Andrew Bartlett (Queensland, Australian Democrats) Share this | Hansard source

I will not proceed with Democrat amendment (4), because it really links back to my amendments (1) and (2). We have basically had that debate and I do not see much point in revisiting it. So I will not proceed with that amendment. I move Democrat amendment (5) on sheet 5326 revised:

(5)    Schedule 1, item 5, page 5 (lines 15 to 17), omit subsection 23A(7), substitute:

Determination is a legislative instrument

        (7)    A determination made under subsection (1) is a legislative instrument and where the determination relates to a test, a question or questions within the test, or a component of the test, are subject to disallowance in accordance with the Legislative Instruments Act 2003.

This is the final Democrat amendment and it is fairly similar to one circulated by the Greens, although it is slightly different. It seeks to ensure that any determination made under subsection (1) of the act that relates to a test, a question or questions within the test, or a component of the test, is subject to disallowance.

The minister pre-empted this amendment earlier by giving some reasons why it was not desirable and why the government would not be supporting it. It was nice of him to do so without hearing my coherent arguments in favour of it. You never know; you might be persuaded! The suggestion that it would create uncertainty is not, frankly, a good enough reason. At the heart of the citizenship test, obviously, is the issue of whether it is going to have credibility. That is the question. If it turns out to be a bunch of ridiculous, jingoistic, offensive, misleading or ideologically biased questions then you will distort the credibility of the citizenship test and therefore distort the credibility of citizenship. Again, I am not accusing the government of planning to do that. I would be very surprised if they did, quite frankly, but this is another mechanism to provide that protection, that safeguard, that I believe is needed, particularly given Australia’s history of misusing our laws in discriminatory and unjust ways to target and exclude people from particular ethnic or religious backgrounds.

I emphasise to the Senate that I am not making a political point in saying this; I am very much making a plea about the social consequences of the laws we pass. This debate is not, at its core, about some pre-election positioning or some potential political opportunities or political points to be scored, from all sides. This debate is about whether we pass a law and, if so, what is in that law. We should always remind ourselves that the laws we pass have impacts on human beings, in the Australian community and more widely. Therefore, it is totally appropriate for us to consider the potential, and in some cases the current, impacts of proposed laws.

A current impact of this proposed law is that there is a group within the community—a minority, I fully recognise, but nonetheless a group—who are apprehensive about the intent behind this test and the potential it could be misused for political purposes. One of the reasons they are apprehensive is the history that they all know, and we should certainly know, of laws with regard to migrants being misused in a discriminatory and unjust way, targeting people because of their ethnic, religious or racial backgrounds. We all know—and if we do not we certainly should—that one of the groups in the community at the moment who do feel targeted by some of the rhetoric and policies and by the application of some of the existing laws—not just migration laws—is the Muslim community.

I was at a forum just yesterday, as was Senator Ludwig, who gave a very cogent contribution and earned himself a few Mars bars along the way by giving good answers to some questions—the Mars bars were a reward from the audience for giving full and complete answers, to clarify. There is very clearly concern out there. It does not all go just to the citizenship test. It is much wider than that. The Dr Haneef issue is at the heart of it. But that is a symptom; it is not the cause—the Haneef issue is not the cause. The fear and the apprehension in the community is a symptom of a much wider perception that there is a deliberate targeting of Muslim Australians for partisan political purposes and we must ensure that we do not pass a new law that feeds apprehension and creates that division.

Progress reported.