Chapter 3 - Purpose and impact of the Bill
3.1
The majority of evidence received by the committee opposed the Bill. However,
not all of these submitters were opposed to the notion of citizenship testing
itself; some just objected to the particular regime proposed by this Bill.
3.2
Some of the key issues and concerns raised in the course of the
committee's inquiry include:
- the purpose of, and need for, the Bill, including whether the Bill
will achieve its aims;
- the potential impact of the Bill;
- legal and drafting issues;
- the content and nature of the proposed test; and
- resourcing and alternatives to citizenship testing.
3.3
The first two issues are discussed in this chapter of the report. The
remaining issues are discussed in Chapter 4.
Purpose of the Bill
3.4
The Explanatory Memorandum (EM) states that 'the introduction of a
citizenship test is a key part of the Government's ongoing commitment to help
migrants successfully integrate into the Australian community'.[1]
3.5
In his second reading speech, the Minister advanced several reasons for
the introduction of a citizenship test. First, he declared that:
The test will encourage prospective citizens to obtain the
knowledge they need to support successful integration into Australian society.
The citizenship test will provide them with the opportunity to demonstrate in
an objective way that they have the required knowledge of Australia, including
the responsibilities and privileges of citizenship, and a basic knowledge and
comprehension of English.[2]
3.6
The Minister also noted that citizenship not only confers certain
privileges, but also involves certain responsibilities, and that:
We need to make sure that people are not only familiar with Australia
and our values, but also able to understand and appreciate the commitment they
are required to make.[3]
3.7
Further, the Minister stated that:
The community also needs to be assured that migrants are able to
integrate into Australian society. Maintaining broad community support for our
migration and humanitarian program is critical. The ability to pass a formal
citizenship test sends a clear signal to the broader community that new
citizens know enough about our way of life and commit to it.[4]
Need for the Bill
3.8
However, many submissions queried the need for the Bill and expressed
satisfaction with the existing, informal citizenship testing arrangements.[5]
For example, the Victorian Immigrant and Refugee Women's Coalition (VIRWC)
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.[6]
3.9
Similarly, the Centre for Human Rights Education at the Curtin University
of Technology expressed its view that 'the current citizenship ceremony and
concomitant pledge are sufficient to indicate a person's commitment to Australia
and the community'.[7]
3.10
Indeed, the Castan Centre for Human Rights Law at Monash University (the
Castan Centre) argued that there is actually less need for a formal test since
the requirement for the period of permanent residence has been increased to 4
years.[8]
3.11
The Forum of Australian Services for Survivors of Torture and Trauma
(FASSTT) also stated its preference for retaining current citizenship
arrangements, arguing that:
...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.[9]
3.12
Similarly, Ms Misty Adoniou, President of the Australian Association of
TESOL Associations (ACTA) told the committee that 'we seem to be fixing
something that is not currently broken'.[10]
3.13
However, the Department explained that the Bill will make the
citizenship conferral process more objective:
The current method for assessing whether prospective citizenship
applicants meet the legal requirements for citizenship that they have a basic
knowledge of English, an adequate knowledge of the responsibilities and
privileges of citizenship and an understanding of the nature of their
application, is via an interview which is arguably a less objective method of
assessment.[11]
3.14
Mr David Yates, National Chief of Staff at the Australian Christian
Lobby, in expressing support for the proposed test, agreed that a test would be
'more objective'.[12]
3.15
In further support for the Bill, the Department also submitted that the
additional requirement in the Bill for an applicant to have adequate knowledge
of Australia would 'ensure that new citizens are familiar with Australia and
our values with the aim of helping them to better integrate and participate in
Australian society'.[13]
A representative of the Department added that:
It is the proposition of the government that in order to fully
participate in the Australian community it is appropriate that you speak the
national language or have a knowledge of the national language and that you
have some understanding of Australia, its history, its values, its national
symbols and its national geography. Therefore, in order to fully participate in
our society, a test of this nature is an appropriate way to measure that
person’s commitment.[14]
A response to security concerns?
