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

by leave—I move Democrats amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 5326 revised together:

(1)    Schedule 1, page 3 (after line 18), after item 1, insert:

1A  Section 3

Insert:

citizenship education program is a program which gives people from non-English speaking backgrounds an understanding of the English language and Australian society and shall be in such form as is prescribed.

(2)    Schedule 1, item 3, page 3 (line 28), after “successfully completed a citizenship test” insert “or, if from a non-English speaking background, a citizenship education program”.

We have already had the second reading stage of this legislation, a few weeks back. I will restate the Democrats core position: we have the view that this legislation is not necessary. There has not been any evidence provided either to the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee inquiry or, indeed, to the wider public as to why it is needed. Let us not forget this is quite an expensive process. Well over $100 million of taxpayers’ funds is going into instituting, setting up and running the citizenship test. To me—and this is reinforced by the draft booklet Becoming an Australian citizen that has been put together and released by the government since we had the second reading stage of this debate—the whole thrust behind the citizenship test proposal from the government reflects a very insecure nation, a real example of cultural cringe and a very narrow, timid, inward-looking approach to Australia and what it means to be Australia let alone what the future potential of Australia is.

That is at that the core of why I think this is bad policy and bad legislation. You do not implement a major proposal like this, dealing with the very important issues of citizenship and the qualification for citizenship, without a thorough process—not the flimsy, farcical, token consultation process and the quite poor issues paper that was put together to initiate that process—and you should certainly put together some evidence as to why it is needed. You do not make these sorts of changes unless there is evidence that there is a problem, and at no stage has there been an indication of a problem with regard to qualification for citizenship and the sorts of things that are addressed in the citizenship test. Let us not forget that nobody is eligible to apply for citizenship, let alone then undergo the test, unless they have already been resident in this country for four years, with at least one of those years as a permanent resident. We are dealing with people who are already permanent residents of Australia and who have been part of our community for four years. To suggest that testing them in the way that is proposed through this legislation is somehow going to fix any problem that exists with regard to people who are part of the Australian community is just ludicrous.

On top of that, I do not accept the premise that we have a problem with people who are part of the Australian community and with people who are taking up citizenship. Hundreds of thousands of people become residents of Australia every year. Over 150,000 new people become permanent residents of Australia every year. More than double that number become long-term temporary residents each year. When we are having such large numbers of new residents coming into the country every year, to suggest, without any evidence to demonstrate it, that there is a problem is poor public policy and generates unnecessary concern in the community when no problem has been identified. To then suggest that some of that goes to the qualification for citizenship creates a completely unhelpful and, I would argue, destructive perception about migrant communities and about the many, many migrants who become Australian citizens.

Let us not forget that by far the largest group of people who are long-term residents of the Australian community who do not take up citizenship are people from the UK and from New Zealand. On my understanding of information provided by the Parliamentary Library, more than half of the very large numbers—hundreds of thousands—of people who live in Australia who are eligible to become citizens but do not bother taking up citizenship are New Zealanders and people from the UK. That is fine; that is their right. If they do not wish to become citizens and just wish to remain as permanent residents they can do that, but to suggest that we have some problem with eligibility for citizenship, with all of the issues that surround it, without actually looking at the evidence is, firstly, poor public policy, secondly, signals a government that is not confident about the vibrant, very strong, diverse and dynamic multicultural Australia that we have and have had for decades and, thirdly, is potentially quite destructive in the long term.

Those points need to be made once again at the start of this debate. This citizenship test is not necessary. At best, I think it will just be a large waste of money and it will be a bit of light entertainment every now and then for the media to run some of the test questions that will inevitably become public, even though the government wants to keep them secret, and test them against the so-called average Australian in the shopping malls and find out how many of us actually get them wrong all the time. I suspect it is quite likely that that is all it will end up being—another pointless piece of bureaucracy paid for by the taxpayer that we can all make fun of from time to time as a bit of a Trivial Pursuit thing on the side. If that is all it is then it is still degrading Australian citizenship, which is more important than that.

But more dangerous is the potential for it to be used consciously, or even subconsciously, as an exclusionary device, and that is where my concerns become greater. I am not saying that is the government’s intent currently, but it can be used for that purpose, particularly given that the desire to keep secret even the questions that are used reinforces the risk of it being used for exclusionary purposes. It is telling in some ways that, in justifying bringing in this test, the government have pointed to other countries that have done the same. I am thinking of the Netherlands, the UK and the US. The government have not provided any evidence that it has produced positive results—improved social cohesion, integration or citizen participation—in the countries that have done it. There is no evidence to back up any of that at all, and none was provided to the Senate committee inquiry. Particularly in the Netherlands, it has been used as a mechanism to target some in the migrant community. It has been used, and proposals have been floated specifically for it to be used, to target and try to exclude Muslims. I am not saying that is the government’s intent, but that is how similar tests have been used in another country, one that this government has pointed to, and the fear that it could be used in this way does exist amongst some within the migrant community in Australia.

