Anne McEwen (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

The Australian Citizenship Amendment (Citizenship Testing) Bill 2007 has been of some controversy in the western suburbs of Adelaide, where my electorate office is, so I would like to take this opportunity to address an important matter and to attempt to assuage the concerns of people in my area who have a particular interest in migration matters.

The Australian Citizenship Amendment (Citizenship Testing) Bill 2007 amends the Australian Citizenship Act 2007 to provide for the testing of prospective applicants for Australian citizenship. When implemented the measures included in this bill will mean that persons who wish to become Australian citizens will firstly need to successfully complete a new citizenship test before making their application. One of the stated objectives of the test is that applicants understand the responsibilities and privileges that attach to Australian citizenship. If that is achieved, that will be a good thing. Labor supports applicants for citizenship achieving that level of understanding.

When news of this bill first emerged it faced strong criticism, and sometimes ridicule, from community groups, the media, members of parliament from all sides, and many members of the public. Comments made by the government exacerbated community concerns that this legislation required the testing of people for some ill-defined concept of Australianness. There were also concerns that the testing regime itself would discourage people from applying for citizenship.

My office, which is located in an area of Adelaide where consecutive waves of migrants have settled, has received countless phone calls both from concerned constituents and from prospective constituents wanting details of the bill and of the test. One of my constituents, who voluntarily teaches English to immigrants in Adelaide, phoned, fearing for her students. She was very confident in teaching her students how to speak, read and write in English, but she did not know how she could teach people and prepare them for this mysterious test. Thankfully, since the initial floating of the bill, it has changed considerably and it is somewhat more moderate in intent and objectives than was first indicated. The motivation for those changes is unclear but, whether it is poll driven, as much government policy is these days, or whether it was an acceptance by the government that the original plan was potentially very divisive, Labor welcomes the moderation.

Of course, Australia does have—and always has had—a type of citizenship test that applicants must complete. As outlined by the Australian Council of TESOL Associations, that test is in the form of an English language interview with an immigration officer, with questions regarding Australia’s laws, responsibilities, governance and history. The majority of migrants in Australia prepare for this interview by completing a 20-hour citizenship education course run through the Adult Migrant English Program.

Given that the government has provided no evidence that the current test is ineffective, it is difficult to understand exactly why the proposed computer based written test is necessary. A number of submissions to the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs inquiry into this bill expressed similar views, questioning the necessity of a new test. The current system allows an officer to speak with applicants in an interview, which is, arguably, the best way to determine someone’s character. In an interview you have to do more than simply remember answers to questions; you need to express both your desire for citizenship and an understanding of the responsibilities that come with that honour. The Refugee Council of Australia noted in their submission to the Senate inquiry:

... there remains little evidence forwarded as to the practical, positive impact that English language testing beyond that which currently exists within the citizenship process, or a quiz on “the Australian way of life”, will have on ensuring a higher “quality” of Australian citizen. The current testing is adequate in determining who should become an Australian citizen.

It is obvious that the new test will further advantage well-educated migrants who are comfortable with the English language. These applicants for citizenship will not have to overcome the language barrier, learn study techniques or learn how to become comfortable in using a computer. Therefore, it is unlikely that the new citizenship test will deter them from applying for citizenship. Unfortunately, those with little education and those for whom English is not their first language or a language that they are comfortable with could be deterred. The stated objective of this bill is not to slow the migration of those from linguistically diverse backgrounds, but that may well be the outcome as people are discouraged by the imposition of a test that is not well understood.

During a period when our country is experiencing a massive skills shortage, the last thing we should be doing is making potential citizens jump through an extra hoop. The government has invested money in schemes like the so-called baby bonus to increase our population, but that will not help us in the short term. More attention to skilling Australians through investment in training and education is urgently needed. But the government has neglected the skills crisis for a decade or more, so we cannot expect any quick fix there either. An imperfect but more immediate solution is to encourage people to migrate to Australia. We need to ensure that the test will not deter people from applying for Australian citizenship, not only because we are desperate for skilled workers but also because of what people from other nations and other cultures bring to Australian society. One of the best features of Australia is our cultural diversity. We are a multicultural nation. We have welcomed people from 200 different countries to become Australian citizens, and the effect this has had on our country has been remarkable. The rich culture of our country is now a lot more than just Vegemite, AFL and the Uluru snow domes.

One of the great privileges of being a senator is being able to attend citizenship ceremonies, where we meet people from so many nations who have decided to become citizens. Australia is a richer and better place for having had people from other countries choose to come and live here. My state of South Australia mirrors the rest of Australia in that it has a diverse population, with only 74 per cent having been born in Australia. Of South Australia’s population, 6.7 per cent were born in England and 1.5 per cent were born in Italy. In 2004-06, more than 6,000 people settled in South Australia, with the top five countries of origin being the UK, the Peoples Republic of China, Sudan, India and New Zealand.

I grew up in a neighbourhood in Adelaide which was home to a large number of migrants from Europe who came here to build a better life for themselves and to help build the infrastructure and industries that have become integral to the economy of South Australia. Those migrants faced numerous struggles, including racism, yet they managed to contribute greatly to our society, just as their children and grandchildren continue to do. They have added immeasurably to our economy and our culture. We needed them back in the 1950s and we need them now.

Labor is disappointed with the lack of detail about this bill provided to parliament and to those organisations and persons who made submissions to the Senate committee inquiring into the bill. Without knowing the content of the test, we cannot make well-informed decisions as to the impact the test will have on Australia and our prospective citizens. We can only hope that the test will not place unreasonable barriers to individuals securing citizenship and participating fully in Australian society. We do know that the test is likely to be a multiple-choice test with questions regarding so-called Australian values. Such a test, as pointed out by the St Vincent de Paul Society—a very conservative organisation, in my experience—runs the risk of promoting ‘a monoculture that destroys our multicultural heritage and ignores Indigenous Australia’. They were very salient comments from the St Vincent de Paul Society, which has a long history of assisting migrants and refugees in Australia.

