Division Description Changes — Australian Citizenship Amendment (Citizenship Testing) Bill 2007 — Second Reading — 13th Aug 2007

Change	Division
senate vote 2007-08-13#4 Edited by mackay staff on 2017-10-14 13:50:07	Title ~~Australian Citizenship Amendment (Citizenship Testing) Bill 2007 — Second Reading~~ Australian Citizenship Amendment (Citizenship Testing) Bill 2007 - Second Reading - Agree with the bill's main idea Description ~~<p>Debate resumed.</p>~~ The majority voted in favour of the [bill](http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id:legislation/billhome/R2748)'s main idea. In parliamentary jargon, they voted to read the bill for a [second time](https://www.peo.gov.au/learning/fact-sheets/making-a-law.html). The Senate can now discuss the bill in more detail. ### What is the bill's main idea? The purpose of the bill is to introduce a test that a person has to pass before they can become a citizen. ~~<p class="speaker">Linda Kirk</p>~~ <p>I was speaking before question time in this second reading debate on the <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id:legislation/billhome/R2748">Australian Citizenship Amendment (Citizenship Testing) Bill 2007</a> and the citizenship test that it seeks to introduce. One of the stated aims of the bill is to achieve a more inclusive society. However, in my view, and in the view of a number of witnesses before the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, the test, by its very nature, is a very exclusionary measure to achieve this aim. Tests are, by their very nature, designed to be passed or failed, so it difficult to see exactly how this bill is going to promote a more inclusive society.</p> <p>It is critical, I think, that this test does not act as a de facto English test or a test reminiscent of a bygone era—namely, the White Australia policy of the past. Whilst the citizenship test will attempt to measure a prospective citizen’s knowledge of Australia and its values and way of life, many average Australian citizens have a very poor understanding of Australia’s history and aspects of government. I would therefore be concerned that a number of Australian citizens may not pass the test if they were asked to sit it.</p> <p>In the committee hearings, another concern that was raised about this test was that it might result in a higher threshold of knowledge for individuals who are not yet Australian citizens. Professor George Williams from the Gilbert and Tobin Centre for Public Law at the University of New South Wales said to the committee that a test of this kind is an ineffective way of instilling values. Someone who fundamentally disagreed with Australian values could pass the citizenship test by correctly identifying the answers, even if they do not have a personal commitment to the values that the answers express. There is a concern that not only will individuals be answering questions that they might not necessarily agree with, but also that they could simply rote-learn answers to questions, or answer them in accordance with what they know is the right answer rather than with what they actually believe in.</p> <p>Another factor that was drawn to our attention during the course of the committee hearings is that the government has relied on a number of opinion polls to formulate this legislation and introduce a citizenship test. In my view, and in the view of a number of witnesses to the committee, it is not appropriate for an opinion poll to be the determining factor in the legislative or policy-making process. In addition, the government said that it has relied on the fact that other countries such as Canada, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom and the United States have introduced citizenship tests, but when the department was questioned at the committee hearing about the effectiveness of these countries’ citizenship-testing arrangements, we were told that, at least in the UK and Canada, there has not been any evaluation of the citizenship test. The department was able to inform the committee only that they had not seen any evidence of it being a disincentive for people to apply for citizenship. In any event, comparing Australia’s experience with citizenship practices in other countries is not relevant. Every country has an individual history relating to citizenship and a different experience on which to base its policies. A witness from the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission told the committee:</p> ~~<p class="italic">For us to adopt precedents from the UK without understanding the basic differences between our countries would be dangerous.</p>~~ <p>I move on now to some of the concerns that were expressed in relation to the content and the nature of the citizenship test. The 20-question, multiple-choice citizenship test seeks to test prospective citizens on their knowledge of Australia and of Australian values. It is not clear what exactly our identifiable Australian values are. Can they even be identified? Are they unique to Australia? Values are a very subjective concept, and some values such as freedom, democracy, respect for the rule of law, equality and non-discrimination are values which are held in countries other than Australia. Should we therefore be testing prospective citizens on the presumption that they do not already hold these values? In one submission to the committee, it was said that testing people on common values implies that there is only one set of Australian values and one type of Australian citizen and that this undermines the vital role that multiculturalism and diversity play in Australian society.</p> <p>One of the most concerning features of this legislative scheme is that it is the minister who will determine what are Australia’s values and this decision will not be transparent for others to assess or even review. It remains to be seen how the minister will determine what constitutes Australian values. However, with this ambiguity about what constitutes identifiable Australian values, and the different backgrounds from which people come to take the test, there is certainly no overwhelming evidence to support the proposition that a multiple-choice test is indeed an adequate way to test and assess a person’s values and whether they are consistent with so-called Australian values.</p> <p>It was concerning to us as members of the committee that members of parliament have not had, and will not have, the opportunity to review and consult on the likely content of the test questions before this legislation is passed. The entire legislative scheme that the government intends to introduce establishes the structure for citizenship testing, yet the actual test itself remains a mystery. At the time of the committee hearings—and it is still the case—no guidance as to the nature of the test had been provided, nor was the content of the supporting resource booklet from which people will learn for the test provided to the committee. The secrecy and lack of transparency or readiness—whatever it is—on the part of the government in regard to this test is quite concerning. The legislation makes the citizenship test a pivotal step in achieving an important legal status and, in these circumstances, transparency and accountability are critical.