Jennie George (Throsby, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak on the Australian Citizenship Amendment (Citizenship Test Review and Other Measures) Bill 2009, particularly because it brings back to the parliament the outcomes of the review that was conducted insofar as the new test that came into being in 2007. When the changes were introduced by the Howard government in 2007 I made a number of comments about the new testing procedures that were ushered in by that bill and pointed to what I believed were some serious shortcomings, particularly focusing on the new requirements for people to become citizens of our nation.

I take a particular interest in the bill before us tonight because my electorate, the electorate of Throsby, is built on a very solid foundation of successive waves of migration to Australia. We have very large numbers of migrants from diverse countries, particularly since the Second World War, who chose to make the Illawarra their home. I also have a personal interest in the measures outlined in the citizenship test review bill because of particular family circumstances and the fact that members of my family were able to become citizens of Australia, and naturalised Australians, under the regime that had applied in this country since the Nationality and Citizenship Act—known as the Australian Citizenship Act—was enacted back in 1949.

My concern was that in the changes introduced in 2007 the very strict requirements of satisfying the test could have had the unintended consequence of disadvantaging people like my family, who came to this country with no language competency but nevertheless were very delighted to become naturalised citizens and made a very significant contribution in their own way to the fortunes of the country. I thought that the onerous obligations in the test that came into being in 2007 might make it much more difficult for people who come to this country as refugees or as migrants—on whatever ground, be it skill or humanitarian—to become fully accepted as Australian citizens. I had this feeling that part of the discourse about the new test that was ushered in in 2007 was that tests had not applied previously. Of course, that was not the case. From the early days, since 1949, there had always been a reasonable test to ensure that people who wanted to become Australian citizens understood their rights and obligations and the privileges of citizenship and also had a basic knowledge of the English language.

As far as I am aware, in previous years applicants were asked to answer questions in simple English regarding their personal particulars, such as how long they had lived in Australia, and they had to understand that citizenship had rights and responsibilities. They were asked to demonstrate basic competency in and adequate knowledge of the English language. The citizenship test must have worked very well up until 2007 because 3½ million people—as I said, including my own family—were granted citizenship under those provisions. My family came to Australia as refugees under the United Nations program and were delighted to become citizens of Australia.

The new test, when it was introduced, brought in much more complex formal procedures. In my view, it required much higher levels of comprehension of the English language and an understanding of history, institutions, traditions and symbols. This went beyond a fair test to become an Australian citizen. The fact that people were required to answer questions by computer—with 20 multiple questions drawn randomly from a bank of 101 questions—raised issues not only about the level of fluency and literacy for many people who come to Australia but also about the need for them to be computer literate. For most people, the test would have been a quite onerous challenge if they had come to Australia without proficiency in the English language and without computer literacy.

So we were moving away from a requirement to have basic English speaking ability and a genuine desire to contribute to the nation to a much more onerous test, which really was a test of literacy that was accompanied by a resource book which required applicants to have a diverse and detailed knowledge of Australian history, culture and values based on this citizenship test resource book. I was very pleased that, on election to government, we agreed after a short period of time—I think it was six months—to appoint an independent committee to review the operation and effectiveness of that test. That committee was chaired by Richard Woolcott.

I want to quote just a few sections of the review’s findings because, in a very objective way, they confirm some of the misgivings that I had stated on the introduction of the Citizenship Amendment Bill back in 2007. In the words of the committee, they were gathered to identify and report on any unintended consequences arising from the introduction of the citizenship test, including any barriers which may have been created to the acquisition of citizenship by migrants, refugee and humanitarian entrants to Australia, regardless of background, education, skills or literacy, and to make recommendations to address these barriers if they so found them to be in place.

In their report Moving Forward: Improving Pathways to Citizenship the committee focused on improving the content and administration of the test, the application process for citizenship and, very importantly, ensuring that vulnerable and disadvantaged people were not excluded from becoming citizens because of the onerous requirements of that test. It was interesting to read in the report that statistics showed a decrease in the number of people applying for citizenship since the current test commenced in 2007. The committee commented on the statistics in the following terms: that if this trend should continue, it would be contrary to the bipartisan objective of promoting the taking up of citizenship.

The committee reported on their submissions and consultations. They said:

Throughout the consultations we were struck by the predominance of those representing arrivals in the refugee/humanitarian stream, a group that we soon came to recognise as the most disadvantaged, both by their circumstances and the nature of the … citizenship test which effectively discriminates against them.

They went on to say that their findings:

… are necessarily influenced by those organisations who responded to our invitations to consultation.

