Dissenting report by Senator Andrew Bartlett
The submissions
and evidence presented to this inquiry demonstrate that the federal
government's proposed new citizenship test is little more than a poorly thought
through, pre-election stunt. It is probable that over time it will end up being
a relatively harmless, albeit unnecessarily expensive and bureaucratic stunt.
However, there is a risk that it will degrade the credibility of the
citizenship compact. The concept of Australian citizenship is too important to
risk harming it with divisive or trivializing measures.
The
'consultation' process used prior to the government adopting its proposal for a
new citizenship test was a farce, the 'discussion paper' produced as part of
that process was ill-thought out, and the many concerns expressed by migrant
groups in Australia were all but ignored. The Australian Democrats response to
that discussion paper is included as an appendix to this dissenting report. To
repeat one statement from that response, "focusing on whether or not there
should be a test, and what should be in it, is premature without wider debate,
understanding and agreement about the nature of citizenship and what it entails
for our nation, for the individuals who hold it, for the society they are part
of and for the governments that serve them." That is where the political
and public debate should be directed if we want to strengthen the effectiveness
and meaning of the citizenship compact, and public understanding and support
for it.
There was no
evidence put forward at any stage of this Inquiry to indicate how this
citizenship test process will improve the integration of people into the
Australian community. Everyone who takes the test is already a permanent
resident in Australia, and everyone who fails it will remain
a permanent resident.
The time to
address integration issues is when people first arrive in Australia, not when they are already permanent
residents who have lived here for at least four years. Given that tests by
their nature are designed to exclude some people, this process may increase
segregation and division, rather than decrease it.
There has been
no evidence put forward to indicate that there are any problems with the
current arrangements in qualifying for citizenship, let alone how this test
will improve them. Despite witnesses pointing to the use of a citizenship test
in a few other countries, there was no evidence provided to show that these
tests had produced any substantive benefits or improvements in those countries,
or indeed to assuage any fears that they may have had a negative impact on more
vulnerable minority groups.
The group in
our community who are most likely to have difficulty with formal tests are
people from refugee backgrounds, yet this group have been the ones who have
been quickest to take up citizenship after their arrival in Australia. In that
sense, they have been the most successful at integration.
By contrast,
the group who have been the least willing to fully integrate, using the
criteria of being willing to and interested in taking up citizenship, have been
permanent residents who are originally from the United Kingdom or New Zealand.
According to figures published by the Department of Immigration and
Citizenship, there are currently over 900 000 permanent non-citizen residents
who are eligible to become Australian citizens – that is people who live
permanently in Australia but who have not yet got around to taking up
citizenship, or simply do not want to - and more than half of them are from
these two countries. By contrast, people from non-English speaking countries,
and particularly those who come here as refugees, have been the quickest to
take up their right to citizenship and become a full member of their new nation
and its society.
If there are
over 450 000 people from the UK and New Zealand residing permanently in
Australia who haven't become citizens under previous requirements, they will
be even less likely to do so now if there is an extra hurdle of having to undertake
a test. This is not a commentary on whether this is positive or negative
action, it simply demonstrates that suggestions that a citizenship test will of
itself encourage better integration or commitment to Australia have no sound basis.
In my view,
there have been insufficient arguments put forward to justify proceeding with
the legislation. However, in the event that the legislation is proceeded with,
there are a number of improvements which should be made.
It is crucial
that there be a specific amendment made to the legislation to ensure that
refugee and humanitarian entrants from non-English speaking backgrounds with
low-level English proficiency may be exempted from the test if they fulfil an
alternative requirement such as attending a citizenship course.
I also support
the few recommendations which the Committee has put forward, particularly the
requirement that the citizenship test questions be made public. There has been
understandable disquiet amongst many sections of the Australian community that
the questions developed by the government, or a future government, may be
politically or culturally biased and even be designed with an eye to excluding
particular groups within the community. This of course has been done before in Australia, where tests have been designed and
applied with a deliberate aim of keeping potential migrants from certain
countries or regions out of Australia. Given that one of the supposed aims
of the new citizenship test is to encourage a better understanding of Australia's history, it would be ironic for the
Senate to ignore history and refuse to acknowledge the danger of history
repeating itself.
