Craig Kelly (Hughes, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I am pleased this evening to speak on the Australian Citizenship Legislation Amendment (Strengthening the Requirements for Australian Citizenship and Other Measures) Bill 2017. It's commonly said out there in the public that if a member of the Labor Party tells you it's raining, you need to go outside and check. And we've seen it over and over again in recent years. We saw the 'Mediscare' campaign—completely fraudulent—with member after member of the Labor Party saying something that was completely untrue. And here we go again; it's exactly the same thing during this debate.

Earlier today, the member for Watson said, and I think I've got the quote right, 'You need university English, unless you come from one of the five white countries where English is the official language.' That is what is in front of us. He went on—again, I hope I have the quote right: 'It just happens that of all of the five countries that have English as their official language'—five countries deemed to have a white majority—'Singapore doesn't make the cut and India doesn't make the cut.' There are a few things that need to be said about those words. Firstly, let's look at the claim that this legislation requires university-level English. Let's put the facts on the table and see the Australian people make a decision on whether the Labor Party are again engaging in another misleading and deceptive ploy to deceive the Australian public.

Let's have a look at the IELTS, the International English Language Testing System. There are two streams to this. There is an academic module and there's also a general module. The academic module says: 'The academic module is intended for those who want to enrol in universities and other institutions of higher education, for professionals such as medical doctors and nurses who want to study or practice in an English-language country.' If you listen to members of the Labor Party, you would believe it is the academic test that is being given. But that is simply untrue. Each member from the other side of the House who has spoken on this has misled the Australian public by creating the perception that this is an academic test, when it simply isn't. It is the general training test. The general module says: 'The general test is intended for those planning to undertake non-academic training or gain work experience for migration purposes.' That is the test that this legislation deals with. I repeat: 'The general test is intended for those planning to undertake non-academic training.' Yet we have had member after member of the Labor Party claim that the test is for university English. That is completely and utterly incorrect.

Let's talk about the level 6 that is required. In the actual test, there are nine possible bands indicating the result you get on that test. Remember, this is the non-academic test. If you get a band 9 result you are described as having 'a fluent operational command of the language; appropriate, accurate, fluent and with complete understanding'. That is not the test we are asking for. We are not asking for a band 9. What about a band 8? If you get a band 8 result you are described as having 'a fully operational command of the language with only occasional, unsystematic inaccuracies and inappropriateness; misunderstandings may occur in unfamiliar situations; handles complex argumentation well'. We could ask for a band 8 English test. But we are not asking for that.

What about a band 7? If you get a band 7 result you are described as having 'an operational command of the language though with occasional inaccuracies, inappropriateness and misunderstandings in some situations; generally handles complex language well and understands detailed reasoning'. A band 7 could be a good standard for the test. But we are not asking for a band 7, we are asking for a band 6. If you get a band 6 result you are described as having 'a generally effective command of the language despite some inaccuracies and inappropriateness and misunderstandings; can use and understand fairly complex language particularly in familiar situations'. That is the band we are asking for. It is not a university level of education. It is band 6 under the non-academic test. I repeat: if you get a band 6 result you are described as having 'a generally effective command of the language despite some inaccuracies and inappropriateness and misunderstandings'. Surely that is not too big an ask? We could go down to band 5 or band 4, which maybe the other side are asking for. But let's just have a look at what band 5 says, if they think band 6 is too high.

For band 5 it says:

… has partial command of the language, coping with overall meaning in most situation, though is likely to make many mistakes.

Do we really want to have an English-language test where the result that we ask for is defined as someone who is likely to make many mistakes? I put it to you, Deputy Speaker, that an English-language test where the result of your test is that you are someone that likes to make many mistakes is simply not high enough. And therefore band 6 under the non-academic stream is actually quite the appropriate test that we should use.

So I call on members of the opposition: if you want to debate this piece of legislation and if you want to argue the points of it, do not misrepresent the basic facts. Do not go out and claim there is a requirement for university-level English when that is simply untrue. We are not requiring the university test; we are requiring a band 6, which is effectively a 50 per cent pass mark.

The other thing I'd like to comment on, I will do so but I wish I didn't have to. The member for Watson said in his speech, 'Unless you come from one of the five white countries.' Dog whistling works both ways. False accusations of racism are also dog whistling. If you look at the member's speech, he said, 'The five white countries are exempt,' and implied that it had something to do with the predominant colour of the skin of the people of those countries, which were New Zealand, the USA, Canada and the UK. They are exempt from this English-language test, and to say that it has something to do with being a white country or a non-white country and implying that is the reason that it is put in, well, that is dog whistling and that is a disgrace.

I will tell you why, Mr Deputy Speaker. The example was that Singapore doesn't make the cut. It has nothing to do with whether Singapore is a white country or a non-white country. Recent data—Singapore's own census—says it is only 34 to 35 per cent of homes in Singapore that have English as their first language. So you've got something like more than 65 per cent of people living in Singapore who don't have English as the language that they use at home. The 2010 Singapore census said that about 550,000 people, 10 per cent of the population, has no English at all. That is the reason why Singapore is not exempt. It has nothing to do with whether it is a white country or a non-white country, and to make that accusation in this chamber as the member for Watson did is a disgrace.

For India: again on some of the numbers that I have seen only 10 per cent of the population of India are actually recognised as having a good command of the English language. So there is no discrimination on the colour of their skin to have this English-language test for people who come from India or people who come from Singapore, and yet that is what is being implied by the member for Watson.

The entire purpose of this legislation is to unite us all as Australians, irrespective of what our background is or whether we come from a 'white' country. It is to make sure that the thing we all have in common is that we all have a good command of the English language so that whatever country we come from, we can go out and we can integrate and assimilate—whatever word you want to use. We can all mix in as one society and we can all be Australians. We can all be proud to be Australians. That is what this legislation is about.

Members of the Labor Party come in here and tell falsehoods about a requirement for university-standard English, when there clearly is not one. They mention white countries as having some sort of special exemption actually divides us. It divides us all and it demeans this parliament. I know there are many members of the Labor Party that, in good faith, want to see Australians all united as one people, irrespective of our backgrounds. I call on you during this debate: please do not use it as an excuse to drive a wedge between Australians, to try and divide us into different tribes. The legislation that we need and everything all of us stand for in this parliament is that we are all united as Australians, as one people. That is the premise of the legislation. I would ask all members of the opposition to consider that when they contribute to this debate and to not engage in the dog-whistling that we have heard. I thank the House.

See this speech in context