Share
A character test is traditionally applied to decide whether a person should be granted some kind of privilege – for example, a visa, citizenship, or an important job. When trying to judge character, the evidence examined usually includes a person’s past statements, activities and conduct, including any police record, criminal charges or jail terms. The decision-maker considers on the basis of this evidence the likelihood that a person will act in the same way again. The lack of accountability in discretionary ministerial decision-making and the inability to question intelligence mean that a person whose character is impugned will probably never even know why. The consequences of such decisions for the individuals concerned are so serious that it is inappropriate for such decisions to be so subjective and devoid of accountability. To codify “character” into such a powerful place in Australian law requires a denial of its complicated and intangible nature in favour of a more legally tenable understanding of character as objective, knowable and immutable. Applying such a reductionist approach in situations as consequential as citizenship, employment and terror charges is bound to produce contested and unforeseen outcomes.
Related documents
Between the Lines Newsletter
The biggest stories and the best analysis from the team at the Australia Institute, delivered to your inbox every fortnight.
You might also like
Navigating Australia & the Campaign to End Coal | Anote Tong
Climate change is the greatest moral challenge that humanity has ever had to face, and for those of us who have the capacity to stop it, are we going to do it?
Overwhelming support for truth in political advertising laws following referendum
New research from the Australia Institute shows more than 60 per cent of ‘No’ voters are concerned about the misinformation and disinformation that circulated on social media during the referendum campaign, with more than 80 per cent of that cohort wanting to see truth in political advertising laws in place before the federal election, expected in 2025.
Rushed SA Anti-Protest Laws Threaten Civil Liberties: Democracy Experts
Laws which impose extreme penalties and jail time for peaceful protest have been rushed through the South Australian lower house in what democracy experts have described as an alarming threat to civil liberties.