Chris Ellison (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I table a supplementary explanatory memorandum relating to the government amendments to be moved to this bill. The memorandum was circulated in the chamber on 8 August 2007.

Andrew Bartlett (Queensland, Australian Democrats) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—I move Democrats amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 5326 revised together:

(1)    Schedule 1, page 3 (after line 18), after item 1, insert:

1A  Section 3

Insert:

citizenship education program is a program which gives people from non-English speaking backgrounds an understanding of the English language and Australian society and shall be in such form as is prescribed.

(2)    Schedule 1, item 3, page 3 (line 28), after “successfully completed a citizenship test” insert “or, if from a non-English speaking background, a citizenship education program”.

We have already had the second reading stage of this legislation, a few weeks back. I will restate the Democrats core position: we have the view that this legislation is not necessary. There has not been any evidence provided either to the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee inquiry or, indeed, to the wider public as to why it is needed. Let us not forget this is quite an expensive process. Well over $100 million of taxpayers’ funds is going into instituting, setting up and running the citizenship test. To me—and this is reinforced by the draft booklet Becoming an Australian citizen that has been put together and released by the government since we had the second reading stage of this debate—the whole thrust behind the citizenship test proposal from the government reflects a very insecure nation, a real example of cultural cringe and a very narrow, timid, inward-looking approach to Australia and what it means to be Australia let alone what the future potential of Australia is.

That is at that the core of why I think this is bad policy and bad legislation. You do not implement a major proposal like this, dealing with the very important issues of citizenship and the qualification for citizenship, without a thorough process—not the flimsy, farcical, token consultation process and the quite poor issues paper that was put together to initiate that process—and you should certainly put together some evidence as to why it is needed. You do not make these sorts of changes unless there is evidence that there is a problem, and at no stage has there been an indication of a problem with regard to qualification for citizenship and the sorts of things that are addressed in the citizenship test. Let us not forget that nobody is eligible to apply for citizenship, let alone then undergo the test, unless they have already been resident in this country for four years, with at least one of those years as a permanent resident. We are dealing with people who are already permanent residents of Australia and who have been part of our community for four years. To suggest that testing them in the way that is proposed through this legislation is somehow going to fix any problem that exists with regard to people who are part of the Australian community is just ludicrous.

On top of that, I do not accept the premise that we have a problem with people who are part of the Australian community and with people who are taking up citizenship. Hundreds of thousands of people become residents of Australia every year. Over 150,000 new people become permanent residents of Australia every year. More than double that number become long-term temporary residents each year. When we are having such large numbers of new residents coming into the country every year, to suggest, without any evidence to demonstrate it, that there is a problem is poor public policy and generates unnecessary concern in the community when no problem has been identified. To then suggest that some of that goes to the qualification for citizenship creates a completely unhelpful and, I would argue, destructive perception about migrant communities and about the many, many migrants who become Australian citizens.

Let us not forget that by far the largest group of people who are long-term residents of the Australian community who do not take up citizenship are people from the UK and from New Zealand. On my understanding of information provided by the Parliamentary Library, more than half of the very large numbers—hundreds of thousands—of people who live in Australia who are eligible to become citizens but do not bother taking up citizenship are New Zealanders and people from the UK. That is fine; that is their right. If they do not wish to become citizens and just wish to remain as permanent residents they can do that, but to suggest that we have some problem with eligibility for citizenship, with all of the issues that surround it, without actually looking at the evidence is, firstly, poor public policy, secondly, signals a government that is not confident about the vibrant, very strong, diverse and dynamic multicultural Australia that we have and have had for decades and, thirdly, is potentially quite destructive in the long term.

Those points need to be made once again at the start of this debate. This citizenship test is not necessary. At best, I think it will just be a large waste of money and it will be a bit of light entertainment every now and then for the media to run some of the test questions that will inevitably become public, even though the government wants to keep them secret, and test them against the so-called average Australian in the shopping malls and find out how many of us actually get them wrong all the time. I suspect it is quite likely that that is all it will end up being—another pointless piece of bureaucracy paid for by the taxpayer that we can all make fun of from time to time as a bit of a Trivial Pursuit thing on the side. If that is all it is then it is still degrading Australian citizenship, which is more important than that.

But more dangerous is the potential for it to be used consciously, or even subconsciously, as an exclusionary device, and that is where my concerns become greater. I am not saying that is the government’s intent currently, but it can be used for that purpose, particularly given that the desire to keep secret even the questions that are used reinforces the risk of it being used for exclusionary purposes. It is telling in some ways that, in justifying bringing in this test, the government have pointed to other countries that have done the same. I am thinking of the Netherlands, the UK and the US. The government have not provided any evidence that it has produced positive results—improved social cohesion, integration or citizen participation—in the countries that have done it. There is no evidence to back up any of that at all, and none was provided to the Senate committee inquiry. Particularly in the Netherlands, it has been used as a mechanism to target some in the migrant community. It has been used, and proposals have been floated specifically for it to be used, to target and try to exclude Muslims. I am not saying that is the government’s intent, but that is how similar tests have been used in another country, one that this government has pointed to, and the fear that it could be used in this way does exist amongst some within the migrant community in Australia.

If we are putting forward a public policy proposal, particularly one that is going to be creating a whole new web of bureaucracy at great public cost, then we have got to look at what the reason for it is and what the consequences of it are. There has been no evidence put forward as to why it is needed but there is evidence that a consequence of it is greater apprehension amongst some in the community, so we actually have a perverse consequence of it potentially leading to less social cohesion and less effective integration by people perceiving it as having been put forward as an exclusionary device. Such perceptions are real and should be acknowledged. It is not enough just to say, ‘That is not our intent.’ I am not saying it is the government’s intent but I am saying that is a potential future use for it and I am saying there is a real, current perception by some of it being a possible future use and there possibly being such an intent.

