Australian Values compliance for One Nation voters? Well done Angus!

Angus Taylor's social media vetting of Australian values for visa holders will be costly, labour-intensive and ultimately untenable, but it's also One Nation damage control. Dr Abul Rizvi examines how such a policy might play out in practice.

OPPOSITION LEADER ANGUS TAYLOR has proposed to make 'compliance with the Australian Values Statement a binding requirement for visa holders …and enable visas to be refused or cancelled where individuals fail to uphold these values'.

Taylor wants to:

'...establish an enhanced screening coordination centre within the Department of Home Affairs (DHA). This would also see social media screening of visa applicants move from an as-needed risk basis to become a standard feature of vetting.”

So how big would this centre have to be if such screening were to operate for all visa applicants and visa holders, noting the existing character provisions in the Migration Act are already very broad?

A first step in establishing such an arrangement would be to provide detailed guidance to the visa processing staff in the proposed centre with actual and hypothetical examples of breaches of the Australian Values Statement so that they would know what to look for.

What kind of social media posts would be a breach of, for example:

Commitment to the rule of law?
Would criticism of the prosecution of Donald Trump on Facebook be a breach of this value? Would criticism of specific judges or judgments be a breach of this value? Would criticism of the prosecution of Ben Roberts-Smith be a breach of this value?
Freedom of religion, freedom of speech and freedom of association?
Would criticism of certain religions be a breach of this value? Would criticism of unions be a breach of this value?
Equality of opportunity for all people regardless of gender, sexual orientation, age, disability, race, or national or ethnic origin?
Would criticism of gay people be a breach of this value?
"Fair go" for all?
Would criticism of Australia’s means-tested social welfare system be a breach of this value?

Clearly, these would be matters of degree. Just a once-off post that breaches an Australian Value may not be regarded as sufficient to lead to visa refusal or cancellation. (We don’t know as Mr Taylor hasn’t explained this). Difficult judgments may need to be made about a pattern of such breaches.

Many people use multiple social media sites, in different languages and to different degrees. Many people have been members of multiple social media sites for a decade or more. For these people, the task may take longer.

Coalition’s Australian values test is the ultimate dog whistle

Sussan Ley’s so-called “values test” exposes the Coalition’s desperation to court the far-Right under the guise of patriotism.

Let’s assume, on average, it takes five hours to scrutinise a person’s social media posts and make a judgment on whether they have breached an Australian Value. (That may include use of some sort of artificial intelligence to assist with the vetting.) It would include a write-up of the findings from the vetting, any natural justice process that is required and a recommendation as to whether Australian Values have or have not been sufficiently breached. This would be in addition to existing visa processes relevant to the type of visa applied for or held.

On average, there are around 250 working days per year. Using an average of an eight-hour working day, there are 2,000 working hours per year, per person. That would mean each staff member could vet the social media of around 400 visa applicants/holders per year.

On average, DHA processes more than 500,000 visa applications per month or more than 6 million per year. That would mean the proposed centre may need around 15,000 additional processing staff, plus supervisors/trainers/legal support/IT support and so on. And that is before we consider the possible vetting of the 3 million temporary entrants currently in Australia and around 4 million permanent residents.

There would inevitably be a significant increase in processing times and backlogs, which are already blowing out enormously. Many industries would feel the effects of much longer visa processing times, including tourism, education and agriculture.

And ultimately, how many people would have their visa application refused/cancelled as a result of this additional social media vetting? If the number is tiny (which is highly likely), what will we have actually achieved? Many Australian citizens regularly breach Australian Values on their social media. That includes politicians, media personalities, influencers and so on.

Taylor would know all this. So why is he making such a fuss about social media vetting for Australian Values? In one word, Hanson.

Dr Abul Rizvi is an Independent Australia columnist and former Deputy Secretary of the Department of Immigration. You can follow Abul on Twitter @RizviAbul or Bluesky @abulrizvi.bsky.social.