Jennie George (Throsby, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Environment and Heritage) Share this | Hansard source

I concur with many of the comments made by my colleague the member for Fowler. Like the electorate of Fowler, the electorate that I represent, Throsby, was built on a very solid foundation of successive waves of migration to this wonderful country, and many wonderful migrants to the Illawarra have availed themselves of citizenship. Since 1949 Australia has taken great pride in this and governments of both persuasions have chosen an inclusive approach to citizenship matters. That has been exemplified, as I say, by successive waves of migration, particularly in the postwar era.

The inclusiveness of our approach to citizenship has been sustained despite the massive changes in both the racial and cultural composition of our migrant intake over those decades. I think there has always been a belief at the government level—in governments of both political persuasions—that, if we embrace migrants who want to become Australians, this will result in a better, more tolerant and more successful and unified nation. I do not think anyone can dispute that immigration has been one of this nation’s most obvious success stories, with migrants having come to our wonderful land from more than 200 countries around the globe.

Back in 1973, the then Citizenship Act saw the waiting period for citizenship reduced to two years and a requirement that migrants had a basic understanding of the English language—with people over 50 exempt from the test. In the seventies I think multiculturalism was well established and generally accepted in our community. We grew to value Australia’s cultural pluralism and encouraged migrants to belong and identify with this nation’s destiny, its values and its objectives, while at the same time understanding that migrants wanted to retain their cultural and religious ties. In fact, in 1993 a preamble was inserted into the then act acknowledging and implicitly valuing Australia’s cultural diversity. It said:

Australian citizenship represents formal membership of the community of the Commonwealth of Australia; and Australian citizenship is a common bond, involving reciprocal rights and obligations, uniting all Australians, while respecting their diversity ...

I think it is fair to say that the prevailing attitude in the Australian community is that when people take up citizenship of this nation it is a very important step which involves rights and obligations to our nation. At the same time that those words were introduced the old oath, in which citizens swore allegiance to the Queen of Australia, was dropped. A new pledge, penned by our notable poet Les Murray, was introduced. That pledge says:

From this time forward, under God,

I pledge my loyalty to Australia and its People, whose democratic beliefs I share, whose rights and liberties I respect, and whose laws I will uphold and obey.

So from the very early days of citizenship requirements there has always been an understanding that citizenship involves obligations and reciprocal rights. One of those obligations is a professed commitment to share in the democratic values of our nation and to understand the rights and liberties and laws of our country.

It seems to me that there has been a decided change in direction in our approach to citizenship in more recent times. That change in direction is reflected in the debate we are now having on the bill before us, in terms of the formal citizenship test requirements. Let us be clear that there has always been a test for citizenship. The test that is in practice now must have worked well because under that test 3½ million people who have come to our shores have become Australian citizens since 1949. Those people, including my family, I believe have enriched every part of our society and the Australian way of life. The current system has overwhelmingly given Australia good citizens. Under this system applicants have to demonstrate a basic knowledge of the English language and, as I said earlier, an understanding of the responsibilities and privileges that citizenship bestows. These understandings and basic competency in the English language are assessed at a compulsory interview.

Under the proposals of this bill the current test—which I said had worked remarkably well and had seen 3½ million people accepted into Australian citizenship—will be replaced by a more complex, formal citizenship test that will need to be passed before citizenship can be bestowed. As I read the legislation, the new requirements will include comprehension in the English language and an understanding of Australian values, institutions, traditions and symbols, assessed by a multiple-choice test on the computer.

Our Prime Minister has defended these changes and he has argued that the test is about ‘cohesion and integration; it’s not about discrimination and exclusion’. Well, let us hope that that ends up being the case, but we should be clear that this new formal citizenship test does not establish a new test where none existed before. My worry is that it could make it so much harder than it has been in the past for good people to become good Australian citizens. In my view, our nation should not create unreasonable barriers, so that good people who come to our country can continue to become good Australian citizens.

What are the ingredients of this new test? According to the minister’s second reading speech on this bill the test will be computer based and consist of 20 multiple-choice questions drawn randomly from a large pool of questions, which are confidential to date. So we are debating a bill but we do not know the specific content of the kinds of questions that would be asked. Each test is expected to include three questions on the responsibilities and privileges of Australian citizenship. The pass mark is expected to be 60 per cent, including answering three mandatory questions correctly. A person will be able to take the test as many times as required in order to pass. The test questions will assess knowledge of Australian history, culture and values based on information contained in a citizenship test resource book. There will not be, we are told, a separate English language test, although obviously a person’s English language skills, fluency and comprehension will be assessed in terms of their ability to successfully complete the test.

The government acknowledges, however—and I take some comfort in this—that there will be some people who do not, and may never, have the literacy skills required. I think it is important that I stress that point; I will come back to it a bit later. I do not think I need to remind the minister that he only needs to look at the level of adult illiteracy among people for whom English is their first language to understand that lack of fluency in the English language and illiteracy are not conditions associated only with people newly arrived in this country. Moreover, we are getting many more migrants to our country who lack literacy skills, often in their own language.

The government does acknowledge that provisions may be needed for people who do not have the literacy skills required. It proposes that the test administrator could read out the test questions and possible answers to the applicant. That is as generalised a statement as I can find about how these special provisions would operate. However, the minister also assures us that the bill will provide flexibility to approve more than one test should different arrangements need to be made in the future for certain prospective citizens. I argue that those so-called prospective arrangements would be far better introduced initially rather than left as a possible option down the track.

