Kate Lundy (ACT, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Local Government) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

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 by conferral. The Australian Citizenship Act 2007 requires that applicants for citizenship (1) understand the nature of their application, (2) possess a basic knowledge of the English language and (3) have an adequate knowledge of the responsibilities and privileges of Australian citizenship. The bill provides that these applicants must have successfully completed a test before making an application for citizenship to demonstrate that they meet the requirements. Labor supports the principle of formalising the testing system which is currently in place for citizenship. The issue is whether it is reasonable.

Labor’s concerns were pursued by the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs in its inquiry into the bill, and I note the committee’s recently tabled report. Resolving the matters relating to section 23A is essential to the credibility of the legislation. Labor supports the outcomes of the committee and the amendments proposed by the government.

Australia already has a citizenship test. In 1948 the status of Australian citizenship was established. The process for obtaining citizenship was arduous. Applicants had to have lived in Australia for at least five years. They also had to have adequate English, show that they were loyal and of good character, produce three references and declare an intention to naturalise two years before the application. In addition to this, applicants had to place an advertisement in the newspapers notifying others of their intention to become an Australian citizen.

Of course, the nature and veracity of the rules for citizenship have changed over the years. Today, applicants must attend a compulsory interview and establish that they are of good character. The interviewer, who is an officer of the Department of Immigration and Citizenship, does the following things: check the written application and personal documents; assess whether the applicant understands the nature of the application; assess whether the applicant has an adequate knowledge of the responsibilities and privileges of Australian citizenship; and assess whether the applicant has a basic knowledge of the English language.

Looking at the public debate that has gone on concerning the introduction of a citizenship test, it is easy for us to think that we have a bill that involves drastic change from current practice. While there were genuine expectations that significant change would be in the legislation, it is difficult to see the bill which is now before the parliament as continuing the sort of radical change from current practice which each side of the debate has implied it would see.

In the context of this debate, we have often questioned whether it is possible to have any sort of test for citizenship and whether it is possible to ever clearly identify Australian values. One of the arguments we often hear against there being any concept of Australian values is that these values are those that you will find in any one of a number of countries. In many respects that is true. But the fact that other nations may have similar values to our own does not prevent there being certain principles about which we can say, ‘Yes, that is part of being Australian.’ We can often identify Australian values more easily by what they are not. Values are not static, and the values and principles that characterise us do change over time.

In February 2000, the Citizenship Council attempted to summarise what those principles might be in an Australian compact. They referred to a commitment to the land; a commitment to the rule of law; a commitment to equality under the law, regardless of race and sex; and a commitment to the basics of a representative liberal democracy, including freedom of opinion. The council also referred to a commitment to principles of fairness, to tolerance, to the acceptance of cultural diversity, to the wellbeing of all Australians and to recognising the unique status of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. Those principles all fit with our discussion about what it means to be Australian. This set of values will be fluid and change from time to time, but we do not do our nation any harm by having and embracing the values debate and by associating it with full membership of our society through Australian citizenship.

The proposed citizenship test changes the current testing arrangements to a more formalised model. There have, in fact, always been tests imposed, and this is why the argument about today’s changes being radical does not really take account of what has happened since we introduced Australian citizenship in 1948. The existing test for citizenship has been quite non-controversial and there have not been any arguments about needing it to be abolished. This creates some questions as to why this legislation is said to be some sort of radical change. The more you look at the bill and at the minister’s second reading speech, the more you see that what we actually have before us is a formalising of the current system. It may involve a toughening of the current test, but not necessarily. It depends on the determinations that the minister makes. Also, those determinations can be changed at any point, with any extra number of exemptions that the minister might choose to put in place.

The bill will amend the act to require applicants for Australian citizenship under the general eligibility provisions to have successfully completed a citizenship test before making an application in order to be eligible to become Australian citizens. Successful completion of a test will demonstrate that applicants (1) understand the nature of the application, (2) possess a basic knowledge of the English language and (3) have an adequate knowledge of Australia and of the responsibilities and privileges of Australian citizenship. A person sitting a test may be required to satisfy eligibility criteria to be able to sit a citizenship test. These criteria may include requirements that a person is a permanent resident and satisfies the minister of the person’s identity.

