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?
A government member interjecting—
Mr DICK: 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
- 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—
Mr DICK: 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.
