Alex Hawke (Mitchell, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Immigration and Border Protection) Share this | Hansard source

Who would have said, before this bill was put forward by the government, that we need stricter English language requirements? Well, of course, that's the shadow minister sitting opposite. He said, 'We need stronger English language requirements.'

Opposition members interjecting—

Oh, you didn't mention it? Who said, 'I think it is reasonable to look for English language proficiency and I think it is reasonable to have some period of time before you become an Australian citizen'? I'm not reaching into the distant past. I'm not reaching back to 10 years ago, five years ago or one year ago; I'm reaching back to 20 April this year. I'll read it again. This quote is directly from a member of this House: 'I think it is reasonable to look for English language proficiency and I think it is reasonable to have some period of time before you become an Australian citizen.' So don't listen to me, don't listen to Minister Dutton and don't listen to the Prime Minister: that was the Leader of the Opposition in April this year.

So when did you decide to make English competency and a period of four years of permanent residency a political issue? Why is this a political issue? It's in line with community expectations. There's no issue with greater English language proficiencies. There's no issue that you raised in your presentation today. Yet you've been running around in forums across Australia telling people that they have to get university standard English—a proposition you absolutely know not to be true. You absolutely know that that's not true. The way we can establish that that is not true—and I can easily establish it to members here in the House today—is that 72 per cent of people pass to the current standard of level 6 in IELTS sitting the current English test. That's a fact that the shadow minister failed to mention. So it is not as if people are not required to meet level 6 on the IELTS general test standard. I can confirm to this House that 72 per cent of people pass that test.

The shadow minister read out a passage and was trying to make some contention about ancient history. The reality of that passage was that it was a comprehension test. You're obviously not comprehending, Shadow Minister—English language comprehension; not comprehension about Thucydides and the Peloponnesian War.

Opposition members interjecting—

You laugh and you cackle, but it is an English proficiency test, not a history test. We know exactly why Labor is being so political about this. It is because they think that by politicising this issue they will get some sort of reward. The reality is that these measures are supported by Australians. We know that competent English proficiency is important. It matters to the economic and social success of migrants. It is a very important standard that will benefit our new citizens.

We also know that we are setting a standard that is in line with the rest of the world in relation to taking the time to get to know someone. It is to the Labor Party's shame that they are politicising this issue. The government stands by its measures. The government stands by making these citizenship requirements stronger, in support of Australian values and making sure that people will come here and integrate and have a high standard of and high proficiency in English.

See this speech in context