Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Immigration, Integration and Citizenship) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

From time to time we get a debate throughout the community about a piece of legislation, but then the actual legislation that ends up before us in the parliament does not much resemble it. Look at the public debate from either side of the arguments that have gone on concerning the introduction of a citizenship test. You would think, from some of those who have been arguing as to why it should be introduced, that we have a bill here that involves a radical change from current practice. Some of those who have decided to take up the case of arguing genuinely and passionately against this piece of legislation have also worked on the basis that the bill we have before us involves radical change. While there were genuine expectations that that change would be in the legislation that would come before us, it is pretty difficult to see the bill that is now before the parliament, the Australian Citizenship Amendment (Citizenship Testing) Bill 2007, as constituting the sort of radical change from current practice which each side of this debate has implied we would see.

It matters to get the debate right. It really does. When you are talking about Australian citizenship, you are asking: ‘What does it actually mean to become a full member of Australian society?’ That is what citizenship is. As members of parliament, we all have the sensational privilege of going to citizenship ceremonies and seeing the moment where somebody whose life to that point has involved other nations, and often radically different societies, becomes as much a member, as much a stakeholder, of Australian society as any one of us who has the privilege of sitting in the House of Representatives. One of the concerns that I have in this debate is an argument that has sometimes been put that, at the moment, people do not take Australian citizenship seriously. You only have to see what we who have that privilege do to see it is a really moving moment in people’s lives. People take a step that they know is not just one that they take on their own behalf but also one that will forever become part of the story of their descendants who will remember them as an ancestor. It becomes part of their journey, their story and their future identity as Australians.

In the context of this debate we have often gone back and forth over whether it is possible to have any sort of test and as to whether it is possible to ever identify Australian values. In that values discussion, one of the arguments we often hear against there being any concept of Australian values is that the values that people talk about are those that you will find in any one of a number of countries. In many respects, that is true. But, when somebody builds a project home, the home they build may look pretty much the same as three or four other identical homes in the same suburb, but they still know that one as their own. The fact that other nations may have similar values to our own does not stop there being some principles about which we can say, ‘Yes, that is part of being Australian.’ That becomes most clear to each and every one of us when a comment is made by someone purporting to be a public leader, in one way or another, and the comment is so out of sync with what the rest of Australia feels. We can often identify Australian values more easily by what they are not. It is not a static thing, and the values and the principles that characterise us change over time.

In February 2000, the Citizenship Council had a go at working out what those sorts of principles might be in an Australian compact. They referred to a commitment to the land, a commitment to the rule of law, equality under the law regardless of race and sex and a commitment to the basics of a representative liberal democracy, including freedom of opinion. They referred to a commitment to principles and fairness—they used the word ‘tolerance’; I probably prefer the word ‘inclusive’—a commitment to the acceptance of cultural diversity, a commitment to the wellbeing of all Australians and a commitment to recognising the unique status of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. Those sorts of principles all fit in with that discussion and, for anyone who argues that it is impossible to arrive at any set of values, they will always be fluid and they will always change from time to time. But I do not think we do our nation any harm by having and embracing the discussion and by associating it with full membership of our society as citizenship.

As the former minister for multicultural affairs, the honourable member for Moreton, who is in the chamber, would be aware that, given the nature of my shadow portfolio, part of the job is that you do go to an extraordinary number of wonderful celebrations of diversity throughout the country. One concern that I have is that it is sometimes viewed as though there are three Australian stories. There are people who are Indigenous, people who are ethnic and people whose ethnicity is Australian. I like to think that there are essentially two Australian stories of getting here. For Indigenous Australians your cultural heritage is that you have always been here. For the rest of us the story of getting here—whether it is in our own lifetime or in past generations—is part of our Australian journey, part of our Australian story.

While it goes back quite a number of years, and while at particular moments—particularly in criminal terms—it is probably not that proud a history, I remain particularly proud of my Irish heritage. I should add that it is a different sense of pride now—as we found out more about the history of our family. We had always thought our convict ancestor, Bartholomew Taylor, was part of the Irish resistance, because we had been told that he was sent out here for stealing arms. But about 15 years ago, when my sister got the original documents, we discovered that the arms he had been stealing were spelt a-l-m-s. He had been taking money from the local church. Just as I know something about him because his journey here is part of my story of becoming an Australian, in the same way, people who take the citizenship oath provide that same opportunity and that same journey for their descendants—they will probably never know those descendents but their descendants will know them. That citizenship moment is of extraordinary importance and should never be devalued.

As a nation we now do citizenship better than we used to. My seat is named after the third Prime Minister of Australia, who, on the official records of this parliament, is recorded as John Christian Watson. Back then there was no such thing as Australian citizenship. To be eligible to be a member of this parliament, to vote and to have what was regarded as full citizenship rights, you merely had to be a member of the British Empire. John Christian Watson was actually not his name. His real name was Johan Christian Tanck. He concocted the story of his own birth. Having been born in Chile, he said that he was actually born on a ship, the Julia, which sailed 50 miles outside Chilean waters into international waters and, because the ship was flying the British flag, the Union Jack, he was able to claim British citizenship even though his father was German and he was born outside the British Empire. Had he told the truth about his citizenship and had our system been more watertight—say, in the fashion that it is today—he not only would never have been Prime Minister but also would not have been allowed to vote. And, because his dad was German, he would have been locked up during the First World War.

Since the Citizenship Act 1948 came into force, we have done citizenship in a much better way. Whether the tests are more rigid or less rigid, there have in fact always been tests imposed. This is why I say that the argument about today’s changes being radical does not really take account of what happens right now and what has happened ever since we introduced Australian citizenship. When the Citizenship Act was first introduced, applicants had to have adequate English, they had to produce three references, they had to declare an intention to naturalise—as the term was then—two years before the naturalisation would come into force and they had to have already lived in Australia for five years. They also had to place an advertisement in the newspaper notifying of their intention. Those were the tests and proof of good character back then.

In a good number of the media conferences that government members have done on this issue, it has been lost that there is a citizenship test at the moment. It is conducted over the counter and it involves a test of capacity in the English language. It has been quite non-controversial and there have not been arguments about it needing to be abolished, which creates some questions as to why what we have before us today is said to be a radical change. The more you look at the bill and the minister’s second reading speech, the more you see that what we actually have in front of us is a formalising which may involve a harshening of the test—but not necessarily. It actually depends on the determinations that the minister makes. Under the bill before us, those determinations can be changed at any point with any extra number of exemptions the minister might choose to put in place.

This bill was first announced just after the leadership change on my side of the House. A joint media conference was held—in, I think it is fair to say, a bit of a rush—by the Prime Minister and the member for Goldstein, who at that time was Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs. In that media conference the government announced that there would be a 30-question multiple choice test for citizenship and that those questions would be drawn from a list of 200 questions that would be drawn from a source document. That night, after consulting with the new Leader of the Opposition, I wrote a letter to the parliamentary secretary, saying that it would be greatly appreciated if the opposition could have a copy of an example of one of the test’s 30 questions—of the 200 questions they were to be drawn from—and a copy of the source document from which all of the questions were to originate. I received a letter from the parliamentary secretary about a week later—though I am not sure of the precise time—saying that they did not yet have a 30-question test, that not one of the 200 questions had yet been written and the source document had not yet been completed.

When I received my briefing from the department on the legal nature of the bill, I put a question to the minister’s office saying: ‘Can you just let me know whether I am going to get a copy of these three things before the vote on the bill, after the vote on the bill or never?’ I have been told that the source document will be made public at some point. That still has not happened, so I guess that means it will be after the vote on the bill. As to when we will see a copy of the 200 questions and the 30-question test—which, from the minister’s second reading speech, has now become a 20-question test—the answer apparently is never.

What that means is that this bill is entirely shell legislation. Obviously we do not expect that the government is going to put each question from a test into a piece of legislation; that would be insane. But in terms of the question, ‘Is the test reasonable?’ the answer to that will have to be determined at a later date. This legislation deals with two questions. It deals with whether, in principle, there should be a test or not and whether, in principle, the minister should have the discretion to create a whole lot of exemptions to take into account different circumstances. As to whether those two questions are outrageous, the answer is they are not outrageous. As to whether there should be a test at all, the answer is yes. Should the minister have the discretion to provide extra exemptions? The logical answer to that is yes again. That is reasonable. There is already a test and it has never been controversial. In the whole of this debate I have yet to hear anybody stand up and argue that the current test is an outrageous restriction on people’s citizenship. It would be quite open for the minister to determine that one of the options is for the current test to continue.

What we have to go on is what the minister said in his second reading speech, but the Australian public actually think there is more to go on than that. Because of discussions between a couple of the News Ltd papers and the minister, which resulted in a whole lot of questions being put on the front page of a couple of the News Ltd papers, the Australian public actually think they have seen some of the questions. Those questions were not written by the government. Those questions were written by a journalist. I discovered this when I rang the journalist and said, ‘It is only a trivial side point, but one of the answers is actually wrong.’ The question which had a wrong answer—and if anyone applying for citizenship actually knows this, you would really have to worry about how hard they have studied—is a question that is often thrown up: ‘What are the animals on the Australian coat of arms?’ The answer that was given was: kangaroo and emu—most people would say that. If you go to the DFAT website, you will see that the kangaroo and the emu are the animals holding up the coat of arms. The coat of arms is the bit of metal between the kangaroo and the emu. That means that, in a bizarre fashion, the correct answer is: a red lion, a golden lion, a black swan and a piping shrike. That is not generally known to members of the parliament. I did a ParlInfo search, and I think that I am the first person in a good 20 years to refer to the piping shrike within this parliament. But those are the animals on our coat of arms. The kangaroo and emu are not actually there; they are the bearers of our coat of arms.

Gary Hardgrave (Moreton, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This will be on Temptation next!