3.16
There was some indication during the inquiry that the recent
introduction of citizenship testing in at least some countries had been a
legislative response to heightened concerns about terrorism.[15]
In particular, one witness suggested that it was important to distinguish what
is happening in the United Kingdom from what is happening in Australia and
that:
For us just to adopt precedents from the UK without
understanding the basic differences between our countries ... would be dangerous.[16]
Will the Bill achieve its aims?
3.17
Most submissions and witnesses generally agreed with the aims of the Bill,
particularly the objectives of encouraging prospective citizens to acquire English
language skills and an understanding of the Australian way of life. However,
many queried whether the Bill, if passed, would actually achieve its stated
objectives.[17]
For example, Professor Kim Rubenstein expressed her belief that:
Engendering a commitment to Australia can be encouraged in ways
other than formal citizenship testing. Formal testing would not assist in
ensuring a commitment to Australia's way of life and values.[18]
3.18
Similarly, Ms Anna Samson of the Refugee Council of Australia described
the citizenship test as 'rather a blunt instrument for achieving these goals'.[19]
The Refugee Council of Australia submitted that:
...there remains little evidence forwarded as to the practical,
positive impact that English language testing beyond that which currently
exists within the citizenship process, or a quiz on “the Australian way of
life”, will have on ensuring a higher “quality” of Australian citizen.[20]
3.19
Professor George Williams was concerned that 'the test will create extra
costs for government and a bureaucratic impediment to becoming a citizen
without actually providing the desired benefits'.[21]
In particular, Professor Williams argued 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.[22]
3.20
Many submissions suggested that the proposed citizenship test would not
be effective in building 'genuine, long term understanding and knowledge', but
would simply encourage rote‑learning.[23]
For example, the National Ethnic and Multicultural Broadcasters Council
suggested that 'cramming' can get people through a test but often the knowledge
will be superficial'.[24]
3.21
In the same vein, the Castan Centre submitted that:
It is difficult to understand how a formal test...will assist
migrants to integrate into the Australian community or generate a desire in
them to be “good citizens.” Such a test merely requires a person to do the
required reading and then tick the correct boxes based on what they have
prepared. It does nothing to encourage them to participate or connect with the
wider community. The test merely reflects a person's ability of rote learning.[25]
3.22
Some submissions also felt that the test would set double standards. For
example, Professor Williams suggested that many Australians have a poor
knowledge of Australian history and aspects of governance. He was therefore
concerned that the Bill would set the threshold of knowledge for new citizens
at a higher level than is the case for current citizens.[26]
3.23
Several submissions also criticised the proposed test on the basis that
it would promote exclusion, rather than encouraging integration into Australian
society.[27]
For example, ACTA observed that:
A feeling of belonging and acceptance is key to a cohesive,
united and loyal society, and tests that by their very nature are exclusionary
are not the way to a united society.[28]
3.24
Indeed, Ms Adoniou of ACTA told the committee :
I can think of nothing more exclusionary than having a test to
let you in. If we truly think of ourselves as an inclusive society then why
would we use the most exclusive measure? A test is literally designed for you
to fail or pass, so it is set up to keep people out.[29]
3.25
The Parliamentary Library's Bills Digest further observed that:
The test might also suffer from historical perceptions of
previous practice in immigration during the ‘White Australia’ era. The general
test requirements, especially the language requirement could be said to
resonate with earlier times in Australian history, with government bureaucrats
backed by official prejudice deciding which aspiring immigrants had sufficient
potential to become Australian/British to be allowed to stay in the country and
be naturalised.[30]
3.26
On the other hand, the Bills Digest suggested that if the government
wishes:
...to maintain a large and non-discriminatory immigration program,
it has to maintain the support of the general public. The citizenship test in
this sense can be seen as having a significant symbolic role in reassuring the
public. It is arguably then a pro-immigration gesture...[31]
3.27
Finally, it is noted that, as further justification for the Bill, the Minister
also pointed out during his second reading speech that there was 'support from
the community for the introduction of a citizenship test'. This statement was
based on the response to the Department's consultation process during which, as
outlined earlier, sixty percent of respondents supported the introduction of
the citizenship test.[32]
The committee also notes polls that have been conducted by the media indicate
considerable public support for the introduction of citizenship test.[33]
3.28
During this inquiry, this committee received some submissions which
strongly supported the introduction of the proposed test.[34]
For example, the Australian Christian Lobby told the committee that it supports
