Since October last year, most citizenship applicants must pass the citizenship test. The test sparked some controversy at the time of its introduction and has recently come under the following attack (Herald Sun, 15/6/08):
AUSTRALIA’S citizenship test has been given a fail by the former diplomat charged with reviewing it.
Richard Woolcott says the test discriminates against people who don’t speak English as their first language and is flawed because you can get 19 of 20 questions correct and still not pass.
Firstly, we need to understand that any test discriminates. It discriminates between candidates who have the requisite skills and candidates who don’t. That is the purpose of a test. A test that anyone can pass is not really a test – it’s a rubber stamp. Do we want a test for citizens or a rubber stamp?
The next issue is whether the ability to speak English is a relevant skill for a new citizen. I believe that a grasp of the spoken language – the primary means of communication without which integration is virtually impossible – is a relevant skill for people who want to live in Australia. All new citizens are required to take the Pledge of Commitment. Don’t they have to understand it? Can they “uphold and obey” our laws if they can’t understand our laws? Perhaps our laws also discriminate against people from non-English-speaking backgrounds.
The test is not designed to throw unexpected questions at confused migrants. All applicants have to know to pass the test is contained in a booklet that can be downloaded or posted. The test can’t surprise anyone. Unlike most dealings with the government, the test is free. According to the Department of Immigration and Citizenship, which administers the test, the pass rate is 83.3%, which is quite reasonable. A test anyone can pass is not really a test. In the event a person fails, he or she can sit the test again, and again, until they pass. It’s like the driving test: not everyone passes on their first or second attempt but everyone passes eventually. There is nothing unreasonable about this. If anything, it’s too easy. Consider this sample test question, supplied by the Department:
Which one of these values is important in modern Australia:
1. Everyone has the same religion
2. Everyone has equality of opportunity
3. Everyone belongs to the same political party
I’m happy to refuse citizenship to people who can’t get that one right. Some questions are admittedly more challenging. For example, ‘What is a bill?’ The answer is on page 39 of the booklet: “a proposed law that has not yet passed through Parliament”. This test is not some draconian measure. I wish my university exams were more like the citizenship test.
Woolcott’s critique that applicants may get 95% and still fail because three questions are mandatory doesn’t take into account the essentiality of some issues. For example, an immigrant who circles (1) or (3) above is not ready to be an Australian citizen, end of story. The three mandatory questions are those that relate specifically to the rights and duties of citizens. If an applicant doesn’t know the rights and duties that come with citizenship, he or she is not ready to be a citizen.
Woolcott also criticised the booklet:
There’s no doubt the booklet on which the test is based is way, way above basic English and discriminates very much in favour of people who have been educated in English as a first language.
I read the booklet. It is written in plain English. It is certainly not written in academic jargon. The following passage from page 39 is a representative example:
The House of Representatives has 150 Members who each represents about 80,000 voters living in one particular area (an electorate). As Victoria and New South Wales have the largest populations, most of the members of the House of Representatives come from there. This is balanced by the Senate, where all states, no matter what their population, have the same number of senators.
People whose English is poor may not understand all of it. But then again English is a relevant skill and a necessity for immigrants. The booklet is written in the kind of English that any person engaged with the community would need to understand. Why shouldn’t the citizenship test require this kind of English?
And by the way, the booklet is available in 29 languages other than English.
Woolcott was paraphrased in the above piece as saying:
Refugees fleeing conflict areas in particular shouldn’t have to face the “additional hurdle” of a test in English.
Let us be clear on this point. The test is not a condition for the granting of asylum. It’s not as if refugees who fail the test are handed back to their persecutors. It simply means that refugees who have been given asylum and now want to become citizens do need to speak English and know some basic things about the country of which they seek to become citizens. That is not too much to ask. It is understandable that refugees, who tend to come from third-world countries with little formal education, would find the test more difficult than, say, an Englishman. The fact that refugees have a lower pass rate than New Zealanders shows the test is working: the test is really about ability, not political-correctness. Aren’t we testing whether people are ready to become citizens?
Do university faculties dumb down their exams to ensure refugee students don’t have a pass rate lower than local students? If they did, it would cease to be a test.
Lowering the bar so that everyone can pass is a joke. Do we want the bar for Australian citizenship to be a joke?
This test is a joke. It just makes it harder for immigrants to become citizens. It was John Howard’s way of showing he was ‘tough’ on immigration. It should be scrapped, like Woolcott says.
Liron, if non-white people are less likely to pass, it means the test is discriminatory. It means it favours white people. That’s inexcusable. We’re going back to the WHITE AUSTRALIA POLICY.
Only instead of a dictation test, we now have this silly citizenship test. The effect is the same: we discriminate in favour of whites.
This idea that we test people to see if they have ‘Australian’ values is ridiculous. Values like democracy, gender equality and freedom of religion are not ‘Australian’. We don’t own them. Besides, we don’t always live up to them.