To date, test questions have not been made public and the source document from which the test questions will be drawn is not yet available. I note the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs expressed disappointment that the proposed resource booklet had not been finalised and made publicly available. This means we have been asked to vote on a bill which is entirely ‘shell’ legislation. As a result, it has proven difficult to comment on the nature and content of the proposed test. We do not expect that the government is going to put each question from a test into legislation, but the answer to the question ‘Is the test reasonable?’ will have to be determined at a later date.

This legislation deals with two questions. It deals with whether, in principle, there should be a test or not, and whether, in principle, the minister should have the discretion to create exemptions to take into account different circumstances. These issues are not outrageous. As to whether there should be a test at all, the answer is yes. Should the minister have the discretion to provide extra exemptions? The logical answer to that is yes again. That is reasonable. There is already a test and it has never been controversial. We have yet to hear anybody argue that the current test is an outrageous restriction on people’s citizenship. It would be quite open for the minister to determine that one of the options is for the current test to continue.

What really matters is that we end up with a reasonable test. We do not want this to end up being some bizarre game of trivia. We do not want this to be something which sets up people to fail. We do not want this to be a barrier to people who would make fine Australian citizens. Whether it ends up that way or not, we cannot tell from this bill. All we can tell is that the principle of having a citizenship test, which has been with us since 1949, would remain. That is a completely reasonable principle, and that is all the bill actually reveals. If, in good faith, that is what materialises, we simply have a codification of a reasonable system. Of course, it is quite within the realms of possibility and certainly within the realms of legislative options for the government to come up with something less reasonable. Given the level of community disquiet about the questions that might be included in a citizenship test, the government should make the test questions public in order to provide additional reassurance to those concerned. It would also help to ensure accountability of the proposed regime. I think that, as a matter of transparency, the government making the questions available is completely in the interests of citizenship being a process of unifying Australians. It is a logical thing to do and it is in the interests of the government to do so.

The minister has a large degree of discretion to approve more than one test and exemptions from the test, as I mentioned. These exemptions will include people under the age of 18 or over 60 and those with permanent physical or mental incapacity which prevents them from understanding the nature of their application. The main test will be computer based and consist of 20 multiple-choice questions drawn randomly from a large pool of confidential questions. Each test is expected to include three questions on the responsibilities and privileges of Australian citizenship. The pass mark is expected to be 60 per cent, including a requirement to answer the three mandatory questions correctly. A person will be able to take the test as many times as necessary in order to pass. Once an applicant has passed the test then they can apply for citizenship, at which point a fee will be paid.

At his briefing on the legislation, our shadow minister Tony Burke raised two questions for the department. The first was: ‘Will ministerial determinations— for example, of what the different exemptions are for the different tests—be made public, even if the questions are not made public?’ The second question was: ‘Will the government guarantee that it will not put exemptions on tests which then create a situation where someone who otherwise would have been eligible to sit for a citizenship test has no test available to them anymore?’ The minister’s office has responded to these two important matters in writing. Determinations of this nature will be made public and the test will be used only in such a way as to guarantee that anyone who under the act would expect to be able to sit for a test will have a test available for them. Contrary to many assumptions made in the public debate about the citizenship test, there will not be a separate English-language test. A person’s English-language skills will be assessed on their ability to successfully complete the test in English.

It was reported to me that the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship mentioned in his second reading speech some of the concerns about the options for people who have difficulty with English literacy. To Labor, this is a very important part of the debate and a very important issue. The government, with the support of the opposition, has made decisions on the humanitarian program to find some of the most desperate people in the world and offer them a better life here in Australia. Labor has not always provided bipartisan support for the quality of the settlement programs subsequently offered, but there has certainly been bipartisan support for the selection of people, done in consultation with the UNHCR. Australia’s humanitarian program has seen increasing numbers of people settling permanently in Australia who not only do not have literacy in English but do not have literacy in their language of origin. To expect that, in the space of four years, someone in those circumstances would be able to sit in front of a computer reading English well enough to pass a multiple-choice test is highly unreasonable.

The Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs also acknowledges concerns about the potential impact of citizenship testing on certain groups within society, especially refugee and humanitarian entrants. I am reassured by the evidence from the department that the regime will be monitored on an ongoing basis and that the minister will have discretion to approve different tests designed on the basis of identified need. However, Labor supports the Senate committee’s view that in addition to this ongoing monitoring a more formal and comprehensive review of the citizenship-testing regime should be conducted three years after the commencement of the regime. In particular, this review should examine the regime’s impact on the citizenship application and conferral rates of certain groups within society such as refugee and humanitarian entrants, women, and people from non-English-speaking backgrounds. This is a recommendation that Labor fully supports, and to this end I foreshadow an amendment along these lines in the committee stage of this bill.

