Subjects: Strengthening Citizenship Requirements; Queen's Birthday Honours.
E&EO…………………………………………………………………………………………..
PETER VAN ONSELEN:
Well, joining me now, as promised off the top of the programme, is the Immigration Minister Peter Dutton live from Canberra. Thank you very much for your company.
PETER DUTTON:
Pleasure, Peter. Thank you.
PETER VAN ONSELEN:
Now, I want to talk to you about these new citizenship laws and the powers around what you'll be able to do in relation to overruling the Administrative Tribunal and so forth.
But, just quickly first, Ken Wyatt, last night he made some comments about Pauline Hanson's idea around internships which seem to suggest that they could be considered as an option of last resort. Do you concur with him about that?
PETER DUTTON:
Well, not to correct you, but there's a big difference between internships and internment, so …
PETER VAN ONSELEN:
…sorry, internments…
PETER DUTTON:
So, look, I saw Ken's comments. I think the point that Ken was making was that the Government needs to consider every option. We need to do whatever we can to keep Australians safe and I think that's what the public expect as well.
But there is a lot that the Government's doing that the Prime Minister announced last week around the default position in relation to parole and bail, around those people that might have terrorist backgrounds or links to terrorist organisations.
Our government, obviously, is not going to be involved in interning people, but there is an arrangement where, for example …
PETER VAN ONSELEN:
…not even as a last resort….?
PETER DUTTON:
Well, for example, in Queensland at the moment – and the Prime Minister has modelled his announcement off this in relation to post-detention sentencing – in Queensland, there is the ability for serious offenders – sexual offenders – to be kept in detention post their period of incarceration.
So, the reality is that that already happens and if it applies there, why shouldn't it apply to people that are threatening to, you know, cause mass casualty events? That was the point the Prime Minister's made out of his earlier COAG discussions.
So, I think there's a debate to be had here, but the thought of rounding people up as might have happened during the course of the Second World War, or otherwise, is not something that our Government's going to be involved in.
But equally, we need to deal with the risk as it presents in the community and we need to work within the law, within the judicial system to make sure that we minimise and neutralise that threat as best we can.
PETER VAN ONSELEN:
Can I ask you about some of these citizenship law changes that are being looked at, in particular, the new law that would allow you to set aside controversial Administrative Appeals Tribunal decisions?
These are some decisions that up until now have allowed, remarkably as I hear this, everyone from rapists to violent organised crime bosses to be able to remain in Australia. What is involved in this process that would give you that ability, which quite frankly, why haven't you had so far?
PETER DUTTON:
Well, Peter, it's a fair question and it is an upgrade, an updating, a modernisation of our citizenship laws. And look, frankly, I think it reflects the modern situation that we face, it also reflects community expectation.
So, at the moment and for a long period, there has been the power within the Migration Act for the Minister of the day to substitute a decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal in relation to visa holders, but there has been an anomaly where that can't be the case where somebody has appealed against a rejection of their citizenship application.
So, essentially we are aligning those two. I think it is overdue, but it won't pass through the Senate unless we can get Labor's support.
So that's the key objective for this week to speak with the Labor Party, they've already had the briefing in relation to many of these matters and once they see the legislation this week, they can ask questions.
PETER VAN ONSELEN:
What's the response you've had from them so far?
PETER DUTTON:
Well, initially from Bill Shorten – and this is back in April – there was lukewarm, but nonetheless, an equivocal, but nonetheless, there was a receptive response, I suppose.
The difficulty for Mr Shorten is that many of the members of the Left of the organisation, of the Labor Party and caucus, have come out against even changing the English language requirement or any suggestion of people having to adhere to Australian values.
So, I think it is an opportunity for Mr Shorten to show some leadership here and hopefully sooner than later, because as we saw with their policy on boats and border protection, if the Left dominates the ground here then it is difficult for the Government to implement a policy because we need the support of the Labor Party and the Senate to get this through.