I hope we do not need to debate the reality that there is a strong fear amongst many in the Muslim communities around Australia—there is certainly that in my own state of Queensland—that they are being targeted at the moment in all sorts of ways, through all sorts of laws and through public rhetoric. It is a simple fact that members of the Muslim communities have been targeted time after time through public rhetoric by members of this government who have not been disciplined, brought into line or corrected by the leaders of this government. In that circumstance it is simple common sense and human nature for the people who are repeatedly being targeted, those who are repeatedly being misrepresented and who are repeatedly the target of ignorant public statements, to feel that these mechanisms are potentially going to be used to target them, particularly—and there has been no evidence put forward to suggest why these things are necessary—when we have a determination amongst those in the government to ensure that these sorts of things are maintained under a veil of secrecy. Those important points need to be made.

Having said all that, I state that we, as the Democrats often do, will seek to improve the legislation in the committee stage of the debate. That is what our amendments go to. I have already formally moved jointly my first two amendments, which relate to a citizenship education program which gives people from non-English-speaking backgrounds an understanding of the English language and Australian society and would be in a form as prescribed by the minister.

The other amendment provides an alternative mechanism. The intent is to provide an alternative citizenship mechanism for non-English-speaking entrants, so it is being put forward under the assumption that the citizenship test and the legislation will go ahead in some form, even though the Democrats do not believe the test is necessary. The amendment is based upon a significant number of concerns that were put forward by a range of people during the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs inquiry into this legislation. They included the need to ensure that the test did not operate, either deliberately or by default, as an exclusionary mechanism for people from non-English-speaking backgrounds, particularly those from refugee backgrounds.

People from refugee backgrounds are of course, by definition, different from other types of migrants in that they have been forced to flee their homeland rather than having made a choice to simply seek a different country, a different future and a different life. Obviously, refugees have done that as well but they have done that by virtue of having been forced out of a situation that is unsafe, where they are at risk of serious persecution, by definition, and having had Australia offer them the opportunity to rebuild their lives.

It is a simple fact that in those circumstances from time to time such people are going to find difficulty in meeting some of the formal criteria that can be put forward in tests like this. So that amendment is based upon the recommendation that was put forward in my dissenting committee report, or minority report, that we ensure that refugee and humanitarian entrants from non-English-speaking backgrounds with a low level of English proficiency may be exempt from the test if they fulfil an alternative requirement such as attending a citizenship course. So it still provides that mechanism whereby they need to attend a course that specifically looks at issues relating to citizenship.

Let me say that, whilst I have not seen a single piece of evidence that suggests a citizenship test as is proposed is necessary or even helpful, I do think that it is desirable and appropriate for all prospective citizens to learn about what is involved in citizenship. I would actually like to see all Australian-born citizens required to learn that because, quite frankly, most of us do not know—and I would say, on the basis of a number of statements made by members of this parliament on this issue, a number of members of this parliament do not know—some of the basics around Australian citizenship: what is involved, what its history is, what the rights attached to it are, what the responsibilities attached to it are and just how intangible a concept it has been under law in many respects throughout Australia’s history. So I think we could all benefit from that, quite frankly. But, if you are going to create a requirement for new citizens to have done that, even though we are not requiring Australian-born citizens to have done that, then we should at least ensure that there are some options that enable sufficient flexibility for people who are not going to be able, because of their background, to meet the single structure that is being put forward.

I know that there are opportunities for exemptions within the legislation. As is often the case these days, they are pretty much totally at ministerial discretion, so we are just giving to the government, through the minister of the day, more power over people’s lives. I believe that having a specifically detailed alternative pathway for people from non-English-speaking backgrounds who are refugee and humanitarian entrants provides some extra surety that that option will be provided to people.

Let me emphasise, in moving these amendments and in commenting on those who are refugee and humanitarian entrants—it should be continually stressed—that the one group in the community of new arrivals to Australia who are most prompt in wanting to take up citizenship and to engage fully with the Australian community through citizenship and membership of the Australian society, are people from refugee and humanitarian backgrounds. It is well established that they are most likely to want to quickly take up citizenship. So there should be no suggestion that people from refugee and humanitarian entrance backgrounds are some sort of problem. They are the keenest to fully integrate into the Australian community and to get on with fully rebuilding their lives to contribute to the country that has given them another chance. We should not have some poorly thought through bureaucratic and politically motivated citizenship test get in the way of their doing that. Our country would be the loser as well as those people. So let us not forget that part of it: it is in the interests of the entire community to ensure that we can get full participation by people who history has shown contribute enormously to the development, prosperity and richness of Australia.

Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I want to not only speak to the amendments that have been moved by Senator Bartlett but also comment more broadly on the direction that Senator Bartlett is taking. I will use the more general language of the Democrats for the purpose of the chair. It seems to me that the Democrats are answering a proposal put some time ago and which the Prime Minister originally announced, and I think it is instructive to understand what he said at that time. In December 2006 the Howard government announced that it would introduce a new citizenship test and that migrants wanting to become citizens would be required to sit a formal examination, in English, in which they would answer 30 questions, drawn from a pool of 200, about Australian values, traditions, institutions and history.

A significant amount of water has flowed under the bridge since then and we now have a much changed situation from the government’s perspective. Labor, though, has been consistent throughout. Labor has said it supports the principle of formalising the current citizenship test. The issue, then, centres round the reasonableness of it all.

The amendments proposed by the Democrats today, and the language surrounding them, tend to answer the original proposal put forward by the government and they also focus, in part, on the test itself. I want to draw back a bit from that and have a look at the broader perspective, because Labor has always said that it is about the reasonableness of the test and not about the test individually. Labor recognises that the strength and success of the citizenship test lie in its ability—in other words, a facilitative provision—to promote community inclusion and provide opportunity for people to fully engage in the Australian way of life. That is a journey that people need to undertake, and the way they can undertake it is through this process. What Labor has added to the debate, which is going a bit further from what the government has done, is to say that it will ensure that the citizenship test is not a daunting prospect and that it will not discourage people from becoming citizens. Labor says that it is about recognising the importance of teaching English, that English language skills are important not only in the labour market but also for social inclusion at home and at work in offices around the country.

