Kerry Nettle (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

I was part of the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs inquiry into the Australian Citizenship Amendment (Citizenship Testing) Bill 2007 that is before the Senate. We heard that it is unnecessary—we heard a lot of evidence at the committee about the fact that our citizenship laws are working quite well—and there was not a case put forward about why there was a failure of the way in which our current citizenship laws operate. We received evidence from the Victorian Immigrant and Refugee Women’s Coalition. They wrote in their submissions that Australia has been well served by its existing, inclusive citizenship laws and that we now have a culturally diverse and socially cohesive collection of people who are proud to call Australia home. So we heard that our citizenship laws are working quite well.

The government puts forward two rationales as to what it thinks a citizenship test will achieve. The first one is about improving the English language skills of migrants here in Australia, and the second one is about improving the cohesiveness of Australian society. I will go to the first issue. I had a look at the census data over the last two census periods which look at the English language proficiency of migrants. Over the period of time that this government has been in power, the English language skills of migrants in Australia have improved so much that the Department of Immigration and Citizenship have had to change the way in which they measure English language proficiency, because the bottom two categories—that is, the two categories with migrants with really low English language proficiency—were meaningless because people’s English-language skills have improved so much.

So the idea behind the citizenship test—that we need to improve the English language skills of migrants—is not based on the government’s own evidence, which shows that the English language skills of migrants are massively improving and have massively improved over the period of time that this government has been in office. The improvement has been so great that the way in which English language proficiency is measured has had to be changed.

The other rationale the government put forward about a citizenship test is that it will improve the cohesiveness of our society. During the Senate inquiry, the government were not able to put forward any evidence about how they would improve the cohesiveness of society. In fact, when I asked them questions about this, the two things that they pointed to were that it operated in other countries and that they had carried out a consultation discussion paper and the majority of people who had responded to that discussion paper had supported it. That is not justification at all. I asked the government whether the countries that had introduced citizenship tests had done any assessment of whether or not the tests had improved the cohesiveness of their society, and their answer was, ‘No, they haven’t been in place long enough for them to evaluate it.’ I do not think that you can argue—and other witnesses appeared before the committee to say this—that the United States society or the United Kingdom society is in some way more cohesive than Australian society. We have certainly seen great friction occurring in both those societies within different cultures in a way that we do not see in Australian Society. So I do not think that pointing to the example of overseas is any evidence that introducing citizenship tests improves the cohesiveness of the society. In fact, what the committee heard is that it has the potential to do exactly the opposite. Tests, by their very nature, are exclusionary. Tests are designed to separate people into one group of individuals who pass and another group of individuals who fail. An eductor who appeared before the committee said that tests are ‘designed to gatekeep; that is what they are for’. So, in seeking to introduce a citizenship test, this piece of legislation is designed to separate people into those who are deserving citizens and those who are undeserving citizens, which will not improve the cohesiveness of our society.

We heard from a whole range of witnesses at the Senate committee about the way in which this will increase division within our society. I think that Australia can and should be proud of the cohesive nature of our society, of the way in which we have promoted multiculturalism, of the way in which we have celebrated the diversity of people who make up this country and of the immigrants who have come to Australia for over 200 years and made this great country what it is. I think we should be encouraging people to come and be citizens of this country. Therefore, I do not think it is constructive and useful to put barriers in place like this proposal for a citizenship test. As I said, we heard from the committee about the way in which a test will create division within society. We also heard about the way in which it may prevent people from deciding to put their hands up to say that they would like to become a citizen of this country. We heard from the President of the Federation of Ethnic Community Councils of Australia that the citizenship test would be likely to discourage many people from seeking citizenship. This is what she said:

Our concern is that a lot of people who would feel uncomfortable about any testing at all, particularly if they have a low level of literacy, will not apply for citizenship but will self-select out.

We do not want to see that. I am sure that nobody here wants to see that. So why put in place a test which not only will divide our society but will actively discourage people who may have a massive contribution to make to Australia from taking out citizenship?

The other thing we heard in the Senate inquiry which is worth noting is that the citizenship test will not improve the English language skills of migrants in Australia but will undermine the existing English language programs that have been put forward for migrants in Australia. We heard this from a number of educators who talked about the way in which teachers change what they teach to ensure that people can pass a test. We heard, for example, from the Australian Council of Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages. We heard from their president, who said:

As soon as there is a test, teachers feel the need to get their students to pass the test and students put pressure on to be given what it is that they need to pass the test. Suddenly, lessons become all about passing the test. Certainly from my experience overseas, where everybody is sitting English language tests to prove their English language proficiency, we have huge evidence that all good teaching practice goes out the door as people do test preparation ... It is very bad pedagogical practice because the aim is so limited. Your capacity to pass an English test is in no way an indication of your capacity to operate in the thousands of everyday communications you need to have.

What we see is that putting in place the government’s proposed citizenship test will not improve the English language skills of migrants in Australia. It will in fact undermine the existing English language programs for migrants, because those programs will then start teaching so that people will pass the test rather than having the English language skills they need in order to survive in Australian society.

We heard at the Senate inquiry into this legislation that, firstly, the legislation is unnecessary. There is no failure of our existing immigrations laws. Secondly, we heard that the two objectives the government is proposing for this legislation—improving the English language skills of migrants and improving the cohesiveness of our society—will not be achieved by this test. Far worse than that, this test will undermine the existing English language programs for migrants and contribute to increasing the divisiveness that exists within our society.

The Australian Greens cannot support this piece of legislation. We see it and the proposal by the government as a way of sending a message to those people in the community who have some very racist attitudes towards immigrants coming to Australia. That is certainly one of the things we saw in the submissions that were made to the Senate inquiry. We saw a response to the government’s call-out to racists in Australia, or that dog whistle by the government. One of the submissions the Senate committee received was from a group calling itself Australia for Australians, and in it were their suggestions, their response to the federal government’s call for a citizenship test. They said:

... the test must make clear that they understand that in everyday life they are expected to dress and act like other Australians and that their cultural and religious practises and dress must be restricted either to private, ceremonial or religious occasions.

That is not a view that we see put forward in mainstream Australian society, but this government is sending out a message with this proposal for a citizenship test to particular groups from the community who have racist attitudes, and they responded in the form of this particular submission. Another of their recommendations said:

... 90% of all immigrants allowed in must be of white European or British or North American origin.

A further recommendation said:

In view of what has happened and what is happening around the world in the last 30 years there should be a ban on allowing Muslims into Australia—from whatever country—no exceptions ...

When you send out a message, as this government has done, about a citizenship test that is excluding people from being citizens then you strike a chord with those people in the community who have quite extremist and quite racist views in relation to the value of our multicultural society. This was one group that responded to that call from the government, they responded to that dog whistle, and put forward these extremist views to the Senate committee—racist views that I hope the government does not agree with and that certainly mainstream society does not support.