In a crisis, the Coalition government thinks that migrants need to jump through higher hoops.
The recently announced changes to the Australian citizenship test and new English language requirements for Australian residents sponsoring overseas partners (and for their sponsored partners) reflects a strong tendency of the Coalition government to suddenly decide that migrants need to “lift their game” when there are some wider challenges facing the community.
The first occasion this tendency showed itself was the introduction in 2007 of a formal computer-based Australian citizenship test. There was not a real crisis at the time, apart from the fact that the coalition felt (rightly) that was about to lose the 2007 election. It thought that introduction a citizenship test with a national television campaign carefully timed to coincide with the lead up to the election might swing them enough extra votes from those people in the community who were uncomfortable with migrant integration. It didn’t. There was no evidence that a formal citizenship test was needed. There still is no evidence that any new citizen is a better citizen because of it.
The advent of ISIS and heightened fears of domestic terrorism led to the government in 2017 proposing a suite of draconian legislative changes to dramatically increase the degree of difficulty for migrants wanting to become full participants in the Australian community as Australian citizens. Thankfully these were not passed by the Parliament. There was never any reason to believe that migrants would have been better citizens if these changes had been made. Many thousands would have been excluded from Australian citizenship for no good reason. The idea that raising barriers to acquisition of citizenship would somehow improve security was completely illusory given that those excluded from citizenship could remain in Australia for the rest of their lives anyway.
It seems that the government is at it again. This time the “crises” that require migrants to jump higher are an odd collection of Covid 19, foreign interference, their lack of English language skills and internet communications technology.
Acting Immigration Minister Alan Tudge made these somewhat implausible connections in his 28 August speech to the National Press Club. There did not appear to be any independent Parliamentary or other enquiry that generated his analysis.
The government’s policy “solution” to these crises is to introduce new questions about Australian national values to the Australian citizenship test. Again there is no evidence that anyone magically comprehends new values or acquires them when applying for a visa or doing a citizenship test, but the point is that migrants will have to jump through extra hoops.
There were some good things in Minister Tudge’s speech such as commitment to expanding the government’s community liaison officer network, positive changes to access to availability of English-language training and a research partnership with the Scanlon foundation on multicultural issues. The proof of sincerity will be in the implementation.
The Minister also foreshadowed an increased focus on the take-up of Australian citizenship and rather disingenuously bragged about a record 200,000 citizenship acquisitions in 2019-20. The only reason for this record number was a massive backlog of the government’s own creation that still results in migrants waiting a staggering two years for their citizenship applications to be decided.
The latest twist in setting up new hoops for migrants to jump through is Minister Tudge’s 8 October announcement that, from late 2021, new partner visa applicants and permanent resident sponsors will be required to have functional level English or to demonstrate that they have made “reasonable efforts” to learn English.
There is no doubt that acquisition of reasonable English language ability is a good thing for migrants and should be encouraged. Making opportunities available for English language study and introducing positive incentives is reasonable, but trying to force people gain English language skills by effectively denying them the ability to live together in a marriage is another thing altogether. These are requirements that only apply to migrants and don’t apply to marriage in the community at large. Of course they disproportionately hit non-English-speaking migrants.
The goal of functional English may in fact be too high and unnecessary for many migrants to live successfully in the community depending on their circumstances. One wonders how many proponents of these measures actually speak a language other than English to a functional level or have seriously tried to do so.
Details of the measures have not been announced. This automatically creates huge uncertainty for anyone with a foreign partner from a non-English-speaking background on top of the uncertainty that already exists through the international travel restrictions that go with Covid 19. Families with children will be most affected. If implemented as proposed, it will add to the already overly complex and legally compromised partner visa system with existing long delays before visas are issued for those who fully meet the legal requirements.
Where is the evidence that these measures are needed and will produce the desired result? It is hard to escape the view that these kinds of changes are largely pandering to the views of those who feel uncomfortable with immigration and migrant integration, despite the fact that migration levels have dropped to unprecedented lows.
The bottom line seems to be that random measures that try to force migrants to be more like us will fix the problem – whatever it is. Rather than meeting Minister Tudge’s stated objective of greater social cohesion, they will likely just increase any sense of alienation on the part of non-English speaking migrants.
