Andrew Giles (Scullin, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Cities and Urban Infrastructure) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to make a contribution to the debate on the Immigration (Education) Amendment (Expanding Access to English Tuition) Bill 2020 and to indicate the Labor Party's support for this bill. This bill would amend the Immigration Education Act 1971 in four ways: to remove the current 510-hour limit on an eligible person's entitlement to English tuition; to amend the upper limit for eligibility to access English tuition from functional English to vocational English; to remove the time limits on the registration, commencement and completion of English tuition for certain visa holders; and, finally, to provide English tuition to certain visa holders or visa applicants who are outside of Australia.

These are changes that Labor supports because they will allow more migrants to access free English tuition for longer and until they reach a higher level of English proficiency. Federal Labor has been advocating for changes along these lines for quite some time now, so it is pleasing to see a response from the government in that regard. But the provisions in this bill need to be seen in the context of a government that failed to properly administer this vital program, failed to properly integrate the program with settlement outcomes and, as evidenced by the explanatory memorandum to the bill that is presently before the House, has failed to appropriately allocate resources to meet the grand aspirations it has set out in the bill. While we on this side of the House and many stakeholders welcome these changes, we know that the Morrison government has not had a change of heart towards migration and settlement, and this step forward is matched by several steps back, including the cruel partner visa English language test and the capping of the humanitarian intake, stripping nearly a billion dollars from the budget, damaging the critical mass of service provision and hurting Australia's capacity to restart our migration system. For these reasons, I foreshadow that I'll be moving a second reading amendment to the bill before the House.

I also want to touch on the process which has brought the bill to the House. I will be very brief, noting the time of year and the amount of legislation that the House has to deal with. On this side of the House, we agreed to a very rushed Senate inquiry because, while this bill is agreed, it is significant. It relates to a billion dollars worth of appropriation and it relates to the chance that many, many Australians will have to build their English proficiency and, with that, their capacity to make a full economic, social and, hopefully, political contribution to this nation. The Senate inquiry that was undertaken didn't allow many issues that relate to these objectives to be properly canvassed, and these are of concern. I note in particular—beyond the process point of stakeholders not having the opportunity to present their case to the senators in the other place—three issues which needed, in my view, to be explored in detail and which we will continue to see explored in detail. In particular, there is the increased threshold for eligibility for vocational English and whether or not this will have a meaningful impact in increasing participation and retention in language learning. Another issue is the merits of the partnership of the department with the Behavioural Economics Team in the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet to increase participation and retention in language learning. Again, a bold assertion has been made that appears to be unsupported by evidence. This is something which needs to be explored. Also, there are a number of issues with the existing deed of standing offer, which is in place until 2022-23.

A number of service providers have expressed a range of concerns. I might just mention a couple of these very briefly. I am thinking of Navitas, who expressed concerns that clients may require at least 2,000 hours of English language learning to reach social proficiency—that is, functional English—and went to the structural issues and incentives, in making full use of incentives. These are issues which are important but which have not been canvassed in the bill nor adequately explained more broadly by the government. AMES Australia have similarly acknowledged—and they put it this bluntly—that 'the current attrition from the AMEP may not be solved by providing additional hours of tuition'. This bill exists in a context, not in a vacuum. There are deeper structural issues that need to be addressed.

The wider issues go to the core of Labor's concern, and I know my colleagues will expand on this. What stakeholders would like to see and what Labor would like to see is greater transparency and more detail when it comes to evaluation and testing. This is a point well made by FECCA in their submission—that there needs to be greater transparency and more detail when it comes to the evaluation and testing of people's English needs, particularly in relation to this cruel proposal relating to partner visas. In referring to this context, one point that I want to put very clearly before the parliament is that the government revealed its true intentions when a department official recently admitted in the estimates hearings:

If an applicant couldn't demonstrate that they had made reasonable efforts to learn English, then, yes, that could be a reason why we would deny a visa. The bar for demonstrating that is completing the AMEP course …

This goes to show that the issues here cannot be considered in isolation. They relate to a number of other policy decisions, many of which have a huge impact on people's lives and on how we as a country see ourselves. 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, the House:

(1) notes the failure of the Government to properly administer the Adult Migrant English Program and that the program's strategic, structural and operational challenges are yet to be addressed;

(2) further notes reduced funding for the Adult Migrant English Program in the forward estimates, despite the Government's claims that enrolments will return to pre-COVID levels by 2021-22; and

(3) calls on the Government to abandon its planned English language requirements for Partner visa applicants".

Ross Vasta (Bonner, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is the amendment seconded?

Mark Butler (Hindmarsh, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Climate Change and Energy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak.

