Stephen Jones (Whitlam, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Regional Development and Infrastructure) Share this | Hansard source

Every Australian child learns the words to our National Anthem. The opening stanza says:

Australians all let us rejoice,

For we are young and free;

And the second verse says:

For those who've come across the seas

We've boundless plains to share;

That speaks to everybody who applies for citizenship. Never has the gap between the words in our National Anthem and the deeds of this national government been so great. We have before us today a bill in search of a purpose. They want us to think it's about national security. But it's not. They want us to think it's about creating an environment where you have greater adherence to national values. But it's not. They want us to think that the Australian Citizenship Legislation Amendment (Strengthening the Requirements for Australian Citizenship and Other Measures) Bill 2017 is about ensuring the people who live in Australia can speak English. But it doesn't. It does none of these things. But the noise and the debate that will surround it will send out the message that this government, a desperate government, wants to send out—that they care about and are trying to do something about all of these things, when they are not.

Malcolm Turnbull often boasts that Australia is the most successful multicultural society in the world. I agree; we are. So what's the problem here that we are trying to solve? This is not going to help strengthen Australian society but it does threaten to create greater divisions. We're happy to work with the government to create an adherence to Australian values, to have more people able to be fluent in English and to increase participation through citizenship. This bill does none of those things.

The gap between residency and citizenship is not a new problem. Ever since the great post-war migration boom, successive governments have put in place strategies which attempt to ensure that people who are living in Australia permanently, people who are permanent residents, are able to take out Australian citizenship.

In fact, it was the Menzies government that put in place a raft of changes in the 1950s—in 1955, in 1958 and again in 1961—which made it easier for people to obtain Australian citizenship, and for permanent residents to join the society of Australian citizenship. This bill is going in the exact opposite direction. The Menzies government introduced shorter qualifying periods of residency, eliminated the English dictation test and made the applications form simpler for those with basic English yet this government is scrapping all of those reforms and wants to reverse all of those changes. Malcolm Turnbull, the Prime Minister, is fond of quoting Menzies. Maybe he should stop just quoting Menzies and start listening to him.

I want to talk about the English language test. The previous speaker, the member for Banks, focused on this. Let's be very clear. Labor supports programs which will ensure migrants who come to Australia have more than a stamp on their passport, have more than a visa so they are able to participate fully in Australian society by speaking fluent English. In fact, it was the Whitlam Labor government that put in place the English training programs because it was the Whitlam government that understood that we owe more to the people that come to this country and help us build this great society than stamping their visa. We need to help them integrate fully into this country, and English is a critical part of that.

The problem with this bill is the level that those opposite are setting. This legislation provides band 6 proficiency on the International English Language Testing System. Now you may or may not be aware of this but band 6 proficiency is the level of proficiency equivalent to a university education—somebody who has passed a university education level test. I doubt there would be some MPs in this place who would pass a level 3, never mind a band 6 proficiency in an English language test. I doubt that every MP in this place would be able to meet band 6 proficiency in the International English Language Testing System. So let's not have this argument that's been put up by members of the other side that this is not going to be the requirement within the new tests. It is; and it's exactly the message that the government is trying to send out there. It won't do anything. It will do nothing to ensure that people improve their English language skills, but what it will do is put another barrier in place for somebody who is already a permanent resident in taking out Australian citizenship.

What needs to be understood is that what is being proposed here is out of step with every other OECD country. In comparable countries—the European Union, the UK, the US and New Zealand—the Applied Linguistics Association of Australia makes it very clear in its submissions in relation to this legislation that the common English language test that is held in other comparable countries is for holding basic English conversations. Let's not have this nonsense that's been put out by those on the other side that somehow that's not what the legislation means. It is what the legislation means, and it's the absolute intention of this minister.

The member for Banks gave a very personal story, a heart-felt story when she spoke of the circumstances facing her grandparents when they moved to Australia and it's a story that could be repeated time and time again by one-third of the people in my electorate who were born in another place but who have come to Australia and have come to the Illawarra and the South Coast to make these regions their home. It was a very common situation that the female would be at home, looking after the children, looking after a small business but it was the male, the husband, who would be in the front rollers, out in the work force picking up proficiency in the English language while the woman would not become as proficient in the English language.