A Rudd Labor government would also provide for the teaching of English and citizenship. To that end the shadow minister for immigration moved a second reading amendment in the other place in which lies the crux of the whole debate. The shadow minister noted that the issue is whether the citizenship test to be determined under the legislation is reasonable. He also noted the importance of teaching English, the development of English language skills and the acquisition of knowledge of Australian history, culture and values. And I am sure the Democrats and others in this chamber would agree on those values. It is about ensuring that we do support and provide improvements to the Adult Migrant English Program and other settlement services to assist migrants to participate fully in the Australian community and to ultimately pass the citizenship test.

If we look at the bill now before the committee, we can see that it does provide a flexible approach, and that should not be overlooked. We do say that we continue to have concerns about a great deal of emphasis being placed on the citizenship test rather than on the support services and community initiatives that are critical to building an integrated and inclusive society. That is where the debate should be, quite frankly, but that is where this government has left the field.

By way of background, Democrats amendment (1) explains that a ‘citizenship education program is a program which gives people from non-English-speaking backgrounds an understanding of the English language and Australian society and shall be in such form as is prescribed’. Democrats amendment (2) inserts:

Schedule 1, item 3, page 3 (line 28), after “successfully completed a citizenship test” insert “or, if from a non-English speaking background, a citizenship education program”.

The question arising, then, is whether there may be a way in which the test could be combined with coursework. It is not unusual for that to occur, although traditionally there are tests and there is coursework, and the two generally do not meet. But the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship does have the discretion to make such an alternative test available if necessary.

However, Labor will not be supporting these amendments which propose a citizenship education program, on the basis that the concept of a separate stream of testing for anyone from a non-English-speaking background ultimately ignores the fact that many people from a non-English-speaking background may already be fluent in English. They may have English as their second language and may be fluent in either written or spoken English, or both. Moreover, such a program overlooks the possibility of a person passively sitting in a classroom ignoring the citizenship coursework—in fact, not being particularly receptive to it. The proposed amendments do not go on to indicate how that election of coursework with test would be made, whether it would be elected by the person sitting the test or by determination of a government official. So, on that basis, Labor does not support the amendments and will not be voting for them.

I wanted to raise those couple of issues and to add at the outset the more general comments about this bill in order to ensure that Labor’s position is clear. Of course, if the Democrats want to add anything they certainly may, but I do not think it will convince us to support the proposed amendments.

Chris Ellison (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The government oppose these amendments proposed by the Democrats for a number of reasons, some of which we hold in common with what Senator Ludwig outlined. I think this has the propensity to result in two streams of applicants for citizenship: those who require an education program and those who do not. More importantly, it presupposes that there is a cohort of applicants for citizenship who do require some education. We have a resources book, and that is where the questions would be drawn from. We say to people: ‘Look, there is the resources book. The test is there for you all.’ As to how that is developed over time and how it is implemented, we have dealt with concerns by saying that we will have a review of this. We not only will closely monitor how this is implemented but also have agreed to a review in three years time.

The Democrats also seek to make this a legislative instrument which would be subject to review by the parliament according to the Legislative Instruments Act. We do not believe it appropriate that this be subject to that act. It would lead to uncertainty because you would have a test in place and a system in place which people had come to accept and then subsequently it could be changed because it is disallowed under the provisions of the Legislative Instruments Act. Of course, that would need a majority of parliamentarians to support it, but this is something which could be done with less requirement than, say, an act of parliament. To that extent, we believe it could lead to some uncertainty. So I say to the Democrats, Mr Temporary Chairman, that we certainly will be watching the implementation of this closely. I think we have approached it carefully—for instance, taking into account youth, age and mental incapacity. People under 18, those over 60 and those with a mental incapacity will not be subject to the test. I think that to go any further, however, would create a division within the community of applicants for citizenship. For those reasons, we oppose the Democrats amendments.

Kerry Nettle (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Australian Greens support these particular amendments. We are opposed to the citizenship test because we do not think it is going to meet the objectives that the government set out for the test about improving the English language skills of migrants and creating a more cohesive society in Australia. In fact, we think it will do precisely the opposite to those two things. What these amendments go to is ensuring that people have the opportunity to learn about citizenship and what that means. We think that is fundamentally important and something that should be made available to all people who are seeking to gain citizenship in Australia. Indeed, we think there is benefit in people who are citizens of Australia by birth also having the opportunity to access that information. So we are very supportive of having an education program such as that proposed in this set of amendments that Senator Bartlett has put forward.

I want to ask the minister a couple of more general questions about some of the criticism of the citizenship test and, in particular, whether the government has a view about what impact the introduction of the citizenship test will have on the existing English language classes for migrants. We heard during the Senate inquiry from people who teach English as a second language in Australia. They were concerned that the existing English language classes for migrants may end up teaching people how to pass the test rather than the communication skills that they need to survive here in Australia.

That is a very significant concern for me because I do not want to see the existing English language programs undermined. I think these programs, by the way, are good and need to be expanded. That is why I moved a second reading amendment on behalf of the Greens calling for that to occur. I acknowledge that there was some additional funding provided in the budget. I think the programs that exist are beneficial and I would not want to see them undermined by the introduction of a citizenship test that sees those language programs change to end up teaching people only how to pass the test. I do not think that is anywhere near as helpful as teaching people the communication skills that they need. Has the government formed a view about that or done any kind of assessment of the impact that this citizenship test will have on the existing English language programs for migrants?

Chris Ellison (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I can answer that question quite clearly. There will be no impact. The program will continue as it is. It is there to teach adult migrants the English language and it will continue to do that. It is funded separately. It is dealt with in a separate area of government and there will be no impact on that program. They will not be classes to pass the citizenship test.

Kerry Nettle (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There are two things that come out of that. I am not sure whether I have made myself clear in asking my questions. I accept that there is a separate budget, that that is where the funding comes from and that the funding for the English language programs will continue. I totally accept that. I note the comments that the then parliamentary secretary Andrew Robb made some time ago, at the time at which the citizenship test was being proposed, in which he said that if we needed to increase the funding for English language programs as a result of the introduction of the citizenship test then that was open. I recall those comments that he made at a citizenship ceremony—I think it might have been in Melbourne—some time ago. So I do understand. I am not suggesting that there is a budgetary link. If there is going to be an announcement about an increase, that is great—that is welcome; I would love to hear about that.