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Immigration, Integration and Citizenship) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In the same way, the question is often asked: ‘What is the second verse of the national anthem?’—as though that would be an appropriate question for citizenship. Many people would claim that part of being an Australian is not knowing the second verse to the national anthem! Before I get too much of a response from the member for Moreton, I would add that what we view as the second verse of Advance Australia Fair is actually the third verse. Advance Australia Fair has four verses. The second one, which I hope we never get around to incorporating when we sing the national anthem, concludes with the line, ‘Britannia rules the wave’. In terms of the questions that are thrown up, it is the second verse that people often say should be on the test.

What really matters is that we end up with a reasonable test. We do not want this to end up being some bizarre Trivial Pursuit game. We do not want this to be something which sets people up to fail. We do not want this to be a barrier to people who would make fine Australian citizens. Whether it ends up that way or not, we cannot tell from this bill. All we can tell from this bill is that the principle of having a citizenship test, which has been with us since 1949, would remain. As a principle, I am not going to argue against that. That is a completely reasonable principle and that is all that the bill actually tells us. In fact, it has been acknowledged on a number of occasions that originally part of the context of this debate was keeping people from becoming citizens, weeding out undesirables, and the fact that some people had become citizens who should not have and this would be a way to stop them. The member for Goldstein made clear in his media conference that the bill is not designed in any way to keep some people out. In an interview with Leon Delaney, the minister was asked, ‘So it’s not intended to weed out undesirables; it is more an instructive process?’ the minister responded, ‘That’s right.’

If, in good faith, that is what we end up with, then we simply have a codification of a reasonable system. That is what we have. It is quite within the realms of possibility, and certainly within the legislative options for the government, to come up with something that is less reasonable. I think that, as a matter of transparency, the government making the questions available is completely in the interests of citizenship being a process of unifying Australians. It is a logical thing to do, and it is completely in the interests of the government to do so.

At the time of my briefing, I raised two questions which the minister’s office subsequently got back to me about. The first was: will determinations of this nature—of what the different exemptions are for the different tests—be made public, even if the questions are not made public? The second question was: will the government guarantee that it will not put exemptions on tests which then create a situation where someone who otherwise would have been eligible to sit for a citizenship test has no test available to them anymore? On those two questions, we have been told verbally by the minister’s office—this is communication between his office and mine over the phone—that the determination will be made public, and we have been told that the test will be used only in such a way as to guarantee that anyone who, under the act, would expect to be able to sit for a test will have a test available for them. I have put those questions to the minister in writing, and they have been answered verbally. I am not in a position to confirm that they have come back to us, but I would be surprised if those undertakings that were given over the phone have not been confirmed by the time we come to a vote on this bill. I would certainly be surprised by that.

I was pleased to hear the minister raise in his second reading speech some of the concerns about options for people who have difficulty with English literacy. That is a really important part of this debate. The government, with the support of the opposition, has made some decisions on the humanitarian program to really find some of the most desperate people in the world and offer them a new life in Australia, and that has bipartisan support. There has not always been bipartisan support for the quality of the settlement program then offered but certainly there has been bipartisan support for the selection of people by the government, done in consultation with UNHCR.

That has meant that we have had in increasing numbers people settling permanently in Australia who not only do not have literacy in English but also do not have literacy in their language of origin. In those circumstances to expect that, in the space of four years, someone will necessarily be sitting in front of a computer reading English well enough to pass a multiple-choice test is potentially highly unreasonable. I was pleased that when the former parliamentary secretary, the member for Goldstein, first raised this he said there would be exceptions in respect of that. The minister in his second reading speech flagged that, where there is a specific literacy issue for people, the test will be done through a conversation, I guess using similar principles to the conversation over the counter which is done at the moment but obviously in a more detailed fashion and taking into account extra questions that might be involved.

We want this test to be something that is not used in a fashion that sets people up to fail. I will come to a second reading amendment in a moment but, to that end, Labor believes it is essential that you do not just test but also you teach. It is not good enough to just test; you also have to teach. You have to make sure there is adequate funding for the Adult Migrant English Program. You have to make sure there is adequate funding for settlement services so that people who come to Australia with the least opportunity and the least advantage do not find themselves in circumstances where it will always be phenomenally difficult for them to take on their role as full members of Australian society.

To that end, some of the statistics for functional English outcomes that have come from AMEP do show a need for a renewed emphasis on resources for teaching. They do show that, although the AMEP does a good job for its limit of 510 hours, if there is a barrier based on competency in English, and potentially a higher barrier to the English test we already have, we need to ensure the resources are there to get people over that hurdle. The best outcome is never people failing the test. The best outcome is people being given the resources to learn English and to have a start in life in Australia. An objection that has been made a number of times is to point to sensational Australian citizens who do not speak much English at all and to say, ‘Are you saying this person should never have been allowed to be a full member of society?’ If anyone is saying that in this debate, I reckon they are wrong. We are talking about some well-established communities that have built so much of this nation. We are not saying that those individuals should be denied citizenship. We are saying how much better would that individual’s life have been if they had had the full opportunity to learn English and been able to have the full discussion over the counter with whomever the shopkeeper was, able to read their own child’s school reports and able to get jobs fully commensurate with the skills they held? Those opportunities all mean that, if you are going to test, you need to teach. To that end, I will later move a second reading amendment in the following terms:

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”.

At the conclusion of my remarks I will formally move those words. How much of a departure from current practice does the bill before us represent? We will know within about a month after it has gone through. We will know only when people who have sat the test start to release what the questions were. That is the current path, and I sorely recommend to the government that, on issues meant to unite, the smart path is to talk to the opposition and let them know what the questions are going to be. It is a smarter path to take, so that there is no question mark hanging over this process. In the same way, I hope the government comes back in writing with the guarantees given over the phone.

This bill has already been referred to a Senate committee inquiry which will look at a number of issues, including that which came out of the inquiry of the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills—that is, whether a determination that is not a disallowable instrument and not open to scrutiny is the appropriate vehicle for the test to proceed under. That is a reasonable question for the Senate to inquire into. We will await the outcome of that inquiry before we make final decisions on amendments to that part of the bill.

I cannot stress enough that what we have before us is not the test that was on the front page of the Herald Sun and the Telegraph. What we have before us is not a test which places draconian new rules on English language. What we have before us is one thing and one thing only, and that is the principle of whether there should be a citizenship test. If what follows this bill is an unreasonable set of questions then there will be an argument to be had and there will be an argument that we will engage in. But the concept of having questions at all is something that has been with us for as long as Australian citizenship has been with us. To have questions and that extra level of value on Australian citizenship is surely a good thing. This is about becoming a full member of what we all regard as the best country on the planet, and that full membership is something to be embraced, not feared. I move:

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”.

Ann Corcoran (Isaacs, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is the amendment seconded?

Laurie Ferguson (Reid, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Multicultural Affairs, Urban Development and Consumer Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak.

Gary Hardgrave (Moreton, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am pleased to be associated with the Australian Citizenship Amendment (Citizenship Testing) Bill 2007 and commend the member for Watson—or is it Tanck?—for his fine contribution to this debate. I share many of his views, as expressed here this morning, and would share some concerns if there was any question about the opportunity for bipartisan nation-building, which is what citizenship and immigration are all about, and I would certainly urge the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship to put that to bed as well. I note that the member for Reid is in the chamber and is due to speak after me. He and I shared many of the platforms—I sound like I am an old man, at 47, reminiscing—of citizenship and multicultural affairs over a number of years at a very difficult time in Australia’s history. I was appointed the first ever citizenship minister in this place immediately after the September 11 atrocities—a time when I think Australia could have gone pear shaped. I say on the record that the member for Reid, in the advocacy within his party ranks—and I would like to believe that the member for Berowra, as the senior minister, and I—played a part in helping communities work together and build together in finding common ground rather than turning to things that could divide us and cause our nation to fall apart.

As the member for Watson has reflected, that is what this legislation is all about. Citizenship is the glue which essentially holds our family, our society, together. Yet, out of 21 million people in this country, something like one million plus are not citizens. It is extraordinary to me, as a former minister for citizenship, that about 60 per cent or more of those are from either the UK or New Zealand. These are people who come from countries similar to Australia and who live here for decades but choose not to be citizens. In the mid-1980s further changes were made dealing with the recognition of British subjects within Australia’s electoral framework. There are something like 200,000 British citizens—not Australian citizens—who are able to vote in this country. I find that offensive. I hope that all of those in my electorate who are now offended by that comment will still support me at a later point in the year.

I make the point that there is a real ambition by the government to draw everyone together under the reasonable challenge of signing up not just to the rights but to the responsibilities. The citizenship ceremony is a public statement of signing up to the responsibilities of being an Australian citizen. It is about saying very plainly that we believe in the rule of the law. As the member for Watson said, tolerance is not good enough; it is about respect—that we accept there are people in our country who come from a divergent range of cultures and backgrounds and if we do not have some time for respect in our heart we will have fights in our streets every day of the week. We do not want that.

Some of the worst people at understanding that are those who have been in this country for generations. They say: ‘I don’t know who that person is over there. They’ve got dark skin and they wear different clothes.’ There is not a dress code in this country. I do not care whether somebody wears a hijab or a chador. I find it very confronting, I must confess, when all you see is an eye-slit and somebody’s eyes. But it is not a religious practice; it is a cultural practice. I hope that over time they will wear down the practice. Too many Australians stand on their side of the street and forget to cross the street and say: ‘You’re new. You’re welcome. Find out about what is going on in Australia. Let me help you.’ My big challenge out of this morning’s debate morning is to say again that more Australians need to cross the street. They need to see that person they have never met before, they need to see that person who is dressed differently and they need to show them the way. Do not criticise them. Do not say: ‘They never talk in English. They talk in their own lingo. They keep to themselves.’ The message they are getting from too many Australians is: keep to yourself; talk in your own language. As the member for Watson said, the government is challenging those who are newer to Australia to get the confidence and the credentials to participate. With that sense of confidence and that competence you get a connection which allows you to have a sense of ownership about this country.

