Chris Ellison (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

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

I just want to put on the record the grave concerns I have about this piece of legislation. I have indicated some of these previously but I want to put on the record how extraordinarily concerned the Australian Greens and I are about this piece of legislation. The government has set out two objectives for the legislation, as I outlined previously: firstly, their intention to improve the English language skills in migrants; and, secondly, to ensure that we have a more cohesive society.

My office did some research into the English language skills of migrants through the last two census data collections. We found that the Department of Immigration and Citizenship statistics branch had to get rid of the bottom two categories for measuring English language proficiency because the English language skills of migrants had improved so much over the life of this government that those two categories for low English language proficiency were meaningless. So there is not a problem to start with. The English language skills of migrants are improving.

There are programs out there. The government increased funding in the last budget for English language skills for migrants. There is not a problem. A number of statements by the Prime Minister, the Treasurer and the immigration minister at the time pointed to particular parts of the community as groups who had not taken up English language skills, and it was the Muslim community that they were pointing out. Muslims as a group are not the religious group with the poorest English language skills. So there is not a problem in terms of English language skills amongst migrants. There is not a problem in terms of Muslim migrants’ English language skills, and the government’s own data tell us that. The government’s own Department of Immigration and Citizenship have had to change the way they measure English language proficiency in migrants because language proficiency in migrants has improved so much. So there is not a problem.

As I said earlier, my concern is the concern of the educators who appeared before the Senate committee inquiry who said that, if you introduce a citizenship test, English language classes—not intentionally but inevitably—will end up being less effective. Students in the class who are paying money to be there or who are taking time out from work to be there will put pressure on the teacher, and this will mean that the teacher will inevitably spend time teaching people how to pass the test rather than teaching them the English language skills that they need. Not only is there not a problem in terms of the English language skills of migrants but this test will undermine the existing English language programs for migrants that the government operates in the community. The Greens support these programs and want to see them expanded.

The other thing is that the government has not pointed out what is wrong with our existing citizenship laws. They have served us very well. I think that we are a great country made up of a fantastic group of people from Australia and from a whole lot of different countries. I do not think that there is a problem with the way in which our citizenship laws have served us over so many years. So we do not have a problem. If you look specifically at what the government wants to address with this legislation—the English language skills—again, we do not have a problem. The evidence we have heard is that, far from this citizenship test improving the English language skills of migrants, it is likely to undermine the existing English language programs.

The other rationale that the government puts forward is about improving the cohesiveness of our society through introducing a citizenship test. I do not think that you can argue, as I have seen department officials attempt to do in the Senate inquiry into this legislation, that the United Kingdom or the United States communities are somehow more cohesive than Australia’s because they have a citizenship test. I do not think that you can mount that argument. I do not think that it is accurate at all. People have talked to the committee about situations like the bombings that occurred in London. Those people were citizens. We just do not have any evidence before us that this test is going to improve the cohesiveness of the Australian community. We may all agree that that would be a good thing to do, but this test is just not going to achieve that.

In fact, it has the potential to create more division in our community. Migrant community groups have said that some people will be deterred from applying to become a citizen because of the test, particularly those people that do not have great English language skills. None of us want to see that occur. So let us not put in place more barriers for people wanting to become citizens. Let us provide incentives through the English language programs and through citizenship courses. Let us encourage people to take out citizenship, not put in place barriers to stop them from getting there.

It is for these reasons that I really want to indicate how strong my concerns and the Australian Greens’ concerns are about this citizenship test. We think we are going down the wrong path in introducing this citizenship test and we want to warn of the danger and the threat that this poses in our multicultural community. We cannot support this, because it is divisive and dangerous and it will not achieve the government’s objectives.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a third time.