It is clear from my reading of the requirements of the new test that it represents a fundamental shift away from our current focus on the applicant for citizenship having basic English-speaking ability and comprehension to a test of literacy; that is, the ability to read, comprehend and respond to written English and having adequate computer skills. I am concerned that many of the 3.5 million people who have become citizens of our nation since 1949—including, as I said earlier, members of my family—could not have passed the new test. While we do not have examples of the types of questions to be asked, I fear that the complexity of the test may stop many worthwhile immigrants who are committed to making Australia their home from becoming citizens and full members of our community.

Members need only to look at some of our nation's greatest individual success stories and ask whether they would have passed the test. Many of them are now famous businesspeople and scientists. Sir Gustav Nossal and Frank Lowy come to mind. Many eminent Australians arrived in this country without fluency in English. Many other people come to mind who are not publicly recognised or in the public gaze—people like my parents and grandmother, who have made their own special and unique contribution and who decades after their citizenship acceptance remained great citizens, albeit without fluency in the English language or the written word. Since 1949, many hundreds of thousands of migrants would have been accepted as citizens and made an enormous contribution to the success of our nation despite having only basic English proficiency. 

As I said in my introductory remarks, the region that I represent—the Illawarra—has wonderful citizens who came to Australia in every wave of postwar migration. The migrants I have met and read about have made an enormous economic, social and cultural contribution to the life of our nation and our region. While penning a few thoughts for my contribution I found a lovely letter in the Age. I will quote it because it reflects my family’s experience. The writer—a woman from Blairgowrie—states:

Older migrants were not subjected to an English-language test and, in many instances, they never did master the language of their new country. Finding work, establishing a home and family and ensuring a secure future for their children took all their energy and resolve … They did not underestimate the importance of developing knowledge of English and there was a sense of regret and sometimes despair that they needed to rely on others to ease their way in an English-speaking environment ... They were, however, model Australian citizens and their loyalty to this country was rock-solid.

I repeat: I wonder if we had applied the stringency of the formal citizenship test during these successive waves of migration how many of the 3.5 million people who have become great citizens of our country would have passed. I am relieved that the government has provided an escape clause. The minister acknowledges that some time down the track there may be a need for another version of the formal citizenship test. 

My concerns about the potential difficulty of the new test were articulated in a submission on the bill made by the New South Wales Adult Migrant English Service Teachers Association. I agree with many of the points raised by the association, and I will draw on a few of them. It is worried that an increase in the complexity of the assessment process will install barriers to access to citizenship, especially for migrants and refugees whose first language is not English. It points out that the complexity of issues to be covered—that is, the testing of values and principles like our respect for freedom and dignity of the individual—are well and truly beyond the basic levels of English learnt during the 510 hours of Adult Migrant English Program tuition. The association also points out that at present only 20 per cent of students achieve a certificate III level outcome. As professionals in the field, its members argue that any lesser level outcome would be insufficient for the kinds of assessment proposals canvassed in the discussion paper. As we know, many migrants are unable to attend AMEP classes or do so for a short period because of the need to work to support themselves and their families while there is no access to social security benefits for their first two years in this country. I am heartened by the comments made recently by our shadow minister for immigration in outlining Labor’s vision for a new-style AMEP and promised additional financial commitments. His press release states:

“For 11 years, the Howard Government has allowed this program to become stale and outdated. The AMEP was introduced in 1992 by Labor to help new arrivals learn English. But the immigration program has changed significantly over the past decade. We now have many migrants coming to Australia that have never been to school and are not literate in their own language.

“Too many people who hit the brick wall when they reach the maximum number of hours they’re allocated, who need to and want to learn more English, but the system is not letting them.

“The Howard Government’s policies continue to see new arrivals who have received university education be treated the same as those who cannot even write in their own language. Labor wants to see an end to the one-size-fits-all policy.

“The policy continues to disadvantage many people – up to 9 out of 10 people are leaving English language tuition without basic English. It is very sad that Government policy is failing these people.

I thought the heading of his news release was very appropriate in the context of the debate we are having today: ‘Labor Will Teach English, Not Just Test It’.

Let me reaffirm the great success story of this wonderful nation that we live in. Multiculturalism has been a stunning success which has strengthened our nation economically and socially. It has enriched our culture and has reinforced the principle of social cohesion. One in four of today’s Australians was born overseas, compared with one in 10 in 1947, the year I was born. Another quarter of Australians have at least one overseas born parent. So almost half of us Australians are either migrants or the children of migrants. No doubt immigration is one of our nation’s most noble success stories and one which we should all celebrate.

Unity and diversity are not opposites, and I think today’s Australia exemplifies the best of both. Migrants are more likely to want to become citizens and to be part of our wonderful society, knowing that we respect some of those differences and that no-one is dismissive of anybody’s culture, beliefs or traditions. That point was made very well in a recent Fairfax editorial—and of course the test is going to be talking about Australian values. I quote from the editorial:

Multiculturalism is not at odds with Australian values, it is an Australian value. And to recognise that Australia embraces a host of nationalities is not to put any nationality ahead of our own. Rather, it is to recognise that the acceptance of difference has itself become an integral part of Australian identity; it is part of the glue that holds our diverse community together. To deny it can only keep us apart.

In conclusion, I support the amendment moved by our shadow minister for immigration, which reads:

That all words after “That” be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:“whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading and whilst welcoming the formalising of the current test for Australian Citizenship, the House:

(1)

notes that the issue is whether the citizenship tests to be determined under the legislation are reasonable;

(2)

notes the importance of teaching in the development of English language skills and the acquisition of knowledge of Australian history, culture and values; and

(3)

calls on the Government to provide improvements to the Adult Migrant English Program and other settlement services to assist migrants to participate fully in the Australian community and to pass the citizenship test”.

See this speech in context