In the post September 11 environment some very fine words were said about those in various parts of the world who have no ambition of citizenship of any country. They are the big threat in the world. They do not care about any country. Those people are the problem, not those who perhaps take citizenship of two or more countries. I was very proud to introduce a bill, which became law, where we saw dual citizenship being possible in this country—where those born in this nation could travel to another country, become a citizen somewhere else and not lose their Australian citizenship. There are probably a million people around the world—certainly hundreds of thousands—who lost their citizenship of Australia because they took out citizenship somewhere else. Australia has grown up. Australia is no longer its own self-imposed victim of a cultural cringe that we are not good enough and are not capable enough.

Australia also is the most culturally diverse nation in the world. Twenty-five per cent of our current population were born in another country and between 20 and 25 per cent have at least one parent who was born in another country. There is no other nation—save for Canada, where about 19 or 20 per cent of people were born outside the county—that matches our 25 per cent in both those categories or that comes close to the sorts of challenges we have. We could disintegrate as a nation, we could balkanise, we could go into lots of little tribes. There is plenty of banter in this place. I am two parts Irish, two parts Scottish, and one part English and I have joked publicly that this means that I like a drink, but I want someone else to pay for it. But I am proud of my family’s history. One part of my family has been here for over 200 years. We did not come as convicts—I am envious of the member for Watson—we came as free settlers. I am proud of my family’s history: I like to do things Irish, I like to do things Scottish and I like to do things British. I also enjoy the fact that there are so many people from other countries who are proud of their cultures and traditions and who find new ways to share.

I am enormously blessed by a cultural diversity in my electorate that is so strong and yet so mature, so dedicated to Australia. There are people in my electorate who are going to be directly impacted by the citizenship test, if they want to be citizens, and who feel perhaps as though they are victims of a test that, as the member for Watson said, has been set up as a way of excluding people. But this test, as he said, is not about excluding people; it is about challenging people. It is about inviting people. It is about encouraging the many Australians who seem afraid to cross the street and welcome new faces into their neighbourhood. They seem afraid to do as The Bible says: ‘Do unto others as you would have them do unto you’. This test is saying to those people, ‘These people have passed all the tests we have put in front of them. They passed our character test, our security test, and our health test to get here in the first place, Now they are going to pass this citizenship test.’ We are resourcing in record numbers—510 hours of the adult migrant English program, plus further hours, are given to people who, as the member for Watson said, are not even literate in the language they speak, the language of their childhood; they cannot read and write. Many of those people are refugees from war-torn African nations, where the opportunity to learn was never there. The government is putting record amounts of money into this.

This is the big problem—and the officials can brief their minister if I am wrong. My recollection is that only about 180 hours of the 510 hours of the adult migrant English program are actually used by the people who participate in it. My genuine concern is that unless people take up what is offered to them there is a chance that they are not going to fully equip themselves for life here. Some people from Indo-Chinese backgrounds—and I have seen it on television; it must be right—who work in the market gardens around the back of Sydney airport have never spoken anything but Cambodian or Vietnamese in their entire time in Australia and they have been here for decades. That is not to say that all Vietnamese or Cambodians would fit that category. They are amongst the most articulate, capable and achieving of Australians.

It is important to see this as a test built around giving credibility to those migrants. This is not a test that is built around trying to exclude people. It is about trying to satisfy the half of the Australian family who do not have a direct first or second generation experience when it comes to migration—the groups of Australians who want to brief the rest of society, it seems, against those they perceive to be different, people with a different skin, with a different religion, with different dress codes or whatever. We tend to go through this as a country—we tend to test different migrant groups. The key Australian value is the sense of a fair go, but the key Australian challenge is the test of whether you are fair dinkum. I know it all sounds very colloquial but, at the end of it, that is what we do to generation after generation. I am old enough to remember the sixties. As a kid, the ‘odd’ ones in the school grounds were those whose names ended in ‘opolous’—the Greeks—and also the Italians. They are all very much, and very proudly, part of the mainstream now. The grandchildren and the great grandchildren of those early Greek migrants, who have suffered their entire lives speaking English with a Greek accent, now go off to Athens speaking Greek with an Australian accent. That is the way Australia has evolved over the years. The same thing has happened to the Vietnamese and the Taiwanese and the Chinese in my electorate. These people have their ABCs. They are Australian-born Vietnamese, Taiwanese or Chinese. They have the broadest of Australian accents, but Asian faces.

The same now is beginning to happen in the early part of our response to the needs of African refugees coming to this country. Knowing the stories that I know, knowing the people I know in the electorate of Moreton, and having visited the Kakuma camp in Kenya in 2003, I know that you can put whatever test you like in front of these people, and they will pass it. The first people to take up citizenship, no matter whether they had to wait one year, two years, three years or five years, are those who have been rejected by their old country. They have been through hell and back and worse. I do not need to labour the point about the atrocities they have had to endure on a personal level, on a family level and on a society level. They are tough people. They are people with a burning desire to win. That may be at the most elementary levels, but it is going to lift them up from the absolute despair they have been in. You can set as tough a test as you like—they are going to bust a gut to pass it, to prove something. They have the burning desire to belong. The sense of belonging that comes from being an Australian citizen brings a tear to your eye. You have to be tough stuff if you are not moved by the sheer emotion of grown-up people who have been through hell and back, grabbing hold of that Australian citizenship certificate and kissing it. The government is not going hard on them.

There are those who like to try and create trouble in these debates, to over-ethnicise society, to divide it up into lots of little chunks rather than to see it as threads of a marvellously strong social fabric, who try to break it up into little pebbles rather than see the fact that we are all part of the mainstream: the first Australians; those Australians of longer standing, such as my family who came in the 1790s on Mum’s side and the 1840s on Dad’s side; those who were part of the massive nation building exercise in the post Second World War period, where the Poles and the Germans, people who were opposing each other in war, came together in peace to build this country; the Italians; the Greeks; the Turks. All these people have come to Australia since the Second World War. Part of the energy and strength of this country, part of the reason this country is economically so successful and the society is so successful is that all of those people have come here to advance.

I have said it before and I say it again: nobody ever leaves their country of birth to go backwards. Whether you are the poorest refugee or the richest business migrant, you come to do better, and that is part of the energy in Australian society today. And, as I said, some people still do not get it. The fact that a million people who could be citizens—350,000 British and something like 240,000 New Zealanders—see it as an optional extra is astonishing. I think the next biggest group is 8,000 or 10,000 Italians. We need to challenge those of longer standing with English skills and those who have been here for a long time to sign up.

We need to make sure that those of us who have been here for many generations find a way of giving a sense of welcome to everybody. One of the things I have noted at many citizenship ceremonies—I have presided where there has been one person; I have presided where there have been 5,000, in the Exhibition Building in Melbourne a few years ago—is the affirmation of Australian citizenship. As my father always said, ‘I was born here, my father was born here, my grandfather was born here and my great grandfather came here. How come I can’t say something about my commitment to Australia?’ So over the last five, six or seven years, the government—at the instigation of the member for Berowra, Mr Ruddock, when he was Australia’s longest serving immigration minister—brought in this affirmation of Australian citizenship to give those of us born here a chance to stand with those who have just become citizens and say: ‘We feel as passionate about this as you do.’

So I welcome this test for the same reasons the member for Watson welcomes this test: it is a nation-building exercise, consistent with the expectations that society has. Since 1949 there have been a variety of criteria and tests to be met. Canada, as I said, is the only really comparable country to Australia. America has about 10 per cent overseas born, Canada has about 20 per cent and we have 25 per cent—hence my focus on Canada. I believe Canadian authorities make you wait five years, that you undergo intensive compulsory training in societal values and that you have to learn either English or French. If you are in Quebec, the Quebecois will insist upon French. Either way, it is then put before an independent third party, a citizenship judge. I saw the supreme judge of the citizenship court in action in Canada a few years ago. There is a huge, amazing sense of achievement for new Canadian citizens: ‘Hey, look—all the tests, all the barriers, all of the questions have been asked of us, and we’ve passed!’

For this particular test, 60 per cent is the pass mark. There are 20 questions randomly selected from a computer grouping. For the AMEP students, the ones who come from a non-English-speaking background, there is an opportunity to do sample papers to understand the test. In every possible way, what we are doing here is very consistent with our long-term ambition for nation building. It ensures that the people in society, indeed the people in this place, who do not get it can in fact be put in their place on this.

The member for Watson and I are going to be at one on a lot of these things, but I say to the member for Watson it is important for him to brief some members of his caucus about their comments. On 29 November last year, Senator Faulkner said in the Senate that he was very concerned about this. He said:

Language and civics tests will tell us nothing about the fitness of new arrivals for citizenship and its rights and obligations.

…         …         …

Just how social cohesion is promoted by applying pointless tests for full entry into the life of the country is not explained.

The member for Banks said just a month ago, on 21 May:

The test is the first thing that should be repealed when there is a change of government; it should not decide who becomes an Australian citizen.

The member for Swan is also on record in the Hansard being critical about this, as is the member for Canberra. Lindy Nelson-Carr, the Queensland Minister for Multiculturalism, who is more adept at branch stacking in my electorate than anything else, says this test is divisive and unnecessary. Their words are a complete contrast to what the member for Watson said. I would like to believe that the member for Watson’s comments are more consistent with good social cohesion and good nation building, as is this bill, than those of other members I have named. I call upon him to bring them into line. I really do recommend this bill to the House. I say to all members to remember that this is about nation building. It is not about excluding; it is about including.

Laurie Ferguson (Reid, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Multicultural Affairs, Urban Development and Consumer Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

At the outset I indicate that, since the member for Watson spoke, he has received correspondence from the minister allaying remaining concerns of the opposition. In reality he has confirmed that the ministerial determination under section 23A could not be inconsistent with the provisions of the act, and that is especially the case with the general eligibility in section 21(2). Furthermore, he confirmed that the intention is that the capacity to limit the eligibility requirements for any citizenship test will be used to limit access to additional tests that may be necessary if it is found that there is a cohort of people for whom a less formal approach to testing is appropriate. I do not want to have too much backslapping here, but I also congratulate the previous speaker in relation to his role as the minister for a period. I had him in my electorate on many occasions, and he did bring to this portfolio great enthusiasm and interest.