</p> <p>The potential impact of this bill is also of concern, and it was raised by a number of witnesses to the committee. There are some factors which have been identified as being more problematic than others. In particular, it was raised with us that the test has the potential to deter people from applying for citizenship. We heard that it should be expected that the number of applicants for citizenship will fall after the test is introduced. The intimidating and stressful nature of the formal test could act as a deterrent, and people with a low level of ordinary literacy—not to mention computer literacy—could well be deterred from attempting the test and therefore obtaining Australian citizenship. The submission by the Human Rights Education Centre at the Curtin University of Technology raised concern that the proposed testing regime will have a disproportionately negative impact on already disadvantaged and marginalised groups within society, including refugees, women, people with disabilities, people in rural areas and people from non-English-speaking backgrounds. The specific hurdles that people from these groups are likely to face include—for women, for example—the fact that family care obligations often make it very difficult for women to attend English language courses provided by the government.</p> <p>In the case of humanitarian entrants a significant number of refugees, as we know, are survivors of torture and trauma. They may continue to experience the after-effects of this torture and trauma, and this can quite easily impact on their ability to learn and process new information, let alone a new language. So, there is the potential that the test will have a disproportionate impact on these persons from disadvantaged groups, particularly insofar as it is going to impact on those who do not speak English.</p> <p>The legislation fails to take into account that people with limited language skills can still make an important contribution to Australian society. In light of the potentially significant impact this test will place on certain persons, it is also concerning to see that the minister has no discretion under the bill to make exceptions for individuals who are disadvantaged by testing arrangements. The only exemptions from the testing requirements are for persons over the age of 60, for those under the age of 18, for persons with a physical and/or mental disability and for people with literacy problems. It was said to us in the committee that there should be an exemption for refugee and humanitarian entrants who have a limited education and/or interrupted schooling, and I think that there certainly is some merit in that.</p> <p>The Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission argued that the bill contains no adequate safeguards to ensure that the creation of different tests does not operate to unfairly discriminate against particular categories of applicants. They also argued, as I have said, that the bill should provide a mechanism to allow the minister to make exemptions or to put into place an alternative process for applicants who are unfairly disadvantaged by having to sit the test.</p> <p>One of the principal concerns that was raised at the committee hearings was the wide scope given by the bill for the exercise of ministerial discretion. The proposed legislation will include a new section, section 23A, which gives the minister alone the power to approve what will constitute the citizenship test. A number of witnesses before the committee expressed their concern that the test would not be a legislative instrument and, therefore, disallowable by the parliament. The committee heard considerable evidence in this regard, and we were certainly concerned that the test would not be subjected to parliamentary scrutiny. The suggestion made by the committee is that the test questions be tabled in the parliament as a measure at least of some reassurance that there will be the opportunity for members of parliament to scrutinise the test before it is made available and becomes part of the testing regime.</p> <p>We saw that a considerable amount of funding is going to be spent on implementing the citizenship test. In the view of a number of witnesses to the committee, the funding that is going to be spent on this test would be much better spent on alternative programs to assist Australia’s new and potential citizens. There are many examples of these types of programs—programs that seek to improve settlement, orientation, and language and education programs for new migrants. In addition, there is the need for ongoing community support and integration programs such as employment skills programs. It is also very important to support new families with children by providing affordable childcare options so that parents are able to access employment and attend English language classes. Civics education classes are another way in which new citizens can be successfully integrated into Australian society, as opposed to answering a set of test questions correctly.</p> <p>In conclusion, I reiterate that Labor will be supporting the passage of this legislation, but I think that the concerns of those witnesses who came before the committee ought to be placed on the record because a great deal of thought has gone into their submissions. Senator Lundy has foreshadowed that Labor will be moving an amendment that there be instituted a formal and comprehensive review of the impact of the bill after three years. I think that this is absolutely essential. A number of the matters that I have raised here today and that were put before the committee and detailed in the committee’s report need to be carefully reviewed and scrutinised as the legislation comes into effect so that we can see what the impact is upon citizenship numbers and upon the number of people who apply for citizenship and whether or not the citizenship test is acting as a disincentive or as an exclusionary tool for people who otherwise would become Australian citizens, rather than having the desired impact and making for a more inclusive Australian society.</p> ~~<p class='motion-notice motion-notice-truncated'>Long debate text truncated.</p>~~

~~Debate resumed.~~
The majority voted in favour of the [bill](http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id:legislation/billhome/R2748)'s main idea. In parliamentary jargon, they voted to read the bill for a [second time](https://www.peo.gov.au/learning/fact-sheets/making-a-law.html). The Senate can now discuss the bill in more detail.