Despite the
misleading mantra by the government that 'citizenship is a responsibility, not
a right', the fact is that citizenship is a right for many millions of
people who are born in Australia to Australian parents. Those people (of
which I am one) should not be in a position where they have greater rights than
other Australians. There is a real risk that migrants applying for citizenship
will be required to demonstrate a greater knowledge of Australia than that which many Australian born
citizens have.
It is important
for public confidence, and particularly the confidence of Australians and
residents from migrant backgrounds, that the questions be made public. They
must also be open to disallowance by the Senate.
Recommendation
1
No case has
been made that there is any problem with the existing system, or that the
proposed new citizenship test will improve things. On the contrary, the
evidence suggests it will be an expensive, potentially divisive or at best
benign process which will do little to enhance integration or strengthen the
citizenship compact between Australians and their governments. I recommend that
the legislation not be proceeded with.
In the event
the legislation is proceeded with, I make the following further
recommendations.
Recommendation
2
The test must
be tested. No set of citizenship test questions should be adopted for use
until they have been tested on a cross-section of Australian-born citizens. If
more than a minimal percentage of people fail the test, the questions should not
be used.
Recommendation
3
Determinations
made by the Minister regarding the citizenship test, and the test questions
themselves, must be subject to disallowance by the Senate.
Recommendation
4
That a specific
amendment is made to the legislation to ensure that refugee and humanitarian
entrants from non-English speaking backgrounds with low-level English
proficiency may be exempted from the test if they fulfil an alternative
requirement such as attending a citizenship course.
Senator Andrew
Bartlett
Democrat Senator for Queensland
INCLUDED AS AN APPENDIX TO THE MINORITY REPORT OF SENATOR BARTLETT
Response to the Discussion Paper released by the
Australian Government on the merits of introducing a formal citizenship test
by
Senator Andrew Bartlett
on behalf of
the Australian Democrats
17 November, 2006
Introduction
In preparing this response to the government's discussion
paper, the Australian Democrats have taken into account as many views as we
have been able to access, particularly from Australia's migrant communities,
who are likely to be the most directly (and indirectly) affected by any changes
made regarding Australian citizenship and how it is perceived by the wider
community.
The Australian Democrats welcome the opportunity of a
national debate on Australian citizenship. We believe that, to gain real value
out of such a debate, it must be much broader than the framework put forward in
the discussion paper, which deals predominantly with whether a formal test
should be introduced for those people who wish to apply to adopt Australian
citizenship.
Focusing on whether or not there should be a test, and what
should be in it, seems to be premature without wider debate, understanding and
agreement about the nature of citizenship and what it entails for our nation,
for the individuals who hold it, for the society they are part of, and for the
governments that serve them.
The non-Indigenous people of Australia are all
migrants or descendents of migrants, who have significantly contributed in a
rich variety of ways. These many different backgrounds are an essential
component of modern Australia which have contributed to our arts, music, politics,
language, food, education, religion, science, sport, cultures and industry in a
myriad of ways to the common benefit of our nation. The strength of this
diversity must be embraced and promoted, not ignored or curtailed.
Issues missing from the discussion paper and some
problems in the assumptions contained in it
Whilst the four key questions put forward in the discussion
paper are worthy of debate, there are aspects within some of the assumptions
underpinning the questions that are put forward which the Democrats believe
presents a major problem. Before answering some of the questions posed in
the discussion paper, we wish to address some of the points that we believe are
either missing or inadequately addressed in the paper.
Recognising Rights as well as
responsibilities
Perhaps most critically, the discussion paper seems confused
about whether or not to acknowledge that rights do (and should) attach to
citizenship. Paragraph 2 of the discussion paper quotes the preamble of
our current Citizenship Act, which asserts that "Australian citizenship is
a common bond, involving reciprocal rights and obligations." Yet
shortly after, in paragraph 5 of the paper, the bald statement is made that
"Australian citizenship is a privilege, not a right." To add to
the confused reasoning, straight after asserting that citizenship is not a
right, the very next paragraph (correctly) asserts that "Australian
citizens have the right to live in Australia." (emphasis in
original)
The simple fact is that many people are entitled to
Citizenship as of right - albeit that this right is not necessarily guaranteed
in the Constitution, but only in legislation, a point we shall return to
later. It is certainly a privilege to be an Australian citizen, but it is
one that many people – such as those born in Australia of Australian parents -
do not need to do anything, such as pass a test, to receive.