The minister said they are not going to be teaching people how to pass the test. I accept that that is not the government’s intention of the English language classes that are provided to migrants. I accept at face value what the government says about the benefits of the programs for migrants. I support them; I think they are good. I want to see them expanded. So my concern is not that the government is saying that these programs should be about people passing the test. I am not making the claim that that is the government’s intention. Educators who appeared before the committee said that, when you have a test coming up at school, the classes before the test end up being oriented towards helping people to pass the test. I am not saying that that is the government’s intention, and I accept the minister’s answer that that is not the government’s plan, but does the government have a concern that that may occur? If that which educators have expressed to us is a concern to the government, what kinds of mechanisms might the government be able to put in place to ensure that those classes did not become just about teaching people how to pass the tests? I think we all agree that would not be the best use of that budgetary allocation. I am not questioning the government’s intention. It is more a question of whether the government is concerned that this may occur and what can be done to ensure that it does not occur.

Chris Ellison (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We have announced that we will be doing a review in three years time and that we will be monitoring closely its implementation. If, contrary to the government’s intention and will, the courses do become courses for the test, we will take action, but I do not think you can plan or say what action you will take until that problem arises. We have no indication that it will arise, for a number of reasons: (1) we do not intend that it will—it would be contrary to government policy—and (2) the teaching of adult migrant English is entirely a different program. It is to teach people English. We do not see how it could happen, but if someone wanted to change that, and did so contrary to government policy, we would of course act. But we are monitoring its implementation across the board. We will keep an eye on that.

Kerry Nettle (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have two other general questions that I want to ask the Minister for Human Services. A number of migrant groups in the community are fearful that the introduction of a citizenship test will deter some people from making an application to become a citizen. We can only speculate why somebody may be deterred. Perhaps they do not have the same educational background as people in here and the thought of having to do a test is intimidating. When they see the level of detail in the draft booklet, that may turn them off, but without wanting to speculate on what all those reasons may be, without being able to state categorically the things that would deter each particular individual from applying to become a citizen, I did want to ask the government whether it shared that concern a number of migrant groups have raised. I also raised this concern upon hearing it from migrant communities. None of us wants anyone to be deterred from making an application to become an Australian citizen. So I just ask the government whether it shares any of those concerns that the migrant groups have raised about this citizenship test.

Chris Ellison (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I say again that we will be monitoring the program closely and there will be a review in three years time. We do not have any results of any reviews overseas. I understand there is one being conducted in United States which has not yet concluded. We will watch that carefully. However, I think it is fair to say that the government does not share the concerns of people who think that this might deter people from applying for citizenship. As I understand it, there is a four-year requirement for residency before you can take the test and I think that someone who has been in Australia for four years would have sufficient confidence to make an application for citizenship and go through the test. The longer you stay in a place, the more comfortable you become in that environment, and one would assume that you would have the confidence to do it. I do not think Australia is a country where people are overawed or intimidated by the programs we have. I do not see any reason for there to be a reduction in the number of applications because people do not want to take the citizenship test. We have nothing on which to base any concern. We will be continuously monitoring this, as I say, and in three years time there will be a review. We will also be looking at the overseas experience. We have not yet seen the results of reviews overseas. As I say, we will have a look at the review being conducted in the United States when it is handed down.

Kerry Nettle (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The other question I want to ask, which again came up in the Senate inquiry, is about the best way for people to learn about Australian values, as the government defines them. There was a suggestion made by people who appeared in front of the Senate committee that if you teach someone values in their own language they may have a better capacity to understand the intricacies around what values or content you are trying to get across than if you teach them in a language which is not their first language. I note that, in the United States citizenship test, people can learn the values part of the citizenship test in their own language, and I presume that is because they have made an analysis or an assessment that the best way to convey what can be quite complex, complicated or detailed information is in the language that the person best understands. I acknowledge it is not the government’s intention to do that here.  I ask the minister whether the government has looked at and considered that example in the United States—where you learn about the values in your own language, in your first language—and rejected it.

Chris Ellison (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Australian values section of the resources book is fairly general. It sets out:

Values which are important in modern Australia include:

• respect for the equal worth, dignity and freedom of the individual
• freedom of speech
• freedom of religion and secular government
• freedom of association
• support for parliamentary democracy and the rule of law
• equality under the law
• equality of men and women
• equality of opportunity
• peacefulness
• tolerance, mutual respect and compassion for those in need.

It goes on to say:

These values and principles are central to Australia remaining a stable, prosperous and peaceful community.

Those are fairly general values which can incorporate within them a great deal of difference, which we enjoy in our Australian community. Nonetheless, they are of general application and we do not see a need to have specific tuition in a person’s own language to appreciate those values. They are of such a general nature that you do not really need to drill down into great detail which might require communicating with someone in their own language.

The second part of this is the requirement that a person understands and has a degree of proficiency in English. Part of the application for becoming a citizen of Australia is that you have a basic understanding of English. We think it would defeat the purpose for us to get into the weeds of the detail and do that in a person’s original language because that would be confusing things even more. We believe that the values as set out in the resources manual, which is freely available for people who want to apply to become citizens, are self-explanatory. Even with a very basic understanding of English you can still appreciate what is being conveyed under the Australian values section. We do not think it is so complicated that you need to communicate with a person in their original language. Our view is that what other countries are doing in that regard might suit their regime or the way they have structured their citizenship tests but we think that the way that we have put it is of such simplicity that there will not need to be any tuition or training in a person’s own language.

Question negatived.

by leave—I move government amendments (1) and (2) together:

(1)    Schedule 1, item 5, page 4 (after line 33), at the end of subsection 23A(1), add:

Note:   The test must be related to the eligibility criteria referred to in paragraphs 21(2)(d), (e) and (f).