### What is the bill's main idea?
The purpose of the bill is to introduce a test that a person has to pass before they can become a citizen.
~~Linda Kirk~~
I was speaking before question time in this second reading debate on the <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id:legislation/billhome/R2748">Australian Citizenship Amendment (Citizenship Testing) Bill 2007</a> and the citizenship test that it seeks to introduce. One of the stated aims of the bill is to achieve a more inclusive society. However, in my view, and in the view of a number of witnesses before the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, the test, by its very nature, is a very exclusionary measure to achieve this aim. Tests are, by their very nature, designed to be passed or failed, so it difficult to see exactly how this bill is going to promote a more inclusive society.
It is critical, I think, that this test does not act as a de facto English test or a test reminiscent of a bygone era—namely, the White Australia policy of the past. Whilst the citizenship test will attempt to measure a prospective citizen’s knowledge of Australia and its values and way of life, many average Australian citizens have a very poor understanding of Australia’s history and aspects of government. I would therefore be concerned that a number of Australian citizens may not pass the test if they were asked to sit it.
In the committee hearings, another concern that was raised about this test was that it might result in a higher threshold of knowledge for individuals who are not yet Australian citizens. Professor George Williams from the Gilbert and Tobin Centre for Public Law at the University of New South Wales said to the committee that a test of this kind is an ineffective way of instilling values. Someone who fundamentally disagreed with Australian values could pass the citizenship test by correctly identifying the answers, even if they do not have a personal commitment to the values that the answers express. There is a concern that not only will individuals be answering questions that they might not necessarily agree with, but also that they could simply rote-learn answers to questions, or answer them in accordance with what they know is the right answer rather than with what they actually believe in.
Another factor that was drawn to our attention during the course of the committee hearings is that the government has relied on a number of opinion polls to formulate this legislation and introduce a citizenship test. In my view, and in the view of a number of witnesses to the committee, it is not appropriate for an opinion poll to be the determining factor in the legislative or policy-making process. In addition, the government said that it has relied on the fact that other countries such as Canada, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom and the United States have introduced citizenship tests, but when the department was questioned at the committee hearing about the effectiveness of these countries’ citizenship-testing arrangements, we were told that, at least in the UK and Canada, there has not been any evaluation of the citizenship test. The department was able to inform the committee only that they had not seen any evidence of it being a disincentive for people to apply for citizenship. In any event, comparing Australia’s experience with citizenship practices in other countries is not relevant. Every country has an individual history relating to citizenship and a different experience on which to base its policies. A witness from the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission told the committee:
~~For us to adopt precedents from the UK without understanding the basic differences between our countries would be dangerous.~~
I move on now to some of the concerns that were expressed in relation to the content and the nature of the citizenship test. The 20-question, multiple-choice citizenship test seeks to test prospective citizens on their knowledge of Australia and of Australian values. It is not clear what exactly our identifiable Australian values are. Can they even be identified? Are they unique to Australia? Values are a very subjective concept, and some values such as freedom, democracy, respect for the rule of law, equality and non-discrimination are values which are held in countries other than Australia. Should we therefore be testing prospective citizens on the presumption that they do not already hold these values? In one submission to the committee, it was said that testing people on common values implies that there is only one set of Australian values and one type of Australian citizen and that this undermines the vital role that multiculturalism and diversity play in Australian society.
One of the most concerning features of this legislative scheme is that it is the minister who will determine what are Australia’s values and this decision will not be transparent for others to assess or even review. It remains to be seen how the minister will determine what constitutes Australian values. However, with this ambiguity about what constitutes identifiable Australian values, and the different backgrounds from which people come to take the test, there is certainly no overwhelming evidence to support the proposition that a multiple-choice test is indeed an adequate way to test and assess a person’s values and whether they are consistent with so-called Australian values.
