Mr ANDREWS (Minister for Immigration and Citizenship) (1:00 PM) —I thank members for their contributions to the second reading debate on the Australian Citizenship Amendment (Citizenship Testing) Bill 2007. This bill amends the Australian Citizenship Act 2007 and provides for the introduction of an Australian citizenship test. People living in Australia enjoy many rights, including equality before the law and freedom of religion and expression. Australian citizens also have the right to vote and to participate in our democratic processes. But we also have responsibilities. We must obey Australia’s laws, respect the common values and respect the rights and freedoms of others. We are also encouraged to become involved in the community to help make Australia an even better place. The material which will form the basis of the test will highlight the common values we share, as well as our history, heritage, symbols, institutions and laws. It will give migrants to Australia the information they need to better understand what it means to be Australian, what their rights are as Australian citizens and what is expected of them in return.

The Australian Citizenship Act 2007 requires that applicants for citizenship by conferral under the general eligibility provisions understand the nature of their application, possess a basic knowledge of the English language and have an adequate knowledge of the responsibilities and privileges of Australian citizenship. The bill provides that these applicants must have successfully completed a test before making an application for citizenship to demonstrate that they meet these requirements. People who are not required to have a knowledge of the English language or the responsibilities and privileges of Australian citizenship will not be required to sit a citizenship test. This includes applicants under the age of 18 or those aged 60 years or over and those with a permanent physical or mental incapacity which prevents them from understanding the nature of their application.

The citizenship test will provide prospective citizens with the opportunity to demonstrate in an objective way that they have a knowledge of Australia, including the responsibilities and privileges of citizenship, and a basic knowledge of English. The test will encourage them to obtain the knowledge that will support successful integration into Australian society and enable them to maximise the opportunities that Australia has to offer.

Concerns have been raised regarding the power in the bill that allows for a ministerial determination to establish eligibility criteria for sitting a test. Specifically, the concern is that a determination may establish eligibility criteria that are inappropriate and unfair, with no parliamentary scrutiny and no opportunity for disallowance. Legal advice confirms that the determination-making power in the proposed section 23A does not allow for the setting of eligibility criteria for sitting the test that are inconsistent with the provisions of the act and, in particular, the general eligibility criteria in section 21(2). For example, a determination could not legally provide that only people of French-speaking background are eligible to sit the test.

The power is required for two purposes. One is to ensure that the resources available for testing are used only for prospective citizens. The second is to enable access to any special test that may be needed to be limited to those for whom the special test is intended. In this regard, the bill refers to ‘a’ test rather than ‘the’ test so that it is clear that more than one test may be approved by the minister.

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 to be designed on the basis of identified need rather than conjecture. To help alleviate the concerns about test eligibility criteria, the government has agreed to insert a note to explain that the power to set eligibility criteria to sit a test does not allow criteria to be set that are inconsistent with the act and, in particular, the general eligibility criteria for citizenship.

I will now address the recommendations of the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, which recently completed an inquiry into the bill. The committee’s first recommendation was that the operation of the testing regime be reviewed three years after the bill’s commencement. As I have stated publicly, the test will be monitored closely, particularly for the first six months, to determine whether any patterns emerge suggesting a particular cohort has difficulties with the test. I agree with the committee’s recommendation that a formal review of the testing regime should be conducted three years after the commencement of testing.

The second recommendation was to table the proposed citizenship test questions in parliament. The rationale behind making the test questions confidential is to provide an incentive for people to read the citizenship test resource book which will help them gain an understanding of the concepts contained in the book. Publicising the questions will serve to promote rote learning of the answers. For this reason, the test questions will remain confidential and will not be tabled in parliament.

The third recommendation was that proposed section 23A(1) of the bill be amended to specifically require that the test relate to the eligibility criteria in 21(2)(d)(e) and (f). Legal advice confirms that there is no ambiguity with this subsection of the bill. However, to ensure no further conjecture about this issue, the government has agreed to amend the bill by inserting a note that will explain that citizenship tests must be related to the general eligibility criteria in the new paragraphs (d), (e) and (f). These criteria relate to the requirements for applicants to, first, have an understanding of the nature of the application for citizenship; secondly, possess a basic knowledge of the English language; and, thirdly, have an adequate knowledge of Australia, including the responsibilities and privileges of Australian citizenship.