(2)    Schedule 1, item 5, page 5 (after line 6), at the end of subsection 23A(3), add:

Note:   The eligibility criteria for sitting the test cannot be inconsistent with this Act and in particular subsection 21(2) (about the general eligibility criteria for becoming an Australian citizen).

The first amendment clarifies the operation of proposed subsection 23A(1) and the second amendment clarifies the operation of proposed subsection 23A(3). The first amendment comes as the result of a recommendation of the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs. That committee recommended an amendment to clarify what it believed was some ambiguity existing in the proposed subsection. Although our legal advice indicates that there is no ambiguity, this proposed amendment inserts a notice at the end of the new proposed subsection to make clear that the test approved by the minister under the proposed subsection must relate to the eligibility criteria referred to in paragraphs 21(2)(d), (e) and (f). We appreciate that the Senate committee was of that view and we respectfully disagree but, to make it absolutely beyond doubt, we will insert a note to deal with the concern raised by the Senate committee. Our legal advice is that the note is not needed, but we do appreciate the work the Senate committee did on this. This particular committee does a very good job, so we have taken that on board and we will put in that note.

The second amendment inserts a note into proposed subsection 23A(3) in item 5 of schedule 1 to the bill to make clear that the eligibility criteria for sitting a test cannot be inconsistent with the act and, in particular, with the general eligibility criteria for citizenship contained in the new proposed subsection 21(2) of the bill. Again, this note will alleviate concerns that have been raised regarding the power to determine eligibility criteria for sitting a test. Concerns had been expressed about this during proceedings before the Senate committee. I do not think there was a Senate committee recommendation on this, but the government did take note of those concerns and, in an effort to allay them, has determined to insert this note.

We believe that these two amendments will make absolutely clear the operation of the respective proposed subsections. Again, whilst on legal advice this is not necessary, we are doing it in an effort of good faith and to demonstrate very clearly our position in relation to the operation of these proposed subsections. I commend both amendments to the committee.

Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The opposition can say that we support the amendments proposed by the government. It is helpful to understand that the government have indicated that they are willing to take up the committee recommendation, if only on the basis of a belt-and-braces approach, although they could always table the advice if they were so minded. I am certainly not asking for it, but they could always table it if they were so minded.

The third recommendation of the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs is:

... that proposed subsection 23A(1) of the Bill be amended to specifically require that the test relate to the eligibility criteria in paragraphs—

and it becomes a little technical—

21 (2)(d),(e) and (f).

The government’s amendments in relation to eligibility criteria do reflect the committee’s recommendations and obviously attract Labor’s support. Labor welcomes the government amendments to the bill. The amendment to clause 23A(1)—that the test must relate to the eligibility criteria referred to in clause 21(2), paragraphs (d), (e) and (f)—and the amendment to clause 23A(3), which adds that the eligibility criteria for sitting the test cannot be inconsistent with the Australian Citizenship Act and, in particular, clause 21(2), which provides the general eligibility criteria for becoming an Australian citizen, actually address one of the key issues that Labor raised as soon as the debate commenced in the other house.

Resolving the matters relating to clause 23A is essential to the credibility of the legislation. Labor supports the shift by the government in this amendment, supports the outcomes of the committee and supports the amendments proposed by the government. Labor does appreciate the work that the Senate committee has done in respect of this bill. Unfortunately, I did not participate in the committee deliberations on this matter. I do recognise the work of the secretariat as well—if that has not already been said before—and the committee members who undertook this work.

Question agreed to.

Andrew Bartlett (Queensland, Australian Democrats) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move Democrats amendment (3) on sheet 5326, as revised:

(3)    Schedule 1, item 5, page 4, (after line 33), insert:

     (1A)    Prior to ministerial approval, the proposed test questions are to be trialled by the Australian Electoral Commission on a demographically representative sample group of Australian-born citizens to determine the suitability of the test questions.

This amendment is important in order to ensure that we do not get a two-tiered standard attached to Australian citizenship. There is a real potential that migrants who have to undertake this test to become a citizen will in effect have to know more about Australian values, history and geography and the Australian system of government et cetera than Australian-born citizens, who get citizenship as of right under law without having to undergo a test.

That point should be emphasised, because we had the repeated mantra coming from some within the government that citizenship is a privilege, not a right. It certainly is a privilege, but it is also a right. I am an Australian citizen by right. It was my right under law, being born in Australia of Australian citizen parents. There are millions of Australians who are citizens as of right. It is a privilege as well, but it is certainly not something that we should present as not being a right.

There is also a risk here, attached to these tests—particularly given the government’s continuing insistence that the questions not be tabled in the parliament and not be made public—that those who have to do this test to become citizens, to then under law obtain the right to citizenship with all of the privileges and responsibilities that attach to it, may be required to have a greater understanding of Australia than another group of citizens. I think that is an inequality that we should seek to avoid as much as is possible.

The simple aim of this amendment is to ensure that, in effect, we test the test to make sure that the vast majority of Australian-born Australian citizens will be able to pass it. This is of course a matter of continuing commentary, some of it fairly light-hearted, as to how well or otherwise many so-called average Australians would go in passing some of the questions on the test. Frankly, I think that is one of the reasons why the government wants to insist on the questions remaining secret. There is a suggestion that the questions have to remain secret because otherwise people would be able to cram for the test.

If you are going to get a random sampling of 20 questions out of a total pool of 200 questions and you manage to learn them all by rote sufficiently that you can pass the test, then, frankly, isn’t that the point—that we want people to understand all these things? If the way that some people understand it is by rote learning hundreds of questions then good luck to them. As has already been indicated, the questions will be derived from a booklet—similar, I presume, to the draft booklet Becoming an Australian citizen, which has already been released. Frankly, I think the difference between people cramming, if you like, for their test by reading a booklet as opposed to reading hundreds of questions is an artificial distinction. It really does not help to allay some of the apprehensions amongst some of the migrant communities around Australia that there is some other agenda here when there is a continuing insistence on the questions not being made public and not being tabled.

