Concetta Fierravanti-Wells (NSW, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Immigration and Shadow Parliamentary Secretary Assisting the Leader in the Senate) Share this | Hansard source

Perhaps that would not have been a pleasant view, Minister. To some extent this has resulted in concerns and criticisms, certainly when you look at some of the letters to the editor and at some of the reactions that have had occasion to categorising this as ‘citizenship for medals’ and a push to fast-track athletes simply so that they can go and compete in events overseas. Indeed, Minister, when we do go to the committee stage with those amendments, it will still be of concern, because, even though the amendments that have been circulated refer to activities of people, nevertheless the schedules have a very sporting focus. As I understand it, the schedules will basically have two sporting committees. In effect, we have had some changes but those changes have been couched in more neutral language. The real effect of the amendments that the government is proposing will be to fast-track athletes so that they can compete in events and ultimately go on to win medals. That, unfortunately, has coloured to the debate somewhat.

In general terms, and I will discuss this in more detail in the committee, I say that we are pleased that the government did take into account the concerns that were raised by coalition senators in our dissenting report—in particular about the removal of the requirement for ‘permanent’ physical or mental incapacity and the removal of the word ‘permanent’ and the potential effect this could have. At the hearing, the evidence that was given was very helpful because it helped identify, certainly for coalition senators and other senators who sat at the hearing, some of the unintended consequences of simply confining the exception to a particular class and category of people who had suffered torture and trauma. Confining that category had consequential effects on other people. Senator Hanson-Young gave the example of women who get trafficked and then, as a consequence, suffer trauma. It is important that we look at this in the broader category of incapacity, so that that broader category of incapacity, albeit defined and restricted to permanency, whether it be long-term or enduring as the Greens have suggested. Nevertheless, permanency is still the important parameter, so that we do not have unintended circumstances where we open this up to a broad range of people.

We will be circulating an amendment which picks up our concerns in relation to permanent and long-term physical and mental incapacity and the consequential amendments. As we note, the amendments that we and the Greens are proposing look at exemptions for sitting the citizenship test. Consequential on that, the Citizenship Act also contains an exemption for permanent and physical incapacity in relation to the pledge. So, as a consequence of one change, there is also the other change that will need to be looked at in terms of the pledge and the consequential amendments to that.

In the minutes remaining to me, I want to put on record and reiterate the comments we made in the dissenting report. We believe that the citizenship test has been a very successful test. In fact, one only has to look at the pass rates and at the Australian citizenship test snapshot report of July 2009 to see just how successful it has been. We have had pass rates of about 97 per cent overall. Even if you break that down, in other streams such as the family stream, the pass rate is about 95 per cent. Even in the humanitarian stream, pass rates are approximately 84 per cent.

In this bill we are really only looking at two of the recommendations of the Citizenship Test Review Committee required legislative changes. But, from the coalition’s perspective, I put on the record our concerns that there is a whole raft of other changes that the government is making to citizenship which do not require legislative changes. They do nevertheless, and this is our concern, change the nature of the citizenship test requirement. We are pleased that the government is retaining the test in the English language and that there will not be any changes to that.

Citizenship is important and we do encourage citizenship. The test was set up not only to encourage citizenship but to promote citizenship as the single most unifying force in our community. Therefore, it is very important that the changes do not lose the focus of the core values and beliefs that underpin our Australian way of life. Our history and our culture are important components of new citizens understanding the Australian way of life. From the coalition’s perspective, we have always seen the citizenship test as an important values document and we believe that new Australians should fully understand and embrace not only the rights but also the responsibilities that being an Australian citizen brings. Therefore, we are particularly concerned that there will be a removal of mandatory questioning. Whilst this is not part of the bill, I do want to take the opportunity to say that we have expressed our concerns about the government’s plan to abolish mandatory questioning which covers the rights and responsibilities of Australian citizens. Again, I put on the record our concern that, instead of questioning as to a range of matters including obligations, responsibilities, history, values and the Australian way of life, the government is replacing the highly successful system with a limited test focused only on the pledge of commitment, which is of course very much confined to five lines pledging loyalty, sharing democratic beliefs, respecting rights and liberties, and upholding the law and obeying the law. You can choose to do this whether you use the words ‘under God’ or not. Our concern is that the test has been watered down. There are no mandatory questions which will require applicants to understand rights and responsibilities and we are very much concerned that this has simply been the result of an ideological attack.

We do know, and we recognise, that on the other side there are people who do not believe that we should have a citizenship test. In fact, if I recall correctly, in 2007 the member for Banks, Daryl Melham, described the test as a disgrace. Indeed in Senate estimates on 28 May another Labor senator actually questioned the need for the test. Therefore, it is our concern—and in this debate I want to put on record this concern—that we are currently seeing what is potentially a watering down. We are seeing these changes to the citizenship test, which do not require legislative provisions to give force to them, as being in effect a watering down of the citizenship test. I think it is appropriate at this point to put these matters on the record before we embark on a discussion on amendments.