25-October-2006
Speeches, Immigration and Multicultural Affairs
Address to the Jewish National Fund
Gold Patron’s Lunch
IN SUPPORT OF A FORMAL CITIZENSHIP TEST
25 OCTOBER 2006
Mercantile Rowing Club, Melbourne
CHECK AGAINST DELIVERY
Acknowledgements
To the President of the Jewish National Fund, Mr Tom Borsky, the State Executive Director Mr Joe Krycer, to my Parliamentary colleague Ms Helen Shardey, Ladies and Gentlemen.
I am delighted to be here today at the Jewish National Fund Australia Gold Patrons Luncheon.
Jewish National Fund
At the outset I would like to say as a previous Executive Director of the National Farmers’ Federation in the 1980’s, and involved in the early days of the Greening Australia Program, I appreciate very much the work the Jewish National Fund does in relation to land care. Its century long support for a wide range of works from tree planting to land development and environmental and scientific projects is inspiring.
As much of Australia remains in drought, the importance of water conservation has become a critical national priority. I trust that in the years ahead we will continue to share expertise with Israeli colleagues in such matters.
Background for today
I’ve been asked to speak on “Integration? Multiculturalism? Where is Australia Heading?”
Since receiving the invitation there have been a number of significant events in my Portfolio. The conflict in Lebanon, the first Imams conference to be held in Australia involving over 100 Australian Imams and the release of the Citizenship Test Discussion Paper, and amongst other issues I’ve also spent a lot of time with the many African communities that have come here as refugees over the last 4 to 5 years.
My portfolio responsibilities include specific responsibility for multiculturalism, settlement services and citizenship.
As I see it, these responsibilities are all about promoting effective integration into our community, they are about capturing the great diversity that comes with each wave of migration and they are about fostering a cohesive and united community.
After nine months in the portfolio, my assessment and strongly held view is that the key to succeeding with these objectives of integration, diversity and a cohesive community, is to foster opportunity and respect, mutual respect.
In the past when we have talked about integration and multiculturalism, we have talked often of “tolerance”. I don’t like the use of the word “tolerance” in this context. It implies grudging acceptance.
My view is that if we respect one another, respect one another’s differences, we encourage understanding and promote a cohesive society.
We need to look no further than our own families. I come from a large family, and although there are many things I have in common with my eight siblings, because of the common set of values that shaped our upbringing, we nevertheless hold many differing views and priorities which could be potentially divisive, including quite opposing political views.
However, I see a great strength in that diversity but only because there is an underlying respect for each other’s point of view, even though they are often views with which we may markedly disagree.
It is no different at a community level. Respect for one another fosters understanding, appreciation and often admiration, and is a very solid and tenable basis for a cohesive society.
In fact, the right to hold differing views, and have them respected, is one of the great freedoms we cherish and defend.
Mutual respect, when combined with opportunity, is a powerful mix.
If migrants are to realise their full potential, if they are to make the most of the unique talents, experiences and perspectives that they bring to our shores, then they must not only both enjoy and give respect but they must have the basic English language skills and community understanding to make the most of the opportunities Australia as a nation offers.
Over the past 60 years our success in integrating more than 6.5 million migrants, including 675,000 refugees, into our Australian family owes much to the mutual respect that is inherent in the national character – the support for those who “have a go” and it owes much to the opportunities available for people to make the most of their lives.
But these two factors are always under challenge, and we should never become complacent about preserving these great strengths.
On Friday I had the great pleasure to meet with the Chief Rabbi Jonathan Sacks who is currently in Australia.
The Chief Rabbi is a remarkable and talented thinker. He is a wise man. I would like to quote from some of his writings because I think he sums up very clearly the challenge we face.
He says “throughout history until very recently most people for most of their lives were surrounded by others with whom they shared a faith, a tradition, a way of life, a set of rituals and narratives of memory and hope. Under such circumstances it was possible to believe that our truth was the only truth; our way the only way. Outsiders were few; dissidents fewer still. That is not our situation today. We live in the conscience presence of difference. In the street, at work and on the television screen we constantly encounter cultures whose ideas and ideals are unlike ours. That can be experienced as a profound threat to identity…”
Jonathan went on to say “… religion is one of the great answers to the question of identity.” He importantly said “But that, too, is why we face danger. Identity divides. The very process of creating an ‘Us’ involves creating a ‘Them’ - the people not like us. In the very process of creating community within their borders, religions can create conflict across those borders”.
So our capacity to embrace diversity, and foster integration, will be put to further test in the years ahead as the combination of globalisation and an ageing population creates labour and skills shortages across the wealthy OECD countries. It will also prompt a continuing increase in the numbers of people coming to Australia from countries whose cultures are quite different from our own culture.
