenship test or an English literacy test. I believe most would probably have failed today's test if they had to sit for it. It was not their ability to speak English or their knowledge of Australian affairs that made them good citizens but their commitment to Australia and its future. Half a century later many can still barely speak English and could not pass a citizenship test, but they are Australian through and through.

Those people became model citizens, and the Prime Minister and others boast about Australia's successful immigration story. Last week the Prime Minister stated:

We are the most successful multicultural society in the world.

So if Australia is such a stand-out model of multiculturalism, why change the road to citizenship? It could reasonably be argued that this legislation is directly at odds with the widely held Australian value of a fair go or the fair deal Arthur Calwell referred to in 1948. There is nothing fair about a newcomer to Australia being required to pass an English language test that most other Australians would very likely have difficulty with or that raises the bar when compared with the citizenship test that applied to earlier citizenship applicants. Nor does passing such a test prove anything other than a person's literacy competency.

Even more glaring in the proposal is the absence of any evidence that the existing citizenship test is inadequate or that national security concerns have resulted because of it. In my view the critical character test assessment should be at the point of entry—that is, when an entry visa of any type is granted, and more particularly when a permanent residency visa is granted. That is when the screening is critical and the test should be robust. Under the proposed changes a person can come here, be granted permanent residency, work and pay taxes, but cannot vote or be granted an Australian passport unless they pass a competency test—not a loyalty test but a competency test. Citizenship arises from the swearing of an oath or affirmation of allegiance. It is a step new citizens choose to take. As Sir Peter Hollingworth stated:

The swearing of an oath goes right to the heart of human belief. To take an oath is to highlight the solemn seriousness, power and efficacy with which a person's own word becomes endowed.

Whether that oath is taken one year or 10 years after arrival does not alter the solemnity that Sir Peter Hollingworth refers to.

Commitment and allegiance cannot be legislated—they come from within. Raising the bar to a level which will preclude people from becoming an Australian citizen will simply cause resentment rather than create a spirit of goodwill, mateship, cooperation and loyalty towards their new homeland. It is completely contrary to Arthur Calwell's purpose in introducing the Australian Citizenship Act.