In his second reading speech the minister flagged that, in special cases where a person does not have the literacy skills required to complete the test, the test will be done through a conversation. It is proposed that the test administrator will read out the questions and possible answers to the person. Again, we want this test to be something that is not used in a fashion that sets people up to fail. Citizenship is the common bond that unites individuals in their mutual commitment to Australia and is a central element to integrating and including new migrants so they can fully participate in the Australian community.

Labor notes with concern 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. Labor believes it is essential that you do not just test but also teach. There has to be adequate funding for the Adult Migrant English Program. There has to be adequate funding for settlement services so that people who come to Australia with the least opportunity and the least advantage do not find themselves in circumstances where it will always be extremely difficult for them to take on their roles as full members of Australian society. To this end, settlement services must be flexible and take account of the specific needs of our new arrivals.

Learning English is critical to the successful settlement of new arrivals, and we see it as the key to integration in the social and economic mainstream of Australian society and becoming an Australian citizen. Because we recognise that the strength and the success of the citizenship test lie in its ability to promote community inclusion and provide opportunities for people to fully engage with life in Australia, we will ensure that citizenship is not a discouraging and daunting process for new Australians. We will support the test and, in doing so, we will recognise the importance of teaching in the development of English language skills and the acquisition of knowledge of Australian history, culture and values.

A Rudd Labor government will provide for the teaching of English and citizenship. To that end, Labor’s shadow minister Mr Burke moved a second reading amendment outlining our approach. Since the shadow minister’s second reading amendment was moved back in June, Labor has announced a new initiative to improve English language services and assist migrants to fully participate in the Australian community. Labor will improve the Adult Migrant English Program to assist migrants to achieve functional English and pass the citizenship test. A Rudd Labor government will offer a new traineeship to migrants in Australia and introduce a new-style Adult Migrant English Program to help migrants learn English and fully participate in the Australian community. I note that government figures show that in 2005 only 11 per cent of people exited the Adult Migrant English Program with the ability to speak functional English. Labor would put an end to this one-size-fits-all English-training model for migrants. We have committed a total of $49.2 million to fix the Howard government’s English training program and to assist new arrivals to find employment as soon as possible.

The government has allowed the Adult Migrant English Program to become stale and outdated. The immigration program has changed significantly over the past decade. As we have mentioned, we now have many migrants coming to Australia who have never been to school and who are not literate in their own languages. The government’s policies continue to see new arrivals who have received university education being treated the same as those who cannot even write in their own languages. This policy continues to disadvantage many people. We know from the statistics I mentioned that up to nine out of 10 people are leaving this English language tuition without basic English. It is disheartening that government policy is failing these people, who are often most in need of settlement assistance in our community. There should not be any barriers for new arrivals who want to learn English and get a job.

Labor wants people, when they come to Australia, to have the opportunity to get the job they want. That is why we have announced the new traineeship—so that new arrivals can learn. Specifically, we will assist new arrivals to make the transition to employment. Our Adult Migrant English Program will have more emphasis on vocational English to better enable new entrants to apply for a job and work in an Australian workplace. Labor’s plan to teach, not just test, English will include a traineeship in English and work readiness. This will be designed to allow new entrants to continue their English language tuition while developing knowledge, skills and experience in Australian workplace culture and practices. These traineeships will focus on English language and working in Australia, and $9.2 million of the $49.2 million has been set aside for this purpose. The key to a successful language program is also flexibility. In Labor’s new Employment Pathways Program, extra English language tuition hours will be able to be allocated to those students most in need, and $40 million has been committed to setting up this important program.

Labor supports a citizenship test but will provide for the teaching of English and citizenship. Labor will improve the Adult Migrant English Program to assist migrants to achieve functional English so they can fully participate in the Australian community and pass the citizenship test. Finally, Labor is committed to celebrating the diversity of all Australians in an inclusive society with shared values. Successful integration and Australian citizenship are, after all, central to building a stronger community.

Guy Barnett (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I stand today to support the government’s Australian Citizenship Amendment (Citizenship Testing) Bill 2007. I particularly commend the minister for his efforts in proceeding with this legislation. Also, as Chair of the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, I note that we have brought down a report, dated July 2007, on this particular bill. I will refer in part to that report during my response in the debate on the second reading today. I also want to acknowledge the minister’s response to that report and the recommendations in it and thank the minister and the government for those thoughtful responses.

