Tanya Plibersek (Sydney, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Hansard source

():

From this time forward

I pledge my loyalty to Australia and its people,

whose democratic beliefs I share,

whose rights and liberties I respect, and

whose laws I will uphold and obey.

At every citizenship ceremony I attend I say those words proudly along with our new citizens. It really never gets old for me, because, like a lot of children of migrants, I am very alive to the sliding doors alternative: the life that I would have had if my parents hadn't left behind everything that was familiar to them and taken the greatest gamble of all.

Like most children of migrants, I'm also acutely aware of the challenges that my parents overcame, the sacrifices they made and the fact that they did all of that to give their children a better life. I love saying our citizenship pledge, because it is such an elegant reminder of what is expected of us, what it takes for me to repay this country for all that I've been given. It remind me of my duty to value and protect our precious democracy—not to take it for granted but to be an active participant in it. It reminds me that I need to respect the rights and liberties of others and to understand that every one of us is equal. It renews my commitment to fight against sexism, against racism and against homophobia—indeed, to fight against discrimination of any kind. It reminds me, of course, that I need to obey the law. But, more than this, it reminds me that I need to work hard to ensure that our legal system itself is robust. I need to respect the separation of powers. I need to ensure that all Australians have access to justice, not only those who can afford to pay.

I love saying the pledge at citizenship ceremonies because those of us who were born here should not take our great good fortune for granted. In 2011, in a speech at the Sydney Institute, I suggested that Australian school children should learn this citizenship pledge at school and say it at assemblies as American children do with the pledge of allegiance, because to be Australian, to be born here or to be brought here, and to grow up here, in one of the most favoured nations on earth, all you really need to do are three things. No doubt, in this place, from those on the other side, we will hear all sorts of nonsense about what Australian values really are and what a real Australian is like and how people should prove their loyalty to this country. I thought it was interesting to hear the Prime Minister open this debate some months ago by calling on newcomers to join us as Australian patriots. Apparently, not knowing that Donald Bradman's batting average was 99.94 is as bad as burning the flag or something. But it is actually not more complicated than this: participate in our democracy, respect the rights of others and obey the law. It is a quite remarkable return on investment. We couldn't be luckier. We couldn't be prouder to be Australians. And these three things that are expected of us give us a remarkable return.

Much of the debate in this place has been around the new English language requirements of this bill. There is absolutely no doubt that learning English is vital. It is vital for economic and social participation. Learning English means being able to work. It is the best protection against vulnerability and isolation. It enables participation outside of one's language group or community and intercourse at all levels of society. It protects against exploitation. It protects against loneliness. It connects older migrants with younger generations from their own community and the broader Australian community who were born here and perhaps don't speak the language of their parents and grandparents. It makes work, volunteering, friendship with your neighbours and community engagement possible.

But this bill goes too far in setting that standard at IELTS 6—university-level English. Requiring migrants to learn university-level written English is too high a bar to jump before people can become citizens. Had this bar been in place, we would have lost many great Australian citizens who have gone on to make a phenomenal contribution to our Australian society. Frank Lowy has often spoken about the fact that he had no English when he came to Australia. He left school at 14 and no doubt would've failed this test had he been asked to sit it before he became an Australian citizen. John Kaldor had his education interrupted by World War II and, instead of going to school, as a refugee in France he spent his days with his mother visiting Paris's galleries and museums, educating himself and developing a lifelong love of art that has made him one of Australia's most generous art philanthropists.

My own parents, like most postwar migrants and refugees from Europe, spoke no English when they got here. And, in those days, settlement services did not really run to much. My father learnt English at work, although that was not that easy because most of his colleagues who were working on the Parkes to Broken Hill railway or, later on, on the Snowy scheme did not speak much English either when they arrived here. My mother took even longer to learn English than my dad because, after her first few years here, working in factories or working as a domestic, she was at home raising a family. My mum learnt English from the patient, kind women who were her neighbours, she learnt it at the school gate and, when we eventually got a television, she learnt it from the television too. My parents put up with people saying to them, when they were quietly speaking Slovenian to one another on the train, 'Speak English here!'

Of course people who live here should learn English. The best way we can make that happen is to make sure that each one of us extends the hand of friendship in the same way that our neighbours in Carvers Road did. The best way the government can do its bit is to properly fund adult migrant English services. This is precisely the opposite of what those opposite are doing. The government's introduced contestability of funding in the Adult Migrant English Program which has meant that the traditional provider, the Adult Migrant English Service has lost much of its work. Of course, some of the funding will go to private providers, but the difference is that the Adult Migrant English Service had run its program for 60 years, assisted by an extensive network of volunteers. It was not just about learning English; it was about helping migrants and refugees adjust to their new life in Australia. This means that at a time when we are actually increasing the English language requirements the traditional provider is losing its funding and hundreds of English language teachers are losing their jobs.