In addition, citizenship, whether received via birth or
application, does bring rights with it. Whilst it is appropriate to emphasise
that privileges and responsibilities attach to citizenship, this is misleading
without an accompanying recognition that citizenship also has rights attached
to it.
In order for any debate about citizenship to be complete,
more thought needs to be given to what those rights are (or should be) and how
we can guarantee that those rights are protected and enforced. The Democrats
believe that both the rights and obligations which attach to citizenship should
be formally spelt out and promoted to the entire Australian community, not just
new citizens. If we are to strengthen and defend Australia’s freedoms, it
makes sense to more specifically identify what those freedoms are and ways they
are formally protected, whether that be via our laws or other mechanisms.
To only talk of the privileges and responsibilities of
citizenship, whilst ignoring or downplaying the rights, is to ignore the
reciprocal nature of the citizenship compact which is reflected in the preamble
of the Citizenship Act.
Recommendation 1:
That there be a clearer recognition of
- the rights which attach to Australian citizenship,
- the responsibilities of Australia's
governments to its citizens, and
- ways to protect those rights from being breached.
The Migration and settlement
process is the key vehicle to encourage integration and participation, not
citizenship
Another problem with the framework of the discussion paper
is the singular focus on the participation of people in the Australian
community through citizenship. Hundreds of thousands of people live in Australia
as permanent residents – some of them for decades - and many more than that
live here on various forms of long-term temporary residency visas. To
focus on the participation in and commitment to Australia of newly adopted
citizens is to focus on the smaller area of how to achieve this important goal
of maximising participation and engagement. While citizenship is the
ultimate step for a migrant, the step which has by far the largest impact on
Australia and on the migrant is the one where people choose to live and settle
here, a process which does not necessarily involve applying for citizenship at
any stage. Indeed if obtaining citizenship is made too onerous or bureaucratic,
it will just dissuade people from doing so, which is just as likely to be to
the detriment of our nation as to the individual concerned.
To maximise the participation of migrants in Australia, we
should be focussing much more attention at the period when they are newly
arrived, rather than at what to require of them if they wish to become
citizens. If we want to put in place any sorts of requirements for
certain groups of people, such as knowledge of language or civic issues, it would
make far more sense to do so at the time when people are seeking to become
permanent residents, rather than when they are applying for citizenship.
Recommendation 2:
That more resources be put into settlement assistance,
including English language classes and information about Australian society and
cultures.
A test which some citizens
must pass, but not others?
Another inadequacy in the
discussion paper is the lack of consideration given to whether the proposals
and views put forward in the discussion paper match with the reality of those
who are born with citizenship and attain it as of right.
In considering what tests those
who seek to apply to be accepted as Australian citizens might have to meet, it
is also important to consider how those who are citizens as of right would fare
if they were to face such a test.
To put a set of standards in
place that some people have to meet to become a citizen, which could not be met
by some of those who were born with the privilege of citizenship is not only
unfair and discriminatory, it is likely to be counter-productive to the fabric
of a nation and the ability of different groups within it to effectively and
meaningfully integrate.
Recommendation 3:
Test the test on Australian
born citizens first. If any citizenship test more formal than that which
currently applies is to be adopted, it should be first tried out on a
representative sample of Australians who attained their citizenship through
birth. If more than a minimal percentage of this sample are unable to
pass the test, it should not be adopted or applied to citizenship applicants.
What are the foundations of citizenship?
In most respects, it is reasonable to see the formal birth
of the Australian nation as occurring with Federation on 1st January, 1901. Yet there was no such thing as a formal Australian citizen until
1948 with adoption of the Citizenship Act. Even then, the rights and
privileges attached to citizenship have continued to evolve, as the notion of
Australians as British Subjects has faded. Even in the early years of the
21st Century, the residual right still exists for some non-citizens
to be able to vote in Australian elections, a right which is denied to some
Australian citizens, such as those imprisoned at the time of an election.