PETER VAN ONSELEN:
When you talk about a tougher Australian values test, what sort of tougher criteria would that include?
PETER DUTTON:
Well, for example, at the moment the permanent residency requirement before somebody can make an application for citizenship is only 12 months, we propose to extend that out to four years, bearing in mind that other comparable countries are out as far as eight years.
So, we think that's a reasonable period. But we don't want just a multiple choice test at a point in time at the end of that 12 months or at the end of that four years, as it will be, to determine whether people can answer the right question - the right A, B, C or D in the multiple choice that's put before them.
We want to have a look at people over the course of that four year period and determine whether or not, for example, somebody of working age with a capacity to work has been working or whether they have been on welfare for the whole time. For example, with a …
PETER VAN ONSELEN:
…will there be any leniency, Minister - does it have to be a full four years?
PETER DUTTON:
Yes it does. And as I say, in some countries it's eight years. I think we've struck a reasonable balance here with four years and we'll work people, some people that you meet at citizenship ceremonies have been here for, you know, 20, 30 40 years before they make application for citizenship.
The reason I think it's important is that it gives us the opportunity and it gives the applicant the opportunity to demonstrate that somebody has abided by Australian laws that, for example, they're not perpetrators of domestic violence, that they're not involved in criminal activity, that their kids aren't involved in gang violence.
There are number of reasons why we would want to have a longer look at somebody, because once somebody becomes an Australian citizen – as we see with the fighters who are off in Syria at the moment, people say to me, well why do you let them back in? Well, once someone becomes an Australian citizen they get the full protection of the Australian law, the Constitution; they get the benefit of welfare and education, health systems, et cetera.
So, I want to make sure that, as has been the case in years past, the 99 per cent of people who do the right thing, we can bump that up even further. But I don't want the 1 per cent bad element getting through.
PETER VAN ONSELEN:
So, I get that, you know, it'll be longer, go from one year to four years before a permanent resident can become an Australian citizen - fair enough – commensurate to other countries, not as tough as some.
What else, though, in terms of this values test, I mean, is this an actual exam style test? What sort of things will toughen up a values test before you can become an Australian citizen?
PETER DUTTON:
Well, it'll be both. So at the moment, as I say, people need to sit their citizenship test, they can fail it as many times as they want, some people are sitting it, you know, 20 and 30 times before they get through and it's a..…
PETER VAN ONSELEN:
…why is that allowed…?
PETER DUTTON:
…Well, that's the way the current system operates and I think…..[inaudible] ….
PETER VAN ONSELEN:
…you're not going to retain that, are you, surely?.....
PETER DUTTON:
No. So, we're saying that people will have to sit out for two years if they've failed on several occasions and I think that's fair.
So, I think, frankly, Peter, it's become an administrative function that once someone becomes a permanent resident, you know, the boxes are ticked and the people line up, they go to a citizenship ceremony, they receive their certificate, and you know, everybody's happy.
My advice to the Australian public is that we need to modernise that process and that's what we're doing.
So not only will it be a test where people need to answer, essentially a civics test, but with some additional questions, but it is then a look at the history. So, if somebody has been perpetrating domestic violence over a four year period, then frankly, I don't want that person to become an Australian citizen.
If they're of working age and they haven't been working, if they've been on welfare from the day that they arrived, then we don't want that person to become an Australian citizen.
If they're somebody with a disability, or they have an incapacity or an inability to work well, you know, obviously there are provisions to provide for those people and see them into citizenship.
But for the vast majority of people, I want to make sure that we aren't just allowing people to move onto a life of welfare or disengagement from the community and that's why the English language is important as well, because people can demonstrate that they're improved their English language over the course of the four year period.
We know that from that we get better education outcomes, we get better employment outcomes. And we're also excluding people over the age of 60 - so if a grandmother comes to live with the family, then we don't have the same expectation in terms of English language and similarly for children under the age of 16.
