|
Navigation: Previous Page | Contents | Next Page
Minority report by the Australian Greens
Multiculturalism is at the
heart of Australian society and democracy.
Despite attempts by various
governments over the years to limit and restrict the diversity of our nation, Australia has
continued to grow into a mature and cosmopolitan country.
This is a testament to both
those who have been born in Australia and the many migrants who have made a new life here.
From the beginning of
Australia with the establishment of the White Australia policy to today,
fair-minded people have had to stand up for a vision of Australia based on
openness and generosity - not one based on fear and a closed door.
The government's proposed
Citizenship Test contained in the Australian Citizenship Amendment (Citizenship
Testing) Bill 2007 is not only a test for those seeking to become citizens,
it is a test for Australia's political leaders.
Do we again want to follow
the government down the path of racism and division or do we want to stand up
for a diverse and fair society?
The Australian Greens will
oppose the citizenship test bill for the following reasons:
- The improvement of migrant's
English language skills and understanding of Australian life can best be
achieved by investing in and expanding English language and settlement
programmes.
- The proposed citizenship test is a
divisive and dangerous move that will break up our cohesive society rather than
achieve the government's stated objective of increasing the cohesiveness of our
society.
- It will distort and undermine
existing English language settlement programmes.
- It will hand to a Minister an
enormous and unregulated discretion to determine the scope and nature of a test
that will determine the basis on which someone resides in Australia.
- It is based on a policy that is
driven more by short-term political considerations than any identified policy
need.
Recommendation: That the
bill be opposed
Need for the bill
The Australian Greens agree
with the evidence presented to the committee that the need for this bill has
not been established. We agree with the Victorian Immigrant and Refugee Women's
Coalition (VIRWC) who argued that there is no evidence to indicate that a
change in Australian citizenship law is necessary:
...Australia has been well served
by its existing inclusive citizenship laws, to the extent that we now have a
culturally diverse and socially cohesive collection of people who are proud to
call Australia home.[1]
The Forum of Australian Services
for Survivors of Torture and Trauma (FASSTT) expressed a similar view:
...over the years we have
successfully integrated thousands of migrants and refugees from diverse
cultural and linguistic backgrounds into Australian society, without the need
for a written citizenship test. We do not believe there have been any
significant changes to this situation that would warrant the introduction of a
formal test.[2]
The federal government has
failed to present evidence about why this bill is needed. During the Senate
committee hearing the Secretary of the Department pointed to the fact that
other countries had introduced a citizenship test and that the government had
released a discussion paper on a citizenship test as evidence that a test was
the best way to measure someone's commitment to Australia. The Secretary was
unable to point to any evidence in Australia or overseas that a test was the best way to measure
someone's commitment to a country. [3]
The submission from the
Australian Association of TESOL Associations (ACTA) noted:
The Minister points to the use of tests in
countries such as the UK, Canada and the
US as evidence of the need to have one in Australia. These tests require basic recall such as the colours on
the flag (US), the names of the aboriginal languages (Canada), or which court uses a jury (UK). We have no evidence that the use of these tests provides these
countries with a greater sense of shared identity and values than ours. Indeed,
there are quantifiable statistics to suggest that it is just the opposite. [4]
Ms Misty Adoniou, the President of ACTA expanded on this to the
committee by talking about the London bombings:
We certainly saw that with the London
bombings. These people had British citizenship, but it certainly did not mean
that they automatically aspired to some kind of British value system—whatever
that may have been—or that they felt part of that safe, secure and cohesive
society. They certainly did not feel part of a cohesive society. There are many
indications that there are many disenfranchised groups within the United States,
including those who were born there but including people who have been given
citizenship or who, in fact, have been denied citizenship and have since been
sent home to their countries—for example, to Cambodia and Laos. Up to
this point, we seem to have the most cohesive society and it would seem strange
to be suddenly pursuing policies pursued by other countries which do not seem
to enjoy the cohesivity that we have. We seem to be fixing something that is
not currently broken. [5]
The test is a fatally
flawed policy
The government has claimed
that the 'test will encourage prospective citizens to gain knowledge they need
to support successful integration into Australian society.'[6]
However evidence to the
committee showed that the test may in fact do the opposite.