Recent High Court cases have wrestled with concepts such as 'non-alien
non-citizens', and the judgements have shown that fundamental components of the
central issue of who is an Australian and what rights attach to that are still
a matter of some legal uncertainty.[1]
Much of this uncertainty derives from the fact that
citizenship is a legislated concept and entitlement which is not directly
referred to in our Constitution. As such, some of the key foundations of
citizenship, including the rights and responsibilities attached to it, are more
likely to be subjected to the vagaries of legislative interpretation and
change.
Recommendation 4:
That citizenship be specifically recognised as a concept
in the Australian Constitution.
Time Periods for Citizenship
The Democrats believe that the proposed extension of the
residency period required before a person becomes eligible for citizenship from
2 years to 4 years to be problematic. We have previously expressed support for
the proposal to increase the period to 3 years, as long as there is adequate
scope for exemptions in special circumstances. However, we have not seen
any evidence put forward that would suggest that 4 years residency is
necessary, whether from a security or an integration point of view. It
must be emphasised once again that in the vast majority of cases it is to
Australia’s benefit to receive new citizens and it follows from this that it is
to our potential determent if there are unnecessary delays or impediments to
that occurring.
Longer waiting periods can be particularly difficult for
refugees, who experiences shows are often the quickest to take up
citizenship. Taking out citizenship can be a key experience for refugees
in being able to fully and finally stabilise their lives and take full control
of their future in their new homeland. In addition, for people who have
already been displaced in often very traumatic circumstances, it can place
undue pressure and stress on refugees who may have feelings of insecurity or
instability rekindled if they should not pass the test.
There may also be an unintended effect of preventing
migrants from accessing employment in the Public Service which usually require
Australian citizenship as a prerequisite for an appointment. By
needlessly delaying the opportunity for migrants to take up citizenship, we can
be denying our nation’s public sector the skills which such people
possess. In addition, our defence forces are undergoing continuing
difficulty in meeting their recruitment targets. Extra delays in a person being
able to take up citizenship will reduce, albeit in a minor way, the pool of
people that can be drawn from.
Should Australia introduce
a formal citizenship test?
The Democrats agree with the view,
stated at paragraph 23 of the discussion paper, that
it should be "a key objective of our migration program that ultimately
such individuals who come to Australia fully participate in Australian life as
Australian citizens." We repeat the point made above that the key
goal should be to ensure everyone who comes here to reside for any length of
time, but particularly permanent residents, should participate as fully as
possible in Australia's society and economy. While encouraging permanent
residents to become citizens is an important goal, it does not cover everybody
who is part of our community.
Whilst it is, again, acknowledged that it is a privilege for an individual to
be granted Australian citizenship, the Democrats believe the discussion paper
does not adequately recognise that it is also a privilege for our nation when
someone chooses to fully commit themselves and their gifts to us by applying to
become a citizen.
It should be accepted that enabling people to become
citizens is not just a matter of Australia benevolently doing some individual a
favour. It is very much in Australia's interests to encourage people of
good character to become a fully fledged member of our community and body
politic.
It flows from this that it is against Australia's interests
to make it too onerous, bureaucratic or potentially even insulting for people
who may be considering becoming Australian citizens.
Recommendation 5:
The potential consequences of deterring good quality
potential citizens should be considered alongside any perceived gain from
adding extra tests to the requirements for granting of citizenship.
What is the economic
impetus for introducing a formal citizenship test?
This section of the discussion paper (paras 29-33) contains
clear examples of a confusion of concepts and terminology.
It all but ignores the simple fact that it is the visa
system which determines whether or not people are participating in the
Australian labour market and the wider economy, not citizenship.
There are some jobs, mainly public sector and defence force jobs, which require
citizenship, but the majority simply require a person to hold a visa which has
work entitlements attached to it. This includes many types of long-term
temporary residency visas.
