The Federal Labor Party has voiced opposition to the Turnbull Government’s tougher English-language requirements to become an Australian citizen. From ABC’s Lateline:
DAVID LIPSON: Strong English is central to the Government’s citizenship changes, announced last month, along with a new Australian values test… 40 days since that announcement, Labor’s concerns are getting louder.
ANNE ALY, LABOR MP: Has the potential of making it virtually impossible, impossible for many people to be able to get citizenship…
DAVID LIPSON: Along with speaking, listening and reading, essay writing is one of the requirements of passing IELTs 6.
That’s the level of English needed to take the pledge under the Government’s proposed changes.
TONY BURKE, SHADOW CITIZENSHIP MINISTER: You’re talking about a level of English that a very large number of Australians born here never reach.
DAVID LIPSON: Never before, in Australia’s history of migration, has English proficiency been a precondition of citizenship.
TONY BURKE: I’m yet to hear the argument as to why someone who is a new citizen of Australia needs to have university-level English…
DAVID LIPSON: The Assistant Minister for Multicultural Affairs is himself the son of migrants from Croatia.
ZED SESELJA: For that first generation, if they haven’t learnt English, there can be a struggle communicating even in some cases with their own kids or their own grandkids.
That’s not ideal, obviously I wouldn’t want to see that with my parents or my grandparents.
DAVID LIPSON: He argues nowadays, there are far fewer of the type of jobs that employed our parents and grandparents. Working today in a factory is more complex than working in a factory, may have been 40 or 50 years ago.
There’s more computerisation, OH and S standards have changed so it is a different work environment. It’s certainly harder now and if you don’t have a good level of English to get most of the jobs that are on offer….
DAVID LIPSON: Labor is yet to take a formal position on whether to support the Government’s changes and there are some very different views within the caucus. The Shadow Minister for Citizenship takes issue with the longer waiting period for permanent residents to achieve citizenship.
TONY BURKE: If it’s about wanting people to feel more part of Australia and be able to integrate into the community, then why on earth would you say “And, we’re going to do it all later.”
The Turnbull Government’s reforms align somewhat with recommendations from the Productivity Commission’s (PC) recent Migrant Intake into Australia report.
In this report, the PC noted “the fundamental importance of strong English-language skills for an immigrant’s integration and wellbeing in Australia” and explicitly recommended “significant reforms within the current system” and “‘raising the bar’ by shifting to a universal points test while tightening entry requirements relating to age, skills and English-language proficiency”.
Perhaps the strongest case for strengthening English-language proficiency came from Xuemeng Zhau (“Doris”) – an international student studying in Canberra – who noted the following in the Lateline segment:
DAVID LIPSON: Doris sees the value in forcing young aspiring citizens to learn English.
XUEMENG ZHAU: I think it’s very, very important because culture of every country is different and you have to understand their culture, but how can you understand them when you don’t understand their language?
It’s hard to see why Labor has major problems with this policy. In principle, it makes sense for prospective migrants to be required to speak and read fluent English. It is Australia’s national language and being able to understand and effectively communicate in English is central to integrating into the broader community, as well as to fulfill the responsibilities of citizenship.
That said, while improving English-language proficiency is worthwhile, the Turnbull Government has refused to address the more fundamental issue of Australia’s permanent migration level being far too high. It is this high intake that is causing widespread indigestion in the major capitals via crush-loading economic and social infrastructure (e.g. the road and public transport systems, schools and hospitals), making housing less affordable, not to mention damaging Australia’s natural environment and diluting Australia’s mineral wealth.
Australia’s permanent intake is currently set at around 200,000 (including just under 15,000 via the humanitarian intake), and is well over double the level that existed at the turn of the century:
Last month, the Turnbull Government announced that Australia’s permanent migrant intake would be maintained at this record high level for 2017-18, without a whiff of protest from Labor or the Greens.
This is the issue that the three major parties should be focusing on. Nudging entry criteria around will not change the lived experience.