If we are putting forward a public policy proposal, particularly one that is going to be creating a whole new web of bureaucracy at great public cost, then we have got to look at what the reason for it is and what the consequences of it are. There has been no evidence put forward as to why it is needed but there is evidence that a consequence of it is greater apprehension amongst some in the community, so we actually have a perverse consequence of it potentially leading to less social cohesion and less effective integration by people perceiving it as having been put forward as an exclusionary device. Such perceptions are real and should be acknowledged. It is not enough just to say, ‘That is not our intent.’ I am not saying it is the government’s intent but I am saying that is a potential future use for it and I am saying there is a real, current perception by some of it being a possible future use and there possibly being such an intent.

I hope we do not need to debate the reality that there is a strong fear amongst many in the Muslim communities around Australia—there is certainly that in my own state of Queensland—that they are being targeted at the moment in all sorts of ways, through all sorts of laws and through public rhetoric. It is a simple fact that members of the Muslim communities have been targeted time after time through public rhetoric by members of this government who have not been disciplined, brought into line or corrected by the leaders of this government. In that circumstance it is simple common sense and human nature for the people who are repeatedly being targeted, those who are repeatedly being misrepresented and who are repeatedly the target of ignorant public statements, to feel that these mechanisms are potentially going to be used to target them, particularly—and there has been no evidence put forward to suggest why these things are necessary—when we have a determination amongst those in the government to ensure that these sorts of things are maintained under a veil of secrecy. Those important points need to be made.

Having said all that, I state that we, as the Democrats often do, will seek to improve the legislation in the committee stage of the debate. That is what our amendments go to. I have already formally moved jointly my first two amendments, which relate to a citizenship education program which gives people from non-English-speaking backgrounds an understanding of the English language and Australian society and would be in a form as prescribed by the minister.

The other amendment provides an alternative mechanism. The intent is to provide an alternative citizenship mechanism for non-English-speaking entrants, so it is being put forward under the assumption that the citizenship test and the legislation will go ahead in some form, even though the Democrats do not believe the test is necessary. The amendment is based upon a significant number of concerns that were put forward by a range of people during the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs inquiry into this legislation. They included the need to ensure that the test did not operate, either deliberately or by default, as an exclusionary mechanism for people from non-English-speaking backgrounds, particularly those from refugee backgrounds.

People from refugee backgrounds are of course, by definition, different from other types of migrants in that they have been forced to flee their homeland rather than having made a choice to simply seek a different country, a different future and a different life. Obviously, refugees have done that as well but they have done that by virtue of having been forced out of a situation that is unsafe, where they are at risk of serious persecution, by definition, and having had Australia offer them the opportunity to rebuild their lives.

It is a simple fact that in those circumstances from time to time such people are going to find difficulty in meeting some of the formal criteria that can be put forward in tests like this. So that amendment is based upon the recommendation that was put forward in my dissenting committee report, or minority report, that we ensure that refugee and humanitarian entrants from non-English-speaking backgrounds with a low level of English proficiency may be exempt from the test if they fulfil an alternative requirement such as attending a citizenship course. So it still provides that mechanism whereby they need to attend a course that specifically looks at issues relating to citizenship.

Let me say that, whilst I have not seen a single piece of evidence that suggests a citizenship test as is proposed is necessary or even helpful, I do think that it is desirable and appropriate for all prospective citizens to learn about what is involved in citizenship. I would actually like to see all Australian-born citizens required to learn that because, quite frankly, most of us do not know—and I would say, on the basis of a number of statements made by members of this parliament on this issue, a number of members of this parliament do not know—some of the basics around Australian citizenship: what is involved, what its history is, what the rights attached to it are, what the responsibilities attached to it are and just how intangible a concept it has been under law in many respects throughout Australia’s history. So I think we could all benefit from that, quite frankly. But, if you are going to create a requirement for new citizens to have done that, even though we are not requiring Australian-born citizens to have done that, then we should at least ensure that there are some options that enable sufficient flexibility for people who are not going to be able, because of their background, to meet the single structure that is being put forward.

I know that there are opportunities for exemptions within the legislation. As is often the case these days, they are pretty much totally at ministerial discretion, so we are just giving to the government, through the minister of the day, more power over people’s lives. I believe that having a specifically detailed alternative pathway for people from non-English-speaking backgrounds who are refugee and humanitarian entrants provides some extra surety that that option will be provided to people.

Let me emphasise, in moving these amendments and in commenting on those who are refugee and humanitarian entrants—it should be continually stressed—that the one group in the community of new arrivals to Australia who are most prompt in wanting to take up citizenship and to engage fully with the Australian community through citizenship and membership of the Australian society, are people from refugee and humanitarian backgrounds. It is well established that they are most likely to want to quickly take up citizenship. So there should be no suggestion that people from refugee and humanitarian entrance backgrounds are some sort of problem. They are the keenest to fully integrate into the Australian community and to get on with fully rebuilding their lives to contribute to the country that has given them another chance. We should not have some poorly thought through bureaucratic and politically motivated citizenship test get in the way of their doing that. Our country would be the loser as well as those people. So let us not forget that part of it: it is in the interests of the entire community to ensure that we can get full participation by people who history has shown contribute enormously to the development, prosperity and richness of Australia.