Coalition’s Australian values test is the ultimate dog whistle

Sussan Ley’s so-called “values test” reveals the Coalition’s desperation to court the far right under the guise of patriotism, writes Dr Abul Rizvi.

Although Opposition Leader says Coalition wants to change “tone” of language on immigration Susan Ley It is reported that he is moving forward with the idea Australian values test To secure the visa.

The idea is almost entirely about winning back the voters (or fending off MPs) that the Coalition bled into One Nation. Andrew Hastie and Senator Jacinta Price), because it’s the kind of stupid and ill-conceived idea that only a One Nation voter (or maybe a Trumper) would support.

Ley’s idea takes former Opposition Leader Peter DuttonA requirement for some permanent and temporary visa applicants to sign up to a declaration of Australian values in order to take the next step, a real test.

I have never heard of anyone who disagreed with the Australian values statement. It had no practical effect. Testing people against this statement will apparently weed out undesirable people, but simply asking them to subscribe to the values statement does not.

We require citizenship applicants to take a multiple-choice test, but there are not many practical consequences for failing the test since the applicant remains a permanent resident. They can retake the exam at a later date until they finally pass.

However, a test for applicants for permanent residence and temporary entry visas (possibly including students, working holidaymakers, skilled temporary entrants etc.) would be a very different situation depending on the type of questions asked, the consequences of failing the test and how soon a failed applicant could retake the test (if at all).

Many people will remember the former prime minister John Howardexample of asking people Bradman’s batting average As part of the citizenship test (not sure if it progressed). Another question sometimes asked of people boarding a plane is whether they are terrorists. Or whether they will comply with Australian law. I think there are not many people who say “yes” to the first and “no” to the second.

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

If the Australian Prime Minister doesn’t know what 26 January commemorates, why would we expect an Australian visa applicant to know?

But let’s assume that the Coalition can raise some meaningful questions and that the costs of developing and implementing the test will be covered by some form of “user pays” arrangement. A number of other practical questions then arise.

First, will the test be administered online, where test takers can look up answers online or use artificial intelligence? Or will the test taker need to go to a physical location to take the test (as we do with English language tests run by private companies) to ensure proper identification and prevent them from using the internet to get answers?

Given that Australia accepts permanent and temporary participants from all over the world, how many such physical testing centers will need to be established? Our embassies will often not be appropriately located or have the space to conduct such tests.

How will offshore humanitarian arrivals, often in refugee camps or war zones, travel to these testing sites? United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) or International Organization for Migration (IOM) are you ready to apply these tests? If so, who will cover the costs?

Second, will the tests be conducted in English or other languages? Having the exam in English may be good for candidates with basic qualifications, but what about their spouses or children? What about those who enter the high seas for humanitarian purposes? So what about partner visa applicants? Sometimes Australians marry people who don’t speak English.

Third, what happens if someone, like our former Prime Minister, fails the test because they are confused about some aspect of Australian history? Can this person retake the exam at a later date or will they be banned forever? How long does the examinee have to wait? But what if the person is applying for a land visa? Are they being deported because they are confused, like our former Prime Minister?

How long does an applicant for a partner visa have to wait before being able to retake the exam? Or will they have to break up with their Australian partners for good? What about those applying for an employer-sponsored visa? Will sponsoring Australian employers be happy with the additional delays imposed by the Government?

The reality is that a test of Australian values will not yield any meaningful results. This will create costs and delays by further clogging the already clogged visa system, while pandering to the usual suspects. But that may also be the purpose of the exercise.

Doctor Abul Rizvi Independent Australian columnist and a former Deputy Secretary of the Immigration Service. You can follow Abul on Twitter @RizviAbul.

Support independent journalism Subscribe to IA.