By introducing a new test, it may be seen that we are sending a message to those wanting to apply for citizenship that we want them to leave their own values and culture at the door while encouraging them to have a beer and go to a footy game. If we want to ensure the bona fides of people applying for citizenship, and if we want to present Australia to the world as a nation that welcomes difference and is not racist or discriminatory, we are not going to do it by encouraging people to learn the team colours of our cricket team or the lyrics of our national anthem.

No doubt one of the government’s initial imperatives for introducing this test was to give the impression to the Australian public that we can stop undesirables from becoming Australian citizens, but no citizenship test will stop people considered to be of bad character from becoming Australian citizens. In fact, we are creating a standard test on which someone who guessed every answer would get at least 25 per cent correct. So it stands to reason that someone who has studied hard would be able to get the required 60 per cent correct. This testing will not filter out bad people. Strongly motivated bad people are likely to pass the test with flying colours. If someone wants to become an Australian citizen and commit illegal acts it is highly unlikely that they will be deterred by a multiple-choice test. Passing any test does not require a strong commitment to Australian values but simply a good memory.

I acknowledge that some exceptions to the test have been made—those younger than 18 years of age or over 60 will be exempt, as will people considered to have a physical or mental disability that prevents them from understanding the test. Those applicants with literacy difficulties will now be talked through the test. The bill also provides that further exemptions and variations can be made. Whether those exemptions and variations are workable and whether they are applied consistently remains to be seen.

National Legal Aid expressed to the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs its concern that a citizenship test has the potential to impact negatively on vulnerable groups such as refugees, humanitarian visa holders, victims of domestic violence and people with mental health problems. National Legal Aid went on in its submission to discuss the reality for refugees unable to obtain citizenship, describing citizenship as providing a sense of ‘belonging to a supportive nation’. Do we really want refugees who have fled devastating circumstances in their home countries to come to a country that requires them to sit a test that is written in English and based on topics that include our national sport? How will this confronting situation assist their ability to recover from an already traumatic beginning to life in Australia? National Legal Aid explained that citizenship is ‘an essential part of the healing process for torture and trauma victims, who often experience flashbacks linked with the fear of return’.

In my experience, a group who may be distinctly disadvantaged by a test such as that proposed in this legislation are women without an English speaking background who come from countries where women typically do not engage in any formal education, except perhaps the most basic education, and may not even have literacy in their own language. As well as having little or no literacy, these women often have responsibilities to their families and commitments which prevent them from learning effective English or from getting out and about so they develop a broader understanding of the Australian culture. We need to make sure that the personal circumstances of women, particularly those with family-caring responsibilities, do not preclude them making the grade for this test, upon which citizenship is contingent.

This legislation must be teamed with a commitment to increasing the amount of quality support and education available to migrants, particularly those with no or little English literacy. The estimated cost of implementing the proposed citizenship test is more than $120 million over five years. We have to ask whether that is money that would be better spent ensuring that all migrants who need it have access to English language and literacy classes that adequately equip them for living in Australia and participating fully in our communities. There is plenty of evidence that the 510 hours of English language education currently provided to non-English migrants is woefully inadequate, particularly for people from non-literate backgrounds.

Labor will be supporting the bill, but our approach to its introduction will be very different to that of the government should we win the upcoming election. Labor will place a strong emphasis on English language education and preparation for employment. Labor will spend almost $50 million to improve and expand English language tuition. We will introduce a traineeship in English and work preparation designed to allow new entrants to develop skills, knowledge and experience in Australian workplaces as well as allowing them to continue their English language education. Our new residents will then be better equipped to apply for jobs. Working in meaningful employment or having some family members in employment is the best way for people to learn and accept all aspects of their new nation’s culture.

Labor acknowledges the concerns expressed by many that this test could be abused in the future because so much power with regard to its application lies with the minister, who will approve by written determination the content of the test and specify what grade must be earned to complete the test successfully, and who may decide that certain mandatory questions must be answered correctly. With such important elements of this legislation being left to the discretion of the minister it is possible for the test to be abused by any future government. This test has the potential to be used to stop people from particular ethnic backgrounds from becoming Australian citizens. That is a very concerning possibility and one the parliament must be vigilant to prevent.

The introduction of the new citizenship test has the potential to disadvantage or frighten off many prospective citizens; therefore, there must be great caution taken in its implementation. The test must be matched with support and resources to help new migrants become fully engaged in Australian society. We also need to monitor the implementation and outcomes of this legislation. Accordingly, I urge the Senate to agree to Labor’s very sensible amendments which go to that issue of ministerial review of the efficacy and outcomes of the new testing regime.

The concerns expressed by those who are anxious about the impact of this bill may have been laid to rest if the detail of the legislation had been provided to the Senate. The lack of detail has created uncertainty about what might well have been a less controversial bill. When this detail is provided, we will be able to make a better judgement and assessment of how reasonable the exemptions by the minister are, what questions will be included and the finalised structure of the test.

With the necessary support and resources provided, I hope that the citizenship test will achieve its stated objectives of ensuring applicants understand the nature of their application, possess a useable and useful standard literacy in English and have an adequate knowledge of the responsibilities and privileges conferred on them by Australian citizenship. I certainly hope the test achieves those objectives but I also hope it encourages our new citizens to hold onto their own cultures and to share their cultures with the rest of Australia, as has been the case for the whole of Australia’s history.