Anne Aly (Cowan, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm not going to speak for too long on the Immigration (Education) Amendment (Expanding Access to English Tuition) Bill 2020, primarily because we do support an increase to the 510-hour limit. It is appropriate, and it's particularly appropriate when new migrants come to Australia with an ASLPR, Australian Second Language Proficiency Rating, of zero or one, with limited or no literacy. Tuition of 510 hours is simply not enough to get them up to functional English, which is currently assessed at ASLPR2 across all four macro skills.

But there are a number of issues with the bill as it stands, as the member for Scullin, the shadow minister, has outlined. Some of those issues are around eligibility for the AMEP in the first place. Currently, if someone arrives in Australia and tests at or above ASLPR level 2, they are not eligible for the AMEP. Does this mean that the eligibility criteria will change?

The bigger issue, from my experience—and I speak as somebody who was an AMEP teacher and who has a Master of Education, with a thesis in this very area—is that, even at ASLPR2, even with functional English, those who graduate from the AMEP, having achieved that level of English across all four macro skills, go into higher education and are unlikely to successfully complete, whether it's a certificate III or a certificate IV or even a bachelor's degree. There is a gap between an ASLPR2—a functional level of English—and the level of English necessary to complete a degree or acquire a skill of some sort.

One consideration may be to allow people who have reached an ASLPR2 to utilise the rest of their English-language provisions for scaffold learning in a mainstream higher education course—to utilise some of that increase in the 510 hours to enable people who have ASLPR2 to continue to access English-language tuition while, at the same time, also accessing a certificate in, for example, aged care or child care.

I urge the government to listen to the providers. They know what they're doing. AMEP teachers are very well versed in how to assess people in the English language but also in the English-language level that is required not just to function in Australian society but to flourish in Australian society. I take it at face value that the government's purpose in introducing this bill and increasing the 510-hour limit is to enable the full economic and social participation of all new migrants to Australia. I hope that is the case. If that is the case, I reiterate my call for the government to talk to service providers, to talk to English-language teachers, to talk to people from the sector about how effectively we could utilise this increase in the 510-hour provisions and deliver the best possible outcome for people who will have those provisions available to them.

That said, I will conclude on my support for the amendment moved by the shadow minister. I also lend my support to the issues raised by the shadow minister, particularly the point that the increase to the 510 hours of English language needs to be taken in the context that the AMEP has been neglected by this government over a number of years. While it's good to see that this is now getting some attention, I hope that that attention results in better outcomes for new arrivals and new migrants, who in my experience—having taught in the AMEP—all want to make a contribution to the country that they chose to come to, Australia. They all want to make an economic contribution; they want to get jobs; they want to work; they want to be a part of our society. The best that we can do is facilitate that for them and help them to do that. We all recognise in this place that having a good grasp of English language, not just a functional grasp, is essential to that. We have within our power the tools to ensure that the AMEP is an effective part of the settlement process. I urge the government to listen to the service providers and the experts in this field.

Andrew Leigh (Fenner, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Treasury) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Adult Migrant English Program has existed since 1948. Over that 72-year period, two million migrants have benefited from the AMEP. Learning English is an important part of nation-building. When Australians are surveyed as to what they believe it is that makes an Australian, most don't say it's being born here, but many do say it's speaking English. Speaking English is an important part of being an Australian and being able to contribute politically or in business circles and to engage with your neighbours.

Australia, in the main, does settlement well. We have differences in this House over asylum seeker policy, but, when people are accepted to come to Australia, the settlement services are as good as in any other country. In 2009 the then United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, Antonio Guterres, said that Australia had 'one of the best refugee resettlement programs in the world'. But, as an important report written by James Button for the Scanlon Foundation has noted, Australia's record of helping migrants learn English is threatened today. That report notes that the groups most at risk of not speaking English well are sections of the Chinese community, refugees and some women. It points out that the AMEP, which has been a world leader in language learning, suffers from a lack of clarity in balancing its employment and settlement objectives. It recommends additional government funding for independent research on the AMEP and a diversity of ways to deliver AMEP, notably in online and distance formats. It recommends the uncapping of the AMEP Extend subprogram—and those additional hours in the bill are welcomed. It also recommends extending the time in which migrants can enrol in and complete the AMEP, recognising that, for some, 300 hours would be enough to enjoy good English proficiency and, for others, it might be closer to 3,000 hours.

As Labor senators have noted in their report on the Immigration (Education) Amendment (Expanding Access to English Tuition) Bill 2020, there are concerns that have been raised by stakeholders. One is whether the increased threshold for eligibility to 'vocational English' will have a meaningful impact to increase participation and retention in language learning. There have been concerns about the movement of AMEP from the Department of Education and Training to Home Affairs. This is fundamentally an education program, and many stakeholders were uncomfortable about that shift.

Among the submissions that were made to that inquiry, FECCA said:

'FECCA would welcome greater transparency and more detail when it comes to evaluation and testing of people's English levels, especially related to partner visa.'