I again make the point that the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs itself did recommend that the proposed citizenship test questions be tabled in parliament. That was recommendation 2 of the entire Senate committee. To ignore that is not a helpful move by the government and suggests to me that, firstly, it is poorly thought-through policy and, secondly, it is basically a political stunt. It might be a harmless political stunt, but I for one and the Democrats believe that Australian citizenship is too important to be reduced to a matter for political stunts.

It is also important to not just test the test on Australians but enable Australians to test the adequacy of the questions. We all know in this place just how contentious the simple question is about who Australia’s head of state is or who the head of the Australian government is. That is a sample question that the government has put forward as a possible question in the draft booklet. That simple question—’Who is the head of the Australian government?’—is open to interpretation. Others, like whether or not Australian citizens are required to enrol on the electoral register, have qualifications and exemptions—such as whether it applies to Australian citizens residing overseas—that are not specifically detailed in the question. Those sorts of things do not indicate a problem with our laws; they simply indicate the fact that the obligations, responsibilities, opportunities and all of the other things that are attached to citizenship are not as simplistic and narrow as they are portrayed by the government in putting forward this debate.

Even some of the ideas and ideals that are put forward in the government’s draft booklet, including those about Australian values, beg the question of how serious we are about putting forward these things and seek to prescribe what Australian values are in an officially government ordained book, which is then used as the basis for government ordained questions at the whim of the minister of the day, including in any future government. Quite frankly, this government and this parliament have, from time to time, passed laws that have seriously breached some of the things that are detailed here as important values in modern Australia.

It is always up to the parliament to pass whatever laws it likes, particularly in a country like ours where we do not have basic rights and freedoms entrenched in the Constitution. So the sorts of things detailed in the booklet are things that, in many cases, can be breached at any stage by virtue of this parliament passing a law to make it happen. To some extent that is a wider debate, but to some extent it is not because we are talking about something as fundamental as Australian citizenship. We are putting forward to prospective new citizens the suggestion that these values, these freedoms and these particular characteristics of Australia are so fundamental and so intrinsic that you need to get the right answer in a test to become a citizen. They send a message that these values are locked in stone—that they are intrinsic values that we do not waver from as a nation and that if you become an Australian citizen you have a right to expect them to be attached to that citizenship.

The simple fact is that in many cases that is not so. In many cases those freedoms, values and rights are able to be removed simply by this parliament passing a law making it happen, and we do that all the time. That is a wider debate and I will not go into a bill of rights except to say that it reinforces just how misleading so many of the messages underlying this debate are. We are passing on those misleading messages to the entire Australian community and to new Australians. To me, it shows how muddle-headed and puerilely politicised this process is.

One way of reducing the potential for puerile politicisation is to ensure that the test is able to be tested, as this amendment seeks to do. I believe it would be very much in this parliament’s interest and would maintain some degree of integrity in the central importance of citizenship to accept this amendment so as to reduce the potential for any future government to more seriously pervert the test down the track and enable it to be used more explicitly as an exclusionary device, because that potential is undoubtedly there. We know, and many migrants know—but many Australian-born Australians do not know—about Australia’s history of using our migration laws in discriminatory ways to specifically exclude people. I am not accusing this government, at this stage, of specifically putting forward this citizenship test to that end, but I am saying that the potential is there for it to be used to that end in the future, particularly given how grievous and unjust the discriminatory abuses have been in the past and, I would argue, how damaging they have been to Australia’s reputation internationally as well as to our own awareness about social cohesion and integration. We need to make absolutely crystal clear that any such tests are not able to be used in that way in the future. This would be one way. It is not a pure, total safeguard but it would be one safeguard that would minimise the chances of that happening.

Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That was a long contribution for a short issue. It did not have to go on for so long—but I say that in a good-natured way. Labor supports the amendment. It is important to ensure that any test is fair and appropriate for people taking full membership of Australian society and that it is understood by all Australians. This is one way of ensuring that. It seems practical and sensible that you would trial something and then ensure that it works effectively. You would expect the government to ensure that the test is appropriate and designed well. It would be sensible for the government to pick it up and express a view that of course they will be doing this type of work to ensure that any test is appropriately adapted to the circumstances.

Chris Ellison (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The government opposes this amendment. It does so on the basis that we will have testing experts engaged to develop the questions and they will ensure that those questions go through a proper validation and development process. I believe it is not appropriate to have wider testing or sampling of focus groups where you have the Australian Electoral Commission involved. In any event, testing Australian-born people might not be appropriate because the cohort that you are looking at testing, by very necessity, was not born in Australia. They are just some of the aspects of it. Again, we will be monitoring this on an ongoing basis and, in a very formal way, having a review in three years time. All of that will be under public purview, and I believe that this amendment is not necessary for those reasons.

Andrew Bartlett (Queensland, Australian Democrats) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

At the risk of being chided by Senator Ludwig again for talking too long, I shall make a brief contribution. As I tried to make clear in my comments, I am not accusing this government of, from the outset, proposing to misuse the test in that way, but assurances from the minister now about what the government are going to do and how they are going to operate with regard to developing this test are not sufficient. We are passing a law; it will stay as part of the law well into the future. I would not be surprised if, at various stages in the past when amendments were made to migration laws and other laws relating to the entry of people into Australia and when various tests were put forward, commitments were given that they would not operate in particular ways. It is very common in this place, and it was very common in the past, for concerns to be raised that something might be misused, or used in a negative way, and for the commitment to be given that it would not be. Of course, we cannot tie any future government or any future minister to those commitments. They are governed simply by what is in the actual law. And we have seen abuses of the law in the past. Some of the provisions in the Migration Act have been used in ways that were not expressed as an intent when they were originally put forward. Certainly the disgracefully unfair abuse of dictation tests and the like in the past to exclude migrants from particular ethnic and religious backgrounds was not expressly detailed in legislation as being the intent of those tests, but the test has given that power to be misused.