The member for Chisholm—and I thank the clerks at the table for correcting me: it was Ms Banks, the member for Chisholm—is absolutely right in the story that she tells, but she has drawn the wrong conclusion. Merely putting in place a higher barrier at the citizenship test level is not going to encourage those people to take up the English language. It is going to discourage them from taking out citizenship. It's the English language assistance programs that are the very programs that are under attack by both state and federal governments as we speak. They are the programs that are going to be put in place that will help the people in the same situation as the member for Chisholm's grandparents, and the many, many hundreds of people in my electorate, to attain the level of English that is necessary for them to take up a full role and to be fully active in the Australian community.

The other argument that is put is that somehow asking somebody to sign a statement about adherence to Australian values is going be a meaningful statement by them and is somehow going to create greater cohesion in the Australian community. Well, there are many of us who doubt that very much and have doubts about who sets these tests and whether that is a valid test. I don't think anybody could seriously argue that the mere signing of a statement, as this bill proposes, is going to create a greater cohesion in and of itself.

I want to get to the crux of the matter, because, in the minister's second reading speech on this bill, he alluded to his concern that somehow this legislation was being brought forward and made necessary because of national security concerns. No expert who has looked at this agrees with those conclusions. Not one expert agrees with those conclusions, for this very fact: the new citizenship test requirements, by their very definition, only apply to somebody who is a resident in Australia. They only apply to somebody who is a resident in Australia. In fact, if the bill gets through, it will apply to somebody who has been a resident in Australia for four years or more. If that person is a threat to national security, you have to ask the minister if he has been doing his job, because they are already in the country. They have been given permanent residency, and they are now at the stage of applying to take out citizenship. So let's not have this fallacious argument that somehow these new measures are being brought forward because of the need to toughen the citizenship test to ensure that we have greater measures to enforce national security. It's not a credible claim. The people that are going to apply are already resident in the country and presumably have gone through all the vetting programs brought forward by the minister and his department.

But there is a deep concern—and some of my colleagues have spoken to this—that this legislation actually has the opposite effect to that. By creating this regime it is very, very likely that we will see, within the one family, the proficient speaker of English being able to pass the test and being able to take up citizenship, whilst another member of that household is not able to do that—divisions within the one household; those who feel included and those who feel excluded, and within the one family.

I have great concerns that this new test, particularly the English language test, will have the obverse effect—the absolute opposite effect—to that proposed by those who proposed it. Let me make this point very clear: there is not a person on the Labor side of the House who doesn't want to see more effort being put into ensuring that people can speak English when they come to this country from a non-English-speaking country. We want to ensure that everybody adopts the language and is able to use proficiently the language of English in the workplace, in the home and in education so they are able to fully participate in the Australian community. But let's not kid ourselves that new citizenship test requirements are going to fulfil that objective; they simply aren't. What will fulfil that objective is putting in place the sorts of programs that were introduced by the Whitlam Labor government in the mid-1970s, which successive governments, coalition and Labor, have supported for 30 or 40 years since. But, sadly and regrettably, at the state and federal level many of those programs are being underfunded, defunded and closed down.

This is a bill without a purpose. If it does have a purpose, its singular purpose is to enable members of the coalition parties to run around their electorates and say, 'We're going to do something to ensure everyone who comes into this country speaks English, we're going to do something about your national security concerns and we're going to do something to ensure we're all going to be adhering to some amorphous and unspecified set of Australian values.' But the truth of the matter is that this bill will do absolutely none of those things. In fact, many of the other steps, quite separate to this legislation, that the government is doing and the government members are voting for are driving Australians and the Australian community in the other direction.

We'll be voting against this bill in the House. It is going to a committee for thorough investigation in the other place. Perhaps if some sensible amendments can be suggested in the other place, it may enjoy our support there. But in its current form I can't support it, and I'm absolutely certain there's not a Labor member in this place who will support it either.

See this speech in context