Peter Hughes PSM is a Fellow of the Centre for Policy Development. He worked in a variety of policy and operational roles in the Australian Department of Immigration from 1979 until 2011. He was Deputy Secretary in charge of policy in the period 2007–2011.
[end]
Peter Hughes is a Fellow of the Centre for Policy Development. He had a long career in the Commonwealth Department of Immigration and Citizenship, retiring as Deputy Secretary in 2011. He was awarded the Public Service Medal in 2005 for outstanding public service in the development of policies and programs to increase citizenship, multicultural harmony and the settlement of refugees.
Comments
9 responses to “Migrants: how can we make THEM more like US?”
I can’t get past the notion that for Emperor Morrison, his idea of Australia is similar to Australia under Menzies and that is a “white” Australia, although he can’t admit it in as many words, so it comes down to “them” being more willing to be more like “us”. This notion, as with Howard, is an overt paean to the racist voter base and I suspect that category overlaps significantly with another voter group he is drawing unto himself – who do a particular job and drive a particular type of vehicle. Interesting is that there is, apparently, no poverty crisis or if there is, no funds to provide big “handouts” to bludgers and no climate crisis either, no aged care “crisis” and no funding for one if there is, but ample resources to deal with this “immigration crisis”.
Interestingly, this is by a government professing to want to cut red tape.
The English language policy does indeed seem unclear, but judging by this (from the ABC website) it is not exactly stopping couples living together in Australia:
Partner visas are processed in two stages and the minister’s office said
the new language requirement would not need to be met until someone was
applying for permanency, usually after two years of being able to live
in Australia on a temporary partner visa.>
Jill, you are right that the scant detail released suggests that a foreign partner might be able to try to reach functional English or complete 500 hours of English language training while on a provisional visa. But does the sponsor have to meet the requirement BEFORE sponsoring their offshore partner to come to Australia? What if their offshore partner does not meet the English language while on the provisional visa? Long term limbo and denial of the benefits of permanent residence and Australian Citizenship? Removal from Australia? There are potentially circumstances where couples could be separated. Would you like your child to take this kind of risk with a foreign partner whose English was short of the “functional” standard?
Jill, you are right that the scant information on implementation suggests that overseas partners will have the opportunity to meet the requirement while they are in Australia with their Australian partner on a Provisional Visa. However, what about the Australian resident sponsor? Will they have to meet the English language training requirement BEFORE sponsoring their offshore partner? What if the offshore partner is not able to achieve functional English during the two-year period of their Provisional Visa? Will the offshore partner be in indefinite limbo precluded from getting permanent residence and Australian citizenship? Will the offshore partner be removed from Australia for failing to meet the requirement? Nobody knows. There are scenarios which would stop couples living together in Australia. Would you be comfortable for an adult child of yours to sponsor an overseas partner with children who spoke reasonable, but less than functional, English under these conditions?
According to Alan Tudge on the ABC website:
“What this will mean is that we will require an
applicant and a sponsor to have met functional level English or to have
at least made reasonable efforts to learn English.
And by reasonable efforts we mean for most people that would be doing about 500 hours of free English language classes.”
Having taught English to migrants myself for many years, I have been irritated by the comments about “racism” and “red tape.” There was a brief window in the 1980s when long-term migrants could finally access the 510 hours of free lessons the government provides (without having to be newly arrived or job-seeking) and believe me, they were grateful for the opportunity. Many older migrants told me how frustrating and alienating it had been to live in Australia without being able to communicate in English.
It is important for people living here to speak English, not least for their own comfort and safety. But their chances of learning English are vastly better once they are here, and it is difficult not to see something unpleasantly punitive about these policies. I believe that decades after the mass migration to Australia of Italians in the 1950s there were many older Italians who never learnt English, or at least more than a few words. They were certainly no problem.
Barney, you are absolutely right, but that is no reason for this government not to make things a bit harder and introduce some more red tape.
You seem to be skirting around the word ‘racist’ when you talk about to whom the government is/was pandering with announced changes, Peter. There, I’ve said it now: ‘racist’. As in, ‘It thought that introduction a (sic) citizenship test with a national television campaign carefully timed to coincide with the lead up to the election might swing them enough extra votes from racists’