I would like to commend the report to the Senate and draw it to their attention. In particular I want to thank my Senate colleagues who are part of that committee. I also specifically want to thank the secretariat—Jackie Morris, and in this instance Terry Brown, Sophie Power and Judith West—for their support and assistance in preparing that report.

The legislation was referred to the Senate committee on 13 June 2007 with report by 31 July 2007. We had two hearings, one in Canberra and one in Sydney, on 16 and 17 July this year. We received some 59 submissions. They were thoughtful and well-researched submissions. The witnesses that appeared at both the Canberra and the Sydney hearings were certainly well prepared, and we had some constructive discussion and debate and question-and-answer sessions. I want to thank all the witnesses that appeared and presented from all sides of the equation. I thank them for the assistance they have given senators in preparing the report and now allowing that information to be available to the public.

As for the background, on 11 December last year the government announced that it would introduce a test for certain applicants for Australian citizenship. The announcement followed a consultation process conducted by the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, now the Department of Immigration and Citizenship. That consultation process began on 17 September last year, and I would like to share that in the context of the overall debate concerning what we are looking at today in this bill.

There has been a lot of discussion, debate and consultation on the concepts and the objectives of this bill to date. It has been extensive. In fact, in the consultation period closing on 17 November 2006, there were 1,644 written responses, with 1,486 from individuals and 158 from organisations. An assessment made by the department indicated that there was some 60 per cent support for the government’s plans to introduce such a test. As for public support, the Australian newspaper on 1 January 2007 found that 85 per cent of respondents were in favour of the knowledge of English being a requirement to become an Australian citizen, and another poll, conducted in September last year, found that 77 per cent of respondents favoured a citizenship test.

As a Senate committee we looked at some overseas experience, including that in Canada, the Netherlands, the UK, the USA and South Korea. We noted that they had similar testing regimes and formal testing arrangements for citizenship. Four of the countries we considered in detail in the discussion paper were Canada, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom and the United States. They test for knowledge of their countries and they also test for language skills. Likewise, the legislation before us has a test of knowledge of Australia and the Australian way of life and the values that we hold in this country. There is also a test for English language skills.

A formal citizenship test is a way of ensuring that migrants are fully ready to participate in the Australian community. That is a key ingredient, the foundational thesis that the government stands upon. It is also important from a broader perspective as it will support social cohesion and social integration in the community. It is designed so that applicants can demonstrate their knowledge of the English language and of Australia, including knowledge of their responsibilities and privileges, as citizenship bestows both responsibilities and privileges.

Migrants have come to Australia from more than 200 countries around the world. They include people of the Judaeo-Christian heritage and culture, like ours, and systems of government from the Western liberal democratic tradition, like Australia’s, along with people from other cultures and traditions. That is why Australia is a multicultural society. Our diversity is part of the rich tapestry of Australia today.

Migrants who come to Australia in the future, whether under a skilled, family or humanitarian program, will not be required to pass the test prior to or upon their arrival. They will only need to pass it when wishing to take up citizenship of Australia, which will usually be some four or more years later. I want to make that point: this is not something that needs to be done before arriving in Australia; it is obviously something that is done when applying for citizenship.

As for eligibility criteria, the person must be a permanent resident. They must be able to be satisfactorily identified. The person must provide a photograph of his or her face and shoulders or allow such a photograph to be taken. The government recognises that it would be unnecessary and unfair for some people to comply with these requirements. Consequently, this is the reason the legislation is designed to allow people under the age of 18 or over 60, those with a permanent physical or mental incapacity which prevents them from understanding the nature of their application, and those with a permanent loss or substantial impairment of hearing, speech or sight not to be required to sit that particular test.

The report is now on the public record. The explanatory memorandum to the legislation makes it clear that the estimated cost to implement and administer a citizenship test is $17.4 million over a five-year period. We noted in our report the second reading speech of the minister when he said:

The test will encourage prospective citizens to obtain the knowledge they need to support successful integration into Australian society. The citizenship test will provide them with the opportunity to demonstrate in an objective way that they have the required knowledge of Australia, including the responsibilities and privileges of citizenship, and a basic knowledge and comprehension of English.

