Gavan O'Connor (Corio, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

Before debate was adjourned on 21 June on the Australian Citizenship Amendment (Citizenship Testing) Bill 2007, I was making reference to the Ethnic Communities Council of Victoria’s discussion paper Australian citizenship: much more than a ceremony, which advances rather compelling arguments against what is being proposed in this legislation. I urge the government to consider its submission seriously as it articulates in a logical and coherent way the substantive views that are reflected in the depth of feeling that has been already expressed in ethnic communities in my electorate of Corio in Geelong and others around the nation in relation to the measures that are being proposed in this legislation.

Over the 14 years I have represented the electors of Corio in this parliament, I have attended every citizenship ceremony I have been practically able to get to, given my responsibilities to this House and my former shadow executive commitments as shadow minister for agriculture. I say to this House: those citizenship ceremonies have been absolutely uplifting experiences for me. To see the sincerity and commitment of those choosing to take the oath of allegiance to Australia and their pride in joining this great Australian family is always a very special moment in the life of any member of parliament, as it is for the person making that enormous commitment to Australia. One is always humbled by the stories of the personal journeys of many migrants from all parts of the earth to the point where they commit to Australia in that citizenship ceremony.

In the context of this debate, I pay tribute to the City of Greater Geelong and its officers and staff for the great efforts they put into making each ceremony a special one for each participant. I particularly make mention of Stephen Yewdall, whose personal care and professionalism as MC at the city’s conferral ceremonies ensures that they are conducted in a dignified but joyful manner for migrants, their families and friends.

Like many members of this parliament, I came up through the ranks of local government. I will not mention the local government at the time, but the citizenship ceremonies were tacked on at the end of a council meeting and people could be kept waiting for three to four hours for the citizenship ceremony to take place, sometimes in the early hours of the morning. That is simply not acceptable in this great country, and I am very pleased that the focus of these ceremonies has changed, with bipartisan support across this parliament and across my community.

There are some important points that need to be understood clearly in this debate. The first is that Australia already has a citizenship test, because applicants must already demonstrate a working knowledge of English and establish that they are of good character. The honourable member for Kooyong, who has just entered the chamber, is somebody we all admire because of his unrelenting commitment to these sorts of issues in his own party in his time in this parliament. He has won our enduring respect for the stance that he has taken on these matters and for his demonstrated understanding of the responsibilities and privileges of being an Australian.

While members across the political spectrum might agree on the need to put this situation on a more formal basis, as legislators we must be extremely careful that any instituted measure does not simply insert another unreasonable barrier to people becoming Australian citizens. The measures in this bill require a prospective applicant to successfully complete a citizenship test before making their application for Australian citizenship. To successfully complete the test, the applicant will need to demonstrate an understanding of their application and process, possess a basic knowledge of English and have an adequate knowledge of Australia and the responsibilities and privileges of Australian citizenship. Test questions are taken from a citizenship test resource book, with three questions relating to responsibilities and privileges of citizenship, and the overall pass mark is set at 60 per cent. Because of the significant political pressure generated as a result of the government’s original, half-baked proposals, the government has been forced to modify its original stance, and I support the exemptions that are now embedded in this legislation and the discretion now available to the minister to provide different tests in certain circumstances and to cater for the needs of those with permanent physical or mental incapacity.

One has to question the proposition that this government is serious about encouraging eligible noncitizens to take out Australian citizenship. I find the statistics relating to eligible noncitizens in Australia who have yet to take out citizenship revealing—346,200 people from the UK and 204,900 from New Zealand, and noncitizens from other English-speaking countries such as the USA and Canada would come into this particular category. If the government is really concerned about encouraging citizenship as a gateway for full participation in Australian life then what measures does it have in place to encourage English-speaking noncitizens to take up citizenship? I think a very important point that has to be made in the context of this debate is the sincerity of the proposals that are before us and the context in which they have been put forward. It is extremely difficult to come to any other conclusion, given the process by which this legislation has come into existence, than that the government, for all its rhetoric, is really not about encouraging citizenship participation but about pursuing another agenda.

In conclusion, I want to mention that the Corio electorate has a large non-English-speaking population and its people are vitally interested in this bill and these matters. I commend Mr Michael Martinez of Diversitat, the operational arm of the Geelong Ethnic Communities Council, for the points that he has made publicly in relation to this particular debate. He has not just taken a stick to the government; he has been quite constructive about putting the point of view of Geelong’s ethnic communities in the wider political debate in our region. He said that the federal government’s policy has confused nationalism with patriotism and he warned of its potential to divide rather than to include people. I hope that it does not do that. I hope these measures, once they are instituted on the ground, do not become a barrier to many of our citizens taking out Australian citizenship, because that would be a crying shame.

Mr Martinez made the very important point that the money spent on these measures would be far better spent on creating jobs and on teaching English and Australian history to migrants in particular. Of course that is a policy that we have articulated in the context of this debate. Let me restate on the floor of this parliament my commitment to multiculturalism in Geelong. It has worked, and I commend those migrants who have come from non-English-speaking backgrounds who have assisted in building our city to become one of the great provincial cities in the Commonwealth of Australia.

See this speech in context