the proposed citizenship 'in principle' and that:
It is right and appropriate that immigrants who wish to become
Australian citizens should be expected to learn something about our history and
culture before citizenship is conferred upon them. Such a process should assist
immigrants to understand their new country and therefore help them to play
their part in its future.[35]
3.29
In supporting the test, the Hon. Dr Bob Such MP told the committee he
believed that 'Australian citizenship is something that should be highly valued
and regarded as a privilege'.[36]
Dr Such also referred to the practice in other countries such as the United
Kingdom, Canada and the United States of America, which already have a form
of citizenship testing.[37]
3.30
However, other submissions queried the success of these overseas
experiences.[38]
Professor Kim Rubenstein argued that 'the fact that other countries have
introduced this form of testing does not necessarily mean it is the best way
forward'.[39]
3.31
In support of the introduction of citizenship test, a Departmental
witness pointed to not only the public support for the test in Australia, but
also the fact that many overseas countries have formal citizenship testing:
...there are a range of counties which believe that, in forming a
decision as to whether a newcomer to that country should access the rights and
privileges of becoming a citizen, it is appropriate that the person have some
understanding of the country, its background and its people. That is clearly
seen as a worthwhile policy instrument by a number of other countries.[40]
3.32
The committee queried whether the Department had looked at the
effectiveness of citizenship testing in other countries. A representative of
the Department responded that 'we have not seen, to my knowledge, any data or
research that would lead one to conclude that the tests were a disincentive for
people to apply'.[41]
The Department further noted that its enquiries indicated that, to date, the United
Kingdom and Canadian governments have not conducted any formal evaluations of
their citizenship tests.[42]
Impact of the Bill
3.33
Concerns were also raised in relation to the potential impact of the Bill,
including:
- whether the test would act as a disincentive to citizenship; and
- its potential discriminatory impact on disadvantaged groups.
3.34
Several submitters therefore suggested that exemptions or other
safeguards should be included in the Bill in order to ameliorate these
potential impacts. These issues are discussed further below.
Will the test be a disincentive?
3.35
Some submissions were concerned that the proposed testing regime would
be a disincentive and even a barrier to citizenship.[43]
3.36
Professor Rubenstein, for example, suggested that a test would be likely
to discourage some people from applying for citizenship. She expected that
there would be a drop in the number of applicants for citizenship once the test
is introduced.[44]
The Refugee Council of Australia considered that a test would exclude large
numbers of people from being able to participate as full members of Australian
society.[45]
3.37
The committee also heard that the intimidating and stressful nature of
formal testing could act as a particular deterrent for many people. For
example, Ms Voula Messimeri-Kianidis, Chair of the Federation of Ethnic
Communities Councils of Australia (FECCA), told the committee that:
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.[46]
3.38
Some submissions also expressed concern that the test would be computer‑based.[47]
For example, the NSW Council for Civil Liberties (NSWCCL) suggested that
special arrangements should be made for computer-illiterate applicants.[48]
3.39
Although the citizenship test was seen as a potential barrier to some, the
committee notes that a person may sit the citizenship test as many times as
they want until they pass the test.[49]
As the Parliamentary Library's Bills Digest points out:
...the current test will not be hard to pass, with the given
concessions for age and disability, the study booklets, and AMEP [Adult Migrant
English Program] and other assistance, sample questions on the internet, plus
unlimited attempts.[50]
Impact on disadvantaged groups
3.40
A key concern with the proposed test was its potentially discriminatory
impact on disadvantaged groups.[51]
For example, the Centre for Human Rights Education at the Curtin University of
Technology was concerned that the proposed testing regime would have a
disproportionately negative impact on already disadvantaged and marginalised
groups within society, including refugees, women, people with disabilities, people living in
rural areas, people from non-English speaking backgrounds, and people from
lower socio-economic groups.[52]
3.41
In relation to women, several submissions pointed out that family and
care obligations of women make it difficult for them to make use of government
language assistance programs. For example, the VIRWC argued that:
...the imposition of a test places a particularly onerous burden
on immigrant and refugee women...their primary duties often revolve around
childcare and housekeeping obligations, which severely restrict their ability
to attend classes, read examination materials and booklets, practise English,
and spend time revising for a test.[53]
3.42
In response to the committee's questioning as to the implementation of
the testing regime in rural and regional areas, a Department witness responded
that:
The test will be available in 47 locations around the country.