It was concerning to us as members of the committee that members of parliament have not had, and will not have, the opportunity to review and consult on the likely content of the test questions before this legislation is passed. The entire legislative scheme that the government intends to introduce establishes the structure for citizenship testing, yet the actual test itself remains a mystery. At the time of the committee hearings—and it is still the case—no guidance as to the nature of the test had been provided, nor was the content of the supporting resource booklet from which people will learn for the test provided to the committee. The secrecy and lack of transparency or readiness—whatever it is—on the part of the government in regard to this test is quite concerning. The legislation makes the citizenship test a pivotal step in achieving an important legal status and, in these circumstances, transparency and accountability are critical.
The potential impact of this bill is also of concern, and it was raised by a number of witnesses to the committee. There are some factors which have been identified as being more problematic than others. In particular, it was raised with us that the test has the potential to deter people from applying for citizenship. We heard that it should be expected that the number of applicants for citizenship will fall after the test is introduced. The intimidating and stressful nature of the formal test could act as a deterrent, and people with a low level of ordinary literacy—not to mention computer literacy—could well be deterred from attempting the test and therefore obtaining Australian citizenship. The submission by the Human Rights Education Centre at the Curtin University of Technology raised concern that the proposed testing regime will have a disproportionately negative impact on already disadvantaged and marginalised groups within society, including refugees, women, people with disabilities, people in rural areas and people from non-English-speaking backgrounds. The specific hurdles that people from these groups are likely to face include—for women, for example—the fact that family care obligations often make it very difficult for women to attend English language courses provided by the government.
In the case of humanitarian entrants a significant number of refugees, as we know, are survivors of torture and trauma. They may continue to experience the after-effects of this torture and trauma, and this can quite easily impact on their ability to learn and process new information, let alone a new language. So, there is the potential that the test will have a disproportionate impact on these persons from disadvantaged groups, particularly insofar as it is going to impact on those who do not speak English.
The legislation fails to take into account that people with limited language skills can still make an important contribution to Australian society. In light of the potentially significant impact this test will place on certain persons, it is also concerning to see that the minister has no discretion under the bill to make exceptions for individuals who are disadvantaged by testing arrangements. The only exemptions from the testing requirements are for persons over the age of 60, for those under the age of 18, for persons with a physical and/or mental disability and for people with literacy problems. It was said to us in the committee that there should be an exemption for refugee and humanitarian entrants who have a limited education and/or interrupted schooling, and I think that there certainly is some merit in that.
The Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission argued that the bill contains no adequate safeguards to ensure that the creation of different tests does not operate to unfairly discriminate against particular categories of applicants. They also argued, as I have said, that the bill should provide a mechanism to allow the minister to make exemptions or to put into place an alternative process for applicants who are unfairly disadvantaged by having to sit the test.
One of the principal concerns that was raised at the committee hearings was the wide scope given by the bill for the exercise of ministerial discretion. The proposed legislation will include a new section, section 23A, which gives the minister alone the power to approve what will constitute the citizenship test. A number of witnesses before the committee expressed their concern that the test would not be a legislative instrument and, therefore, disallowable by the parliament. The committee heard considerable evidence in this regard, and we were certainly concerned that the test would not be subjected to parliamentary scrutiny. The suggestion made by the committee is that the test questions be tabled in the parliament as a measure at least of some reassurance that there will be the opportunity for members of parliament to scrutinise the test before it is made available and becomes part of the testing regime.
We saw that a considerable amount of funding is going to be spent on implementing the citizenship test. In the view of a number of witnesses to the committee, the funding that is going to be spent on this test would be much better spent on alternative programs to assist Australia’s new and potential citizens. There are many examples of these types of programs—programs that seek to improve settlement, orientation, and language and education programs for new migrants. In addition, there is the need for ongoing community support and integration programs such as employment skills programs. It is also very important to support new families with children by providing affordable childcare options so that parents are able to access employment and attend English language classes. Civics education classes are another way in which new citizens can be successfully integrated into Australian society, as opposed to answering a set of test questions correctly.
In conclusion, I reiterate that Labor will be supporting the passage of this legislation, but I think that the concerns of those witnesses who came before the committee ought to be placed on the record because a great deal of thought has gone into their submissions. Senator Lundy has foreshadowed that Labor will be moving an amendment that there be instituted a formal and comprehensive review of the impact of the bill after three years. I think that this is absolutely essential. A number of the matters that I have raised here today and that were put before the committee and detailed in the committee’s report need to be carefully reviewed and scrutinised as the legislation comes into effect so that we can see what the impact is upon citizenship numbers and upon the number of people who apply for citizenship and whether or not the citizenship test is acting as a disincentive or as an exclusionary tool for people who otherwise would become Australian citizens, rather than having the desired impact and making for a more inclusive Australian society.
~~Long debate text truncated.~~