Michael Danby (Melbourne Ports, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I can only endorse what you just said, Mr Deputy Speaker, about the credit children of immigrants, like the member for Throsby, bring to this House. The member for Throsby and I have often attended functions together, and her ability to speak Russian to a very large part of my electorate is an adornment to the opposition. It certainly puts Russian-speaking people at ease. Major General McLachlan of the RSL said to me that the function we ran for the Russian veterans in my electorate for the 60th anniversary of the end of the Second World War was the best function that he had attended in Victoria for that commemoration, from Australia’s point of view and from his point of view as the State President of the Returned and Services League of Victoria. The success of that function was in large part due to Jennie George’s involvement.

Labor’s approach to the Australian Citizenship Amendment (Citizenship Testing) Bill 2007 is clear: if you are going to test, you first must teach. This legislation alters laws which were passed earlier this year. It is another example of a government at the end of its mandate. It is legislation made up in a hurry to try and appease a mythical part of the Australian electorate in which the values and bigotry of the ‘Howard battlers’ are elevated. A core value of this Hansonite group which the government has elevated to attention is hostility to certain groups, a ‘value’ which lies at the centre of their values and which I believe is behind this bill.

This bill is a dispirited and lame attempt by a government in its last weeks of life to somehow lash out at people who are ‘non Howard battlers’. It attempts to exclude rather than include, to spurn rather than welcome, to create ‘them’ rather than ‘us’. The sensible Labor amendment will be rejected by this non-functioning government. Any attempt to turn this sow’s ear into a vaguely silk purse will be fought bitterly by a coalition slouching towards its well-deserved appointment with the electorate.

The act which is being amended today is the Australian Citizenship Act 2007. This legislation requires that applicants for citizenship understand the nature of their application, possess a basic knowledge of the English language and have an adequate knowledge of the responsibilities and privileges of Australian citizenship. This bill today now adds a test to be passed by an applicant for citizenship.

In our mother parliament in London many years ago, a similar ‘test’ bill was passed. It was in some ways similar to the ‘Howard battlers’ bill that we are considering here, Mr Andrews’s current proposal. The aim of the ‘test’ bill of 1672 was to exclude British Catholics from proper membership of the British nation. It was designed and enforced rigorously by, some people would say, this government’s forebears: serious, God-fearing and righteous British Protestants.

The legislation before us today is similarly aimed at a particular community—this time within Australia. I will not name the community because that would create a distracting headline. All members know the community I speak of. Australia, like all Western countries, does have a problem with a political ideology in a minority amongst the community, but that is a separate issue. Recent events at home and abroad contribute to the situation which has brought forth this bill. I do not discount for a moment the objective seriousness of this mainly external situation. I do not make light of the challenge faced by the West, including Australia, and thrown at us by groups who are committed and hostile to us and our way of life. What I question is whether it is sensible policy to automatically assume that we now have a fifth column in our midst. I am aware of individuals and groups listed in various courts in Australia facing very serious charges. I do not know who is guilty. A court will determine that. What I do know is that this almost collapsed government has not a scintilla of policy towards this community other than the stick—there is not a carrot in sight, and there never has been since the election of this government in 1996.

It is amazing to me that you can set up all of these tests but not provide the millions of dollars that are necessary towards teaching English to immigrants as they come to Australia. There should be a whole program of absorption and English training that is available as part of the package immigrants to Australia have when they come here. I support a high immigration policy. I think we have 160,000 immigrants coming into this country now per year. Immigration contributes not just to the economic vitality but to the cultural vitality of this great country. But we should be fair to them and make sure that they have English classes available. There are many people who just fail the English test that I know in Moscow and Leningrad and Kiev et cetera who, if they had not failed those tests, would have made excellent immigrants to this country and would have been able to perfect their English here like so many people have previously.

The legislation here today is a continuation of that failed ‘all-stick’ policy. Clearly, immigration officers will fail the great majority of applications made by members of the target community. Given that a situation will arise where some members of this community will be in and others will be out, could we have a more fertile field for quite hostile propaganda against Australia within this community? Presumably the minister will deny that his department will fail people under orders. There is no need for us to delude ourselves and argue the pros and cons of departmental probity. We all remember the Vivian Solon case, which the very capable Labor Party candidate for Wentworth brought to public attention. It tells us everything we need to know about the current environment and the way in which some Immigration officials act or were forced to act. My concern is that this test legislation, like the English Test Act of 1672, is based on knowledge of how this government views the world, how the department behaves as a reaction to this government and how people who are rejected and victimised react to this rejection.

Every member of this House knows as much of the three aspects of this situation as I do. The coalition members opposite know that the world situation is very complicated. We do not need, in my view, to adopt the lowest common denominator, Mark Textor focus group approach. I can only describe it as a sly and convoluted way of looking at the problem that we face which, in my view, is bound to make the situation worse. I think the government do not care. They are on a mission for this government and the Prime Minister to find another Tampa. Bashing an unpopular group is the best they can do. ‘We say who will pass our test and the conditions under which they will pass’ is a variation of a famous saying of the Prime Minister.