Thirteen of those locations will be the DIAC [Department of Immigration and
Citizenship] offices, which are in the capital cities, Torres Strait, Southport
and Cairns I think. The other locations will be in Medicare and/or Centrelink
offices and we are currently in negotiations with those two organisations. We
estimate, on past business levels, that the DIAC network will account for some
90 per cent of business, so the balance, 10 per cent, will have access via
Centrelink and Medicare. In the short to medium term it will be DIAC staff who
travel to those locations to administer the test using the facilities of our
colleagues in those two organisations. The 47, as I think I mentioned, were
mapped according to business levels. Clearly the current spread of Australia
Post offices is much wider than that, but some of those offices may not have
seen a citizenship interview for some years, a decade or more.[54]
3.43
In relation to impacts on refugee and humanitarian entrants, Ms Katie Wrigley
of the Refugee Advice and Casework Service (RACS) told the committee that:
A significant number of refugees are survivors of torture and
trauma, and many continue to suffer from debilitating after-effects, including
those associated with post-traumatic stress disorder as well as many other
psychological conditions, for years to come.
Such after-effects ... impact on an individual's ability to learn
or process new material and, most relevantly in this context, to learn a new
language. Some refugees may have had a very limited education in their home
country, possibly due to a denial of access to basic education on the basis of
their race, ethnicity or religion. Others may have had their education
interrupted by civil war or internal armed conflict, or may have simply been
unable to access education due to poverty. In addition, some refugees are
illiterate in their native language. All of these categories of people will
struggle to learn English with the ease of other migrants.[55]
3.44
Mr Paul Power, Chief Executive Officer of the Refugee Council of
Australia, further told the committee that:
For refugees, arguably more so than any other category of
migrants, obtaining citizenship in the country of their resettlement is crucial
to ensuring good resettlement outcomes. That is demonstrated by the fact that
there are much higher levels of citizenship uptake among refugees and
humanitarian entrants than for any other category of migrant in Australia. As
such, it must be recognised that any efforts to change citizenship
requirements—in particular, any efforts to make citizenship more
restrictive—will have a disproportionately adverse impact on this group of
migrants.[56]
Importance of citizenship
3.45
In this context, several submissions and witnesses pointed out the
importance of citizenship in terms of access to certain basic rights, including
rights to vote, to apply for an Australian passport, to access certain financial
assistance from the government and employment opportunities, and freedom from deportation
under the Migration Act 1958 (Cth).[57]
For example, for refugee and humanitarian entrants, the right to apply for a
passport can be one of the most important practical benefits of citizenship, as
it can assist in reunification with family members.[58]
3.46
The Castan Centre warned that 'any measure which will prevent people
from acquiring citizenship and thereby place them in a disadvantaged position
must be carefully considered from a human rights perspective'.[59]
3.47
Several submissions noted that citizenship may also have other important
benefits, including 'a sense of inclusion and acceptance into their adopted
community'.[60]
The Refugee Council of Australia also told the committee that 'for many
refugees and humanitarian entrants, citizenship is closely connected to their
sense of security and safety in a new country'.[61]
FASSTT similarly observed that:
Citizenship offers our clients an important contribution to
healing and recovery from their past experiences as it provides a sense of
security and settlement that is important in rebuilding their lives.[62]
Exemptions and other safeguards
Possible exemptions from the test
3.48
As a result of the concerns about the impact of the Bill discussed
above, several submissions suggested that the Bill should contain specific
exemptions for certain groups of people. As outlined earlier, there are already
separate eligibility criteria in the Act for people over the age of 60, under