Concern has been raised that the content of a citizenship test, including the questions and answers, may be unreasonable. It is important to note that, with the exception of knowledge of Australia, these requirements for citizenship under the general eligibility provisions, which applicants will be required to demonstrate by successful completion of a test, are longstanding. Indeed, the requirement to have a knowledge of the English language has been a feature of Australian citizenship legislation since its commencement on 26 January 1949. It is also the case that most adult applicants for citizenship, including refugee and humanitarian entrants, have been required to satisfy those requirements. The bill will introduce an objective form of assessment as to whether an individual satisfies these requirements. As I noted previously, the test questions will be designed to test knowledge contained in a citizenship resource book that will be freely and widely available to all.

I turn now to some points raised by other contributors to the debate, in particular in relation to language and settlement services. The government has consistently demonstrated that it is willing to invest in settlement services to assist migrants and humanitarian entrants to settle in Australia and to learn English—for example, the 2007-08 budget provided an additional $209 million over four years to six Australian government agencies to enhance services for humanitarian entrants. In addition, the Australian government currently spends $285 million annually on the delivery of English language programs to new migrants and refugees. Funding for the Adult Migrant English Program has increased from $98 million, in 2003-04, to $156 million, in 2006-07. The government is also considering providing further assistance to migrants and refugees to help them prepare to pass the new citizenship test.

Under the Adult Migrant English Program, migrants who do not have functional English are legislatively entitled to up to 510 hours of English language tuition or until they reach functional English, whichever comes first. In addition to the 510 hours, under the Special Preparatory Program, humanitarian entrants under 25 years of age with low levels of education can access a further 400 hours. In 2006, the Prime Minister agreed to the formation of an interdepartmental committee on English language. The committee, chaired by my department, recently considered options for the provisions of more flexible, vocationally focused and better integrated English language training to meet the needs of migrants and refugees.

I will turn now to a couple of other matters raised in debate. One was that the resources book will not assist people who have literacy issues. The resources book will also be available in an audio format and it will be freely available. The book, although sufficient in itself, will not be the only tool for prospective citizens. Prospective citizens wishing to sit the test will already have had a minimum of four years permanent residence in Australia and, as members of parliament who attend citizenship ceremonies on a regular basis know, often people who take out citizenship of Australia have been in this country for 20 or 30 years. The longest time I recall personally is 55 years, but I am sure there are people who had been in this country for longer than that when they actually took out citizenship in Australia.

There were also claims that the test introduced by the bill will be harder than the current informal test, that it will be a test of literacy and that it will require an ability to use a computer. It will not be a test of literacy or computer skills as such; indeed, special arrangements will be made for people who have difficulty taking a test because of low levels of literacy or computer skills. Just this morning I sat a mock test as a trial, based on the Canadian questions—

Mr Bowen interjecting—

Mr ANDREWS —I passed the Canadian test, I can respond to the honourable gentleman opposite. My point is that this is a very simple program. The questions come up on a screen. People can see the question. There is a capacity to go back and revise their answer. As I said before, the period to answer the 20 questions is 45 minutes and, where there are special needs, there can be assistance provided to people who have particular difficulties in relation to those matters.

This test in Australia is not something that is novel so far as the world is concerned. Countries such as the United States, Canada and the United Kingdom, amongst others, have citizenship testing arrangements. The government believes that this is an important step forward in informing and educating people not just about our heritage and our values but about the history and the institutions of this country. We believe that people coming to Australia as migrants wish to meet their aspirations and to make the most for themselves and their families in Australia. This is an important part of that step forward and that journey to Australia.

Migration does not end when a person gets off an aeroplane at Kingsford-Smith airport or Tullamarine, in Melbourne. Migration is an ongoing journey, and settlement and integration into the broader Australian society is something which I and the government believe is crucial for the continuing success of our immigration program. In the context of an ageing population and a global demand for workers, the reality is that migration has, as it has in the last 50 or 60 years, been crucial to Australia’s development and will continue to be crucial for Australia’s development into the future. In summary, this bill will ensure that new citizens have the necessary knowledge of the Australian way of life to which they are required to commit and will aid their successful integration into our society. I commend the bill to the House.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. BK Bishop)—The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for Watson has moved as an amendment that all words after ‘That’ be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The immediate question is that the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the question.

Question agreed to.

Original question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.