I would agree with previous speakers that, having regard to the way in which the Australian Citizenship Amendment (Citizenship Testing) Bill 2007 has emerged, it is not of grave concern. There are exemptions regarding those aged under 18 and over 60. There is provision for exemption for those with mental incapacity. The minister has a degree of discretion to look at the situation of people with other needs. There are also provisions relating to those with literacy problems.

However, when people quote and denigrate speakers who have expressed concerns over the last year or so and who have said that the legislation is unfair, we have to remember the context in which the legislation arose. Reference has been made to recent comments by the member for Goldstein, but I remind the House of his initial comments. For instance, on 19 September last year, in regard to citizenship, he made these comments which were reported in the Australian on that date:

They know people are going to come here, but they want it on our terms. That gives them a sense of control.

He was speaking about the Australian people. He also commented—and this was paraphrased in the newspaper article—that ‘the Australian values based regime is designed to give the community a sense of security’. That was said by the article’s author to echo John Howard’s pledge on border protection during the 2001 election campaign. So whilst it is interesting to philosophise on how we got to this far more moderate legislation, the context in which it was originally introduced was such that people would have been concerned.

I refer to the infamous outburst, as I would see it, by the Prime Minister while touring a Greek aged persons organisation in Melbourne, reported by Patricia Kavalas in the Australian. She noticed that the vast majority of older Greeks present at that function did not speak English. She put it to the Prime Minister: ‘These new English tests, Prime Minister, most of the people here can’t speak English, and they have been here for so long.’ The Prime Minister then said, ‘Oh, but they helped build Australia.’ The point I am making is that I believe that the original intention behind this legislation is not reflected by what came out in the end. We see from those comments by the then parliamentary secretary and the Prime Minister that the original intention would have to be seen by any objective person to have involved an emphasis on security and a possible attempt to marginalise people.

It is uncertain why there has been this major change, having regard to the way in which the legislation was originally moving. It could be because of the reaction from the opposition. Equally, it could be because a journalist whom I respect, who had an extensive interview with the parliamentary secretary, was assured that deep down he was a person with a commitment to a multicultural Australia, that people should live together and that it should be about nation building. Maybe there was reconsideration among government ranks. Equally, it is possible that the government concluded that any campaign around security and the marginalisation of minorities was not going to go anywhere because it did not represent the facts.

Whilst I note that the Prime Minister has set himself up for a new task in life, as a major expert on historical writing, even though he has limited academic credentials in that field, we should not forget this country’s history and what could possibly happen. In the First World War, every Greek family in this country was investigated by the precursor to ASIO. Their loyalty was doubted because the then King of Greece was regarded as having affinity for the Germans, as opposed to the democratic government of Venizelos in Greece. Also, during the First World War, the Russian Club in South Brisbane was burned to the ground. In the Second World War, Germans and Italians were incarcerated.

An article in the Royal Australian Historical Journal in the last year or so talked about the situation on the border in Albury, where there were two Lutheran ministers. One of them, a convert from Judaism, was shoved into detention as a possible Nazi sympathiser. Another article in that journal just in the last month or so looked at the situation of Italian fascists in this country. With respect to those people who joined the Fascist Party, in Queensland in particular, it was found that they largely joined because of business pressure from the Italian consulate, and a belief that they would be disadvantaged in trade situations if they did not join. We all know that large numbers of Italians were incarcerated during the Second World War.

I do not think this country is any worse than others; we are a bit too inclined to persecute ourselves over such matters. Racism and marginalisation have been phenomena around the world. These things are always possible. We do know that since September 11 one community in particular has attracted deep interest from some segments of our population. I refer to people of the Islamic faith. One of the reasons the approach which first led to this kind of legislation would have had no credibility in driving home that campaign is that the statistics do not really assist that kind of campaign. Many speakers have referred to the reality in this country—that, of the large numbers of people who have qualified to become Australian citizens, they are disproportionately of British and New Zealand extraction, with an Italian presence as well. It is worth noting that the citizenship rate for Italians is 65½ per cent. The rate for New Zealanders is 37.7 per cent and for those from the Netherlands it is 78.3 per cent. In contrast, many communities that are newly arrived here are far more keen to become citizens and their rates are very high.

If this law in the next few years were to massively change the requirements in regard to citizenship—and we know it has in one sense, in that there is a requirement that people now have to be permanent residents here for four years rather than what was previously two years—those most affected, those that would be hit the hardest if they decided to become citizens for whatever reason in the near future, would not be, to any major degree, people from the Islamic world. As indicated by previous speakers and by me, they would be predominantly from Europe, New Zealand et cetera.

If we look at the intake to this country over the last few years, what do we find regarding people who might become eligible for citizenship over the next few years? The first reason that not many of them are going to be affected by the legislation is that they are coming here under the skilled category, with increasingly—and quite rightly—more stringent English requirements in order to enter. If we look at the breakdown of the intake over recent years, we see that it is predominantly once again from the UK, as well as India and China.

It is interesting to note the July to December 2006 intake figures into this country: India had a little over 6,000; Sri Lanka about 1,200; China 5,500; Philippines 2,500; Vietnam 1,600; Europe nearly 16,000; the UK 12,000. Not many Muslims have come through from what I can perceive. Over the latter half of last year, Sudan had 1,600, and I would argue that they are predominantly Christians from the south, and Iraq had nearly 1,200 and, to a large degree, they are going to be religious victims of events over the last year or so who have been fleeing predominantly to Syria and Jordan. There might be some Shi’ites in there. The number of Sunnis entering is not going to be worth worrying too much about.

The government has certainly come up with fairly innocuous legislation. There are still concerns about the degree of discretion on what is going to occur. The comments that foreshadowed this legislation were of a very different nature from what we have arrived at. You could not say that the government has succeeded in meeting its expectations of early pronouncements about security, with the Australian people deciding who is going to become citizens. As previous speakers have said, we have had tests since the 1948 legislation. Occasionally you come across people that have been rejected. I have come across one or two myself.

Despite outbursts of marginalisation of people, discrimination and denigration, Australia is, by international standards, an accepting nation. I have often alluded in citizenship speeches to countries of the former Soviet Union. The Russian minority in those countries, which were once so dominant, find themselves isolated, unable to move back to Russia proper, denied citizenship in many of the new nations and some of them have language tests. Over the years we have all watched what happened in Germany: their severe struggle to change citizenship laws. A one vote majority in the Bundesrat was accomplished by the social democrats breaking every convention of West German politics to vote the legislation through, leading to the abandonment of the German situation where people got citizenship by blood. Volga Germans, who had moved to Russia three centuries beforehand, could walk in next morning and become citizens, whereas Turkish and Kurdish residents of Germany who had lived there for three of four generations were denied citizenship.

By any standards we have been liberal, we have been accepting, we have been tolerant. That is still largely encased in this new legislation. As I say, there are reasons to be concerned.  In the Melbourne Age of 11 June last year, when there was some debate around these measures, a young schoolgirl, Adela Aliaga-Yori, talked of her family’s experience. She stated:

I remember both of my parents going every morning to take them—

English classes—

They used to tell me that it is not enough to fully understand the language.

They also had to stop taking the lessons because they had to work and provide for me and my brother. After a few years now, they speak English so much better than when they first came. My father was finally able to get a job in his career because his English improved. My mother also works and is happy to communicate in her new language.

She noted concerns which were understandable. She goes on:

Luckily, my family and I were able to attain citizenship because we came when the law only required migrants to live in Australia for a given period of time before acquiring the citizenship. However, this does not make me any less affected by it because I know and see the complications and fears fellow migrants are experiencing through the test.

Luckily her fears, which were legitimate at that stage because of comments, did not eventuate.

Eric Bana recently appeared in a very worthwhile film Romulus, My Father about a Romanian migrant family in this country and their experiences and, being of Croatian and German extraction, also looked at his situation in life. These are very telling comments because he did appear in a film which portrayed the experience of Eastern European migrants:

My father spoke very limited English, my mother was slightly more fluent ...

I know for a fact my grandparents would not have passed any of those tests. I would not be standing here had those tests been enforced in the late 1940s.

These are real-life experiences of people. The Labor Party amendment speaks of the need for more emphasis on English testing, and I think that is right and proper.

Our country has essentially stressed the acceptance of people. If we are worried about security in this country we might feel that it would help if we did not let doubtful people become citizens. One of the earlier speakers, I think it was the member for More-ton, said that most people come to this country to improve their circumstance in life. Most of them come here hoping to be accepted, to get employment, to prosper and for their children to become part of the society. There are a few exceptions. It is normally when they feel that they are ostracised, marginalised and outside the system that they are seized upon and liable to be attracted to extremist forces. My emphasis as an individual would always be on ensuring that we maximise the possibilities of people being accepted.

This test is in the same ballpark as that which preceded it. If we are concerned about security and incorporating people into society, the $123 million that is expended over the next five years might more effectively, to my mind, be spent better in one particular segment: community broadcasting. Yesterday the member for Lindsay presented a unanimous report from a parliamentary committee. Four million Australians listen to community radio during a year. It has trained large numbers of Australians—7,500 a year—in worthwhile communication work and encompasses 23,000 volunteers nationally. Of the 480 ethnic stations that exist, there are seven full-time ethnic stations in this country.

It is worth noting the funding for this sector. If we look at 3ZZZ, the flagship station for the ethnic community in this country, we will find that its funding over the last decade has gone from $48 to $34 per hour. I did not catch the full contribution the member for Lindsay made yesterday, but I think there were some concerns expressed in that report about funding. Some $10 million has been given to digitalisation over the next few years. That will be helpful, but it is not enough. The reason I stress this is that the listening audience in this country is increasingly subject, in terms of globalisation, to penetration by overseas broadcasters. When I go into many households now, particularly in the Turkish community, I find they have seven or eight, who knows how many, television stations broadcasting into their homes 24 hours a day from Turkey. Much of this is innocuous: soap operas, trivia shows and these types of things that the Australian mass audience is also into. But there is, in some cases, the increasing possibility that stations pushing extremist messages will be more widely accepted, viewed and listened to in this country.

