The Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee is holding an enquiry into proposed changes to the Citizenship Act. The bill being considered is the “Australian Citizenship Legislation Amendment (Strengthening the Requirements for Australian Citizenship and Other Measures) Bill 2017”.
The Bill includes the following provision:
“At the end of section 46 Add:
Required information or documents
(4) …
(5) The Minister may determine:
(a) an Australian Values Statement; and
(b) any requirements relating to the Australian Values Statement….”
The Minister (that is, the Immigration Minister) is therefore given the power to decide what constitutes an appropriate statement of Australian Values. The significance of that power should not be underestimated.
The values which define a nation’s character are, typically, very diverse. It is not easy to imagine that every person in any nation would identify the same values as characteristic of that nation. The proposed amendments noted above would produce the result that adherence to Australia’s values would become a touchstone to citizenship. It seems odd then that one person should have the power to determine, for the nation at large, what its values are. For example, the history of Australia since white settlement could lead a person to suppose that Christian principles were central to Australia’s values. But that proposition would be inconsistent with aspects of Australia’s conduct (past and present) and inconsistent with section 116 of the Constitution, which says:
“The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion, and no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth.”
It is worth noting that the proposed s. 46(5) may not prevent a Minister from including, in a Statement of Australian Values, a requirement to adhere to Christian principles. This would be objectionable on at least four obvious grounds:
- The fact of growing Islamophobia in the community;
- The fact that people from various religious backgrounds join the Australian community and contribute greatly to it;
- The fact that such a requirement would be inconsistent with section 116 of the Constitution, even if not in breach of it;
- The fact that the indigenous peoples of Australia embrace religious views which are pre-Christian.
It seems highly undesirable that any one person, whether a Minister of the Crown or not, should have the power to determine what the nation’s values are, especially when his or her determination has the potential to affect a person’s right to citizenship.
There is a further point. A Statement of Australian Values already exists, as part of the process of applying for permission to enter Australia. If it is a template for what is proposed, then we have a problem.
The Australian Values Statement, in Form 1281, provides as follows:
“AUSTRALIAN VALUES STATEMENT
This statement must be signed by the main applicant and each person aged 18 years or over who is included in the visa application, unless they have already signed it on the visa application form…
I understand:
- Australian society values respect for the freedom and dignity of the individual, freedom of religion, commitment to the rule of law, Parliamentary democracy, equality of men and women and a spirit of egalitarianism that embraces mutual respect, tolerance, fair play and compassion for those in need and pursuit of the public good;
- Australian society values equality of opportunity for individuals, regardless of their race, religion or ethnic background;
- the English language, as the national language, is an important unifying element of Australian society.
…”
(emphasis added)
What is notable about the parts emphasised is that they are difficult to reconcile with the idea of imprisoning innocent people who have sought a safe place to live, and in particular they stand awkwardly with treating asylum seekers the way we do in order to deter others from seeking asylum in Australia.
If we are to have a Statement of Australian Values, the Parliament should ensure that it genuinely reflects Australia’s values as reflected by its conduct as a nation, and the Parliament should ensure that all members of the Parliament could, in good conscience, say that they embrace and live up to the Values reflected in the Statement.
It is notorious that Australia’s treatment of people seeking asylum has been trenchantly criticised by various NGOs. If we are to have a Statement of Australian Values, it should either reflect our willingness to behave in ways that had attracted that criticism, or else our conduct as a Nation should be made to conform to the Statement of Values. Failing one or other of these, the proposed Statement of Australian Values would only survive at the frontier where self-delusion meets self-congratulation.
And while it is true that the English language is important in Australia, there are some Federal MPs whose grasp of English is so tenuous that they would probably fail the Values Statement.
Submissions can be made online at http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/ Committees/OnlineSubmission or via email to: legcon.sen@aph.gov.au
The text of the bill and the Explanatory Memorandum can be found here
So many of us have come from countries that were military/ police states- this is so distressing. Australia was attractive because here there was freedom to THINK and freedom to laugh.
I am shaken to my core that after 30 years here, the regime I left behind is being recreated.
