Sarah Hanson-Young (SA, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

by leave—yes, I formally move the amendments in relation to schedule 1, items 1, 3, 4, 7 and 9. So I move Australian Greens amendments (1) to (4) on sheet 5927:

(1)    Schedule 1, item 1, page 3 (lines 4 and 5), omit the item, substitute:

1  Section 19G

Omit “permanent”, substitute “permanent or enduring”.

(2)    Schedule 1, items 3 and 4, page 3 (line 21) to page 4 (line 11), omit the items, substitute:

3  Paragraph 21(3)(d)

Repeal the paragraph, substitute:

             (d)    has a permanent or enduring physical or mental incapacity, at the time the person made the application, that means the person:

                   (i)    is not capable of understanding the nature of the application at that time; or

                  (ii)    is not capable of demonstrating a basic knowledge of the English language at that time; or

                 (iii)    is not capable of demonstrating an adequate knowledge of Australia and of the responsibilities and privileges of Australian citizenship at that time; and

Note:                The heading to subsection 21(3) is altered by omitting “Permanent” and substituting “Permanent or enduring” [physical and mental incapacity].

(3)    Schedule 1, item 7, page 4 (line 28) to page 5 (line 8), omit the item, substitute:

7  Paragraph 26(1)(b)

Repeal the paragraph, substitute:

             (b)    has a permanent or enduring physical or mental incapacity, at the time the person made the application to become an Australian citizen, that means the person:

                   (i)    is not capable of understanding the nature of the application at that time; or

                  (ii)    is not capable of demonstrating a basic knowledge of the English language at that time; or

                 (iii)    is not capable of demonstrating an adequate knowledge of Australia and of the responsibilities and privileges of Australian citizenship at that time; or

(4)    Schedule 1, item 9, page 5 (line 17), omit “4,”.

As have already outlined in additional comments to the committee looking into this bill and in what I have said today, while the Greens believe that the torture and trauma exemption is a good idea and admirable, we agree with evidence that was presented to the committee that, while trying to be inclusive, it actually ends up being too exclusive of people who need that exemption. The way in which we could best achieve getting around this particular problem is by adopting the recommendation, put forward by the Australian Citizenship Test Review Committee, for the suggested words to remain broad but also not be too prescriptive and to ensure that it does capture those people who have suffered torture and trauma whether that has been inside Australia or outside Australia, which, as I mentioned numerous times in the second reading debate, was a particular concern. The fact is a number of people who come in under the humanitarian program have not necessarily suffered torture and trauma in the legal sense of the words, but they have suffered from some disability or incapacity. Under the current draft of the legislation, they would not be included under these exemptions. This is why we have come up with this amendment. It is the amendment that was recommended by the Australian Citizenship Test Review Committee and it has now been referenced by both the government and the opposition.

I would also like to clarify the point in the amendment around permanent incapacity. The Greens agree with the way this term is currently used within the Australian Citizenship Act. We understand that it is too prescriptive for some applicants who have suffered some sort of incapacity but may not be permanent in the forever sense of the word. While the amendment would retain the term ‘permanent’, we would be including the term ‘enduring’ as the alternative criteria for the applicant to meet. The reason we have chosen enduring rather than long term is simply based on advice that this is the more appropriate wording in this case. That is what we would like to see the committee adopt. My understanding is that Senator Xenophon is supporting that amendment, and I guess we will hear from the government about it. I would like to see the opposition support it. I understand they have circulated an amendment that is almost word for word, except for the term ‘long term’. As I said, the term ‘enduring’ was given to us on the basis that in dealing with medical issues, this is the more legalistic term that is appropriate.