When we talk about acceptance and about trying to make sure that people have our values, are part of our culture and are in the same frame of reference as us, it is important that we promote community radio and television in this country in these ethnic communities because the people running these stations are, in 99 per cent of the cases, people who have passed Australian citizenship ceremonies, have lived in this country for many decades and are affected by our laws with re-gard to what can be published and with regard to racial vilification and discrimination. They are people who understand the nuances of our society. They live here, they know what we think and they are affected by it.

During this debate on the issue of citizenship, one thing we should not underestimate for a moment is the need to fund this sector. In some communities, there is a real battle on for people’s minds, and there is heavy subsidisation of overseas television stations that, in some cases, have pushed very extremist messages. It is important that particularly young people are given the opportunity to be influenced by more Australian values.

SBS did a survey some years ago of seven ethnic communities in this country, and it was interesting that the vast majority of their attitudes on a wide variety issues and that what they listened to and were interested in were very close to Australian values in general. One exception was the Lebanese community, both of Christian extraction and Moslem extraction. They stood out because the children said that they got their interest in the media from their parents. Most other communities said they got it from other young people and from the broader society. I have diverged slightly from the main point of this legislation, but that is an example of a community where we need to push Australian-grown media options rather than having it inculcated over a long period that the overseas media is better. In conclusion, the outcome of a very long road—and given the government’s initial much-vaunted promises—is this piece of legislation before the House today, and the opposition supports it. It is not a mirror of what was alluded to and what was inferred; it is very moderate and a very reasonable outcome. (Time expired)

Alan Cadman (Mitchell, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

From my perspective, the Australian Citizenship Amendment (Citizenship Testing) Bill 2007 has been long awaited. From the time that I first came in contact with a wide range of ethnic groups and communities around Australia in the mid-eighties, I have been anxious that we really explain to new citizens taking the oath of allegiance so that they understand something of the commitment they are making. I think the only way in which we can influence those who want to subvert or change Australia to their own form of dictatorship or dominance and who want to be separate from the bulk of Australians is to have them understand that most Australians really do know what this country stands for and do want to support it and see it prosper. They want to see their families, and the generations who follow, prosper in an open, free and democratic society. The only way in which that can be achieved is through the Citizenship Act and by having the Citizenship Act as a basis of understanding: if somebody who has taken the oath seeks to corrupt or ignore, they become answerable to the processes of law.

In my mind a lot hinges on the acceptance and the granting of citizenship. It is a privilege and it is a responsibility rolled into one. Citizenship has a special character. There are the legal aspects of it and then there are the cultural aspects of it. It is the most precious thing Australians can give to others. In granting citizenship, we are saying that we are inviting the new citizen to share in all of the achievements of this nation and contribute not only to the present but also to the future. We are saying, ‘We want to honour you by giving you an equality of citizenship with those of us who were born here and had no choice in our citizenship and those who have come here since and have chosen to take it up.’

How is that done? Some of my forebears were among the first arrivals. They did not have too much choice about coming here. The pioneering spirit of those days often goes unrecognised: the hardships experienced by women and families in remote areas as they carved out a nation from the land, first of all establishing their own survival and then, following that survival, the achievements of growth, development and export. Then there was the proud establishment of a nation, often through war, through the striving of brave and courageous Australians as they gave their lives to defend the things that we believe in. Those have been very precious moments in our history and they are very fine achievements. The sharing of that heritage is something that is epitomised and concentrated on in the decision of citizenship. That is the process that has been considered from 1949, with consequential changes until these changes arrived.

I would have to say that I was disappointed with some of the changes that the previous Labor government brought to citizenship. I saw them as weakening the process of commitment to the nation. I thought that was a great shame. It was in part misguided because the Labor Party listened to the argument that people were being required to give up their culture by accepting Australian citizenship. Nothing could be further from the truth. Culture is something personal. Accepting the Australian identity goes beyond culture and is something that encompasses everything; it is the overarching process of living together as an Australian family. Those changes reduced the length of time spent in Australia and changed the oath. It made the acceptance of citizenship something whereby I saw people grabbing it so that they could have a safe haven for their families, often taking free education and our welfare system for granted while they explored economic opportunities elsewhere in the world, mainly in Asia. That lack of commitment was something that I felt was a detrimental step. Since the change of government in 1996, there have been changes that I have basically been very happy with. I am not at all sure at this point whether the dual citizenship decision will serve Australia well in the long run. I have some doubts about whether that was a step in the right direction, although I know it is a popular and international thing to do.

The privileges of citizenship are outlined on the website of the Department of Immigration and Citizenship. Under the heading of ‘Privileges and Responsibilities of Australian Citizenship’ it says:

Privileges of Australian Citizens

It entitles you to privileges of Australian citizenship giving you the right to:

• live in Australia
• apply for an Australian passport and to leave and re-enter Australia without applying for a resident return visa
• seek assistance from Australian diplomatic representatives while overseas
• vote to help elect Australia’s governments
• stand for Parliament
• work in the public service
• serve in the armed forces
• register as Australian citizens by descent any of your children born overseas after you become an Australian citizen.

Responsibilities of Australian Citizens

…         …         …

• obey Australian laws
• enrol on Federal and state/territory electoral registers
• vote in elections
• defend Australia should the need arise
• serve on a jury if called to do so.

The step from residency to citizenship gives privileges and responsibilities. As a parliament we are deciding on what additional measures should be in the process other than, after a couple of years, turning up at a ceremony at the local council chambers.

I have been to many citizenship ceremonies and one of the most regrettable factors in citizenship ceremonies that I have observed—not in all of them but in a considerable number—is the wish of those gaining citizenship to grab the certificate and leave the hall as quickly as possible. I know that in some instances family commitments must impose that on people, and often young children are involved, but to see through the whole ceremony and pay tribute to your fellow Australians taking the oath at that time is something I would have thought was fundamental in gaining of citizenship: sharing the celebration. Many of the occasions are done wonderfully by local government. Mostly they are very good. There is some form of entertainment, there is always a supper, or there is a chance to meet local representatives and mix with community representatives who attend and want to welcome people into the Australian family. The wish to get out of there as quickly as possible—get the passport, get the recognition, get the certificate and leave—is something that I think has been detrimental to some of our ceremonies. In this instance it is a building block. It is not complete because there are many elements to the process.

Editorials in newspapers like the Herald Sun are interesting. Regarding agreement to the 20-question citizenship test, the editorial, dated 19 May, says:

If you answered a) you would be correct because there is no reason migrants who want to be citizens should not have a basic knowledge of Australian history and values.

The proposed questions, revealed in the Herald Sun, serve an important purpose. They concentrate the minds of potential citizens on the need to know who we are and why being an Australian is a privilege.

The amendment is approved by a Herald Sun poll of readers—a sample of almost 2,000 people: 72 per cent to 28 per cent. I think that is the general attitude of Australians. Some in the chamber, even within my own party, feel that this is too onerous a task to impose on others, but, when you analyse the citizenship acts of nations from which people have come to Australia, one has to realise that this is just a very modest requirement compared to most. Most of them have at least a four-year wait; most have a more substantial test; most have a more substantial oath than Australia requires. Compared with the citizenship or residency requirements of Greece, Italy, the United States or practically any country in our region, where the commitment of a citizen is substantial, the Australian citizenship requirements need to be substantial as well.

If one looks at the proposals outlined by the parliamentary secretary in September 2006 one sees that there are a number of citizenship tests around the world. The United Kingdom’s test, entitled ‘Life in the UK’, tests a person’s knowledge of the UK and the English language. Applicants are tested on chapters 2, 3 and 4 of the Life in the UK book. Topics covered in the test include migration, the role of women, children, family and young people, population, religion and tolerance, regions of Britain, customs and traditions, systems of government and those sort of things. This test was first introduced into the UK on 1 November 2005. It is conducted via computer and consists of 24 multiple-choice questions. Applicants are provided with 45 minutes to complete the test. Questions are randomly allocated to applicants from a bank of 200 questions which are refreshed regularly. The pass mark is around 75 per cent but may vary depending on the type of questions asked in each test. There are alternatives to sitting the test and speaking the language. People aged 75 years and over or people with health problems such as long-term illness, disability and mental impairments may be exempt from the test. That is a very simple provision.

In Canada a written test was introduced in 1994, and it replaced oral citizenship interviews. The paper based test consists of 20 multiple-choice questions with applicants recording their answers on a computer based scantron answer sheet. The test takes about 30 minutes to complete. To be eligible for citizenship a person is required to have an adequate knowledge of Canada, of the responsibilities and privileges of citizenship and of one of the official languages—English or French. So there is a double whammy for Canadians about what they should or should not know. There are some exceptions, of course, based on age or infirmity. Examples from the Canadian test include: Who are the aboriginal peoples of Canada? Where did the first European settlers in Canada come from? What does ‘confederation’ mean? They are simple questions that are critical for a basic knowledge of the land that you are making your home.

The Netherlands also has a test. The test was introduced on 1 April 2003. It is a knowledge test, and the components are conducted via computer and contain 40 multiple-choice questions. Applicants are provided with 45 minutes to complete the test. The questions are changed every six months and the pass mark is 70 per cent. There are four modules: listening, speaking, reading and writing. To be eligible for citizenship a person must be sufficiently integrated into Dutch society and the test must be passed before an application for citizenship is lodged. This is just a sample. The United States has had a test since 1980, and it is currently under review. In the US the pass mark is 60 per cent but there is also a requirement for a longer period of residency and a greater strength is placed on permanency under their citizenship laws.

