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

I just want to follow on from what Senator Hanson-Young said. Listed in the circulated amendments is an amendment from the opposition, which, as Senator Hanson-Young correctly points out, is almost word for word the same as the Greens’ amendment. The difference between the two amendments is that our suggested amendment picked up on the suggestion of the Australian Citizenship Test Review Committee, and perhaps at this point I might take the opportunity to put this into context.

The Australian Citizenship Test Review Committee suggested a much simpler amendment. In fact, in their chapter 8 they actually discussed this question in relation to torture and trauma in detail. Their suggested amendment was that section 21(d) be amended to read that the person has a:

… physical or mental incapacity at that time means the person is not capable due to the permanent physical or mental incapacity of:

Understanding the nature of the application at that time; or

Demonstrating a basic knowledge of the English language at that time; or

Demonstrating an adequate knowledge of Australia and of the responsibilities and privileges of Australian citizenship at that time.

These are the three criteria attached to the citizenship test.

According to the committee, section 23A sets out the process for a citizenship test. It stated in the note, as I have said:

… the test must be related to the eligibility criteria referred to in paragraphs 21(2)(d) understanding of the nature of the application, (e) a basic knowledge of the English language and (f) an adequate knowledge of Australia and the responsibilities and privileges of Australian citizenship.

The committee:

… argued that ‘mental incapacity’ ought not to be confined to just understanding the nature of the application at that time, but ought to refer to all three criteria, all of which are relevant to citizenship testing.

Of course one could think of circumstances where clearly if one does not understand the nature of the application, it is not unreasonable to think that one does not have a basic knowledge of the English language at that time and may not necessarily demonstrate an adequate knowledge of Australia and the responsibilities and privileges of Australian citizenship at that time.

The methodology suggested by the review committee was simpler and non-discriminatory. Coalition senators in the dissenting report suggested:

… the Review Committee’s proposed amendment be adopted with the addition of the word ‘permanent’.

Accordingly we suggested that the proposed provisions in the bill, which are set out at sections 21(3A) and 21(3B) of the bill, be removed and substituted with a much simpler—basically section 21(d). This removes—and this is the point that Senator Hanson-Young was making—the proposed amendments of the government (3A) and (3B), which went to saying that a person had a physical or mental incapacity at the time the person made the application as a result of that person having suffered torture or trauma outside Australia. Of course, that consequently means that that person is not capable of understanding the nature of the application, not capable of demonstrating a basic knowledge of English and not capable of demonstrating an adequate knowledge of Australia and responsibilities and privileges of citizenship.

There was also a concern that the removal of ‘permanent’ from the definition would lead to confusion about eligibility and definitions about permanent and temporary incapacity. At that stage we did not have numbers in relation to how many people would be in this category, and regrettably the department was unable to assist us with that information at the time. They subsequently did provide us with that information, and I will come to that in a moment.

The concern was that if the criterion of temporary incapacity was left in there, it could potentially open up to a much broader category of people. Concerns were expressed at the hearing that this exemption could be used by some to bypass the requirement to have adequate English and knowledge of Australian values, and in particular limit the opportunity for women to learn English. This was a point that was canvassed by quite a number of witnesses at the hearing, in particular in relation to women with backgrounds that are much more closed and that perhaps the facility to learn English and the fact that they have to sit a citizenship test may be, for some, the opportunity—and a limited opportunity—for them to go out and learn English. We did look at the potential need to get assistance in relation to the test as well, and perhaps we might look at that a little bit later.

As a consequence, the opposition has circulated this amendment. From our perspective, our concern primarily is the retention of the word ‘permanent’. The importance becomes apparent when you look at the figures in relation to conferral of citizenship in this area. The department advised us that, for the period 1 October 2007 to 30 June 2009, 366 people applied under the permanent physical or mental capacity provisions of section 21(3). Of these, 189 had citizenship conferred. When you look at that in the broader picture, it is a limited number.

The object of retaining permanency was simply for it to be just that—that there be a permanent physical or mental incapacity. So, for us, the important criterion was the retention of permanency and the government’s temporary criteria did cause us concern. I take the point that, whether it is ‘long term’ or ‘enduring’, neither of those two descriptors are temporary in nature and they certainly do achieve the objective of demonstrating a longer term period. On that basis, we will be happy to support the amendment of the Greens and not pursue our amendment, which is in the same terms but which, rather than ‘permanent or enduring,’ refers to ‘permanent or long-term physical or mental incapacity’ at the time that the person makes the application, leaving them incapable due to that permanent or enduring physical or mental capacity of understanding. Senator Hanson-Young, perhaps you can clarify whether your amendment refers to permanent or enduring in both parts of part D.