Cathy O'Toole (Herbert, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise in this place today to state my absolute disgust regarding the message that the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection, along with his government, is sending to our communities in relation to citizenship. The government have been persistent with their message of fairness, yet their actions tell the opposite story, as they are proving time and time again. They do not know the meaning of the word 'fair'. How can the government sit back and say that what they are proposing for Australian citizenship is in any way fair? How is it fair that my granddaughter's mother, who is a contributing member in her community, working and paying taxes, cannot become an Australian citizen for another four years?

I have been contacted by numerous and very distressed people in my electorate of Herbert, who are gravely concerned about the changes that this government intends to make to citizenship. One particular family has been living in Australia for five years and has held permanent residency for 11 months. This family were intending to apply for citizenship in July 2017, as that was when they were eligible. This family has been adhering religiously to the requirements that were outlined to them by the government when they applied for residency in 2016. They completed their medical examinations and criminal background checks accordingly, and yet on 20 April this year they were contacted to say that everything could change, even though they were already in the system. They were two months away from applying for their citizenship and, because of this government's completely heartless approach to citizenship, they now have to wait an additional three years before they can reapply. I will reiterate: they have been living in Australia for five years.

To add insult to injury, the government has proposed in its higher education reform paper that from 1 January 2018 subsidies for most Australian permanent residents and most New Zealand citizens enrolling in a Commonwealth supported place will be withdrawn, making them fee-paying students. Once again, this is impacting on this family. Their son hopes to enrol in university in 2018. He will now have his access to the CSP removed; he will be classed as an international student and pay three times the average university fee rate than he would have paid under the current rules. This young man came to Australia at the age of 12. This is simply not fair to this family or the many other families who may be affected in the same situation around the country. This government must consider the impacts when making such decisions, and they must allow appropriate time for adjustment.

I expected to speak on this amendment during Refugee Week. Refugee Week recognises people who have fled violence and war to seek a safer place to live and now call Australia home. During Refugee Week, it is important that we reflect on the contributions that refugees genuinely make in our communities. Migrants and refugees have played a significant role in our communities. This is particularly the case in my region, where migrants from the South Sea islands, the Kanakas as they were known, were sugar slaves because they were blackbirded, kidnapped or sold. They developed the thriving sugar industries in towns like Ingham, Ayr and Home Hill. Migrants and refugees have contributed both socially and economically to this country, and, as such, Australia is known internationally to be a very successful multicultural society. Key multicultural refugee stakeholders such as the Federation of Ethnic Communities Council of Australia, the Migration Council of Australia, the Refugee Council of Australia, the Settlement Council of Australia, Welcome to Australia and the Australian Law Council have publicly expressed their concerns about the changes that this government is proposing. We are a nation that values and celebrates diversity, yet it appears that the Turnbull government has forgotten this.

I come from a migrant background myself. Both of my parents are first-generation Australians on the paternal side of their families. My father's father came to Australia on a boat as a ten-pound Pom and my mother's father came here from Lebanon. Both of these men worked hard and contributed to their communities and provided for their families and, in turn, provided for their grandchildren. My parents worked hard to ensure that my siblings and I would have every opportunity to be contributing citizens of this great nation. My parents raised five children: two high school principals, one in the state school system and one in the Edmund Rice system; a family law barrister; a railway traffic controller and trainer; and me, who has the privilege to serve in this place. In fact, my mother's father's family did not speak English at all well when they came to this country. English was at least their second language. My grandfather was barely literate through no fault of his own, but I can assure you that did not prevent him from working hard and contributing and paying taxes. He fought proudly for this nation in the Second World War. The story of how his family was treated does not make for pleasant reading.

I understand the struggles families may have when transitioning from their former home to Australia. What I don't understand is the apparent lack of compassion and understanding that this government has shown in introducing what seems to be a very high-level English language test, when what is needed is conversational English. This government is taking a sledgehammer approach. It wants a level required by nearly all undergraduate degrees in James Cook University, which is in my electorate of Herbert, which is far higher than conversational English. My own family's experience demonstrates that not being able to speak or write perfect English does not mean a person does not or cannot work hard and contribute to their community. Malcolm Turnbull and his government are saying to all Australians that unless your command of the English language is at university level, you are simply not welcome to be an Australian citizen. This is just not fair. It is an elitist attitude to who is welcome to live in this country.

