Daily Bulletin


The Conversation

  • Written by Alex Reilly, Deputy Dean and Director of the Public Law and Policy Research Unit, Adelaide Law School, University of Adelaide
image

The federal government today announced three broad changes to the criteria for Australian citizenship. These are:

  • a new residence requirement;

  • a new process for determining an applicant’s integration into the community; and

  • changes to the citizenship test.

Citizenship is an important mechanism to foster integration and make people feel fully connected and committed to Australia. There is a risk, however, that if citizenship is too hard to attain, a two-tier system of permanent residency will develop in Australia: those who are full citizens, and those who failed to become citizens – though they are permanent residents.

Change in residence requirement

The proposed residence requirement is stricter than what exists now.

Currently, applicants for citizenship need to be resident in Australia for four years, but they only need to be a permanent resident for one year. Under the proposed change, applicants need to have been permanent residents for four years.

This change will affect those who entered Australia on temporary work or humanitarian visas. These people will no longer be able to count their time as temporary residents toward the residence requirement for citizenship.

The proposed change has the potential to inflict particular harm on refugees. Many are now only granted temporary protection visas. For them, citizenship is an important sign of their permanent acceptance and commitment to Australia.

Testing integration

A second change is new English-language testing. Potential citizens will have to show in their written application that they have integrated through participation in work, community activities and schooling for children.

These changes are potentially positive. A cohesive multicultural society like Australia requires a core level of integration among its members. It is reasonable to expect people choosing to make a life here to participate in the community.

Most applicants for citizenship, including refugees, will welcome the opportunity to demonstrate their commitment to Australia. There is a danger, however, of creating an unnecessary administrative burden both for applicants and for the Department of Immigration by adding a significant section to the written application.

In Australia, the ability to communicate in English is clearly important to achieving integration. Under the current application process, the citizenship test is a grossly inadequate proxy for measuring English-language ability. A multiple-choice test with complicated concepts about Australia’s institutions of government does not test “basic” English-language skills.

The citizenship test

There are three proposed changes to the citizenship test.

  • The new test will contain more meaningful questions that assess an applicant’s understanding of, and commitment to, shared values and responsibilities.

  • A person will be able to sit the test a maximum of three times.

  • Cheating on the test will lead to automatic failure: the implication seems to be it will not be possible to ever sit the test again.

The US, the UK and Canada all have citizenship tests. All test different things – history, values, institutions and symbols. New Zealand does not have a citizenship test.

Since its introduction in 2007, the Australian citizenship test has been a controversial part of application process. It has served several not-very-well-defined functions.

It is hard to conceive how a multiple-choice test can possibly test a person’s “understanding of and commitment to” shared values. The test of a person’s values is in their actions, not their knowledge of values. The new requirement that an applicant must demonstrate their integration into the community is a far better test of values.

Those who fail the test do so because their English-language skills are not adequate to understand the question – and not, for example, because they were unaware that domestic violence is forbidden.

The role of English-language ability in failure rates is evident in Department of Immigration statistics on the citizenship test. In 2014-15, the failure rate among Chinese applicants was more than seven times higher than it was among Indian applicants. Among Vietnamese applicants it was 17 times higher. This is almost certainly related to the higher level of English competency among Indian applicants.

Given the test’s inadequacy, and its strong bias toward those with a higher level of English, the proposal that an applicant can no longer apply for citizenship after a third failure is most concerning.

We will have to wait for the full details, but it is hard to imagine that the government really intends to exclude from citizenship forever a permanent resident of long standing and good repute, and whose life is intrinsically connected to Australia, simply because they failed a flawed test of their values due to their poor English-language skills at the time they were tested.

The three strikes provision will have a disproportionate effect on refugees applying for citizenship. The 2014-15 statistics reveal that, in the skilled stream, on average people needed to sit 1.1 tests to pass. In the family stream it was 1.4 tests. And, in the humanitarian stream, it was 2.4 tests. This means there is a significant number of humanitarian migrants requiring more than three attempts to pass the test.

One possible implication of the limitation on attempts at the test is that humanitarian migrants will delay applying for citizenship. This has negative consequences for their wellbeing and their integration into the community.

Refugees are known to be particularly loyal to Australia. Once they have been accepted they rarely return to their country of origin.

As a result of adding a standalone English-language test, and a requirement that applicants demonstrate how they have integrated into the community, there is a strong case for eliminating the citizenship test altogether.

What is the role of citizenship?

Australia already assesses who to allow in – and to whom to grant residency – before any issue of citizenship arises.

Permanent residents in Australia enjoy almost the full range of civil and political rights as citizens. They have access to the welfare system (after initial waiting periods), Medicare, and education. Citizens alone are able to vote, and they have a greater security of residence.

Citizenship is the last step on the path to full membership. By the time someone is applying for citizenship, they have already been in Australia for a minimum of four years, and have made a life here.

We should be encouraging permanent residents to take up citizenship and to commit fully to Australia. Citizenship, in this sense, is a positive mechanism for inclusion. The government’s focus on citizenship as a mechanism for exclusion in its rhetoric and some of the proposed changes is, therefore, counterproductive.

Authors: Alex Reilly, Deputy Dean and Director of the Public Law and Policy Research Unit, Adelaide Law School, University of Adelaide

Read more http://theconversation.com/explainer-the-proposed-changes-to-australian-citizenship-76405

Writers Wanted

How unis can use student housing to solve international student quarantine issues

arrow_forward

The floor is lava: after 1.5 billion years in flux, here's how a new, stronger crust set the stage for life on Earth

arrow_forward

Play Poker Online Here With The Best Odds

arrow_forward

The Conversation
INTERWEBS DIGITAL AGENCY

Politics

Prime Minister Interview with Ben Fordham, 2GB

BEN FORDHAM: Scott Morrison, good morning to you.    PRIME MINISTER: Good morning, Ben. How are you?    FORDHAM: Good. How many days have you got to go?   PRIME MINISTER: I've got another we...

Scott Morrison - avatar Scott Morrison

Prime Minister Interview with Kieran Gilbert, Sky News

KIERAN GILBERT: Kieran Gilbert here with you and the Prime Minister joins me. Prime Minister, thanks so much for your time.  PRIME MINISTER: G'day Kieran.  GILBERT: An assumption a vaccine is ...

Daily Bulletin - avatar Daily Bulletin

Did BLM Really Change the US Police Work?

The Black Lives Matter (BLM) movement has proven that the power of the state rests in the hands of the people it governs. Following the death of 46-year-old black American George Floyd in a case of ...

a Guest Writer - avatar a Guest Writer

Business News

Nisbets’ Collab with The Lobby is Showing the Sexy Side of Hospitality Supply

Hospitality supply services might not immediately make you think ‘sexy’. But when a barkeep in a moodily lit bar holds up the perfectly formed juniper gin balloon or catches the light in the edg...

The Atticism - avatar The Atticism

Buy Instagram Followers And Likes Now

Do you like to buy followers on Instagram? Just give a simple Google search on the internet, and there will be an abounding of seeking outcomes full of businesses offering such services. But, th...

News Co - avatar News Co

Cybersecurity data means nothing to business leaders without context

Top business leaders are starting to realise the widespread impact a cyberattack can have on a business. Unfortunately, according to a study by Forrester Consulting commissioned by Tenable, some...

Scott McKinnel, ANZ Country Manager, Tenable - avatar Scott McKinnel, ANZ Country Manager, Tenable



News Co Media Group

Content & Technology Connecting Global Audiences

More Information - Less Opinion