The new test obviously does not affect people from English-speaking countries, so it particularly discriminates and makes citizenship harder for people from countries where English is not the first language spoken. The thing that particularly worries me about this is that where you have a family that migrates together and the dad finds work quickly and practises his English every day at work whilst the mother is at home raising children, it particularly discriminates against women. We have seen that for generations of women in Australia.

In fact, what's interesting about setting the English language bar at this level is that it would mean around 13 per cent of Australians would not actually pass this test. According to the Survey of Adult Skills published by the OECD in 2013, some 12.6 per cent of adults in Australia attained only level 1 or below in literacy proficiency in a different test to the IELTS test. Are we really saying that those people also aren't good Australian citizens?

How are new migrants supposed to get a university-level English proficiency with just 510 hours of English language support provided by the government? We have seen Christine Mooney, who has taught new migrants English as an additional language for nine years in Heidelberg West, quoted in the ABC's Fact Check website as saying:

To reach a standard of English equivalent to IELTS six within the 510 hours of tuition provided by the Government to new migrants, an applicant would probably have to be either a skilled migrant or highly motivated.

Many new migrants, especially women who were refugees escaping persecution, might struggle to reach a "competent" level of English without having to undertake further paid tuition.

My dad learnt something new every day. He brought me up and taught me that it was important to learn something new every day. His favourite magazine was New Scientist. His favourite radio broadcaster was the great Australian astronomer Professor Fred Watson. When the Chinese government sent out the terracotta warriors for the first time, we queued for two or three hours for our family to see them. Every Sunday morning he woke me up playing classical music. He took us to the opera. My father left school very early. His education was disrupted by the war. He completed his plumbing apprenticeship in Austria, and he had to do all of that again when he came to Australia because his qualifications were not recognised here. It was the same for my mum. Her education was interrupted by the war, but she learnt Italian in six months when she lived in Italy. She learnt English when she came here too but, like I said, more slowly than my dad did because she was at home, raising a family, and not interacting at work every day.

I don't know whether either of them would have passed a university-written English language test, but you could not find more conscientious, hardworking, honest, law-abiding Australian citizens than my parents. For their gratitude, loyalty and love of their new home, I think this country was lucky to get them too, and millions like them. Of all that post-war migration from southern Europe—Greece, Italy, Yugoslavia—how many of those people would have passed this test? Yet they have raised their families here to be great Australian citizens. All they wanted to do was work hard, pay their taxes and raise their families in safety and peace.

I don't think my mother could have written an essay in English, but she can communicate in six different languages. She couldn't write an essay in English, but she's raised three kids who became a lawyer, a geologist and a member of parliament—and, more importantly, honest, hardworking members of our community. She couldn't write an essay in English, but the neighbour's children she looked after when we were growing up still visit her 40 years later. The teenagers who made our home their second home—because they could not talk to their own parents—still bring their children to visit.

My parents couldn't write an essay in English, but they were the first ones to take a meal around to someone's house if they were sick or to mow their lawn or do their shopping. My parents were the ones the neighbours came to talk to if their marriages were in trouble. They were the ones the teenagers came to talk to when they couldn't talk to their own parents. My parents couldn't write an essay in English, but my father worked six or seven days a week. They went to church, looked after their family and neighbours and volunteered. How can this government say my parents and millions like them are not good Australian citizens and would not make good Australian citizens? By all means, let's encourage people to learn English. But let's also invest in English language classes and settlement services. More importantly, let's be good neighbours to one another. Let's be kind and extend the hand of friendship.

As for people who break the law, by all means let's make it impossible for them to ever become Australian citizens. But don't forget that one in three Australian women experiences domestic violence in her lifetime. The proposition that adding a couple of questions to the immigration test is going to fix that is ludicrous.

I want to return, in conclusion, to the words of the pledge. We ask new citizens to participate in our democracy, respect the rights of others and obey the law. Every Australian should do this. Those of us who've had the privilege of serving in this place have an extra duty. It's our responsibility as the elected representatives of the people of this nation to make the laws that we ask our fellow citizens to uphold and obey. And it's our duty to make sure that those laws reflect our values as Australian citizens. This bill fails that test.

See this speech in context