RACS said:

'RACS wishes to make clear that our support for this Bill does not extend in any way to support for future measures restricting access to permanent visa pathways for migrants.'

ASRC said:

'ASRC's support of the bill does not extend to support any possible future measures restricting access to permanent visa pathways for migrants.'

Helen Moore, the vice-president of the Australian Council of TESOL Associations and ACTA spokesperson on English language provision for adult migrants, has expressed concerns to me about a range of aspects of AMEP. She noted in particular that a strong focus on competition may prevent providers from collaborating on, for example, student referrals. Others have expressed a concern to me that the department's desire to write contracts at a higher level takes away the ability for fine-grained local provision of AMEP education, and that may prevent, for example, a provider who specialises in teaching English in the Chinese community.

Labor takes multiculturalism very seriously. I was pleased to join with my colleagues the members for Werriwa and Wills in a meeting of Labor's multicultural task force with representatives in the ACT community. I thank Mainul Haque, Naresh Gunasekere, Sandra Elhelw Wright, Hong Sar Channaibanya, Shobha Varkey and Cong Le for their thoughtful contributions to our conversation on multiculturalism. AMEP has played a vital part in Australia's multicultural story and it is vital that it is strengthened and continues to play an important role into the future.

Graham Perrett (Moreton, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Education and Training) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I speak on the Immigration (Education) Amendment (Expanding Access to English Tuition) Bill 2020. The Adult Migrant English Program assists migrants coming to Australia to learn English. The Morrison government is now in its eighth year and has so far, sadly, all but neglected AMEP. This deficit must be fixed. It is essential that new migrants can access programs to develop essential English language skills. I know how important this program is in my electorate. In the Moreton community, 40 per cent of the population—two people in five—were born overseas and 36 per cent speak a language other than English at home. Moreton is a wonderful, vibrant multicultural community in the most multicultural country in the world. Moreton is successful because migrants participate in the local community. Migrants are over-enrolled when it comes to community groups. Moreton is successful because migrants can communicate with their community and with their neighbours.

The Commonwealth currently provides 510 hours of English course tuition to permanent visa holders and holders of certain temporary visa classes. This bill removes the cap of 510 hours and extends language eligibility. It removes time limits for registration and allows for the provision of tuition overseas. These amendments will allow free access to English tuition for longer so migrants can reach a higher level of English proficiency. The bill will also enable access to English language courses to be provided to persons outside Australia in preparation for migration.

When introducing this bill, the minister said: 'Without adequate English language skills, migrants will find it harder to get a job, harder to integrate into their local community and harder to participate in Australia's democracy.' I agree with the minister. Labor, along with other stakeholders, has been campaigning for changes to the Adult Migrant English Program for some time. It's essential that migrants can fully participate in Australian life. That will occur only if effective settlement services are in place, including English language proficiency. The Morrison government has failed to support effective settlement services, has failed to listen to stakeholders and has failed to take responsibility for this critical program.

The government's 2017 changes to the structure, funding and curriculum of the Adult Migrant English Program were, sadly, a complete failure. The Scanlon Foundation reported in June last year 'intense discontent' on the part of providers and teachers following the 2017 changes, and many of us remember the Liberal government's discriminatory plan to impose a citizenship language test. That was absolutely the wrong message to send to the community. Labor supports this bill and will work constructively with the government and multicultural communities to ensure that the Adult Migrant English Program meets the needs of new migrants, and supports and promotes social cohesion. It's important for new migrants, it's important for our communities and it's important for our nation. Multiculturalism is what makes this country great, and multiculturalism is what will make it even greater in a changing world.

Maria Vamvakinou (Calwell, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I too wish to speak on the Immigration (Education) Amendment (Expanding Access to English Tuition) Bill 2020. The longstanding Adult Migrant English Program has been one of this country's most successful settlement support programs, and we welcome any moves to enhance and extend it. Being able to speak, listen, respond, read and write in English is fundamental to successful settlement in Australia. It enables the opportunity to work, to undertake further training or education, to function in daily life and to establish meaningful relationships with neighbours and others in the broader community. It's important, however, to emphasise that while learning English is very important we should not penalise those who have difficulty in learning the language to an arbitrary standard. Many of us who make the laws of this land have never had to learn a second, third or subsequent language, especially in adulthood, and cannot begin to presume the difficulties that such a task involves.

In relation to the AMEP, this program is not only a vital service for its role in language education; it's also a key gateway to broader settlement. Adult English language classes provide a valuable place to learn about how Australian society works, what other services and supports are available, where to start when trying to get financial advice or medical advice, where to look for a job or how to look for a job, and how to meet people within the broader community. None of this advice is provided in an official capacity, of course, but the regular contact with English teachers, and even with fellow students, provides an important informal support and advice network. We need to be mindful that successful settlement involves much more than just sentence structure and a few key phrases of English.

