Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Immigration, Integration and Citizenship) Share this | Hansard source

In the same way, the question is often asked: ‘What is the second verse of the national anthem?’—as though that would be an appropriate question for citizenship. Many people would claim that part of being an Australian is not knowing the second verse to the national anthem! Before I get too much of a response from the member for Moreton, I would add that what we view as the second verse of Advance Australia Fair is actually the third verse. Advance Australia Fair has four verses. The second one, which I hope we never get around to incorporating when we sing the national anthem, concludes with the line, ‘Britannia rules the wave’. In terms of the questions that are thrown up, it is the second verse that people often say should be on the test.

What really matters is that we end up with a reasonable test. We do not want this to end up being some bizarre Trivial Pursuit game. We do not want this to be something which sets people up 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 from this bill is that the principle of having a citizenship test, which has been with us since 1949, would remain. As a principle, I am not going to argue against that. That is a completely reasonable principle and that is all that the bill actually tells us. In fact, it has been acknowledged on a number of occasions that originally part of the context of this debate was keeping people from becoming citizens, weeding out undesirables, and the fact that some people had become citizens who should not have and this would be a way to stop them. The member for Goldstein made clear in his media conference that the bill is not designed in any way to keep some people out. In an interview with Leon Delaney, the minister was asked, ‘So it’s not intended to weed out undesirables; it is more an instructive process?’ the minister responded, ‘That’s right.’

If, in good faith, that is what we end up with, then we simply have a codification of a reasonable system. That is what we have. It is quite within the realms of possibility, and certainly within the legislative options for the government, to come up with something that is less reasonable. 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 completely in the interests of the government to do so.

At the time of my briefing, I raised two questions which the minister’s office subsequently got back to me about. The first was: will determinations of this nature—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? On those two questions, we have been told verbally by the minister’s office—this is communication between his office and mine over the phone—that the determination will be made public, and we have been told that 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. I have put those questions to the minister in writing, and they have been answered verbally. I am not in a position to confirm that they have come back to us, but I would be surprised if those undertakings that were given over the phone have not been confirmed by the time we come to a vote on this bill. I would certainly be surprised by that.

I was pleased to hear the minister raise in his second reading speech some of the concerns about options for people who have difficulty with English literacy. That is a really important part of this debate. The government, with the support of the opposition, has made some decisions on the humanitarian program to really find some of the most desperate people in the world and offer them a new life in Australia, and that has bipartisan support. There has not always been bipartisan support for the quality of the settlement program then offered but certainly there has been bipartisan support for the selection of people by the government, done in consultation with UNHCR.

That has meant that we have had in increasing numbers people settling permanently in Australia who not only do not have literacy in English but also do not have literacy in their language of origin. In those circumstances to expect that, in the space of four years, someone will necessarily be sitting in front of a computer reading English well enough to pass a multiple-choice test is potentially highly unreasonable. I was pleased that when the former parliamentary secretary, the member for Goldstein, first raised this he said there would be exceptions in respect of that. The minister in his second reading speech flagged that, where there is a specific literacy issue for people, the test will be done through a conversation, I guess using similar principles to the conversation over the counter which is done at the moment but obviously in a more detailed fashion and taking into account extra questions that might be involved.

We want this test to be something that is not used in a fashion that sets people up to fail. I will come to a second reading amendment in a moment but, to that end, Labor believes it is essential that you do not just test but also you teach. It is not good enough to just test; you also have to teach. You have to make sure there is adequate funding for the Adult Migrant English Program. You have to make sure there is 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 phenomenally difficult for them to take on their role as full members of Australian society.

To that end, some of the statistics for functional English outcomes that have come from AMEP do show a need for a renewed emphasis on resources for teaching. They do show that, although the AMEP does a good job for its limit of 510 hours, if there is a barrier based on competency in English, and potentially a higher barrier to the English test we already have, we need to ensure the resources are there to get people over that hurdle. The best outcome is never people failing the test. The best outcome is people being given the resources to learn English and to have a start in life in Australia. An objection that has been made a number of times is to point to sensational Australian citizens who do not speak much English at all and to say, ‘Are you saying this person should never have been allowed to be a full member of society?’ If anyone is saying that in this debate, I reckon they are wrong. We are talking about some well-established communities that have built so much of this nation. We are not saying that those individuals should be denied citizenship. We are saying how much better would that individual’s life have been if they had had the full opportunity to learn English and been able to have the full discussion over the counter with whomever the shopkeeper was, able to read their own child’s school reports and able to get jobs fully commensurate with the skills they held? Those opportunities all mean that, if you are going to test, you need to teach. To that end, I will later move a second reading amendment in the following terms:

That all words after “That” be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:“whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading and whilst welcoming the formalising of the current test for Australian Citizenship, the House:

(1)

notes that the issue is whether the citizenship tests to be determined under the legislation are reasonable;

(2)

notes the importance of teaching in the development of English language skills and the acquisition of knowledge of Australian history, culture and values; and

(3)

calls on the Government to provide improvements to the Adult Migrant English Program and other settlement services to assist migrants to participate fully in the Australian community and to pass the citizenship test”.

At the conclusion of my remarks I will formally move those words. How much of a departure from current practice does the bill before us represent? We will know within about a month after it has gone through. We will know only when people who have sat the test start to release what the questions were. That is the current path, and I sorely recommend to the government that, on issues meant to unite, the smart path is to talk to the opposition and let them know what the questions are going to be. It is a smarter path to take, so that there is no question mark hanging over this process. In the same way, I hope the government comes back in writing with the guarantees given over the phone.

This bill has already been referred to a Senate committee inquiry which will look at a number of issues, including that which came out of the inquiry of the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills—that is, whether a determination that is not a disallowable instrument and not open to scrutiny is the appropriate vehicle for the test to proceed under. That is a reasonable question for the Senate to inquire into. We will await the outcome of that inquiry before we make final decisions on amendments to that part of the bill.

I cannot stress enough that what we have before us is not the test that was on the front page of the Herald Sun and the Telegraph. What we have before us is not a test which places draconian new rules on English language. What we have before us is one thing and one thing only, and that is the principle of whether there should be a citizenship test. If what follows this bill is an unreasonable set of questions then there will be an argument to be had and there will be an argument that we will engage in. But the concept of having questions at all is something that has been with us for as long as Australian citizenship has been with us. To have questions and that extra level of value on Australian citizenship is surely a good thing. This is about becoming a full member of what we all regard as the best country on the planet, and that full membership is something to be embraced, not feared. I move:

That all words after “That” be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: “whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading and whilst welcoming the formalising of the current test for Australian Citizenship, the House:

(1)

notes that the issue is whether the citizenship tests to be determined under the legislation are reasonable;

(2)

notes the importance of teaching in the development of English language skills and the acquisition of knowledge of Australian history, culture and values; and

(3)

calls on the Government to provide improvements to the Adult Migrant English Program and other settlement services to assist migrants to participate fully in the Australian community and to pass the citizenship test”.

See this speech in context