the age of 18 and for persons with a physical or mental disability. Under the Bill,
it is proposed that special arrangements may also be made for people who have
literacy problems.[63]
3.49
Most submissions supported these exemptions. However, many suggested
that these exemptions should be broadened, particularly to include an exemption
for refugee and humanitarian entrants.[64]
For example, FASSTT suggested that many refugee and humanitarian entrants:
...have limited education and/or interrupted schooling. Many do
not have literacy in their first language. For many the impact of torture
and/or trauma means that they experience learning difficulties. As such, they
would be significantly disadvantaged in a formal test.[65]
3.50
The Australian Christian Lobby, who supported the Bill, in response to
the committee's questioning, agreed that such an exemption should be
considered:
We share some of the concerns that have been raised. There
should be some exemptions for people, especially those from the humanitarian
side, who have a poor understanding of English—for instance, they may have been
in the country working a lot and have not necessarily had the chance to learn
English to a proficient level...We agree with the test, and the minister should
have some discretion, we believe, for special exemptions for those people who
may not necessarily be able to complete in the normal way.[66]
3.51
However, Dr Stephen Chavura from the Festival of Light Australia felt
that an exemption for refugee and humanitarian entrants would send the wrong
signal:
...in the long run that [the proposed exemption for refugees] will
actually have a detrimental effect, because it does not really show that we are
interested in them participating in our democracy. If we tell them, ‘You must
learn English if you can,’ that shows that we are actually interested in their
input. We are not just excluding them immediately; we are actually giving them
a sign that we want their opinions, we want their voice...[67]
3.52
In answers to the committee's questioning on this issue, a Departmental representative
responded that:
Ultimately it becomes a philosophical question as to whether you
see the test as a bar or as an incentive. Certainly it is the government’s view
that the test is an incentive for people to learn about Australia and to be
able to communicate in English given that citizenship is not a tokenistic
thing.[68]
3.53
The witness from the Department acknowledged that refugee and
humanitarian entrants may have low levels of education and literacy, but also
pointed out that the government is spending 'hundreds of millions of dollars'
on English language training and English language services which are accessed
by many refugee and humanitarian entrants.[69]
The witness also informed the committee that:
The introduction of formal testing will be carefully monitored
to identify those prospective citizens for whom an alternative test or tests
may be appropriate. This approach will enable the development of an alternative
test or tests designed on the basis of identified need rather than on
conjecture.[70]
Other safeguards
3.54
The Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (HREOC) argued that
the Bill contains no adequate safeguards to ensure that the creation of
different tests does not operate unfairly against particular categories of
applicants. HREOC therefore proposed that the Bill should provide a mechanism
to allow for exemptions or an alternative process for applicants who are
unfairly disadvantaged by having to sit a test.[71]
HREOC suggested that:
...a suitable alternative procedure would be to enable an
applicant to undergo an interview with an officer of the Department of
Immigration and Citizenship to assess the requirements of s 23(2)(d), (e) and
(f), along similar lines to the procedure that exists currently. This
alternative procedure could be conditional upon the applicant sitting and
failing the written test (either once or on a number of occasions) or could
simply be triggered by an application to the Minister. In exceptional cases, it
might also be appropriate for the Minister to waive the testing requirement
altogether for a particular applicant.[72]
3.55
HREOC therefore made detailed suggestions for amendments to be made to
section 23(2A) of the Bill.[73]
In support of these suggestions, HREOC pointed out that Canada's citizenship
legislation allows a person to demonstrate adequate knowledge of Canada, and
one of the official languages of Canada, by undergoing an interview with a