To this end I would like to discuss the rationale for the proposed formal citizenship test, which is the subject of a Discussion Paper and public consultations at the present time.
The Discussion Paper
In that Discussion Paper we ask four key questions:
1 Should Australia introduce a formal citizenship test;
2 How important is a knowledge of Australia for Australian citizenship;
3 What level of English is required to participate as an Australian citizen; and
4 How important is a demonstrated commitment to Australia’s way of life and values for those intending to settle permanently in Australia or spend a significant time in Australia?
It has been said to me that the unstated implication of the Government’s Discussion Paper is that over the past 60 years we have made serious mistakes, and that the system (of integration) has failed. This is not so; this is not our unstated implication at all.
On the contrary I consider that compared with other western countries, Australia has been remarkably successful at integrating more than 6.5 million people into our Australian family from over 200 countries around the world.
Further, people say to me if it “ain’t broke don’t fix it”. Well, the reason I believe it ain’t broke, and the reason we have been remarkably successful at integrating new arrivals is because we have never stopped seeking to “fix it”. We have not been complacent, we have continually sought to improve the system of integrating the large number of migrants and refugees coming to Australia.
Nowhere is this illustrated better than in relation to the provision of English language tuition.
The Adult Migrant English Program has a long and proud history commencing in the late 1940s with classes held on ships bringing migrants to Australia.
It continued in the migrant hostels where many spent their initial weeks and months after arrival.
I know that for many in the audience that would be either your experience or those of your parents or grandparents.
However, despite the early presence of these programmes, most migrants learned their English language skills and knowledge of Australia, literally “on the job”.
Over the decades programmes for the instruction of English have been revised, modified and added to, to reflect changing needs.
For example, the migrant English programme funding increased from $2 million in 1970/71 to $18 million in 1978/79 and now involves a range of programmes – at school, in training and in the workplace - at a total cost this year of about $285 million (inclusive of the AMEP).
Governments, of both political persuasion, have responded to the ever changing circumstances confronting the waves of new migrants over the decades.
The Australia that accepted immigrants in the 1950’s is not the Australia that accepts immigrants today, nor are the people coming to our shores of the same cultural mix as those that came previously.
This is not a value judgement as some have suggested - that some cultures are somehow more worthy than others – it is simply a matter of fact. And it is a fact that we will need to think creatively about our policy responses if we are to continue enjoying the benefits of a prosperous and cohesive country.
The argument made by the opponents of the citizenship test are that many people have become good citizens despite having little fluency in English, and that they worked hard in jobs that many English speakers would not do.
I don’t doubt this proposition for a second. In fact, having been brought up in Epping and Reservoir, in Melbourne’s northern suburbs, I know of many such fine people.
But this is not a question of good or bad citizenship as some have mistakenly suggested.
It is about doing our best to ensure that those who have taken the huge step of seeking to build a new life in Australia, have the basic skills to make the most of what such a life can offer.
And the economy that made things possible in the 50s and 60s is not our economy of today.
Back then, we were a far more industrialised nation, rather than the services based economy of today.
Furthermore, our industrial sector was low skilled and labour intensive.
Migrants walked off the ships at Melbourne or Newcastle or other ports, and typically within days could be working in low skilled jobs on assembly lines at the Ford factory, or at the BHP steelworks in Newcastle.
Visit the Ford factory today, as I have done recently, and you still see assembly lines, and you still see migrants, but the sophistication of the manufacturing process is breathtaking, the skill levels of the workers remarkable, the training programmes challenging and continuous.
As well, it is an obvious statement of fact that a services economy relies heavily on a good grasp of English and the ability to interact with fellow Australians.
Our settlement programmes, our English language training, our expectations of migrants and new citizens need to reflect the modern high-tech world of today.
Outside of our traditional resource sectors, the rapid emergence of China and India as major growth countries further highlights Australia’s future role as a high value services provider, as well as a very high value, highly skilled manufacturer, with a need for increasing flexibility to capture niche opportunities.
All areas of policy need to be alert to this reality, including our migration, settlement and citizenship policies.
Facing a new age economy with an ageing population and long running prosperity, means it is critical that we maximise the ability of new migrants to fully participate in this changed economy.
Migration patterns
At the same time as our economy is shifting, so to is the makeup of our migrant intake – both within the settlement and refugee programmes and within our broader migration stream.
Overall the largest migrant intake continues to be from the United Kingdom and New Zealand. Yet, last year the third biggest group of migrants came from China, at over 10% of the total intake.
Over the last 10 years, around 200,000 people have come from Africa and the Middle East.
