Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) Share this | Hansard source

I want to not only speak to the amendments that have been moved by Senator Bartlett but also comment more broadly on the direction that Senator Bartlett is taking. I will use the more general language of the Democrats for the purpose of the chair. It seems to me that the Democrats are answering a proposal put some time ago and which the Prime Minister originally announced, and I think it is instructive to understand what he said at that time. In December 2006 the Howard government announced that it would introduce a new citizenship test and that migrants wanting to become citizens would be required to sit a formal examination, in English, in which they would answer 30 questions, drawn from a pool of 200, about Australian values, traditions, institutions and history.

A significant amount of water has flowed under the bridge since then and we now have a much changed situation from the government’s perspective. Labor, though, has been consistent throughout. Labor has said it supports the principle of formalising the current citizenship test. The issue, then, centres round the reasonableness of it all.

The amendments proposed by the Democrats today, and the language surrounding them, tend to answer the original proposal put forward by the government and they also focus, in part, on the test itself. I want to draw back a bit from that and have a look at the broader perspective, because Labor has always said that it is about the reasonableness of the test and not about the test individually. Labor recognises that the strength and success of the citizenship test lie in its ability—in other words, a facilitative provision—to promote community inclusion and provide opportunity for people to fully engage in the Australian way of life. That is a journey that people need to undertake, and the way they can undertake it is through this process. What Labor has added to the debate, which is going a bit further from what the government has done, is to say that it will ensure that the citizenship test is not a daunting prospect and that it will not discourage people from becoming citizens. Labor says that it is about recognising the importance of teaching English, that English language skills are important not only in the labour market but also for social inclusion at home and at work in offices around the country.

A Rudd Labor government would also provide for the teaching of English and citizenship. To that end the shadow minister for immigration moved a second reading amendment in the other place in which lies the crux of the whole debate. The shadow minister noted that the issue is whether the citizenship test to be determined under the legislation is reasonable. He also noted the importance of teaching English, the development of English language skills and the acquisition of knowledge of Australian history, culture and values. And I am sure the Democrats and others in this chamber would agree on those values. It is about ensuring that we do support and provide improvements to the Adult Migrant English Program and other settlement services to assist migrants to participate fully in the Australian community and to ultimately pass the citizenship test.

If we look at the bill now before the committee, we can see that it does provide a flexible approach, and that should not be overlooked. We do say that we continue to have concerns about a great deal of emphasis being placed on the citizenship test rather than on the support services and community initiatives that are critical to building an integrated and inclusive society. That is where the debate should be, quite frankly, but that is where this government has left the field.

By way of background, Democrats amendment (1) explains that a ‘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’. Democrats amendment (2) inserts:

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”.

The question arising, then, is whether there may be a way in which the test could be combined with coursework. It is not unusual for that to occur, although traditionally there are tests and there is coursework, and the two generally do not meet. But the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship does have the discretion to make such an alternative test available if necessary.

However, Labor will not be supporting these amendments which propose a citizenship education program, on the basis that the concept of a separate stream of testing for anyone from a non-English-speaking background ultimately ignores the fact that many people from a non-English-speaking background may already be fluent in English. They may have English as their second language and may be fluent in either written or spoken English, or both. Moreover, such a program overlooks the possibility of a person passively sitting in a classroom ignoring the citizenship coursework—in fact, not being particularly receptive to it. The proposed amendments do not go on to indicate how that election of coursework with test would be made, whether it would be elected by the person sitting the test or by determination of a government official. So, on that basis, Labor does not support the amendments and will not be voting for them.

I wanted to raise those couple of issues and to add at the outset the more general comments about this bill in order to ensure that Labor’s position is clear. Of course, if the Democrats want to add anything they certainly may, but I do not think it will convince us to support the proposed amendments.