Let us look at some of the elements of this legislation and examine some of the problems that flow from them. Presumably, this legislation will need further amendment next year. Hopefully, next year with a change of government we will get a policy of carrots to balance the sticks in dealing with the community. The bill before us is a better version than the original suggestions. The proposed text is now more flexible. If Australia is going to continue taking migrants from underdeveloped countries then we have to take account of literacy problems with many of the test takers. This point is important and relates to my first remark here today: if you are going to test, first you must teach.

Labor has always supported education and education services for migrants. The teaching of English and citizenship matters. This is the best way for this parliament to achieve the nobler element of this bill. We are all united here in our desire to see Australia as an integrated, stable, secure and prosperous nation. No-one here on either side wants to see any part of our community fall by the wayside. No-one wants ghettos based on suburbs where a foreign language is the norm and where children are raised physically in Australia but psychologically in a foreign country. This is not multiculturalism; this is multinationalism. The money allocated to migrant education services under this proposal appears substantial but will probably be inadequate. Given the general attitude of the government to migrants, it is unlikely that the inadequate financing will be remedied. This is another example of where it will require a change of government to deal sensibly with an ongoing problem.

The bill before us makes another and quite profound change in the migration process. Currently, once an applicant makes an application, all sorts of legal protections for the applicant come into force. There are tribunals and courts available to enforce these protections for an applicant. However, under this bill, persons seeking to stay permanently in Australia must pass this test before they make such an application. Thus, the applicant remains on a temporary and expiring visa that he or she currently holds while trying to pass the test. Clearly, this process will enable the department to use the test in a candidate’s failure to prevent the making of an application. This technique, while being fairly blunt, will be effective. I fully accept that every government has to run a migration program that satisfies members of parliament and meets widespread community acceptability. What concerns me is that this approach uses a broad, slashing sword when a scalpel is required—or a rapier, at least. I think we all accept that migrants coming to Australia are doing so because they see Australia as a better place for them than their old country. It is a big transition for people who are migrating from one country to another to give up their homeland and to make Australia their country. I understand that. Like the member for Throsby, my father made the transition in 1939, from Germany.

For whatever reason—economic, cultural, political or merely the meeting of a potential life partner—migrants continue to flock to Australia. This is a marvellous benefit to our nation and also, clearly, a benefit to the migrants. In my electorate of Melbourne Ports, the vibrancy, the liveability and the whole cosmopolitan feeling of the area arise out of the diversity provided by our migration system—and it works. Equally, my standing here in this place speaking to this issue is testament to the opportunity that this country affords migrants and their descendants. Acceptance or integration into Australia is long seen as an issue that remains in the public mind predominantly with respect to some sections of the community unfairly targeted by the present government. What we want in Australia, and what I always say at citizenship ceremonies, is not to judge people by their aristocratic background, or their lack of it, or by the size of their wallet, their ethnicity or their political acceptability, but by the content of their character and what they do here in this country.

This bill seeks to apply legislative pressure to target those people who are deemed not to be adapting fast enough. I would urge members to be careful in this application of pressure. We do not want to make a mistake and create fear and anger amongst communities who may consider themselves the target of this bill.

The content of this test is not yet available. This is unfortunate, and it is also an indicator of the rushed nature of this proposal. Apparently there will be a body of 300 or so general Australian knowledge questions, from which 20 will be chosen by the officer administering the test. I understand that, to pass, an applicant must answer at least 60 per cent of the questions correctly. Will these tests be given on the streets, to university students, to members of the RSL or to beachgoers in St Kilda? All the mistakes, head-scratching and befuddled responses, no doubt even from amongst some of us in this place, will show this test to be substantially found wanting.

A better way to deal with this sensitive matter of citizenship would have been to have had a more focused, measured, less rushed investigation into how to effect a fairer and more effective system, perhaps under the auspices of a parliamentary committee. This would have limited the likelihood of alienating individual communities. The proposed amendments of the opposition go a long way to limiting what would otherwise be the collateral damage of this bill, but I am afraid this government, with its Pavlov’s dog reaction to anything that the opposition suggests, will reject them.

I commend the general attitude that Australians have towards immigration. The attitude that has made this country as great as it is rests on our traditions as a free Westminster, open, pluralistic society. But also the vitality of modern Australia rests on the contribution of so many migrants from so many backgrounds to this fantastic country. I am afraid this bill is inadequate. I worry very much about the content of this test and how it will be applied. I think of so many citizens who have come here and to whom English seemed almost impenetrable at the beginning but who have made such a great contribution to this country. It would have been a shame if they had been kept out under the provisions that will be passed with this bill, which is when we will eventually see this test.

See this speech in context