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, writes Dr Abul Rizvi.

DESPITE SAYING she wants to change the “tone” of the Coalition’s language around immigration, Opposition Leader Sussan Ley is reported to be proceeding with her idea of an Australian values test for securing a visa.

The idea is almost entirely about winning back voters the Coalition is bleeding to One Nation (or fending off MP Andrew Hastie and Senator Jacinta Price), as it’s the kind of silly and poorly thought-out idea only a One Nation voter (or perhaps a Trumpist) would support.

Ley’s idea takes former Opposition Leader Peter Dutton’s requirement for certain permanent and temporary visa applicants to sign up to an Australian values statement to the next step — an actual test.

I have never heard of anyone not signing up to the Australian values statement. It hasn’t had any practical effect. Testing people on this statement is apparently going to weed out undesirable people in a way that just asking them to sign up to the values statement doesn’t.

The Federal Government would not pass its own values test

The Federal Government has revamped the citizenship test by adding a “values” section, featuring principles our own government would not pass.

We do require Citizenship applicants to sit a multiple-choice test, but failing the test doesn’t have many practical consequences, as the applicant remains a permanent resident. They can re-take the test at a later date until they eventually pass.

But a test for applicants for permanent residence and temporary entry visas (presumably including students, working holidaymakers, skilled temporary entrants and so on) would be a very different kettle of fish depending on the types of questions asked, the consequences of failing the test and how soon a failed applicant could re-take the test (if at all).

Many people will remember former PM John Howard’s example of asking people Bradman’s batting average as part of the Citizenship test (I am not sure that ever proceeded). Another type of question that is sometimes asked of people boarding a flight is whether they are a terrorist. Or whether they will abide by Australia’s laws. I imagine not many people answer “yes” to the first or “no” to the second.

A more controversial type of question could be: What does 26 January commemorate? I recall former PM Scott Morrison once saying that 26 January commemorated the day Captain Cook landed at Botany Bay. Perhaps because he was the local member for the Botany Bay area, Morrison may have confused that day in 1770 with the day the First Fleet raised the Union Jack at Sydney Cove some 18 years later.

If the Prime Minister of Australia didn’t know what 26 January commemorates, why would we expect an applicant for an Australian visa to know that?

But let’s assume the Coalition can come up with some meaningful questions and that the costs of developing and administering the test will be covered by some sort of “user pays” arrangement. There is then a range of other practical questions that arise.

First, will the test be run online, such that test takers can search the internet for answers or indeed use artificial intelligence? Or will the test taker have to travel to a physical location to take the test to ensure proper checking of identity and prevent them from using the internet to get the answers (as we do with English language tests, which are run by private companies)?

Australian Citizenship test revised

A new Prime Minister seems like a good time for a revised Australian citizenship test.

How many such physical test-taking locations will have to be established, given that Australia takes permanent and temporary entrants from every part of the world? Our embassies will often not be conveniently located or have the free space to run such tests.

How would offshore humanitarian entrants who are often in refugee camps or in war zones travel to these test locations? Would the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) or the International Organisation for Migration (IOM) be prepared to administer these tests? If so, who would meet the costs?

Second, would the tests be conducted in English or in other languages as well? Conducting the test in English would be fine for primary skilled applicants, but what about the spouses or children of these applicants? What about offshore humanitarian entrants? And what about partner visa applicants? Sometimes Australians marry people who do not speak English.

Third, what happens if a person fails the test because they, too, were confused about some aspects of Australian history, such as our former Prime Minister was? Could that person re-sit the test at a later date, or are they forever barred? How long would the test taker be required to wait? What if the person is an onshore visa applicant? Do they get deported for being as confused as our former Prime Minister?

How long would an applicant for a partner visa have to wait before they can resit the test? Or will they have to be forever separated from their Australian partner? What about applicants for an employer-sponsored visa? Would the sponsoring Australian employers be happy about whatever further delay the Government imposes?

The reality is that an Australian values test would achieve nothing meaningful. It would create cost and delay, further clogging up an already clogged-up visa system, while pandering to the usual suspects. But that may well be the objective of the exercise.

Dr Abul Rizvi an Independent Australia columnist and a former Deputy Secretary of the Department of Immigration. You can follow Abul on Twitter @RizviAbul.