I have picked out just a few of the tests that are required of people taking citizenship from around the world. Australia has decided that we will have a citizenship tests, and I think that is an excellent idea. The test is outlined in the legislation under subsection 21(2). Paragraph (f) has been expanded to include the requirement that an applicant has ‘an adequate knowledge of Australia’ in addition to the requirement that an applicant has an adequate knowledge of ‘the responsibilities and privileges of Australian citizenship’. Subsection 21(2A) states that a person is:

... taken to be satisfied if and only if the Minister is satisfied that the person has, before making the application:

(a)

sat a test approved in a determination under section 23A; and

(b)

successfully completed that test ...

There is no way for these criteria to be satisfied other that by successfully completing a test. A person applying under subsection 21(2) will not be eligible to become an Australian citizen unless he or she has successfully completed a test prior to applying for citizenship. It also requires the minister to personally approve a test by a determination in writing under a new subsection. That is the basis of it.

There has been all sorts of speculation about what type of test is going to be adopted. I think there is a general understanding in the House that it will be basic and fairly simple and one that those who are students at school certificate level, or something less than that, would understand. It will not be onerous but it will inculcate over a period of time into people gaining citizenship a real knowledge of what it is to be an Aussie.

I am delighted that these changes are being introduced into our Citizenship Act. I had the great pleasure of being with the minister when he met the committee of the migrant resource centre in Parramatta, when there was a free-flowing discussion about citizenship and the proposed changes. I would have to say there was general satisfaction from people from a wide variety of nationalities, many of whom are already Australian citizens, that there would be no offence given to anybody and there would only be genuine acceptance if the minister went ahead, as he outlined the laws on that day. There was a huge understanding from those responsible citizens who work so hard to assist their fellow former migrants or newly arrived migrants that a commitment to Australia is essential and an understanding of English is essential. They understood that, wherever possible, bringing together an understanding of English and a test where people answer basic questions about the character, history, traditions and values of Australia is an absolute, basic requirement for obtaining citizenship.

I am very pleased that the government has moved to provide this test. It will make sure that those who do not seek to accept Australia will have a greater responsibility to understand Australia placed on them and will be required to make a commitment to abide by that basic nationality test. It is a good thing that we are doing today. I commend the opposition for their approval. I have not seen an amendment that is so supportive of a government initiative before, and I am very pleased that they have decided to move an amendment in the terms that they have. (Time expired)

Craig Emerson (Rankin, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Service Economy, Small Business and Independent Contractors) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This Australian Citizenship Amendment (Citizenship Testing) Bill 2007 provides for the introduction of an Australian citizenship test. The question is: why? Why, after 11 years in office, would the government decide that the time has come for an Australian citizenship test to be formalised? There is already a citizenship test. Citizenship is not handed out like confetti to anyone who has been in the country for a specified period of time. Applicants for citizenship are expected to know about Australia, to have functional English and, basically, to be able to demonstrate that they are of good character. Yet, after 11 years, the government has decided that something new has to be done. Why wouldn’t the government have done this in its first term or even in its second term?

The answer is that there has been a development in the last couple of years, and that development was the Cronulla riots. The Cronulla riots sharpened public opinion, particularly in Sydney but more broadly around Australia, about the whole issue of the contribution or otherwise of people from other countries to the development of Australia. Now, it is reasonable that the Australian people ask such questions, but the truth of the matter is that this government was responding to public opinion polls. If you want to know what really makes this government jump, what really makes it change a position, it is public opinion polls.

This is a political response to an unfortunate set of developments in south-west Sydney. Those developments were not only the Cronulla riots but also the activities of some members of the Muslim community. The sad truth is that the Howard government has sought to capitalise on the anxiety and division created by the behaviour of a small minority of members of the Muslim community in part of Sydney.

Have there been any major developments over the last 12 months or so in terms of the relationship between long-settled Australians and those who have arrived more recently in Melbourne? Perhaps, but I am not aware of any particular crisis that would have caused the government’s changed position. Have there been any such developments in Adelaide or in Perth? Indeed, in my home city of Brisbane and, more particularly, in Logan City, the area that I represent in this parliament, have there been any major divisions or riots, any ruckus? No, Mr Deputy Speaker, there have not.

In fact, in Logan City, we assert that we have the most diverse population anywhere in Australia—not the highest concentration of people from overseas, including people from non-English-speaking backgrounds, but the greatest diversity. We assert that there are people living in Logan City from more than 160 different homelands. The second reading speech described Australia as a country that has welcomed people from 200 different homelands, so we are right up there; we are only 40 short of the total number of countries from which Australia has drawn citizens over the last 150 years. So Logan City is an incredibly diverse area. Different people live side by side. Wave after wave of migrants who come to Australia come to Logan City.

The most recent wave of migrants is from African countries. Initially, they were Sudanese, but now they are Congolese, people from Somalia, people from Burundi—people from all over Africa. And the people who are already settled in Logan City welcome them with open arms. The people who come from these African countries do not live in enclaves. The sort of picture that is created and painted by this government, a picture of nonintegration and people unwilling to declare themselves true Aussies, is not the reality in Logan City, nor is it necessarily the reality anywhere else. Yet that one event, built on simmering tensions, the Cronulla riots, has caused the government to go down this particular path.

In addition to the changes set out in this legislation, the government has made it harder for people from overseas to qualify for citizenship, by extending the qualifying period from two years to four years. Let us be clear about what the government is doing: instead of inviting people to Australia and asking them to make a commitment to Australia through becoming Australian citizens, the government is making it harder to become a citizen. Why would it do that? Isn’t it what the Australian public wants—that those who do come here make a commitment to our country through taking out citizenship?

I argued to the ethnic communities of Logan City that as a federal member I would want as many of them as possible to make a commitment to Australia through citizenship. In my view, it is not a desirable situation for people from other countries to come to Australia and remain noncitizens indefinitely. We should encourage citizenship not discourage it. Yet through those two separate measures, the government seems to be discouraging citizenship by extending the qualifying period from two to four years and by applying a citizenship test.

Originally, with the first measure the government decided to extend the citizenship qualifying period from two to three years. It must have then thought that it was not hard enough, so made it four years, and then accompanied it with the test. There is already a test, but this formalises the testing arrangements. The main test will be the selection of 20 multiple choice questions drawn randomly from a large pool. 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 and the three mandatory questions must be answered correctly.

Interestingly, the provisions contained in this legislation are far more moderate than those originally foreshadowed by the minister. To that extent, we welcome the moderation and Labor will support the measures contained in this legislation. Special arrangements will be made for people whose literacy skills mean that they have difficulty undertaking a test. The minister has a large degree of discretion to provide a different test and exemptions for the test. For example, exemptions will include people under the age of 18 or over 60, and also those with a permanent physical or mental incapacity which prevents them from understanding the nature of their application. There has been moderation from the original intent of this legislation and we welcome that moderation.

Labor also understands that people who come to Australia from non-English-speaking backgrounds, especially those who come from very poor countries and often in dire circumstances, need assistance in learning English. When I speak to the Sudanese and other people from Africa who are settling in Logan City, the first thing they say they want to do is learn English. It is not as if Australia is riddled with enclaves of people who do not want to learn English. The people from these African countries know that, in order to get a job, sustain their families and perhaps bring other people to Australia, they need to be at least functionally literate. They seek help to learn English and Labor says that help should be provided. Isn’t that going to the heart of the issue? We want to assist people to learn English and therefore play out a fuller role in our community. Labor is taking a positive approach on these issues, whereas, sadly, the coalition is taking a negative approach.

Let us ponder for a moment what the possible rationale for this measure could be beyond capitalising on some strong public opinion emanating out of the Cronulla riots. Let us ask whether this citizenship test would stop bad people from becoming citizens. If a bad person wants to become a citizen, do you think they would set out to fail the test? They would be doing their very best to pass the test. Are we saying that someone who is hostile to the Australian way of life may have terrorist intentions? Who would say, ‘I was going to be a really bad guy, but they tripped me up on that citizenship test. I was just about to get away with some heinous crime and then I did the citizenship test, got less than 60 per cent and failed, so I have been exposed.’ It is just ludicrous that this testing procedure could be, in any way, conceived as a means of filtering out bad people, because strongly motivated bad people will pass the test.

Who might fail the test? One group who might fail the test are women from very poor countries from non-English-speaking backgrounds. They come from poor circumstances, are poorly educated in their home countries and come to Australia with heavy commitments to their families. They could easily struggle with this test. Do we really want that? Are they the sort of people we want to prevent from becoming Australian citizens? I thought we would want to encourage them. Why not recognise the difficult circumstances of women from poor countries of non-English-speaking backgrounds and assist them in learning English? They do not have a lot of time on their hands, they do not have the educational background to be able to pick up a new language easily and they are the sorts of people who could experience difficulty. They are the people that, I would have thought, we would want to become Australian citizens, not the sorts of the people we would want to deter.

Can this test be abused? Can it be abused by the government of the day instructing the authorities to make the test more difficult or the decision as to whether they have passed or not tougher for particular groups? I do not know, but I fear that it could. Could it be used to keep people from particular ethnic backgrounds from becoming Australian citizens? We cannot really answer that because we have not actually seen the test at this stage but I certainly do hope that that is not the motivation.

Having read the second reading speech, I am none the wiser as to the motivation behind this other than, ‘Isn’t it good that people make a commitment to Australia and understand our culture?’ Of course, that is good, but will a citizenship test make that happen? I doubt it. As I said at the outset, it is not as if there is no test already—there is a test. However, because this particular test as outlined in the legislation is far more moderate than that originally proposed, Labor will support it but we would back it up by committing extra resources to the teaching of English.

Australia needs a strong immigration program and I will acknowledge freely that immigration to Australia over the last few years has increased very substantially. This is a good development and I thank the government for presiding over such an increase in immigration. For example, excluding the humanitarian program, in the mid-nineties we had a total program of a bit over 82,000. Now, in 2006-07, it is 144,000 and it is expected in 2007-08 to be more than 150,000. These are welcome developments. The humanitarian program has remained at around 13,000 a year for the last few years. This is very important for Australia’s future.

