Guy Barnett (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I stand today to support the government’s Australian Citizenship Amendment (Citizenship Testing) Bill 2007. I particularly commend the minister for his efforts in proceeding with this legislation. Also, as Chair of the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, I note that we have brought down a report, dated July 2007, on this particular bill. I will refer in part to that report during my response in the debate on the second reading today. I also want to acknowledge the minister’s response to that report and the recommendations in it and thank the minister and the government for those thoughtful responses.

I would like to commend the report to the Senate and draw it to their attention. In particular I want to thank my Senate colleagues who are part of that committee. I also specifically want to thank the secretariat—Jackie Morris, and in this instance Terry Brown, Sophie Power and Judith West—for their support and assistance in preparing that report.

The legislation was referred to the Senate committee on 13 June 2007 with report by 31 July 2007. We had two hearings, one in Canberra and one in Sydney, on 16 and 17 July this year. We received some 59 submissions. They were thoughtful and well-researched submissions. The witnesses that appeared at both the Canberra and the Sydney hearings were certainly well prepared, and we had some constructive discussion and debate and question-and-answer sessions. I want to thank all the witnesses that appeared and presented from all sides of the equation. I thank them for the assistance they have given senators in preparing the report and now allowing that information to be available to the public.

As for the background, on 11 December last year the government announced that it would introduce a test for certain applicants for Australian citizenship. The announcement followed a consultation process conducted by the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, now the Department of Immigration and Citizenship. That consultation process began on 17 September last year, and I would like to share that in the context of the overall debate concerning what we are looking at today in this bill.

There has been a lot of discussion, debate and consultation on the concepts and the objectives of this bill to date. It has been extensive. In fact, in the consultation period closing on 17 November 2006, there were 1,644 written responses, with 1,486 from individuals and 158 from organisations. An assessment made by the department indicated that there was some 60 per cent support for the government’s plans to introduce such a test. As for public support, the Australian newspaper on 1 January 2007 found that 85 per cent of respondents were in favour of the knowledge of English being a requirement to become an Australian citizen, and another poll, conducted in September last year, found that 77 per cent of respondents favoured a citizenship test.

As a Senate committee we looked at some overseas experience, including that in Canada, the Netherlands, the UK, the USA and South Korea. We noted that they had similar testing regimes and formal testing arrangements for citizenship. Four of the countries we considered in detail in the discussion paper were Canada, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom and the United States. They test for knowledge of their countries and they also test for language skills. Likewise, the legislation before us has a test of knowledge of Australia and the Australian way of life and the values that we hold in this country. There is also a test for English language skills.

A formal citizenship test is a way of ensuring that migrants are fully ready to participate in the Australian community. That is a key ingredient, the foundational thesis that the government stands upon. It is also important from a broader perspective as it will support social cohesion and social integration in the community. It is designed so that applicants can demonstrate their knowledge of the English language and of Australia, including knowledge of their responsibilities and privileges, as citizenship bestows both responsibilities and privileges.

Migrants have come to Australia from more than 200 countries around the world. They include people of the Judaeo-Christian heritage and culture, like ours, and systems of government from the Western liberal democratic tradition, like Australia’s, along with people from other cultures and traditions. That is why Australia is a multicultural society. Our diversity is part of the rich tapestry of Australia today.

Migrants who come to Australia in the future, whether under a skilled, family or humanitarian program, will not be required to pass the test prior to or upon their arrival. They will only need to pass it when wishing to take up citizenship of Australia, which will usually be some four or more years later. I want to make that point: this is not something that needs to be done before arriving in Australia; it is obviously something that is done when applying for citizenship.

As for eligibility criteria, the person must be a permanent resident. They must be able to be satisfactorily identified. The person must provide a photograph of his or her face and shoulders or allow such a photograph to be taken. The government recognises that it would be unnecessary and unfair for some people to comply with these requirements. Consequently, this is the reason the legislation is designed to allow people under the age of 18 or over 60, those with a permanent physical or mental incapacity which prevents them from understanding the nature of their application, and those with a permanent loss or substantial impairment of hearing, speech or sight not to be required to sit that particular test.

The report is now on the public record. The explanatory memorandum to the legislation makes it clear that the estimated cost to implement and administer a citizenship test is $17.4 million over a five-year period. We noted in our report the second reading speech of the minister when he said:

The test will encourage prospective citizens to obtain the knowledge they need to support successful integration into Australian society. The citizenship test will provide them with the opportunity to demonstrate in an objective way that they have the required knowledge of Australia, including the responsibilities and privileges of citizenship, and a basic knowledge and comprehension of English.

It is noted that citizenship confers not only certain privileges but responsibilities. I refer to the debate that we had before our committee about the importance of citizenship. Several submissions and witnesses pointed out the importance of citizenship for access to certain basic rights, including the right to vote, to apply for an Australian passport, to access certain financial assistance from the government and employment opportunities, and freedom from deportation under the Migration Act. For refugee and humanitarian entrants, the right to apply for a passport can be one of the most important practical benefits of citizenship as it can assist in reunification with family members. Last month, Michael Ferguson and I attended a citizenship ceremony in Launceston, conducted by the mayor, Ivan Dean, and I was delighted to have the honour of being with some friends from South Africa whom I had assisted. As a family, they were so proud to be standing there to become citizens of Australia, some years after their arrival in this country. They were very proud indeed, along with the many other Australians who had had citizenship conferred on them. I know that Michael Ferguson gave his encouragement and congratulations to those new citizens on that day, as he does at most of the citizenship ceremonies held in Launceston.