The Democrats amendment being considered here would not provide 100 per cent perfect protection against that sort of abuse in the future but it would at least reduce the prospect of that sort of abuse. We should recognise that putting in place the requirement for a test like this without putting protections in the legislation has the clear potential for such a test to be used for discriminatory and politically motivated purposes in the future. I cannot believe that we could be so ignorant of our history—particularly when we are talking about citizenship tests that are supposed to reaffirm our understanding and knowledge of our history, including quite recent history—in which there are many examples of Australian governments applying laws regarding migrants in unjust and very discriminatory ways. We should be putting protections in this legislation to minimise the chance of any future government using this law in short-term, divisive ways. The legislation is meant to be about inclusion, about encouraging integration and about promoting social unity—I do not think it will particularly achieve that, but that is clearly the intent—but we leave open the potential for it to be used for very divisive purposes down the track, as our current laws relating to migrants have been used in the past and, indeed, the very recent past.

Kerry Nettle (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I want to indicate that the Australian Greens will be supporting these amendments. It is very difficult for senators who are being asked to vote on this citizenship test to determine whether or not we think the system for creating the questions is appropriate because, as Senator Bartlett has pointed out, we do not know what the questions are going to be. Even though there are sample questions at the back of the government’s document, it is hard to know how hard or easy they will be because we do not know what the multiple-choice options will be. The multiple-choice options can make the question easy or, indeed, can make the question hard.

A range of educators have appeared before the Senate committee and they have commented on the make-up of the citizenship test. In particular, those who teach English to people for whom English is a second, third, fourth, fifth or sixth language have indicated that they do not see a multiple-choice mechanism as the best way to determine whether or not people’s English language skills are at the level we may want them to be at. I think this amendment tries to bring to the legislation some system of assessing whether or not the right path has been followed in the determination of the questions.

The Greens have raised concerns about lack of transparency in relation to the questions, in the past and in my additional comments, and we have an amendment which deals with that further down the track. I acknowledge that the reason the government do not want to make the questions public is that they do not want people to rote learn them, but it is very difficult for senators and members of parliament to assess whether or not the process is a fair one when they are not able to get an understanding of the types of questions. I acknowledge that there are 20 questions at the back of the booklet, but you cannot really tell how hard or easy they are going to be without seeing them proposed as answers in a multiple-choice question.

There has been a lot of speculation in the community about the questions for the citizenship test and how difficult they will be. I noticed that in one of the Greek newspapers a number of different ethnic community groups were consulted and came up with 50 ethnic Australian citizenship test questions, which I have to say I found pretty informative. They were questions like: ‘How many Greeks were convicted of piracy and sent to Australia in 1829 on the Norfolk, arriving in Sydney?’ The answer is seven. ‘Which Chinese Australian former kangaroo shooter won fame at Gallipoli as a sniper?’

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

Billy Sing.

Kerry Nettle (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is right: Billy Sing. Here is another one: ‘What was the family name of the Chinese Australian realtor LJ Hooker before he changed his name by deed poll in 1925?’ Anyone? No?

Ursula Stephens (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Opposition (Social and Community Affairs)) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No.

Kerry Nettle (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Tingyou is the answer to that one. And there is some interesting information there about the Italian Australians on Captain Cook’s ship the Endeavour. This article was in a Greek newspaper but it was done in consultation with editors of Greek, Chinese, Italian, Maltese and Indian newspapers.

Following the publication of the draft document, they made some criticism about the draft booklet. They said, ‘The sample citizenship test questions released by the government this week are retrospective and selective, written largely by John Howard to perpetuate and to sustain a golden era of white Anglo-Saxon pre-eminence in Australia.’ They went on to say that, with one in four Australians born overseas and an even higher ratio from non-English-speaking backgrounds born here, they are critical of the government asking new aspiring migrants to answer questions about the narrow band of life experience of white Anglo-Saxon immigrants when so many in the past have come from Europe, Asia and Africa.

The amendments being put forward are about getting a sense within the community of what an appropriate level is for setting these kinds of questions. As I said, I am not able to say whether they are too hard or too easy, because I have not seen the multiple-choice questions. There is certainly an incredible amount of detail in the draft booklet. Perhaps the minister knows the answer to this, but I did not know how many kilometres of water pipe were laid from Perth to the goldfields. That is in the booklet, but is that level of detail going to be asked about? We do not know because we do not know what the questions are. And we do not know whether, in a multiple-choice question, you would be able to guess between it being one metre versus several thousands of metres. You cannot tell unless you have the multiple-choice answers.

I want to ask the minister about the process for the booklet. It is a draft booklet, and I noticed on the minister’s website that there is the opportunity for giving input. I would appreciate it if the minister could let us know what the process and the time frame are in relation to the finalising of the booklet. During the Senate inquiry, the department indicated to the Senate committee that there was an intended start date of—I think, off the top of my head—17 September for the government to start introducing the test if the legislation passed through the parliament. Could the minister outline if that is still the intended start date, how the process for input into the draft booklet is intended to occur and whether that shifts back the time frame in which the government would like to see the citizenship test start if it is passed through the parliament?

Chris Ellison (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Assuming this legislation is passed by the parliament this week, the minister, as I understand it, is planning to launch the book in the very near future—in the second half of September.

Kerry Nettle (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Minister. I am trying to remember the date off the top of my head, but during the Senate inquiry the department put a date forward for when they intended the citizenship test to start. My recollection—and it is just a recollection—was that it was 17 September. I could be wrong about that. As the minister is talking about launching the booklet in the second half of September, does that mean that the intended start date for the introduction of the citizenship test has been pushed back? Will it be in late September or in October? I would also like the minister to explain about the process for input on the draft booklet. On the minister’s website, you can provide input in relation to the draft booklet. What is the process for determining that? Will it be that the input comes in, the minister or the department looks at it and then, when the minister makes his announcement in a very short period of time, there will be a government response to the input? Is there a more formalised mechanism for input or do you just send in your information and see how you go when the announcement is made? That and the start date are the two things I would like the minister to explain.