There is no argument that refugees and migrants living in Australia should be able to or be learning to speak conversational English, and we should be helping them to do so. Being able to make conversation enables people to communicate with others in the community and it makes settling into a new environment much easier. The use of language is central to effective communication and inclusion. Everyday communication does not mean International English Language Testing System level 6 in English. There is absolutely no doubt that a very large number of Australians would never reach IELTS level 6. Labor believes in supporting new citizens to possess a conversational level of English, which the existing test already achieves.

It seems the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection is confused over the English test matter. The minister's own media release revealed that, in the last sitting week in June, he at no stage specified whether IELTS level 6 would be achieved through academic or general training. Everyone takes the same listening and speaking tests. The reading and writing tests differ in the specifics of their content and focus, depending on whether you are taking the IELTS academic or IELTS general training. However, the level of English required to achieve level 6 is similar. The content may differ, but the level required is comparable. Whether the content of one stream is easier, the scoring system is made harder to balance the level. That's because the general test components are marked harder.

In his media release, Minister Dutton completely misrepresented what level 6 of the general stream requires. His media release pretends to quote IELTS standards, saying level 6 'focuses on "basic survival skills in broad social and workplace contexts"', but this is an overall description of IELTS general training. It is not a description of what level 6 requires. The IELTS website says this of those who are able to achieve level 6: 'They can use and understand fairly complex language, particularly in familiar situations.' I highlight 'complex situations'. The minister has misled the public by using watered-down language to describe the true requirement.

I suggest maybe the minister needs to sit his own English test. In fact, why doesn't the entire government sit the level 6 IELTS test and see if they score the required 75 per cent pass mark? It might be a novel experience. I would also be curious to know if they could answer some of the questions proposed for the test. I would ask the members opposite if they have considered their own heritage when it comes to the high level of this test. Would their parents or grandparents be able to pass this test, for example?

Being an Australian should be about the person's values and commitment to country, not the level of the person's English skills. The Turnbull government says the test will adhere to Australian values. I would like the minister to let us know who the government is consulting in relation to identifying Australian values. Has the minister consulted with our first-nations people, who are the oldest culture on Earth and the original inhabitants of this country? Has there been any consultation with any of the multicultural groups that are settled here in Australia in order to determine what is useful in terms of the English language? If not, why not? How can we stipulate Australian values if we are not talking with the diversity of community members living in this country? These are questions that the Turnbull government needs to answer. Minister Dutton needs to step up to the plate and be open and honest with the public on this issue.

Labor and the government are united when it comes to national security. There is no question that we will always act properly and promptly on the advice of security agencies in the national interest. However, the national security advice received by the government has not come from a national security agency; it has come from Senator Concetta Fierravanti-Wells, the Minister for International Development and the Pacific for this government. Here lies a perfect example of why this government needs to go back to the drawing board. In order to improve an area that may be of concern, you need to discuss those matters with those who actually know, like the national security agencies. We are yet to receive any advice from security agencies regarding whether or not these proposals will improve national security. Again, I think that there are more questions left unanswered by this government than answered.

Surely the question is: do we want to become a country that values and welcomes diversity, or do we want to become a country that allows people citizenship because they possess a high level of English? I, for one, want to live in a country that welcomes new citizens—citizens who have shown their commitment and allegiance to fully embracing their new country's way of life.

We must also be sensitive to the fact that a vast number of our own citizens are illiterate, for numerous reasons, and ask: what are we doing to assist them to improve their situation? Of course, a properly funded needs-based education would be a very good place to start. Australia has benefited enormously from the blood, sweat and tears of hundreds of thousands of migrants and refugees. We must maintain our hospitable spirit whilst, at the same time, taking every step to ensure our national security. But I am certainly not convinced that the government's proposal will deliver a positive way forward, because this government's proposal would not have let my mother's father and his family into this country.

I would also like to raise this issue. On Friday evening, I had a mobile office on Magnetic Island where I met with a family that was beyond distress: a man, his wife and young daughter. His wife was also ready to apply for her citizenship and now she has to wait an additional four years. The distress in my community is great, and I really urge this government to go back to looking at this citizenship issue from a point of compassion, not the heartless approach that we are seeing.

See this speech in context