HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Fourth Parliament, Second Session (54-2)
2020-10-15 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

English Language Proficiency

Mr SZAKACS (Cheltenham) (15:25): I rise to address a matter causing significant anxiety to members of our multicultural community here in South Australia. In last week's federal budget, the Morrison Liberal government announced that from next year (2021) they will be imposing a newer and harsher English language test requirement for partner visa applications and their permanent resident sponsors.

As a demonstration of some of these new requirements, the federal government has provided one of the following examples: the completion of 500 hours of free English language classes through the Adult Migrant English Program. Most partner visas are a provisional visa of two years before becoming eligible for a permanent visa. The requirement will have to be met at the time of the granting of the permanent visa, that is, the English language requirement at the time of the granting of the permanent visa. Minister Tudge, the acting Minister for Immigration, says the following:

English is our national language and is critical to getting a job, fully participating in our democracy and for social cohesion.

I do not think that anyone in this chamber would disagree with that, but I do say this: when my father arrived in 1956 as a migrant from Hungary, he would have failed and, had he failed, I certainly would not be standing here today. To say that this change has gone down like a lead balloon is a huge understatement. The Chair of the Ethnic Communities Council of New South Wales, Peter Doukas, has described the new requirement as 'an added burden which will undermine rather than bolster local families'.

My federal colleague, Labor's spokesperson for home affairs, Senator Kristina Keneally, says the changes smack of racism and resemble something from the White Australia Policy, and I must say it is hard to disagree. Of course, we encourage anyone hoping to make Australia home to become proficient in English so they can participate fully in the community and social life of this amazing nation of ours, but do we do this by using threats of refusing their application? Do we do this by threatening the livelihood of families and of relationships? Do we do this by denying our local community the immense benefits that multiculturalism brings?

Let's cast our minds back to the 1950s and that great wave of postwar migration to Australia. Is the federal government seriously arguing that those tens of thousands of migrants were unable to make a significant contribution to our cultural, social and economic life because of their lack of proficiency in English? Again, Mr Peter Doukas from the New South Wales Ethnic Communities Council says that telling a partner they cannot stay if they do not reach a certain standard of English proficiency will only make it harder for willing prospective citizens to acclimatise to life in Australia.

The federal government believes that without sufficient English language skills migrants are particularly vulnerable to family violence and other exploitation and less likely to know how and where to seek assistance. I have news for anyone with a concern in this regard: family and domestic violence and abuse happens in households, families and relationships in which both people speak perfectly good English. It is not the lack of English language proficiency that makes women vulnerable; it is men's violence and controlling behaviour and the critical lack of places for women to go when they do escape.

Statistics show that women seeking partner visas often came to Australia already married or with children, and the requirements could push them onto other visitor or temporary visas with no support. Visa status is used as leverage by perpetrators of this insidious domestic violence, and locking women out of their partner visa actually just enables perpetrators to have and continue this control. We should never force women into any situation where they are forced to stay with their perpetrator.

The devil is always in the detail, and I for one will be looking for it when details of the implementation of this policy and measures will be announced in the coming months. To those members of our community who stand to be adversely and unfairly impacted by these cynical changes, may you rest assured that we hear you, and I assure you that we stand with you.

PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS
MEMBERS
GET INVOLVED
ABOUT PARLIAMENT
VISIT
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
CONTACT