By way of example, ten years ago immigrants from the Sudan, accounted for just under 400 people but last year they accounted for almost 4000 people, a tenfold increase or just over 2% of the total migration programme. Last year (2005/06) African migration represented 55% of our offshore humanitarian intake, with more than 30,000 arrivals over the last four years.
These changing migration patterns reflect a changing world, and in cultural terms represent the arrival of many from cultures which are far more removed from the Australian culture than were the cultures of those earlier waves of largely European migrants.
The significant challenges faced by the rich countries of the world because of the rapid aging of our populations, and the added pressure in Australia on labour and skills shortages stemming from more than a decade of uninterrupted, strong economic growth, will mean even more people migrating from non-traditional source countries.
All of this presents opportunities – the chance to introduce new perspectives, new experiences, new talents into the Australian family – but it also presents challenges.
There is no sense putting our heads in the sand, and hoping for the best.
As we have done in the past, we have to ensure that the new arrivals develop the English language skills and a general understanding of our community, so that they might integrate quickly and make the most of the opportunities available in Australia. But the greater cultural differences creates an even stronger imperative, and bigger challenge.
The proposal for a formal citizenship test is one of many initiatives to assist quick and effective integration. The test will help to convey to new arrivals the expectations of the broader Australian community regarding the privilege of citizenship and the desire to see new citizens as truly functional members of our community.
As well, for those who may not pass the test at the first attempt, an objective test will provide a valuable indication of where we need to direct further help to ensure they are successful.
Opportunities for Women Migrants
It has also been said to me that many good Australians would almost certainly not have qualified for citizenship under our proposals for a more formal English and general knowledge test. I strongly disagree.
My counter is that these wonderful Australians, if they had been presented with the opportunity, the incentive and the programmes to learn English as proposed, would certainly not only have qualified for citizenship, but would have had the basic English skills and general knowledge to have led even fuller lives.
I know of Greek and Italian women who have been here for decades who in their 80’s speak no English, whilst their grandchildren speak no Greek or Italian – how sad is this.
The desire to take out citizenship, combined with the citizenship test, will provide a motivation for the families, and especially the males, to ensure that the migrant women are not forgotten when it comes to acquiring the skills to move comfortably in the community.
This raises the need to ensure that migrant women, particularly in our refugee cohort, are a focus when it comes to English language training.
Male migrants often have more opportunity to participate in the broader community and to learn the language, but this is not the case for some migrant women.
Indeed, in some communities, the level of literacy for certain migrant women can be very low as in their countries of origin education for women is either non existent, or for financial and cultural reasons unavailable.
This is not an easy issue to deal with, it is confronting, it requires us to work hard with some of our new immigrant groups to breakdown barriers which prevent women’s participation, to ensure that women have as much chance as the men to make the most of the opportunities available in Australia.
Building on our success
As I said earlier, as a nation we have been very good at integrating people from over 200 countries around the globe.
From my assessment, we owe that success to three factors. The first is the clearly regulated immigration programme that we have had for 60 years – in contrast to our European counterparts, we have made decisions about who comes to Australia, when they come, how they come and what skills they bring.
The second important factor is our effective border control. Broad community support for a strong immigration programme depends critically on being able to control our borders.
And the third, and some would argue the most important contributor to successful integration, has been our longstanding tax-payer funded settlement programmes.
We have succeeded but we have never taken that success for granted.
Forty three percent of our total population are first or second generation migrants, and they are an integral part of our Australian family because we have managed and adjusted the settlement process.
We have not stood still.
My central proposition is that the “system is not broke” because we have continually sought to improve it. We should continue to search for ways to improve it.
We have all these first and second generation migrants as an integral part of our Australian family because Australia has continued to provide opportunities for new arrivals to get on with life, and we have had an environment where mutual respect has been predominant. It has been challenged at times, but never for long, because the community itself has responded.
Conclusion
A commonsense citizenship test, which makes allowances for age, or disability, will provide, in a rapidly changing world, a clear signal to the broader community of the continuing importance new arrivals attach to citizenship.
A formal citizenship test will be a clear incentive for aspiring citizens to have the basic English language skills and understanding of our community necessary to move comfortably within our community, and get on with life. It is commonsense.
And, a formal citizenship test will help ensure that new arrivals make the most of the wonderful opportunities available to them, and it will further strengthen the mutual trust which is so essential to a united and cohesive society.
I started my speech talking about opportunitiy and trust. Can I finish by leaving you with this quote from a citizenship ceremony I recently presided at:
“the opportunities in Australia are great – I’ve never been without a job. One door closes and six or eight others open”.
Ultimately isn’t this what Australia is all about.
Thank you.
END
Media contact: Andrew Coombe 0438 777 145