Subjects: State of Origin 2017 Game II; Bill Shorten's lack of leadership in supporting strengthening citizenship requirements; Administrative Appeals Tribunal; Gonski needs-based funding for schools.
E&EO…………………………………………………………………………………………..
RAY HADLEY:
Minister, good morning to you.
PETER DUTTON:
Good morning Ray.
RAY HADLEY:
You'd be cock-a-hoop with what happened last night at ANZ, would you not?
PETER DUTTON:
It was a pretty good outcome. I got a bit of stick yesterday from the cockroaches in the Parliament, but I haven't seen them this morning, but I suspect they like me will be waiting for the decider. It's going to be a big game.
RAY HADLEY:
You're talking about the cockroaches from both sides of the House I presume?
PETER DUTTON:
I get referred to as worse than that, so there you go.
RAY HADLEY:
Ok. The citizenship test – you're proposing new Australian citizens have a university level grasp of English. Look, I can understand why you want them to speak English and I understand the hypocrisy of Tony Burke and Bill Shorten, but I'm a bit concerned about some of these questions. Who decided to come up with the questions about climate change and the like?
PETER DUTTON:
Well a couple of quick points though; Labor's been a little bit tricky here I think. I think Bill Shorten's trying to play a double game. They're talking about it being a university level which is a nonsense. There's a General Training aspect to this which is the test that we are asking people to take and on a scale of one to nine, we're asking for people before they become citizens to achieve a Competent level which is at Level 6 in the General Training, not in the Academic stream.
So it think frankly mate there's a bit of a red herring going on here. I think they've put this out as a distraction because just like on boats, Labor is completely divided on these things and the issue that concerns them most is the fact that we want people to adhere to Australian values and to abide by Australian laws. It's not about English language – I think they've just thrown that out there as a bit of a furphy – they're against asking people to be here for four years, not one year as a permanent resident, but again I just think it's a smokescreen.
It's clear to me that the Left of the Party has overridden probably the wishes of Bill Shorten to support us on this Bill and I think it is very important for us to improve the test, to make it more difficult for some people to become Australian citizens and that's what we've announced. We want to make sure that there is value to becoming an Australian citizen and in this day and age I think that's more important than ever.
RAY HADLEY:
Back to who couched these questions – sample questions for citizenship applicants, the global increase in greenhouse gases has been attributed to A. industrial pollution in developing countries, coal mining and electricity generation B., C. reduced rainfall in many parts of the world, D. trends in population and lifestyle.
I'm surprised at the nature of the questions about climate change given how you personally feel about it and how many feel about it in the Party.
PETER DUTTON:
Well again, I've had a good look into this because I saw that article. So, there is an international standard; this Level 6 that we talk about is part of an international standard. Now there are lots of companies that do these tests; they are accredited to do these test, but essentially there is a page of text on a particular topic and they've chosen this one on climate change. There are many other topics where you read through a page of text and then you answer four of five multiple choice questions off the end of it. So, essentially the test is not, you know, whether you know about climate change or not, it's whether you can pick out if the figure is 90 per cent or if its18 per cent out of the text….
RAY HADLEY:
…so it's about reading something and understanding it in English?
PETER DUTTON:
That's exactly right. So it could be a subject matter on any topic at all.
RAY HADLEY:
See one of the problems I have – and I know this is not a problem for the Federal Government – but I get complaints all the time about people, seeing people from other countries driving, when they go for their licence in Queensland, New South Wales, other states and territories, it's done in 38, 39, 142 languages. So you can get your licence without actually speaking the lingo or reading the signs and that's a concern. If you're concerned about people coming to exist here and live here and be part of the community and speaking the lingo, how does that [inaudible] people gaining a drivers licence who live here?
PETER DUTTON:
Well it is a good point. The citizenship test at the moment, even the way that it's conducted at the moment, it can only be tested in English and there are many reasons why we want people to improve their English language skills; it's easier for kids to learn, it's better for people in the workplace, it's better for families in the community, people integrate more effectively if they're able to improve their English language over a period of time – we exclude people over the age of 60 and under the age of 16 – so there's a ramp up of skill.
It's a very different period Ray from when people came to our country post the Second World War in the late 40s, early 50s, there wasn't the support that is available now, people were working in cutting cane or tobacco or working as tilers and whatnot. People who are coming to Australia today are coming here to start a new life, they have the ability to learn online, all of the support around improving their English language proficiency which wasn't there 30 or 40 years ago. There are some communities here in Australia, as we've seen in the United Kingdom and elsewhere, where no English is spoken and you know people don't abide by many of the Australian laws.
Now, I'm saying that that is coming to an end and we want people to speak the English language. We want them to improve their English language overtime. We want them to demonstrate that they're adhering to Australian values and that is the big problem for Bill Shorten because he's got people on the Left of his Party who are worried about the Greens taking their seats and so Bill Shorten has taken a decision to side with them, over what I think is a common sense approach that would be supported by everyday Australians.