They pointed out that, in many of these consultations, the opening statements generally began with firm opposition to any form of testing but, once it was clarified that the government intended to retain some form of testing, people generally agreed on the need for a system of testing that is fairer and more accessible to all migrants, including the most disadvantaged. There was some contention that the current test was biased towards those who were literate in the English language, when the legislation in effect requires only a basic knowledge of the language and in fact became exclusionary in nature.

In commenting on the resource book Becoming an Australian Citizen, which caused me some concern when it was introduced, interestingly, the committee came to the conclusion that the resource booklet was widely criticised. While many said that the book was interesting and provided information of which they had been unaware, most said that it represented a particular view of Australian society and history that might not be shared by all Australians. But, very importantly, as a basis for a test, it was seen to contain too much that was irrelevant to citizenship. There was agreement that the book should be rewritten and divided into testable and ‘nice to know’ sections. Of particular interest to the committee was a view put forward by English teachers and language and educational experts that the book was written at a level of English that was far too high for its intended audience, and that was certainly the view that I had expressed in my contribution on the earlier bill.

In looking at the findings produced by the Woolcott citizenship test review committee, I think they came to a very sensible position that the pledge of commitment should in fact be the centrepiece of citizenship testing, not the level of people’s literacy or understanding of Australian history, its institutions, its detailed political processes or knowledge of famous and legendary heroes, including from the sporting field. All that is very interesting, but it does not really serve the purpose of determining whether a person wants to be and will be an effective citizen of our nation. In making the pledge of commitment, which is the most symbolic affirmation of a person’s desire to become a citizen, a lot flows from that and it will necessarily require that the resource book and the test questions be revised to reflect the new focus on the pledge.

I understand that the resource book will now be developed in two separate sections of testable and non-testable information. The government has accepted the committee’s central finding that the level of English used in the resource book was closer to that of ‘native speaker’ rather than the legislative requirement of basic English. When the current resource book was assessed by linguistic experts it was found to be complex and difficult on a range of measures of reading difficulty. That submission was very forcefully made by teachers who specialise in the Adult Migrant Education Service and who participate in the programs that are run for newly arrived migrants. In future, the testable items will be based on the values contained in the pledge, and the non-testable information, while interesting and useful, will be made available for people to peruse in their own given time when they have the literacy and language skills to be able to delve into all that information in a more practical manner.

The committee also found, confirming a view that I had also held, that the sitting of a computer based test was in effect marginalising some people from becoming citizens. To address this issue, the government will now develop a citizenship course as an alternative pathway for those people whose literacy skills will never be sufficient to sit and pass a formal computer test, even though they might understand English at a basic level.

The bill before us proposes to amend the act in ways that I think will make the test a much fairer and a more genuine test of a person’s desire to become a citizen. It will allow for a small group of people who have suffered torture or trauma to be eligible for citizenship without having to first sit a citizenship test, and rightly so. These people will not have to sit a test if, at the time they make an application, they have a physical or mental incapacity which makes them unable to understand the nature of the application or unable to understand or speak basic English or demonstrate an adequate knowledge of Australia and the responsibilities and privileges of Australian citizenship. It involves a small group, and I am pleased that the committee’s recommendation will be reflected on the passage of this legislation.

The bill also, sensibly, proposes to amend the act to streamline the citizenship application process. This was in response to the review committee’s observation that the current process of multiple steps was inefficient both for people sitting the test and for the department. Hopefully, once this legislation is carried, the streamline procedures will mean that applicants will only need to come to the department once, so a much more timely and responsive set of measures will be undertaken when people come to the department to sit the test and apply for citizenship. As has been previously indicated, there will also be a new requirement in the bill, and it is probably a little controversial in that it has aroused some debate in opposition to the proposal. The government has determined that, in future, we will require that applicants under the age of 18 must be permanent residents to be eligible for citizenship by conferral. As I say, this part of the legislation was contested by some members of the committee, but the majority opinion has led the government to also proceed with that amendment.

In conclusion, these amendments are well thought through and they will bring about key changes that complement reforms that are currently underway. The bill will also lead to more streamlined citizenship processes and ones that will deliver more reasonable and fairer outcomes, particularly for many of the potentially more marginalised and disadvantaged groups that come to our nation. As the committee stated in its conclusion:

The Committee considers that the government should encourage permanent residents to become citizens and be included as full legal members of the nation. To that end, any testing process should be encouraging participation and a sense of inclusion by learning more about Australia and the meaning of the Pledge, rather than excluding people or preventing them from taking the Pledge to become Australian citizens.

The changes proposed in the bill before us this evening will give effect to the objectives enunciated by the committee and the very thoughtful recommendations it has presented to government which, in my view, warrant bipartisan support.

See this speech in context