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

I want to indicate that I will not proceed with the Australian Greens amendment, because the Democrats have said that effectively they will be doing the same thing, which is to seek to make the questions within the citizenship test a disallowable instrument—that is, to allow the parliament to see what the proposed questions for the citizenship test are. The Greens think this is an important oversight role that parliament needs to, and can, play. It is about ensuring that the questions are appropriate—whilst recognising, as I have said previously, that the Greens do not support the citizenship test, because we do not think it will achieve the government’s objectives in relation to this.

In particular, we do not support what is proposed in relation to how it should work, which is that the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship has complete say over what the questions are. There are a number of examples you could point to. You could ask the question: ‘What do people in Australia think of the colour pink?’ You could put it in any absurd way and say, ‘I don’t know that that is really an appropriate question.’ People might think that the minister will not do that, but I would look at the sample questions we have already been given in the draft document in relation to the citizenship test—I do not think they are outrageous questions in the way that it might be to say, ‘What do we think of the colour pink?’ but I cannot see that knowing the floral emblem of Australia indicates you are going to obey the laws in Australia, respect Australian values and understand what it is like to be in the culture here. It might mean that you know something about Australia—and, yes, that is good; we do not have a problem with that—but I do not see how, in terms of the government’s objective around this legislation, the citizenship test will ensure that people who come to Australia will respect Australia and the way of life here. You could be a mass murderer; you could be a person with really evil intentions and still happen to know what the floral emblem is. I do not see how knowing the first line of the national anthem or what day Australia Day is indicates that you are going to be a valuable citizen. There are many people who have made really fantastic contributions as citizens in Australia over the years who may not know the answers to these questions. I do not think that that somehow diminishes the value of the contributions they have made here in Australia.

It is not outrageous to say that we should see these questions to see whether they are appropriate. It is not as though I am proposing that the minister is going to do something outrageous; I just do not see what the questions add. I am not claiming they are outrageous; I am just saying that I cannot see how learning the answers to these questions indicates that you are not going to be a valued, contributing citizen.

I imagine that probably everybody in this chamber could point to people they know who are valued contributing citizens, be they celebrities that we know of who do not speak English all that well or the people around the corner who run the local grocery store who have really contributed to our community. They may not know the answers to these questions, but that does not diminish the contribution that they have to make. That really sits at the heart of the Greens’ concerns in relation to the citizenship test.

I am quite happy to support the objectives the government says are behind this. I absolutely support improving the English language skills of migrants. That is why I moved a second reading amendment about expanding the English language program for migrants. I think we should do that. I think it is great that the government increased funding for that in the last budget. I totally support that. I totally support people understanding what life in Australia is like. But I do not think that the two objectives that the government put forward are going to be achieved through this test. That is essentially why the Greens are not supporting this test.

This particular amendment—which is similar to the amendment proposed by the Australian Greens—is about the parliament having some oversight of this. Deciding who can and who cannot be a citizen of this country is a very significant decision. What this legislation is proposing is that the test that determines who can or cannot be a citizen should not come before the parliament. I think if we are going to set a standard measure on something as significant as who should or should not become a citizen—which is what this test is proposing—the parliament should have some oversight and some say in that standard framework, and there should be some transparency.

Where it is an individual decision, the minister is in a good position to be able to do that, but that is not what is being proposed here. It is a standard, across-the-board mechanism for determining who should or should not become a citizen. I think it is a really fundamental thing in our society to decide who should or should not become a citizen. I think it is core business of the parliament to have some oversight of that, which is why I am so concerned about this particular amendment which says that the minister is the only person to determine that. Okay, if it is a one-off decision, I can see an argument for that. But this is not a one-off decision; this is an across-the-board mechanism for deciding who should or should not be able to become citizens. It is a fundamental component.

Other countries around the world put things like that into their constitutions to determine who should or should not be able to become a citizen of their country. I am not advocating that, but I am using that as an example of how important other countries think that it is to decide who can or cannot become a citizen of their country. That is why I think this amendment is so important. This amendment is saying that the parliament, as the elected representatives of people in this country, should have some say in the standard test the government is proposing to apply to all people to determine who should or should not be a citizen.

I do not think it is a very big ask at all that we in the parliament should have some oversight of that, and that is why the Greens support this amendment. That is why we proposed a similar one ourselves that I indicate I will not move, because we are having the debate here about the way in which this should be determined. When I look at that series of questions, I just cannot see how being able to answer those questions means that you are going to be a contributing citizen. You may be able to answer those questions and be a contributing citizen, but I do not think that being able to answer those questions proves that you are going to be a contributing citizen.