1. Citizenship changes must not be implemented retrospectively but from a date in future. For e.g. 1 Dec 17 or 1 Oct 17 etc.
2. Any new changes must keep in mind of the considerations of the existing PR holders who are on verge of becoming citizens.
3. Consideration should be given to those who already speak a decent level of english, work in firms where english is the only language used, pay taxes etc.
As to point 1: Why? Parliament can make retrospective laws, and it can abolish (retrospectively) a limitation.
A. Dont agree with government retrospective implementation
B. Those who have already given IELTS before should not be asked again to gv it especially now when they r integrated into society
C. 1 year to 4 year increase for stay on PR is big jump…rather have 2 years
Agree with Deepak’s point of view..spot on
This new citizenship test would not be passable by the people who are writing it let alone potential new Australian’s,I think Peter Pan oops I mean Peter Dutton (it’s hard to tell them apart they lie so much)is anty immigration and drunk on power.
It is noteworthy that the Australian Values Statement is antithetical to Islamic teachings.
Islam does not value:
– “respect for the freedom and dignity of the individual”(1)
– “freedom of religion”(2)
– “commitment to the rule of law”(3),(4)
– “Parliamentary democracy”(4)
– “equality of men and women”(5)
Islam does not “value a spirit of egalitarianism that embraces”
– “mutual respect”(6)
– “tolerance”(7)
– “fair play”(8)
– “compassion for those in need”(9)
– “pursuit of the public good”(10)
Islam does not value:
– “equality of opportunity for individuals, regardless of their race, religion or ethnic background”(11)
(1)
“It is not fitting for a Believer, man or woman, when a matter has been decided by Allah and His Messenger, to have any option about their decision: if anyone disobeys Allah and His Messenger he is indeed on a clearly wrong Path.”
Quran 33:36
(2)
“the Command is for none but Allah: He hath commanded that ye worship none but Him: that is the right religion”
Quran 12:40
o8.1 When a person who has reached puberty and is sane voluntarily apostatizes from Islam, he deserves to be killed.
o8.7 (Among the things that entail apostasy from Islam are):
– (4) to revile Allah or His messenger;
– (7) to deny any verse of the Koran;
– (16) to revile the religion of Islam;
‘Umdat as-Salik wa ‘Uddat an-Nasik
(3)
“It has been narrated on the authority of Ibn ‘Umar that the Prophet (sallAllaahu alayhi wa sallam) said: It is obligatory upon a Muslim that he should listen (to the ruler appointed over him) and obey him whether he likes it or not, except that he is ordered to do a sinful thing. If he is ordered to do a sinful act, a Muslim should neither. listen to him nor should he obey his orders.”
Sahih Muslim 4534
(4)
“[Allah] shares not His legislation with anyone”
Quran 18:26
(5)
“and the men are a degree above them [women]”
Quran 2:228
“Men are in charge of women, because Allah hath made the one of them to excel the other”
Quran 4:34
(6)
“[Muslims] are the best of people”
Quran 3:110
“[Jews and Christians] are the worst of creatures”
Quran 98:6
(7)
“The Jews …and the Christians… may Allah destroy them!”
Quran 9:30
(8)
‘When the apostle ordered him to be killed (for insulting Mohammed), Uqba said, “But who will look after my children, O Muhammad?” [Muhammad’s reply] “Hell.” The man was put to death.’
Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 458
(9)
h8.24 It is not permissible to give zakat to a non-Muslim
‘Umdat as-Salik wa ‘Uddat an-Nasik
(10)
“Allah said, ‘A prophet must slaughter before collecting captives. A slaughtered enemy is driven from the land. Muhammad, you craved the desires of this world, its goods and the ransom captives would bring. But Allah desires killing them to manifest the religion.’ ”
Ibn Ishaq 327
(11)
(m13.2) “a non-Muslim has no right to authority”
(O25.3) “(K: it being invalid to appoint a non-Muslim (kafir) to authority, even to rule non-Muslim.)”
(O25.3 (d)) the leadership of a woman being invalid because of the rigorously authenticated (sahih) hadith. “A people that leave its leadership to a woman will never succeed”
‘Umdat as-Salik wa ‘Uddat an-Nasik