It is noted that citizenship confers not only certain privileges but responsibilities. I refer to the debate that we had before our committee about the importance of citizenship. Several submissions and witnesses pointed out the importance of citizenship for access to certain basic rights, including the right to vote, to apply for an Australian passport, to access certain financial assistance from the government and employment opportunities, and freedom from deportation under the Migration Act. For refugee and humanitarian entrants, the right to apply for a passport can be one of the most important practical benefits of citizenship as it can assist in reunification with family members. Last month, Michael Ferguson and I attended a citizenship ceremony in Launceston, conducted by the mayor, Ivan Dean, and I was delighted to have the honour of being with some friends from South Africa whom I had assisted. As a family, they were so proud to be standing there to become citizens of Australia, some years after their arrival in this country. They were very proud indeed, along with the many other Australians who had had citizenship conferred on them. I know that Michael Ferguson gave his encouragement and congratulations to those new citizens on that day, as he does at most of the citizenship ceremonies held in Launceston.

The committee accepted the department’s evidence that the proposed citizenship testing regime would be more objective than the current system of an informal interview. This is a key point to come out of the debate that we had before the committee—that we needed an objective test—and that is why we looked at international comparisons with the US, the UK, the Netherlands, South Korea et cetera. An objective test applies overseas, and it will now apply here in Australia, subject to the passing of this legislation. The committee considered that the proposed test would encourage prospective citizens to familiarise themselves with Australian society and would, therefore, help them to integrate and participate in Australian society.

As I indicated earlier, we are pleased that there has been considerable public support for the government’s plan to introduce this legislation. We also welcomed the department’s evidence and advice to our committee that it will monitor and evaluate the regime on an ongoing basis. We saw that as important, and we put forward a recommendation in our report that there be a review after three years to assess the impact of the test on citizenship application and conferral rates on certain groups in society, particularly the refugee and humanitarian entrants. We received a number of submissions from, and had views expressed by, humanitarian and refugee interest groups. They expressed legitimate concerns, but, on balance, we have recommended support for the bill, subject to that advice and those recommendations. We particularly appreciated the evidence of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission; theirs was a very thoughtful submission indeed.

I draw the attention of the Senate to the views of the department, and the views of the Australian Christian Lobby, which were put to us by David Yates on their behalf. There was some discussion and debate, including questions from Labor senators, as to why Australia’s Judaeo-Christian ethic is important in understanding being a citizen here in Australia. There was some discussion during the inquiry about the extent to which the Judaeo-Christian heritage should be acknowledged and reflected in the proposed test. The Centre for Human Rights Education at the Curtin University of Technology said:

The Centre is concerned of reports that the test will be focused on applicants demonstrating an understanding of “Judeo-Christian” values and British/Western traditions. Such values and traditions do not necessarily reflect the multicultural composition of Australia ...

However, the Australian Christian Lobby told the committee:

ACL strongly supports the Minister’s comments that applicants should be required to acknowledge Australia’s Judeo-Christian heritage. This does not require prospective citizens to share the Judeo-Christian faith, but it would make it clear that their new country’s historical context is Judeo-Christian, rather than of any other faith or ideology.

The committee asked the department whether it would be desirable in the test to include questions about Australia’s Judaeo-Christian heritage. In response, a departmental witness said, ‘Part of Australia and its history would go to our belief system, so I imagine that that is an area that will be covered in the resource book.’ Of course it will be, and I look forward to that. I commend the Australian Christian Lobby and Jim Wallace for his leadership of that organisation and note that, together with them, I hosted a forum here in Parliament House on the importance of Australia’s Christian heritage, highlighting its importance not only for the past history of Australia but for present-day Australians. The committee noted its disappointment that the resource book was not available at the time of the hearing, nor was it at the time of the production of the committee’s report. The minister has responded to our recommendations. We made four, including a recommendation that the bill be passed.

Before touching on that, I note that Senator Lundy talked about the importance of appropriate English-as-a-second-language support being provided by the government for potential applicants. We agree that it is important, and that is why the Australian government has committed considerable resources to this area, as is noted in our report. The department gave evidence on this issue and recognised that the government was already devoting considerable resources, including in English language training programs such as the Adult Migrant English Program, and in settlement programs, particularly for refugee and humanitarian entrants. Considerable resources across the whole-of-government—across portfolio areas—have been put towards ensuring that there are adequate opportunities for training and for learning the English language.

In terms of the government’s response to our recommendations, I note that government amendments have been put before the Senate. Firstly, one of the amendments, relating to proposed new section 23A(1), makes it clear that a test must relate to the eligibility criteria in new paragraphs (d), (e) and (f) of proposed new section 21(2) in the bill. Secondly, there is a note after proposed new section 23A(3) to make it clear that eligibility criteria for sitting a test cannot be inconsistent with the act and, in particular, with section 21(2).