The committee accepted the department’s evidence that the proposed citizenship testing regime would be more objective than the current system of an informal interview. This is a key point to come out of the debate that we had before the committee—that we needed an objective test—and that is why we looked at international comparisons with the US, the UK, the Netherlands, South Korea et cetera. An objective test applies overseas, and it will now apply here in Australia, subject to the passing of this legislation. The committee considered that the proposed test would encourage prospective citizens to familiarise themselves with Australian society and would, therefore, help them to integrate and participate in Australian society.

As I indicated earlier, we are pleased that there has been considerable public support for the government’s plan to introduce this legislation. We also welcomed the department’s evidence and advice to our committee that it will monitor and evaluate the regime on an ongoing basis. We saw that as important, and we put forward a recommendation in our report that there be a review after three years to assess the impact of the test on citizenship application and conferral rates on certain groups in society, particularly the refugee and humanitarian entrants. We received a number of submissions from, and had views expressed by, humanitarian and refugee interest groups. They expressed legitimate concerns, but, on balance, we have recommended support for the bill, subject to that advice and those recommendations. We particularly appreciated the evidence of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission; theirs was a very thoughtful submission indeed.

I draw the attention of the Senate to the views of the department, and the views of the Australian Christian Lobby, which were put to us by David Yates on their behalf. There was some discussion and debate, including questions from Labor senators, as to why Australia’s Judaeo-Christian ethic is important in understanding being a citizen here in Australia. There was some discussion during the inquiry about the extent to which the Judaeo-Christian heritage should be acknowledged and reflected in the proposed test. The Centre for Human Rights Education at the Curtin University of Technology said:

The Centre is concerned of reports that the test will be focused on applicants demonstrating an understanding of “Judeo-Christian” values and British/Western traditions. Such values and traditions do not necessarily reflect the multicultural composition of Australia ...

However, the Australian Christian Lobby told the committee:

ACL strongly supports the Minister’s comments that applicants should be required to acknowledge Australia’s Judeo-Christian heritage. This does not require prospective citizens to share the Judeo-Christian faith, but it would make it clear that their new country’s historical context is Judeo-Christian, rather than of any other faith or ideology.

The committee asked the department whether it would be desirable in the test to include questions about Australia’s Judaeo-Christian heritage. In response, a departmental witness said, ‘Part of Australia and its history would go to our belief system, so I imagine that that is an area that will be covered in the resource book.’ Of course it will be, and I look forward to that. I commend the Australian Christian Lobby and Jim Wallace for his leadership of that organisation and note that, together with them, I hosted a forum here in Parliament House on the importance of Australia’s Christian heritage, highlighting its importance not only for the past history of Australia but for present-day Australians. The committee noted its disappointment that the resource book was not available at the time of the hearing, nor was it at the time of the production of the committee’s report. The minister has responded to our recommendations. We made four, including a recommendation that the bill be passed.

Before touching on that, I note that Senator Lundy talked about the importance of appropriate English-as-a-second-language support being provided by the government for potential applicants. We agree that it is important, and that is why the Australian government has committed considerable resources to this area, as is noted in our report. The department gave evidence on this issue and recognised that the government was already devoting considerable resources, including in English language training programs such as the Adult Migrant English Program, and in settlement programs, particularly for refugee and humanitarian entrants. Considerable resources across the whole-of-government—across portfolio areas—have been put towards ensuring that there are adequate opportunities for training and for learning the English language.

In terms of the government’s response to our recommendations, I note that government amendments have been put before the Senate. Firstly, one of the amendments, relating to proposed new section 23A(1), makes it clear that a test must relate to the eligibility criteria in new paragraphs (d), (e) and (f) of proposed new section 21(2) in the bill. Secondly, there is a note after proposed new section 23A(3) to make it clear that eligibility criteria for sitting a test cannot be inconsistent with the act and, in particular, with section 21(2).

The first note is in response to the concern of the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs that new section 23A(1) is ambiguous and that an amendment was needed to clarify that a citizenship test would relate only to the eligibility criteria in proposed new paragraphs (d), (e) and (f) of section 21(2). Proposed new paragraphs (d), (e) and (f) of section 21(2) require that applicants understand the nature of their application to become an Australian citizen, possess a basic knowledge of the English language and have an adequate knowledge of Australia and of the responsibilities and privileges of Australian citizenship.

The second note responds to the concerns that the determination-making power in proposed new section 23A of the bill is too broad and would allow the minister to set eligibility criteria for sitting a test that are inconsistent with the act and, in particular, inconsistent with the general eligibility criteria for citizenship in proposed new section 21(2) of the bill.

I put on the record my sincere thanks to the minister and his officers for considering the report, reviewing the recommendations and responding accordingly. I am very supportive of this legislation. I think it is foundational legislation for Australia and for its citizens.

In conclusion, I thank all of my colleagues on the legal and constitutional affairs committee for their support, efforts and deliberations on this matter. I particularly thank the secretariat, led by Jackie Morris, and I commend the legislation to the Senate.