In considering economic impetus and labour market
participation consequences of citizenship, it has to be recognised that -
certainly at the moment and for the foreseeable future - many areas of
migration are a 'buyer's market', where Australia is having to face ever
increasing competition from other countries to attract migrants to participate
in our labour market. The prospect of obtaining citizenship can be one
factor which people consider when deciding whether or not to migrate to Australia
or somewhere else. We do not in any way suggest citizenship should be made too
easy to obtain just as a way of bribing people to come here. We are
simply acknowledging the current economic reality, in the context of the
question put in the discussion paper, about whether there is an economic
argument for introducing a formal citizenship test.
Under this criteria at least, we would have to say the
evidence suggests it would be a net economic negative to place extra hurdles on
becoming a citizen. The place for ensuring adequate English (and where
appropriate other knowledge of Australia) is not in the citizenship test, it is
in the criteria for determining the granting of a visa.
What are the social
criteria for introducing a formal citizenship test?
Whilst not disagreeing with the sentiment put forward in
this segment of the discussion paper (paras 34-39), no evidence is provided to
demonstrate that current arrangements are inadequate in enabling
integration. Putting in place a more formal language and/or other test
for citizenship may be seem as providing an extra incentive to learn these
things, but it may also act as a disincentive for someone thinking of
applying for citizenship.
It must be remembered that everybody who can apply
for citizenship is already a permanent resident in Australia, with the
likelihood that they will be able to live the rest of their lives in our
community regardless of whether they become citizens or not. People who
become citizens gain the right to vote and to employment in a public sector
job. However, there are some people (including many Australian-born citizens)
who wouldn't care greatly if they didn't have either of those rights (and in
the case of voting, a responsibility).
If a more formal test is perceived by some people as a
disincentive to apply for citizenship, it will have the counter-productive
effect of reducing that person's participation and full engagement with
our nation.
In other words, we may lose more than we gain by making a
language test more onerous than it currently is. This may have the effect
of reducing rather than increasing unity.
Rather than targeting just one section of the community –
namely applicants for citizenship – to improve understanding about Australia's
society and cultures, it would be far more effective to have a concerted effort
to increase the awareness of all Australian citizens and residents about
our nation's history, institutions and cultures.
Recommendation 6:
The Democrats recommend that extra resources and
commitment be placed on:
- following up on the outcomes of the recent national history summit;
- adopting comprehensive measures to enable civics information and education to
be provided in all educational institutions and, where feasible, workplaces.
- Ensuring indigenous Australians play a major role in the formulation and presentation
of historical, cultural and social information as a way of ensuring all
Australians, both migrants and those born here, gain the benefit of a
meaningful attachment to the world's oldest living culture – one of the
greatest privileges that any non-Indigenous Australian can receive.
English proficiency testing
While the Democrats recognise that it is valuable for
migrants to have English proficiency wherever practicable, this should not
necessarily be made any stronger a part of the requirement for citizenship.
There has yet to be any evidence that upgraded citizenship test in other
countries have aided in integration or even social cohesion.
We believe that the funding to implement the administration
of the tests should instead go into providing more English classes and services
to migrants that will better equip them with what living in Australia entails
and what is expected of all Australian citizens.
As Australia is a nation that has been built on migrants and
so much of our post World War II prosperity has been derived from the major
migration influx over many decades, it is puzzling why the need for English
should be seen as such a pressing issue now. There are numerous examples of
Greek, Italian and Vietnamese migrants, just to name a few, who have arrived
without English proficiency and have thrived in Australia, built industries and
business and contributed significantly to Australia’s economy and
communities. Some of the people are still not very proficient in
English. Similarly, when we encourage the strengthening of family and the
richness of multiculturalism through family migration, including aged parents,
we are recognising that there is great value in these migrants even where
English language skills may not be high.
It must be noted that not all people are equally equipped
socially or mentally to learn languages and that this is especially difficult
later in life. There is a genuine concern that a more onerous English
language test would create a group of second class Australian residents, such
as the elderly, refugees or people with a disability who may not be able to
read or write.
Any test must have sufficient flexibility to ensure that
such people are exempted – not just on grounds of fairness to the individual
but because we must recognise that it is better for our community to include
rather than exclude such people who will still be living among us.
It should also be recognised that being proficient in the
English language is no guarantee of a person being of good character.