The first note is in response to the concern of the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs that new section 23A(1) is ambiguous and that an amendment was needed to clarify that a citizenship test would relate only to the eligibility criteria in proposed new paragraphs (d), (e) and (f) of section 21(2). Proposed new paragraphs (d), (e) and (f) of section 21(2) require that applicants understand the nature of their application to become an Australian citizen, possess a basic knowledge of the English language and have an adequate knowledge of Australia and of the responsibilities and privileges of Australian citizenship.

The second note responds to the concerns that the determination-making power in proposed new section 23A of the bill is too broad and would allow the minister to set eligibility criteria for sitting a test that are inconsistent with the act and, in particular, inconsistent with the general eligibility criteria for citizenship in proposed new section 21(2) of the bill.

I put on the record my sincere thanks to the minister and his officers for considering the report, reviewing the recommendations and responding accordingly. I am very supportive of this legislation. I think it is foundational legislation for Australia and for its citizens.

In conclusion, I thank all of my colleagues on the legal and constitutional affairs committee for their support, efforts and deliberations on this matter. I particularly thank the secretariat, led by Jackie Morris, and I commend the legislation to the Senate.

Linda Kirk (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Australian Citizenship Amendment (Citizenship Testing) Bill 2007. As we have heard, the bill seeks to amend the Australian Citizenship Act by requiring prospective applicants for Australian citizenship who meet the eligibility criteria to successfully complete a citizenship test before they are conferred with Australian citizenship. As Senator Barnett mentioned, the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs conducted an inquiry into this legislation, held public hearings during July and tabled our report on 31 July 2007. Labor have indicated that we will support the passage of this legislation through the Senate, and Senator Lundy foreshadowed an amendment which we will be moving to the bill.

In the time that I have available today, I would like to address some of the concerns that were raised by witnesses about the bill during the Senate inquiry. In the matters canvassed during the Senate inquiry, legitimate concerns were raised about the purpose, nature and content of the citizenship test and its potential impact in operation, which, in my view, must be carefully monitored and reviewed once the test is introduced.

There is no doubt that Australian citizenship is highly valued by those who are fortunate enough to obtain it. Since the enactment of the Citizenship Act in 1949, over four million people have been conferred with Australian citizenship, and there are currently close to one million permanent residents who are eligible to obtain citizenship status. What comes with taking that final step from residency to citizenship is a person’s acknowledgement and acceptance of an extra set of privileges and responsibilities. Australian citizens may reside freely in Australia, hold an Australian passport, vote, serve in the armed forces, work in the public sector, stand for parliament and seek diplomatic assistance when overseas.

The current eligibility provisions for a citizenship applicant under the act require the applicant to have an understanding of the nature of their application for citizenship and a basic knowledge of the English language. The legislation before us today inserts an additional requirement that applicants for Australian citizenship must have an adequate knowledge of Australia and of the responsibilities and privileges of Australian citizenship. The bill proposes that these criteria be fulfilled by the successful completion of the citizenship test approved by the minister. The explanatory memorandum states:

There is no other way for these criteria to be satisfied, other than by successfully completing a test.

The necessity for this requirement of the citizenship test was the main consideration at the hearings held by the Senate committee. A number of witnesses queried whether a citizenship test was a necessary addition to current citizenship arrangements. The committee received a number of submissions which questioned the need for the test and also questioned whether there was any evidence that demonstrated a need to change the current citizenship law. For example, the Centre for Human Rights Education at Curtin University of Technology submitted to the committee that the current citizenship ceremony and concomitant pledge are sufficient to indicate a person’s commitment to Australia and the community. The Castan Centre for Human Rights Law at Monash University submitted that now there is a lesser need for a formal testing arrangement, given the requirement that a permanent resident, before applying for citizenship, must have lived in the country for a period of four years.

It remains to be seen what a formal test will add to the integration of new migrants into the Australian community. It is said that one of the aims of the test is to achieve a more inclusive society. The explanatory memorandum states:

The introduction of a citizenship test is a key part of the Government’s ongoing commitment to help migrants successfully integrate into the Australian community.

However, the test, by its very nature, is a very exclusionary measure for achieving this aim. By their very nature, tests are designed to be passed or failed.

Debate interrupted.