Shouts from the desert

In response to the Government announcing the new citizenship tests, a number of groups have come out claiming the test is discriminatory. The silliest of these comes from Greens Senator Kerry Nettle who seems to be claiming that the whole concept of a citizenship test is discriminatory, saying that the only reason you would have such a test is to keep migrants out.

Many of the accusations of prejudice are in fact arising from prejudging the test. The prejudice here lies in making the claim that the very concept of a test is discriminatory without looking at the nature of the test itself. A test is not discriminatory in the ethical sense if it measures factors that are relevant to the grant of citizenship.

Citizenship is not only a set of rights - it is also a set of obligations. A test that is designed to measure the ability of the prospective citizen to meet those obligations and that does not disadvantage people with a disability that is irrelevant to the performance of the obligations is not discriminatory in the sense of applying an unfair burden to a section of the population.

Bear in mind this is not a test for residency - a person can still become a permanent resident without taking the test. This is solely a test for people who wish to take the next step and become citizens. This means it cannot possibly be used to restrict migration, as some people are saying - migration comes before citizenship, not after, so the migration has occurred before the citizenship test even enters into the picture.

In my mind the most important obligation of the citizen is to act as a check on governments. This means having the capacity to understand all of the issues and the arguments being raised in public debate. While some might point out that many naturally born citizens are unable to do this, effective comprehension of public debate in Australia does require a good grasp of the English language, and so the inclusion of English language competency in a citizenship test is easily justifiable.

Generally the requirements of the test are not likely to be things that a person seeking to become a citizen would be unable to meet if they are willing to put in some time and effort. Even if a prospective citizen cannot initially meet the requirements of the test, it is not unreasonable to require that they set about to acquire the knowledge and skills necessary to pass the test. We accept that tests are necessary for people who wish to drive, or who wish to practice highly skilled professions such as law or medicine, and there is no reason we should not accept that a test is appropriate to determine if a person is capable of meeting their obligations as a citizen. The only people such a test discriminates against are people who are unwilling to learn the things they need to pass the test, and such people are not suitable candidates for citizenship.

Illiterate immigrants have been raised as a specific category of people who would be disadvantaged by the citizenship test. This may be the case, even though a literate person is better suited to the role of acting as a check on government. In the case of specific groups who are unfairly disadvantaged by the test, the solution is not to bag the test entirely, but to provide in the rules for their disadvantage to be accommodated.