citizenship judge as an alternative to a formal test. The Canadian legislation
also provides their Minister with a discretion to waive the eligibility
criteria on 'compassionate grounds'.[74]
HREOC further noted that New Zealand's Citizenship Act 1977 allows their
Minister to grant citizenship to an applicant if it 'would be in the public
interest because of exceptional circumstances of a humanitarian or other
nature...'.[75]
3.56
Several organisations suggested that the impact of the Bill should be
monitored and/or reviewed. For example, FECCA advocated 'consistent monitoring
of the consequences of the introduction of a citizenship test, to ensure that
there are no unintended consequences, bias or lack of fairness'.[76]
FECCA specifically suggested that data be collected to identify any groups or
clusters of people who were failing the citizenship test.[77]
The NSWCCL suggested that the Bill should contain a sunset clause to ensure
that the proposed testing regime is reviewed after three years. The NSWCCL felt
that this should include a review of the regime's impact on citizenship
conferral rates and certain groups within society.[78]
3.57
As outlined earlier, the Department noted that the Bill contains
provisions to allow for different tests, and reassured the committee that the
implementation of the test would be monitored on an ongoing basis to identify
those prospective citizens for whom an alternative test or tests would be
appropriate.[79]
Committee view
3.58
The committee accepts the Department's evidence that the proposed citizenship
testing regime will be more objective than the current system of an informal
interview. The committee considers that the proposed test will encourage
prospective citizens to familiarise themselves with Australian society and will
therefore help them integrate and participate in Australian society. The
committee also notes that there appears to be considerable public support for
the introduction of a citizenship test, and that many overseas countries have
similar tests. As discussed earlier, there is at least a perception that the
introduction of citizenship testing in some of those countries is, in part, a
response to concerns about terrorism. The committee acknowledges that the test
is being introduced in the context of heightened security concerns in Australia
but notes that this has not been put forward as a reason for introducing
citizenship testing in this country.
3.59
The committee notes suggestions that the proposed regime could provide a
disincentive for some people to apply for Australian citizenship. In the
absence of evidence of the effects of testing on applications for citizenship
in countries where testing is a feature of the application for citizenship, the
committee was not able to test that proposition.
3.60
The committee also acknowledges concerns about the potential impact of
citizenship testing on certain groups within society, such as refugee and
humanitarian entrants. The committee is reassured by the evidence from the
Department that the regime will be monitored on an ongoing basis and that the Minister
will have discretion to approve different tests designed on the basis of
identified need. This should cater for most applicants. However, the committee
remains concerned that special cases might arise, for example, for non‑citizens
who have served the nation in some special way, and that there is apparently no
provision for a waiver and for conferring citizenship in those cases.
3.61
The committee welcomes the Department's evidence that it will monitor
and evaluate the regime on an ongoing basis. However, the committee believes
that, in addition to this ongoing monitoring, a more formal and comprehensive
review of the citizenship testing regime should be conducted three years after the
commencement of the regime. In particular, the committee suggests that this
review should examine the regime's impact on citizenship application and conferral
rates and on certain groups within society, such as refugee and humanitarian
entrants, women and people from non-English speaking backgrounds.
Recommendation 1
3.62
The committee recommends that the operation of the citizenship testing
regime be reviewed three years after the Bill's commencement, particularly to
gauge the regime's impact on citizenship application and conferral rates and on
certain groups within society, particularly refugee and humanitarian entrants.
Navigation: Previous Page | Contents | Next Page