Ms Adoniou, the President of ACTA told the committee:
I
worry that what we will do is disenfranchise, disengage and marginalise people
and the consequences of that could be exactly the opposite to what this test
aspires to achieve. [7]
The committee heard from a
number of witnesses including Ms Voula Messimeri-Kianidis from the Federation of Ethnic Communities Council of
Australia (FECCA) that the citizenship test is likely to discourage many people
from seeking citizenship:
Our concern is that a lot of people who would feel
uncomfortable about any testing at all, particularly if they have a low level
of literacy, will not apply for citizenship but will self-select out. Part of
the deep concern we have about the introduction of a formal citizenship test is
that it will create a two-tiered society, with the people who have been
accepted into this country under humanitarian refugee settlement schemes in one
tier. Australia is a welcoming and tolerant country in regard to its
international obligations but, once we have accepted people as permanent
residents, as opposed to having full citizenship, they will forever stay within
that limbo. [8]
The committee heard that it
will undermine the efficacy of existing and future English language programs
for migrants and will create barriers for many disadvantaged people.
Evidence to the committee
showed that the proposed test would not be able to achieve the goals set for it
by the government.
Mr Sam Wong, Chair of the Canberra Multicultural Community Forum
summarised many of problems reflected in much of the evidence to the committee:
The
test will not contribute to the government goal of instilling Australian values
or helping migrants to integrate and maximising the opportunities available to
them. It is unreasonable to suggest that a short, written, multiple-choice exam
will [test] whether the applicant would be a good citizen rather than just test
rote learning ... While it could be argued that it would be appropriate to test
citizenship applicants on their English skills and understanding of citizens'
responsibilities, the suggestion that Australian values can be tested based on
the view of a single Minister is totally undemocratic. It is almost impossible
to draft questions to test Australian values, particularly concerns like
mateship, respect for freedom and commitment to democracy. Testing people on
common values, which implies that there is only one set of Australian values
and one type of Australian citizen, undermines the vital role that
multiculturalism and diversity play in Australian society. [9]
The Australian Greens believe
that rather than encouraging people to embrace Australian citizenship and
support for so-called Australian values it will erode societal solidarity and
cohesion.
The test will threaten to
further widen the gulf between groups of people in society and bolster racism
and discrimination.
The importance of
English
The Australian Greens believe
proficiency in a common language – English – is an important underpinning of
our society and democracy.
Learning of English for many,
if not most people, is a life-long process. It can not and should not be
subject to arbitrary time limits or hurdles.
Acquisition of English should
be encouraged and supported not imposed. English as a second language
programmes are in desperate need of more resources and funding from government.
The
Australian Greens concerns at the impression that English language proficiency
amongst new migrants is somehow a problem have been deepened by our analysis of
recent census data and analysis of the Department of Immigration and
Citizenship reports that have examined English proficiency.
In
our submission to the Minister's Discussion paper on the citizenship test we
outlined statistical evidence that suggests that, rather than declining, in
fact English language proficiency amongst new migrants has been improving over
the last decade. Indeed this analysis is reinforced by the changes to English
language classifications used by the Department of Immigration as a result of overall
improvements in English language proficiency. The Secretary of the Department
of Immigration noted in a 2001 report 'Statistical Focus 2001 - classification
of countries into English proficiency groups':
The overall EP index for all overseas born has increased between
1966 and 2001 from 78.8 to 85.2. This increase may be attributed to changes in
immigration policy over this period, favouring English language proficiency in
selection procedures, as well as an historical trend towards increasing use of
English around the world.
Evidence to the committee
suggests that a citizenship test conducted in English rather than encourage
proficiency in English will in fact undermine existing English programs and
distort future programs.
The ACTA gave evidence to the
committee of the grave impact a citizenship test could have on teaching
programs.