PETER VAN ONSELEN:
When you talk about people literally failing their citizenship test 20 or 30 times, I mean that figure just hit me like a brick, how many people are we talking about? Do you have some statistics on that for us?
PETER DUTTON:
I don't have the numbers in front of me. But it's not uncommon for people to fail on multiple occasions and that might be a function of poor English language competency or no English language competency at all in some cases. But it's not uncommon.
We need to work with people to make sure they understand that becoming an Australian citizen is an incredible prize.
It's much valued and in the modern age, given the threats that we face, like any other western democracy, we need to make sure that people who are going through to receive Australian citizenship value it as much as those people who came from post-World War II Europe for example and have become amazing Australians through their hard work and their ability to raise a family, educate the family and we want to make sure that that continues to be the case into the future.
PETER VAN ONSELEN:
In terms of the whole broader issue of citizenship, would it be fair to say with these changes that the Government's making, just as a matter of logic, Minister, there are people here now that have got through under the current rules, under the rules you're looking to change to, you had wished weren't able to become Australian citizens?
PETER DUTTON:
By definition of course that's right.
We're only talking about a small minority of people, but as we've seen with the fighters that have gone off to Syria from Australia, as we've seen in the case of the UK examples in Manchester and London or indeed across continental Europe. I mean there are, the United States, wherever, you might be talking about where these attacks have taken place, where these people have been conferred with citizenship of that country, it is very difficult to deal with them at that point.
Whereas if somebody is on a visa, it is much easier for the Minister of the day in the case of somebody who is a national security threat to cancel that visa and deport that person back to their country of origin. That is a much easier way to deal with the threat than if somebody has already received Australian or UK citizenship for example.
PETER VAN ONSELEN:
It's just come to my attention, I don't want to give away my source, but it has come to my attention, Minister, that if there was a four year wait for permanent residents to become Australian citizens instead of a one year wait in the past, someone like Kristina Keneally wouldn't have been able to enter Parliament and go on to become Premier.
Is that a separate motivation here, a realisation that that might have been better for the state, better for the country?
PETER DUTTON:
Well I don't want to delve into your Sky domestic issues and I don't want to add to the current War of the Roses going on within the Sky studio, but look, I think it probably would have been a good thing had Kristina been able to demonstrate for four years that she was going to be an award winning journalist on Sky and follow in the footsteps of some pretty average Premiers in New South Wales, did her best to tidy that mess up. But there's probably reasons that you could argue, but as I say I'll leave that to be debated between you two.
PETER VAN ONSELEN:
Not the purpose, not the purpose of the legislation.
PETER DUTTON:
Well that's true.
PETER VAN ONSELEN:
Quick final question though. On this public holiday, the Queen's Birthday, not up in Queensland, in the state you hail from, and not in Western Australia either where I've spent much of my time, but it is in other states.
Not enough women I've noticed winning these awards. Now admittedly they're by nomination. We know that. But women such as Gillian Triggs, for example, Peter Dutton, lots of high profile women that could have been nominated for these awards that either haven't been nominated or haven't won, does the gender balance need to improve?
PETER DUTTON:
Well your random selection of names there is impressive, Peter.
What I like to see at these awards, frankly, I mean it's great to see all the headline acts, men, women, people with any background that have become great Australians and contributed so much, but I love to hear the stories of people involved in CWAs, people involved in local communities, in flood damage clean ups, all of that, people that really are at the grassroots that are involved in five and six community groups.
There are some amazing stories when you move around communities and I think you'll find a fair splattering of women within that part of the awards which is a great thing. So look, it's a good day for celebration. It's a bit colder here in Canberra, I wish that I could be in Brisbane actually today. Be nicer weather and a public holiday, but not to be.
PETER VAN ONSELEN:
The perils of parliamentary life, it starts again tomorrow. We appreciate you joining us, Immigration Minister Peter Dutton, thanks for your company.
PETER DUTTON:
Thanks for having us, Peter, thank you.
PETER VAN ONSELEN:
Cheers.
[ends]