I think that we're all in agreement that the Adult Migrant English Program is a vital and an invaluable program. It's therefore of the utmost importance that it's properly funded and supported to deliver the best possible service. Unfortunately, this does not seem to have been the case in recent years. Changes made in 2017 to the structure, funding and curriculum of the AMEP have to date proved to be unhelpful and in urgent need of re-evaluation. Both the Social Compass evaluation for the Department of Home Affairs of August 2019 and a critique by the Scanlon Foundation in June 2019 found a great deal of dissatisfaction and perceived inefficiencies brought about by the changes to the AMEP.

The amendments in the bill before us will ostensibly provide greater flexibility and extend access to English language classes, including the removal of the 510-hour entitlement cap, extended eligibility, removal of time limits for registration and allowing for the provision of tuition offshore. These changes will allow for greater access to free English tuition for students for longer periods, and until they reach a higher level of English proficiency. These changes are welcome, and ones that stakeholders have themselves been arguing for. There is some cause for concern, however, in the potential lack of funding to make these improvements achievable without further affecting the quality of the service. If there is no new money attached, are these changes just a fine-sounding announcement with no policy substance?

My electorate of Calwell is home to one of the most culturally and linguistically diverse communities in Australia, which now includes one of the largest communities of recently arrived Syrian and Iraqi refugees and migrants. Many of these people come to us with extensive education, professional training and a strong desire to work hard and establish their families in their new home. A strong and good-quality adult migrant English program is not only the key to enabling these community members to build the secure and flourishing lives they yearn for; it is also the key to enhancing the broader Australian society, making it more inclusive and ensuring our nation gets maximum benefit from its more recently arrived members, who have so much to offer.

In closing, I'd like to give a shout-out to my main three providers of the AMEP program in Calwell—the Melbourne Polytechnic based in Broadmeadows and its subcontractor the Kangan Institute, the Hume Global Learning Centre in Craigieburn and the Newbury community centre, and the Meadow Heights Education Centre, which offers AMEP classes at seven different locations across Meadow Heights and Craigieburn. Altogether, these services teach hundreds of newly arrived adults, ranging in age from their 20s to their late 60s. The vast majority of these students hail from Syria and Iraq, but there are also Vietnamese, Chinese, Indonesian, Hmong, Indian, Sri Lankan and Egyptian students.

So, whilst service providers welcome the proposed amendments in the bill, there are some concerns about whether the changes will actually result in a genuine extension of services given the lack of clarity around budgetary support. I look forward to keeping a close eye on how this bill delivers to my local community.

Ben Morton (Tangney, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister to the Prime Minister and Cabinet) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank all members who contributed to this debate. The Immigration (Education) Amendment (Expanding Access to English Tuition) Bill 2020 expands access to free English tuition for migrants delivered through the Adult Migrant English Program. The bill removes limits on tuition hours and raises the upper limit for AMEP eligibility to allow people to remain in the program until they reach vocational English. It removes various time limits that would otherwise restrict the ability of certain migrants to access English tuition.

The bill also expands the scope of the discretion to deliver English courses outside Australia. Currently, this discretion only applies to permanent visa applicants. The bill will be extended to permanent visa holders as well as people who have applied for or hold a specified temporary visa. This amendment lays the foundation for tuition options to be developed in the future to deliver English courses to people who are overseas to help them prepare for migration to Australia.

English language skills are critical to every aspect of life in Australia. If you can't communicate, you can't integrate. Without English, it is harder to get a job, harder to be an active member of the community and harder to participate in our rich democracy. This bill will support migrants to achieve the English language skills needed to participate effectively in Australia. It will also allow certain visa holders with low levels of English proficiency who are already in Australia to re-engage in language learning.

I would like to thank the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee for its work on this bill through its inquiry and for its recommendation that the bill be passed. The government will continue working with English course providers and other stakeholders, many of whom made submissions to the inquiry, throughout the implementation of the reforms to ensure the program effectively achieves English language outcomes for eligible migrants.

The changes made by the bill reflect the government's commitment to supporting migrants to learn Australia's national language. It will send a strong message about the importance of English proficiency for social cohesion and national unity. Increased English language skills will also boost the future employment and education prospects for migrants. This is particularly important in light of the economic challenges arising from the COVID-19 pandemic. The government is committed to the successful integration and participation of migrants in Australian society. By expanding access to English tuition, the bill will contribute to enhanced social cohesion within the Australian community. I believe that this bill deserves support. I commend the bill to the House.

Andrew Wallace (Fisher, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for Scullin has moved as an amendment that all the words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The immediate question is that the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the question.

Question agreed to.

Original question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.