The potential consequences of negative perceptions
about a new citizenship test
Values are not automatically bestowed with by ticking boxes
or answering multiple choice questions which yield the right results in order
to pass a test. Values are something one acquires from positive
interactions with family, community and society. It is something that is
learned through living in the country of choice and it will be enhanced if
migrants feel they are strongly supported by their communities and by leaders
with a commitment to multiculturalism.
The Democrats submit that many migrants have a fuller
appreciation of the special values and freedoms that Australia provides, and
the importance of working to protect them. Many Australian born citizens
who have been lucky enough not to have lived through wars or political
upheaval, or had to flee their homeland can be unaware of just how precious and
fragile our freedoms can be.
We have also heard many strong views expressed that a new
test could have the opposite of a welcoming effect for some migrants.
There is concern that it will only serve to further isolate groups in the
community and is a departure from the ideas of egalitarianism and a fair go
that Australia prides itself on.
People who make the conscious decision to apply for
citizenship of a new country are unlikely to do flippantly or without some
degree of thought. It is almost axiomatic that in making such a decision,
they will have acquired enough knowledge about Australia and its society to
make an informed decision that it is a country they wish to reside in
indefinitely, in many cases in exchange for the country of their birth.
In such circumstances, many new citizens would probably do better than most
Australian born citizens in any knowledge test, assuming the test is not overly
idiosyncratic or biased to one sub-culture.
The merits and impact of adopting a more formal citizenship
test in Australia cannot be assessed in a vacuum, disconnected from the social
and political context in which it has emerged. There is a real risk that,
regardless of the intention in introducing such a test, new migrants and
prospective new citizens may see it as a way of filtering out those who are too
'different' and targeting those from non-English speaking backgrounds.
In seeking feedback from the wider community, the Democrats
have been struck by the level of suspicion, anxiety and sometimes downright
hostility towards the proposals of a test – in most cases from people who are
already Australian citizens. These feelings cannot just be dismissed as
being mistaken or a misunderstanding.
The key rationale put forward in the discussion paper for
introducing such a test is to increase unity in our society. Such a thing as
unity cannot be imposed through tests, it must be encouraged and developed
through people's hearts and minds. If a minority perceive the motivation
behind a test or the possible effect of its implementation will be to devalue
or target people of certain backgrounds, it will have a negative effect on
social unity.
Recommendation 7:
That a more formal citizenship test would be
counter-productive to the goals of greater unity and integration within
Australia’s multicultural society, and should not be introduced unless
there is clear, verifiable and public support from the majority of Australia’s
migrant community – especially those of non-English speaking background or from
a Muslim community who in the current context are most likely to feel targeted
by such a measure.
Conclusion
The Democrats strongly support Australia's current high
levels of migration – both permanent and temporary. We recognise that
this does bring with it an added need to ensure community support is maintained
for the various aspects of the migration program and for the policy of
multiculturalism which is at its heart.
However, we would suggest that overtly targeting the
citizenship process is not the best way of achieving this public support.
It risks creating an unfounded perception that there are significant numbers of
people choosing to become citizens who do not have a substantial commitment to
our nation, when the Democrats do not believe there is any substantial evidence
that this is the case. It also risks creating unnecessary antagonism and
division, particularly amongst those Australian citizens and residents who feel
such measures are targeting people of non-English speaking or non-Christian
background.
This would be counter-productive and defeat the goals which
the discussion paper says such a test would be seeking to achieve.
There is no sign that the examples in the discussion paper
of countries who have adopted citizenship tests have improved social or
national unity. In addition, it should be noted that all of those
countries have different migration programs and policies to Australia, and have
not necessarily have had such success in consciously carrying out and promoting
policies of multiculturalism. Whilst not in any way being so arrogant as
to suggest we have nothing to learn from others, the Democrats suggest that in
this area, most of the countries provided by way of example have more to learn
from Australia than we have from them.
Additional proposal:
Whilst it is beyond the immediate focus of the discussion
paper, the Democrats wish to take the opportunity to emphasise our belief that
the citizenship ceremony, as well as related documentation and processes,
should have a much clearer and prominent recognition and involvement of indigenous
Australians. Wherever possible, this should include a representative from
the Indigenous people who are the traditional, original inhabitants of the area
where the ceremony is taking place.
Navigation: Previous Page | Contents | Next Page