The Intergenerational report identifies and quantifies the problem of the ageing of the population. As the Treasurer has said, ‘Demography is destiny’. Decisions that were made through the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s have caused the current situation so not only is the population ageing with us but there is not a great deal that we can do about it in the short term. Something that we can do is to lift the fertility rates of women of childbearing age and there are plenty of policy proposals that have been put forward which are designed to do that. Most of them come from the Labor side of politics, including from the shadow Treasurer, who has identified problems in the family payment system and the disincentives involved in the interaction of the family payment system with the income tax system plus the high cost of child care which mean that women of childbearing age tend not to go back to work as quickly as otherwise they might. There are issues with our declining fertility. There has been a lift in fertility in the last year or so. Some people say that it is a temporary phenomenon as women who approach their mid to late 30s realise that their clocks are ticking and that they need to have their babies if they are going to have them. It is not assured that the temporary lift in fertility that we have experienced in the last two years will be sustained.

So what do we do about the ageing of the population? We are having debates in this parliament and outside the parliament about productivity. It is vital that we lift the nation’s productivity but there is another way as well to complement a lift in participation in the workforce and that is with a lift in immigration. The difference between the original Intergenerational report and the updated Intergenerational report released by the Treasurer in early April is that the government had not anticipated the strength with which the contribution of an increase in immigration would modify the ageing of the population. That is, the government had not expected that it would be possible to bring in enough younger migrants to help offset the impact of population ageing. It appears that perhaps immigration has greater potential to help offset the adverse consequences of population ageing than had been understood at the time of the original Intergenerational report in 2002. If that is the case, that is very welcome news.

Given that we will not be able to fundamentally turn around the population ageing phenomenon we will need as many younger migrants as possible to bolster the working age population in Australia. There will be shortages of both skilled and unskilled labour not only next year and the year after but right through the foreseeable period. It is understood that there will be skill shortages, but what is not so readily understood is that there will be shortages of people with lower levels of skills as well. With the ageing of the population, we will need working age people perhaps with somewhat lower levels of skills to do a lot of the less glamorous work. We will need people without high skill levels to work in our aged-care facilities as people live through their 90s and become more than 100 years of age. These will be very frail people. So we do need that boost in immigration. I welcome the boost in immigration that this government has presided over but it is vitally important that we make it easier not harder for migrants to come to Australia and we make it easier not harder for migrants to make a commitment to Australia by becoming Australian citizens. (Time expired)

Michael Ferguson (Bass, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for the opportunity to speak to the Australian Citizenship Amendment (Citizenship Testing) Bill 2007. This bill is very important to me and I believe it is a subject that is held in high importance by all members of this House. We need to exercise our obligation at all times for greater social cohesion in this great country. It is also my belief that all candidates for citizenship ought to be able to do a citizenship test voluntarily even if they are exempt from the test, and it is on this point that I express my view that the law may need to be changed in the future. Today I want to outline why the Commonwealth government ought to assist these people and why I ask that it be considered in future reviews of this legislation.

In December 2006, the Australian government announced its intention to introduce a test for certain applicants for Australian citizenship. In announcing the plan, the then Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, Andrew Robb, said that it would help migrants to integrate and maximise the opportunities available to them in Australia. It was true then and it is true now that this measure will be of benefit not just to candidates for citizenship but indeed to our whole country. Under the proposed test, future migrants will need to demonstrate a basic level of English language skills as well as knowledge of the Australian way of life and shared values. At the time, Mr Robb said:

Australian Citizenship is a privilege not a right. This citizenship test is an important extension of the Government’s broader philosophy of mutual obligation.

A practical, commonsense test will serve to enhance the value of Australian Citizenship as something worth striving for.

Community support for such a test came through with more than 1,600 responses to the discussion paper and, of those responses, 60 per cent indicated their clear support for a formal citizenship test. I feel greatly encouraged that such a large number of people and interest groups put forward their positive proposals in helping to formulate the policy that we are discussing today.

New citizens will undertake a web based test requiring people to demonstrate their knowledge of the English language and of Australia, and there will also be an oral component to the test. While all prospective citizens will need to take a test, there will be provision for alternative testing arrangements for people who cannot attain the literacy standards required. Prospective applicants for citizenship will also be asked to sign a statement of commitment to Australia.

As I outlined earlier, I am also of the strong belief that, if they want to, even those people who are not required to sit the test but who are approaching candidacy for citizenship ought to be offered the opportunity to be given the booklet to study for and undertake the test, if for nothing else but their own sense of pride and achievement. It would have the flow-on benefit of increasing the level of English ability and the knowledge of Australia which will stand them in very good stead into the future.

I have a couple of comments about my electorate of Bass in northern Tasmania, which informs my views on the subject. Bass is not a place, and neither is Tasmania, where we have seen immigration levels such as have been witnessed in other states around Australia. Immigration levels have historically been strong in Tasmania, but in recent decades they have certainly not been at the rate experienced in New South Wales and Victoria. Approximately 13 per cent of people living in my electorate of Bass were born overseas, and approximately 900 people per year immigrate to Tasmania. In the financial year 2005-06 there were 177 immigrants from the United Kingdom, 82 from the Sudan, 47 from India, 33 from the United States of America and 34 from South Africa. There is a strong component, particularly from the African nations, of refugee and humanitarian entrants, and by far the majority of people are entering under skilled work programs and family reunion.

I have a strong affection for our migrant community in northern Tasmania. We have an excellent community of people who have a commitment to Australia and to Tasmania and, while there are pulls and attractions to move closer to some of their fellow countrymen interstate in some of the bigger cities, the ones who choose to stay in Tasmania really love the place. I note that the Africans, in particular, struggle with the cold at times—particularly on a day like today, the winter solstice—but they have a love for Tasmania, which is something which has grown in them even though, if they were refugees, at first they may not have had any choice as to where they would be settled.

I particularly draw the House’s attention to two refugees who have come a great way in Launceston, Tasmania. I hope they do not mind me mentioning them: their names are Abdul and Aminata Succoh. They are a wonderful family with a large number of children, including their youngest, Shalom—a beautiful little child—and they have made and are making the transition from languishing in a refugee camp in Africa. One day the truck rolled by, literally, and they were told that their number had come up and they were moving to Australia. They have made a tremendous contribution to our community in northern Tasmania and they are exemplars of the African community which they represent. They have opened a business; they are an enterprising family. They are engaged in tailoring, hair braiding and the sale of products—all things African. I pay tribute to them today as people who represent the African community in northern Tasmania and who—I may say this because I have asked—greatly support the Australian government’s immigration policies, including the citizenship test. They are interested in community; they are not interested in politics. They are interested in watching and supporting their people and helping them to make the transition which they have made and are making to have a better life, to appreciate and be part of the country which gave them new hope and a new future and to enthusiastically embrace it. After all, they fled their home country. That is not to say that they do not miss it and it is certainly not to say that they do not miss those loved ones that they left behind, because they do, but they have a deep affection and a deep love for this country, even a deeper love than many people have who were born here in Australia who perhaps have grown up in this wonderful country of ours and, from time to time, take it for granted.

I will in passing make the unusual step of paying tribute to my late father-in-law, Salvatore Fasano, who passed away a few years ago, and who was an Italian immigrant—in fact, a prisoner of war, taken by the Allied forces in the Second World War and placed on the West Tamar in Northern Tasmania to work on a farm there. At the end of the war, he was given the opportunity to return to his home country, but he had in that time developed such a love for and an affinity with Australia that he—through the usual processes—came back here, found a new life here and started his family here. He was another battler who made his way as a man with nothing and made his contribution to his new country.

It would be interesting to know what Sydney’s Sheikh Taj El-Din Hilaly thought of this idea of a voluntary test. It has been well documented that Hilaly arrived in Australia on a tourist visa but did not leave before the visa expired. In 1988, attempts were made to have him deported for inciting hatred and being against so-called Australian values. This did not happen and Hilaly was in fact granted permanent residence in 1990 because the then Prime Minister, Paul Keating, rejected all advice and legitimised his status, which eventually led to him being awarded citizenship. In more recent times, we have heard a lot in the media about Hilaly. In January this year, Sheikh Hilaly appeared on an Egyptian television program and made a number of comments that resulted in widespread criticism here in Australia—bipartisan criticism from all major parties in Australia. He said that, because many British and Irish settlers had been convicts, Muslims had more right to Australia, because they paid their own way. He also said that prison sentences handed down to Lebanese-Australian Muslims for the gang rapes in Sydney were excessive and influenced by the 2001 terrorists attacks in the United States. The sheik also said that Western people—and he singled out the ‘English race’—are the biggest liars and oppressors. There is no such thing as an English race, so I am unclear if he meant the English people or the whole of the Commonwealth. And, as Andrew Bolt reports, what a symbol of determined apartness he was, with so little English after 30 years here—pretty un-Australian.

As a short comment: what worries me still and makes me feel uncomfortable is that the infamous Hilaly, amid all the rumblings, machinations and internal politics of the Islamic community and the real public hope that he would be impeached, was apparently made an offer to continue in the role by the same Australian National Imams Council which then appointed his successor in the same week.

There are clearly still problems here. I acknowledge that it is very hard to talk about them honestly and openly without opening up a slanging match. But I want to say that I applaud the work of all those who have stretched out the hand of friendship to the Muslim community in Australia in the expectation that there will need to be more and better integration of the Muslim cultural community and other new Australians into the Australian way of life in order for our nation to be a stable and harmonious one into future. This is not about the clash of religions so much as about differences in cultures. Today, I rededicate myself to working positively wherever I can to soothe this problem that I refer to and rededicate myself to maintaining the values that our country cherishes. These values include, as the minister has said, respect for freedoms, including freedom of religion; the dignity of the individual; support for democracy and the parliamentary system; a commitment to the rule of law, under which men and women are equal in every way; respect for all races and cultures; the spirit of a fair go, which is distinctly Australian; mutual respect; compassion for those in need; and promoting the interests of the community generally, making Australia even better.

