Canberra Multicultural Community Forum (CMCF) - Submission to the Inquiry into the Australian Citizenship Amendment (Citizenship Test Review and Other Measures) Bill - Statement

Sep 18, 2026

Submission from the Canberra Multicultural Community Forum (CMCF) to an inquiry on the Australian Citizenship Amendment Bill, focusing on the Citizenship Test review and related legislative changes. CMCF supports non-discriminatory pathways to citizenship for lawful permanent residents and welcomes limited exemptions for people affected by torture or trauma, while opposing continued reliance on the test. Concerns include test purpose, effectiveness, content and question approval mechanisms, discriminatory impacts, and ethical and moral implications. The forum also criticizes proposed child eligibility rules tied to parental permanent residency and urges alignment with children’s rights and best interests under the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.

LanguageEnglish

CategoryResearch & Report

FormatPDF

Pages2

Reading Time5 min

AccessFree to download

Key Positions

Purpose and effectiveness concerns

Content, governance, and discrimination

Child eligibility and human rights alignment

Requested further review and contact

Canberra Multicultural Community Forum (CMCF) Incorporated Submission to the inquiry into the Australian Citizenship Amendment (Citizenship Test Review and Other Measures) Bill Thank you for your invitation to make a submission to the inquiry into the Australian Citizenship Amendment (Citizenship Test Review and Other Measures) Bill (the Bill) . The Canberra Multicultural Community Forum Incorporated (CMCF) welcomes the opportunity to again comment on the Australian Citizenship Test and changes to Citizenship legislation. CMCF’s role is to represent the needs and aspirations of Canberra’s multicultural community, while celebrating its achievements and fostering a spirit of cooperation and harmony. CMCF therefore has a significant responsibility to support ethnic communities and people who have experienced the refugee and migration processes. The continuation of the previous Government’s Citizenship Test isan issue of considerable distress for this organisation and the community we represent. CMCF has provided a number of submissions to the Commonwealth on this issue, since the first discussion paper on this subject was released in September 2006. CMCF also appeared before the Senate Committee considering the Australian Citizenship Amendment (Citizenship Testing) Bill 2007. CMCF’s message about the inappropriateness of the Citizenship Test has been consistent over the last three years. Previous submissions condemning the Test can be found at: [http://www.cmcf.org.au/documents.htm](http://www.cmcf.org.au/documents.htm) CMCF supports FECCA’s assertion that “migrants and refugees who have been lawfully accepted as Australian permanent residents should be given a non-discriminatory pathway to citizenship following two years of residency in Australia.” We acknowledge the importance of citizenship, in both what it represents, and the rights and responsibilities it confers. However, unnecessary and bureaucratic barriers to citizenship should be removed. We welcome the proposed changes to allow ‘a small group of people who have suffered torture or trauma to be eligible for citizenship without having to first sit a citizenship test’. We also welcome the statement that the Australian Citizenship Test Resource Book will be revised with simpler English. That said, we continue to have fundamental concerns about this Government continuing to rely on the Citizenship Test as the key tool for judging the suitability of applicants to allow them to fully participation in Australian society. CMCF’s concerns relate to the: 􀂃 purpose of the test – CMCF has reservations about whether the test contributes to the goals of instilling Australian values, helping migrants to integrate and maximise the opportunities available to them; 􀂃 effectiveness of the test-the proposition that a short written multiple choice examination can test whether applicants will be “good citizens”, rather than testing rote learning and IT skills, appears flawed; 􀂃 content of the Citizenship Test and the mechanism for approving test questions – while it is may be appropriate to test English language skills and aspects of citizen responsibilities, the suggestion that Australian values can be codified and determined by a Government Minister is a key concern for CMCF; CMCF Page 1 of 2 PO Box 796, Woden ACT 2606 email: [secretary@cmcf.org.au](secretary@cmcf.org.au) Phone: 0411 417 666 Fax: 02 6112 4316 Website: [www.cmcf.org.au](www.cmcf.org.au) 􀂃 discriminatory nature of the test – asking immigrants to accurately identify and commit to values that the average Australian is not required to identify, agree with, and/or commit to, is inappropriate; 􀂃 ethical and practical implications of placing multiple obstacles in the path to gaining citizenship; and 􀂃 moral implications of testing people on “common values” which implies that there is only one set of“Australian values” and one type of “Australian citizen”, undermining the vital role that multicul

FAQs

What is CMCF’s overall stance on continuing the Australian Citizenship Test?

CMCF welcomes some proposed changes, but it has fundamental concerns about the Government continuing to rely on the Citizenship Test as the key tool for assessing applicants’ suitability for full participation in Australian society.

What specific criticisms does CMCF raise about the Citizenship Test?

CMCF questions whether the test supports instilling Australian values and integration, argues the multiple-choice format does not genuinely test good citizenship beyond rote learning and IT skills, and criticizes the idea that Australian values can be codified by a Government Minister.

How does CMCF view the proposed rules affecting children’s citizenship eligibility?

CMCF is greatly concerned by a proposed change requiring children to have permanent residency before becoming eligible for citizenship. It urges Parliament to review the amendment, arguing it disregards children’s rights and the best interests principle under the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.

Sep 18, 2026

Uploaded by Sophia Brooks