Chris Ellison (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As I said, the announcement will be predicated on the passage of this legislation, so the sooner this is done, the better. I do not want to pre-empt what the Senate may or may not do but Senator Nettle is asking me to give some idea. That is not unreasonable, and on that basis I will presume that this legislation will go through expeditiously. If this legislation is passed expeditiously, I would envisage an announcement on the final book within the next 10 days. The tests would then commence on 1 October, so that would give some time. And, of course, people do not have to make an application on 1 October. If they want to have more time to look at the book they can delay their application. That is how I see it, but I stress—lest I be misrepresented, and I am sure I would not be—that this is based on an expeditious passing of this bill. The answer to the other question is that everything that has come in on the website has been considered by the minister in relation to the formulation of the final draft of the booklet.

Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Minister, I do not want to be hoist with my own petard by adding to the debate, but in answer to Senator Nettle’s question you indicated, and the process seems to be, that should the bill pass—and I have every confidence that it will—then people can provide feedback online. For collating that and providing an outcome, what are the time lines that will allow that to occur before 1 October? In other words, what is in place to ensure that it is taken into account and then answered in a way that allows a dialogue? It seems to be that the date for start-up was originally going to be 17 September. Could the minister indicate whether that has now been vacated for 1 October?

Chris Ellison (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As I indicated previously, the feedback is being received on an ongoing basis. We want that to continue, by the way, so what I am about to say should not in any way deter anybody from offering feedback. In that regard, the government seeks the cooperation of all concerned that this continues. But for the purposes of efficiently putting in place a new booklet and giving people time for testing on 1 October and thereafter, everything up until this point today that has been received will be put into the mix and considered. As I have indicated, I envisage the minister making a decision within the next 10 days or so as to the final booklet, and the testing will start on 1 October. However, we still ask that feedback continue to come via the minister’s website. Certainly, the government would not want these remarks to deter anybody or to make them say, ‘Oh well, there was a cut-off point and you cannot put anything in after that date.’ That is certainly not the case. We are monitoring this in an ongoing way, and continuing feedback is not only warmly welcomed but, we believe, essential. For the purposes of drawing a line from where we can start working on a final booklet, anything received up until today will be put into the mix for that final draft. The minister will launch that within the next 10 days or so and the testing can commence on 1 October.

Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Has there been any consideration to provide feedback on the issues that have been raised up to this point? If the line is going to be drawn in the sand today, is the department or the minister going to provide a response to those issues that have been raised? And how are those matters going to be taken into account? The normal process for these sorts of things is that people provide feedback that the department might then summarise and then reject or accept or in principle support—there are a range of possible responses—so that people can understand what the process has been. You can encourage continued feedback by indicating that, for the purposes of the launch, this is a final position, but you might then indicate whether you intend to refine it if further feedback is received. Otherwise, there does not seem to be any point in encouraging feedback after today.

Chris Ellison (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The government had not envisaged a formal process of publishing the feedback received. However, I have heard what Senator Ludwig has said and I will take that up with the minister and relay those comments to the minister.

Question negatived.

Andrew Bartlett (Queensland, Australian Democrats) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will not proceed with Democrat amendment (4), because it really links back to my amendments (1) and (2). We have basically had that debate and I do not see much point in revisiting it. So I will not proceed with that amendment. I move Democrat amendment (5) on sheet 5326 revised:

(5)    Schedule 1, item 5, page 5 (lines 15 to 17), omit subsection 23A(7), substitute:

Determination is a legislative instrument

        (7)    A determination made under subsection (1) is a legislative instrument and where the determination relates to a test, a question or questions within the test, or a component of the test, are subject to disallowance in accordance with the Legislative Instruments Act 2003.

This is the final Democrat amendment and it is fairly similar to one circulated by the Greens, although it is slightly different. It seeks to ensure that any determination made under subsection (1) of the act that relates to a test, a question or questions within the test, or a component of the test, is subject to disallowance.

The minister pre-empted this amendment earlier by giving some reasons why it was not desirable and why the government would not be supporting it. It was nice of him to do so without hearing my coherent arguments in favour of it. You never know; you might be persuaded! The suggestion that it would create uncertainty is not, frankly, a good enough reason. At the heart of the citizenship test, obviously, is the issue of whether it is going to have credibility. That is the question. If it turns out to be a bunch of ridiculous, jingoistic, offensive, misleading or ideologically biased questions then you will distort the credibility of the citizenship test and therefore distort the credibility of citizenship. Again, I am not accusing the government of planning to do that. I would be very surprised if they did, quite frankly, but this is another mechanism to provide that protection, that safeguard, that I believe is needed, particularly given Australia’s history of misusing our laws in discriminatory and unjust ways to target and exclude people from particular ethnic or religious backgrounds.

I emphasise to the Senate that I am not making a political point in saying this; I am very much making a plea about the social consequences of the laws we pass. This debate is not, at its core, about some pre-election positioning or some potential political opportunities or political points to be scored, from all sides. This debate is about whether we pass a law and, if so, what is in that law. We should always remind ourselves that the laws we pass have impacts on human beings, in the Australian community and more widely. Therefore, it is totally appropriate for us to consider the potential, and in some cases the current, impacts of proposed laws.

A current impact of this proposed law is that there is a group within the community—a minority, I fully recognise, but nonetheless a group—who are apprehensive about the intent behind this test and the potential it could be misused for political purposes. One of the reasons they are apprehensive is the history that they all know, and we should certainly know, of laws with regard to migrants being misused in a discriminatory and unjust way, targeting people because of their ethnic, religious or racial backgrounds. We all know—and if we do not we certainly should—that one of the groups in the community at the moment who do feel targeted by some of the rhetoric and policies and by the application of some of the existing laws—not just migration laws—is the Muslim community.

I was at a forum just yesterday, as was Senator Ludwig, who gave a very cogent contribution and earned himself a few Mars bars along the way by giving good answers to some questions—the Mars bars were a reward from the audience for giving full and complete answers, to clarify. There is very clearly concern out there. It does not all go just to the citizenship test. It is much wider than that. The Dr Haneef issue is at the heart of it. But that is a symptom; it is not the cause—the Haneef issue is not the cause. The fear and the apprehension in the community is a symptom of a much wider perception that there is a deliberate targeting of Muslim Australians for partisan political purposes and we must ensure that we do not pass a new law that feeds apprehension and creates that division.

Progress reported.