This change that I have mentioned, and which I continue to propose, ought to be considered after the arrangements we are today debating have been bedded down. It would ensure that those people who wish to become an Australian citizen can do so by also demonstrating an understanding of and a commitment to Australia and our way of life. To those new citizens who are not required to do the test but still want to, I would like to give an opportunity to make further commitment to this great nation. I am not moving an amendment; I simply signal that this is something that I believe ought to be considered by the government after the changes have been implemented and stabilised.

The proposed test outlined in this bill will require demonstration of a knowledge and understanding of our history, values and culture and of the institutions that underpin our free and open democratic society. And what a proud history that is. Notwithstanding our fair share of mistakes, we have come a long way and we—along with our forebears and the unmistakable guiding hand of God—have shaped and inherited a great nation. While this parliament represents and symbolises much of what is great and democratic about Australia, I suspect not enough is spoken in this House about our proud history as an independent nation since 1901.That leads this former schoolteacher—not a history teacher but one interested in his country—to take the chamber back to some selected democratic and social achievements made by a modern nation.

On 1 January 1901, Australia celebrated becoming a federation of states, as Edmund Barton became our first Prime Minister and Lord Hopetoun our first Governor-General. What I love about that era is the catchcry slogans of the federalists. This is part of our heritage and, I hope, our vision for Australia. Their catchcries were: ‘One people, one destiny’ and ‘Unity is strength.’ In 1902 the Commonwealth Franchise Act guaranteed women the right to vote in federal elections and the right to sit in federal parliament, long before other nations took the same step. In 1903 the Defence Act gave the federal government control over its own Army. The first powered airline flight was made in Australia in 1909. Australia’s population was recorded as 4.5 million in our first census, which was conducted in 1911. The famous Anzac spirit was defined in 1915 at Gallipoli. Sir Douglas Mawson made Australia proud by charting more than 6,000 kilometres of Antarctic coastline in 1931. Tasmania’s own Joe Lyons became my home state’s first Prime Minister in 1932.

I used to teach my science students about the great work of Howard Florey, who, in 1940, along with his team of scientists, developed penicillin for the world. Australia became a founding member of the United Nations in 1945. The Olympics came to Melbourne in 1956 and Sydney in 2000. In 1967 the first Australians, Aboriginal Australians, gained the right to citizenship after an overwhelming referendum result. In 1986 the Australia Act cut all of the remaining legislative apron strings that the UK had to pass laws for our country. In 1999 Australian soldiers were deployed to East Timor as part of a peacekeeping force, confirming our international leadership role which continues to this day in more than 10 places around the world.

There is so much more that could be said, but from what I have said I am sure that you will agree, Mr Deputy Speaker Causley, that our country has offered so much. It continues to be an attractive place for people to call home or to make their home. As a young Australian myself, I recognise my own failure to appreciate as I was growing up the great bounty that we take for granted in Australia.

Many countries around the world have a test such as the one we are discussing today. These include Canada, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands and the United States. In Canada the residency requirement is to spend three years out of four living in Canada as a permanent resident before applying. Applicants have to be able to communicate in English or French and they must know about Canada. They must ‘know about the rights and responsibilities of citizenship’. In the United Kingdom, since November 2005, all new applicants are required to demonstrate knowledge of English and also to have passed the so-called Life in the UK Test.

The Netherlands have led the way in the modern era in this regard. Since 2003 they have required that candidates for citizenship undertake a four-hour test on the Dutch language and national knowledge. In our physically and socially close neighbour, New Zealand, the residency requirement is three years permanent residence—although I acknowledge that there is no test of the nature that we are describing today. In the United States, which proudly boasts of being the land of the free, applicants for citizenship must show that they are a person ‘of good moral character’ for a five-year period. They also need to demonstrate that they can read, write, speak and understand words in ordinary usage. They must also demonstrate a knowledge and understanding of the fundamentals of the history, principles and form of government of the United States.

In closing, let me say that a formal citizenship test is a way to ensure that migrants are absolutely committed and ready to participate in the wider community. It is not a foolproof method but it is another layer of security for our immigration program here in Australia. We again extend the invitation to those abroad who wish to live here: they are welcome. (Time expired)

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

The process by which the Australian Citizenship Amendment (Citizenship Testing) Bill 2007 has come to the floor of this House clearly demonstrates the moral bankruptcy of a tired government grasping for an issue with which to play wedge politics yet again and on which to divide Australians under the guise of uniting them. Let me say from the outset that my concern with this legislation stems not from any objection to a more formalised citizenship test, as long as it is reasonably structured, but from what we know of this government’s history of using and abusing sensitive community issues purely for its own political advantage, regardless of the cost and consequences to our community.

The process of this bill’s formation is cynical politics at its worst and an indictment of any government that claims to govern for Australians. When the Prime Minister announced in December 2006 that the government would introduce a citizenship test, he stated that that migrants wanting to become citizens would be required to sit a formal exam in English and answer 30 questions about Australian values, traditions, institutions and history which would be drawn from a pool of 200 questions. I note the presence in the chamber of the honourable member for Corangamite, who comes from the Geelong area, as I do. I would say that he would have difficulty answering 30 questions from a list of 200 from a resource book. But, be that as it may, we are going to have 30 questions about Australian values, traditions, institutions and history, and they will be drawn from a pool of 200. Knowing the government’s ugly history of attempting to deliberately manipulate these sensitive community issues for its own political purpose, the opposition requested a copy of the proposed test, a copy of the 200 questions on the aforementioned matters and a copy of the resource documents from which the government had drawn its 200 questions.

Stewart McArthur (Corangamite, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In English.

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

Not surprisingly, Member for Corangamite, none were available. So we have the Prime Minister of this country saying to the migrant population of Australia: ‘It is time that you took a test; you are going to be tested out of 200 questions and you are going to have to answer 30 with a pass mark of 60 per cent and it is all going to come out of a resource book. But, by the way, we haven’t even done any of that. We don’t even know which values we are talking about. We don’t really know which historical questions there will be,’ et cetera. I think that at that point the process of this bill coming into existence was exposed. There is nobody in this chamber who would deny that citizenship is a very important source of identity for us all. When we travel, we love to be considered as and let everybody know that we are Australians. Indeed, when citizenship ceremonies are held, we welcome those people who have made that momentous decision and we encourage and support them in making that great decision to become citizens that enhances their identity as Australians. Nobody has argument with that particular proposition. What we on this side of the House have argument with is a government that seeks to deliberately manipulate this issue for its own political purpose.

As I said, the Prime Minister made the statement and then, when we asked him to front up to the crease and bat out some questions that were involved in the test, he could not even answer them. The Prime Minister is asking people who want to take out Australian citizenship to answer questions that the government has not even thought about or thought through in proposing this legislation. The facts of the matter were that there was no test devised, there was no reference list of 200 questions and there was no base document from which the questions were sourced. So the fraudulent behaviour and confected concerns of members of the Howard government were exposed for us all to see. The government was prepared to risk community division and deliberately cause anxiety and concern among our migrant communities—all for the sake of wringing the political rag to pander yet again to the more ugly and destructive elements of its conservative constituency. The people of Geelong and the rest of the nation deserve better.

I want to share with members of government and my side of the House aspects of the Geelong experience. It is something of which our community is extremely proud. We are a multicultural community in Geelong and proud of it. I have been the member for Corio since 1993 and have seen my community mature and grow in tolerance and understanding over that time. As each new wave of settlers has sought sanctuary in Geelong to build a better life for themselves and their families, through their efforts, those migrants have made an enormous contribution to the economic prosperity of the region, and they have enriched its social and cultural life immensely. On behalf of the wider community, I thank each and every one of them for choosing Geelong as their home and for their personal contribution to making Geelong the great city and wonderful place to live that it is. Geelong’s diverse ethnic communities come together under the umbrella of the Geelong Ethnic Communities Council, which, since its inception, has played a very constructive role in giving each community an opportunity to formally have its say on issues affecting migrants and the provision of services to migrant families. Not only that, it is a major promoter and supporter of Geelong’s great Pako Festa, a multicultural festival that is now acknowledged to be one of the best in the country.

It is not only in the economic, cultural and social fields that migrants have made a great contribution. There has been one in the sporting field as well. Members of this House will note that Geelong is on the top of the AFL ladder.

Gary Nairn (Eden-Monaro, Liberal Party, Special Minister of State) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Hear, hear!

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

The member for Eden-Monaro has entered the chamber. I know what a diehard supporter of Geelong he is. As he would appreciate, in the current team are ‘Bomber’ Wojcinski, Kane Tenace and Travis Varcoe—an Indigenous player of great skill and potential. Past players with ethnic backgrounds include Peter Riccardi and Brent Grgic. Of course, we can go back in history to the great Peter Pianto and Paul Vinar and in doing so we are getting back to the era of the honourable member for Corangamite. If we go to soccer, Josip Skoko, Steve Horvat and Joey Didulica are great current or immediate past contributors to Australian national and international soccer. And, while I am on my feet talking about the importance of sport for the region of Geelong—and I note that the Prime Minister has entered the chamber—we will be approaching the government for a $26 million contribution to Skilled Stadium. I hope the Prime Minister will look quite favourably on that request, because Geelong is an important, iconic foundation member of the Australian Football League and Kardinia Park is a community complex. We want to secure it long term for the total population of Geelong and improve its capacity to serve those great ethnic communities that have made important contributions to the Geelong Football Club and the AFL and to soccer in Australia.

In respect of the substance of the bill, I note that the Geelong Ethnic Communities Council, through the Ethnic Communities Council of Victoria, the ECCV, has expressed its opposition to the new proposals in the bill on the basis of their judgement that the discussion paper Australian citizenship: much more than a ceremony, which underpins what the government is doing in a policy sense, fails to demonstrate a convincing case for the need to overhaul Australia’s citizenship requirements. I have read the ECCV’s submission and I must say to the House that the views expressed are logical, coherent, substantial, well articulated and deserving—

David Hawker (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! It being 2 pm, the debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 97. The debate may be resumed at a later hour and the member will have leave to continue speaking when the debate is resumed.