Australian Senator proposes a tough new citizenship test | Starts at 60
2017/02/15 Leave a comment
For those advocating values vetting such as CPC leadership contender Kellie Leitch, this example of an Australian Senator’s idea of what should be asked is revealing.
And perhaps those proposing values vetting might consider what their questions would be, not to mention the broader question is whether this is needed or implementable:
At the moment the citizenship test consists of questions about Australia’s government and justice systems.
But many politicians and other commentators have argued the test is too easy and want it to focus on more people’s ability to integrate into society.
It’s a plan that has been discussed by many politicians including Immigration Minister Peter Dutton and One Nation senator Pauline Hanson, and now Liberal Democrats senator David Leyonhjelm is weighing into the debate.
He’s proposing a new citizenship test with questions that focus more on people’s beliefs than their knowledge of Australia.
Senator Leyonhjelm told NewsCorp he believed there needed to be “extreme vetting” of applicants for citizenship.
“It is only citizens who elect our government and determine what kind of society we create,” he said.
“We should therefore only grant citizenship, and the rights that come with it, to those who have contributed to and assimilated into our society, and who share our values.”
He’s provided a list of his questions, which have been published by NewsCorp and they’re getting plenty of attention.
The questions are:
1. Should there be a law banning slavery?
2. Should tax obligations differ depending on a person’s religion?
3. Should there be a law banning female circumcision?
4. Should there be a law banning women from:
– being elected to government?
– showing her head hair, arms or legs in public?
5. Should there be a law banning a husband from:
– hitting his wife?
– having sex with his wife without the wife’s consent?
6. Should there be a law banning a wife from:
– leaving the home against the wishes of the husband?
– driving against the wishes of the husband?
– showing her head hair, arms or legs in public against the wishes of the husband?
7. Should there be a law banning adults from:
– drinking alcohol?
– having sex with a child?
– having sex outside marriage?
– holding hands or kissing someone of the same sex in public?
– homosexual acts and relationships?
– owning or viewing pornography?
8. Should there be a law banning children being married?
9. Should there be a law banning a person from refusing to marry according to a parent’s instruction?
10. Should there be a law banning divorce?
11. Where a mother and father of a child are not married, should there be a law granting custody to the father?
12. Should there be a law giving preference to men over women regarding the receipt of inheritances?
13. Should there be a law banning the schooling of boys and girls in the same class room?
14. Should there be a law banning:
– the charging of interest on loans?
– people abandoning their religion?
15. Should the punishment for killing be reduced if the killer says it was done for family honour?
So, how do you know what the right answers are?
Well, Leyonhjelm provided NewsCorp with those too.
7. No, except for 7(iii) Yes
Controversially, he is also arguing that only those who pass the test should be given welfare.
But his citizenship test and comments about welfare have been slammed by some.
Australian Council of Social Services CEO Dr Cassandra Goldie told NewsCorp that Senator Leyonhjelm’s proposal would “take us back to 1909”.
“Australia has the most targeted system of income support in the world and there are already strict rules around eligibility for payments,” she said.
“This proposal would take us back to 1909 when people had to show they were of ‘good character’ to get a pension and automatically exclude large numbers of people from social security and throw them into destitution.”