The President of ACTA, Ms Adoniou told
the committee:
As
soon as there is a test, teachers feel the need to get their students to pass
the test and students put pressure on to be given what it is that they need to
pass the test. Suddenly, lessons become all about passing the test. Certainly
from my experience overseas, where everybody is sitting English language tests
to prove their English language proficiency, we have huge evidence that all
good teaching practice goes out the door as people do test preparation ... It is
very bad pedagogical practice because the aim is so limited. Your capacity to
pass an English test is in no way an indication of your capacity to operate in
the thousands of everyday communications you need to have. [10]
Ms Adoniou gave further evidence to the committee that even if,
as was likely, the allocated AMEP hours were redirected to preparation for
passing the citizenship they would be insufficient.
Ms Wrigley from the Refugee Advice and Casework Services (RACS)
gave similar evidence:
The contents of the proposed test, including questions
about Australian values, would be outside the vocabulary scope of basic
language classes for those learning a new language within the first 510 hours
of study. [11]
Evidence was presented to the
committee that the objective of improving migrant's understanding of life in Australia would best be achieved by presenting information about Australia in the migrant's own language.
The submission from ACTA argued:
Citizenship and values do not need to be presented in English to
be understood. They are much better understood via the language that the
migrant is most competent in. [12]
This is an approach that has
been adopted overseas. For example, in the United
States of America applicants for
citizenship are permitted to take the knowledge component of the test in a
language of their choice.
Ministerial power
In recent weeks we have seen
the problems that arise from having too much discretion invested in the hands
of a single minister.
The decisions of Minister Andrews in relation to the Haneef matter reinforce the
dangers of this bill. The Australian Greens do not support and we are sure the
Australian public would not support Minister
Andrews deciding on the questions that are put to prospective citizens as part
of this test.
There is some ambiguity about
whether or not the bill gives total discretion to the Minister but it is clear
from evidence to the committee that it is the intention that the Minister's
decisions relating to the form, scope and content of the citizenship test would
not be subject to Parliamentary disallowance.
This reflects a common
practice of the present government which is again seeking to give discretion to
the Minister to determine the nature and extent of the citizenship test without
reference to Parliament.
Regardless of the value or
otherwise of the present Minister's preferences for what should be contained in
the citizenship test and how it will operate, there is no guarantee against any
future Minister abusing such a power.
Not withstanding The
Australian Greens opposition to the whole bill we do not support the
discretions contained in proposed subsection 23A of the bill.
Conclusion
Many of those who made
submissions to the committee questioned the wisdom of attempting to test
Australian values rather than more universal principles such as fairness and
democracy.
The Australian Greens share
these concerns. The idea that the acquisition of citizenship should be based on
a historical adherence to a country's purported values – set by government
decree – should give pause to any student of recent history. In fact the worth
of a citizen may be evident more in their refusal to adopt the dominant values
of a society rather than embracing them.
Dr Bibby from the NSW Council for Civil Liberties made this
point to the committee when he said:
Think
of Rwanda: you might choose to live in Rwanda for, say, the sake of your medical expertise, but you
would not expect to adopt the values of the Hutu, or certainly not those of a
few years ago. You might have chosen to stay in Nazi Germany. You might live at
present in Zimbabwe. The notion that people ought to adopt the values of
the society that they are in is plain nonsense. [13]
Rather it seems clear that
the values often claimed as Australian values – fairness, respect for human
rights and democracy - are in fact universal values shared by most people all
over the world but often not honoured by their governments.
The Australian Greens support
increased opportunities being available for migrants to Australia to
improve their English language skills and understanding of life in Australia.
We do not accept that a test
consisting of 20 multiple choice questions is an effective way to improve
migrant's English language skills and understanding of life in Australia.
We share the view of Ms
Adoniou, the President of ACTA that:
...tests
have been developed to gate-keep. That is what they are there for. [14]
We support investment in
programmes that improve migrant's English language skills and understanding of
Australian life. We recognise that the introduction of the proposed citizenship
test will undermine the effectiveness of existing English language courses as
they will be forced to teach students to pass the test rather than learn the
English language skills that they need.
We can not support this bill
and the introduction of a citizenship test that will create division within the
Australian community.
Senator Kerry Nettle
Australian Greens
Navigation: Previous Page | Contents | Next Page
Website feedback: web.senate@aph.gov.au
Last reviewed 31 July 2007 by the Senate Web Administrator
© Commonwealth of Australia
Parliament of Australia Web Site Privacy Statement
Images courtesy of AUSPIC
|