We are making the test tougher – there's no question about that – but this is the prize of Australian citizenship and when people say, well, you know, you've got foreign fighters, Australian citizens overseas, why do you allow them back? And I think as we've discussed before, they come back because they are entitled to come back under the Australian law and the Australian constitution because they are Australian citizens and that is why it's incredibly important on all of those levels to get this change through the Parliament. I'm hoping that common sense can prevail for Bill Shorten at some stage, but at the moment it's not and we'll have discussions with the Independent Senators.
RAY HADLEY:
So I take it from all of that, you would prefer that the states and territories actually didn't give people the opportunity to go for a drivers licence in 38, 39 or 42 languages as the case may be?
PETER DUTTON:
Well I think for people who are here as residents, people who are here and are eligible to get a drivers licence from New South Wales or Queensland or wherever it may be, I think they should sit the test in English. I think they should do that because the road signs aren't signed in 38 different languages, they're signed in one and people need to adhere to it and there's a safety aspect to it. So again, you've got to default to common sense on these things.
RAY HADLEY:
Ok. Common sense is not in large lumps at the AAT. Now just so people understand this, you made a decision about Jagdeep Singh. You said no, get back in there – this is the cab rapist from Victoria. Justice John Logan then defied you and issued him with a visa again. You then had to come back via Immigration – when I say you I'm talking about your Department – and withdraw the visa again. I mean, when does this end? Does he now say no you're wrong? Is there some finality in all of this?
PETER DUTTON:
There is and there are still a couple of steps to go yet, I suspect, so I don't want to comment on it publicly, but I haven't taken a backward step where I know that we're right on these matters in the past and I won't be taking a backward step in the future either. So people can take whatever position they want, that's an issue for them, but I can assure you Ray that I'm doing everything I can, as we've discussed on the show before, in cancelling visas of people who have committed sexual offences against women and children in particular, and there's a lot of work that we're going to continue to do – but I likely will have to make a further decision in relation to this matter so I don't want to comment on this case specifically – but it is ongoing.
RAY HADLEY:
Ok. Generally and I've addressed this with you recently and I don't know that I got the sort of answer that I want. We've got a Local Court, we have a District Court, we have a Supreme Court, we have a Federal Court, we have ultimately a High Court; why do we need an Admin Appeals Tribunal given that we've got all these layers of judicial bodies from the Local Court that deals with matters where you get sentenced under two years to the High Court for the most serious offences that are appealed – why do we need an Admin Appeals Tribunal?
PETER DUTTON:
Well there's an Admin Appeals Tribunal that applies not only in the immigration space, but in social security…
RAY HADLEY:
…in life generally, I understand that, but why do we need them?
PETER DUTTON:
…well we…there are a few reasons as to why you know different steps are in the process.
One is that we need to afford people natural justice. There's an argument around administrative decisions as opposed to decisions being taken by the court and allowing in some cases where it's appropriate, what's referred to as a merits review – so that is the merit of the decision that's been taken by an administrative officer within my Department or in some cases by me as Minister – and that's the legal process that's there.
Now I've said for a long period of time that I believe people should have their fair day in court, but I think at the moment there are too many roundabouts here and too many opportunities for these matters to be extended out, protracted, and frankly many of them are only designed to prolong the inevitable – that is somebody being deported and the taxpayers are picking up the bill for it.
So I am doing some work in this space Ray, and I do believe that it needs to be condensed and streamlined, but I have to work within the law and that's what we're doing.
RAY HADLEY:
Ok, very quickly, you're actually going to Cabinet – this is why we've recorded this a bit earlier as I announced earlier – Gonski; have you spoken to Catholic school principals in your electorate, because I'll be talking to one a bit later and even allowing for the fact that you seem to have support of the crossbenches and you've increased it by almost $5 billion, I don't know that the Catholic Education system is all that happy with what you're doing.
PETER DUTTON:
Well it's a different story in different states.
In my state of Queensland the head of Catholic Education has put out a statement, in fact I've seen a couple of letters from principals as well up there from Catholic schools, saying that their fees won't increase and that they're happy for the extra funding .
The difficulty in the Catholic sector, and these negotiations are going on at the moment, is that because it's a standalone system they have the ability to decide essentially how much money goes to each of the schools and the system that's being proposed has an assessment done of each of the students within the school and then money is allocated on a needs basis where there's a higher need…
RAY HADLEY:
…so you're saying in your home state, there's not the same angst there is in the southern states?
PETER DUTTON:
….no there's not. Look, my sense of it is the angst is in the ACT and to a lesser extent in Victoria, a bit in NSW, but I think the negotiations are ongoing at the moment. There's a deal on the table, but I suspect that's being negotiated as we speak.
RAY HADLEY:
Alright. By the time I finish today we will probably find out what's happened in Cabinet. I appreciate your time and we'll talk next week.
PETER DUTTON:
Thanks Ray. Thanks mate.
[ends]