Are you suggesting we have no test at all?
Yes, that’s what we’re suggesting. Let all immigrants become citizens regardless of ethnicity.
Yep, we didn’t use to have a test until late last year. Lotsa people became citizens before the test. And everything was fine. This test is unnecessary. Its real purpose is to disadvantage people from non-white backgrounds.
“Everything was fine?”
What about Sheik Hilali?
Like he would’ve failed the test…
We need new citizens to know what is required of them. We have every right to make sure wannabe citizens are ready to become citizens. Many other countries do that.
I think we should ban anyone from entry into this country unless they agree with my exact set of assumptions and understandings of the world!
I think we should DEPORT anyone who says anything that we, the majority, don’t agree with!
I think that we should march through the streets, Aussie Flags held high and teach these heathens the meaning of a fair go.. with our FISTS!
Oh wait.. those beliefs would make me a racist nut-job… though considering that 77% of Australians agreed with the locking up of Refugees on the Tampa, I guess I should fit right in with ‘good ol’ Aussie values’. Why is it that when Sheikh Taj ill-advisedly quotes a scholar from hundreds of years ago, and then INEXCUSABLY makes a joke about what is said, we take it as a crisis of national identity, or an example of the failure of our immigration laws. Yet when a well known ABC radio commentator compares a womyn wearing a red dress in a bar, to one wearing a red dress in a bull pen (in regards to sexual assault) there is no similar dialogue about the collapse of Aussie values from within?
Is it that sexism and racism are only excusable when we the white majority do them? Adelaide has many more serial killers than is normal per capita.. should we then quarantine Adelaide as they are of a culture of death…
I’m sorry, it is all too ridiculous, the grandstanding about democracy and a fair go, standing side by side with bigotry and images of Villawood Detention centre razor wire (yes they got rid of the wire, but trust me the feeling in there still makes your spine curl, and I was only there for a few hours).
Sometimes this stuff makes me sick to my stomach. ‘And to those who come across the seas, we’ve boundless plains to share’, is not accompanied with ‘but fluff off if we don’t like your accent, skin colour, religion or belief system’. If you are going to be bigoted, at least try not to be hypocritical with it!
Forgive me, that was not directed entirely at anyone in particular, more a typed scream of frustration at the state of what is apparently my home land.
Pretty much the crux of Liron argument is that immigration should not be so easy and the test is the right way to go because it’s not as hard as our uni exams. What I question is how exactly this practical? The test was intended to make impending citizens aware of Australian culture, “values” and Howard’s view of Australian history. It is multiple choice so it can be a game of chance. We’ve all done multiple choice tests before and we know that in some circumstances when we have no idea, we take a stab. In a test where the questions only have three possible answers your odds of getting it right aren’t that bad. The point I’m trying to make is that getting a question right does not necessarily mean they understand, particularly if they are not that proficient in English. Furthermore in terms of values, knowing the right answer doesn’t necessarily mean you believe in them. Sheik Hilali could have passed the test, best does that mean he adheres to these values? The test is more like a trivia test which is quite a trivial way to deny citizenship. I’m sure the point has also already been made that knowing Don Bradman is a silly way to differentiate who can become a citizen. I also question whether everyone born in Australia can answer what a bill is. Do you honestly think that all those already Australian citizens would get 20 out of 20 on a trivia test about Australia? Many don’t even know all the lyrics to the national anthem, how do you expect them to understand Australia’s parliamentary system? The only thing an Australian has to do to be a decent citizen is obey the laws; I don’t see why the criteria for an immigrant should be any different. If you are worried about immigrants English skills, perhaps they should have an English test, not something hard obviously but something simple that will test if they can communicate in basic English in order to interact and contribute in Australian society. Having a test that examines basic English is much more practical and beneficial than a stupid trivia quiz. What a waste of taxpayers money.
The citizenship is not a test of one’s proficiency in English. Before anyone can take a citizenship they would need to have undertaken an IELTS test which tests for comprehension, writing and verbal skills.
In my opinion the citizen test is completely useless it’s only placed there by the Howard’s government to make them look like they are doing their job.
Anyone can fake their ideals and pass the test. To truly develop Australian ideals it is up to the community to accept the immigrant and assimilate them into the Australian culture
Accepting some of the recommendations of the Woolcott report, the Government has decided to reform the test (The Age, 22/11/08) by excluding from it the material that concerns Australian history (but apparently still keeping it in the booklet).
Why should Australian history not be examinable? Is it so much to ask that new citizens know a few things about the past of the counrty they so eagerly want to become part of?
The Government has also raised the pass mark from 60 to 75 which I think is a good idea.
And so the silliness continues.
The Sydney Morning Herald triumphantly announces (23/11/08):
“Bradman out for duck in citizenship test
A QUESTION about Sir Donald Bradman is expected to be dumped from the citizenship test under an overhaul by the Rudd Government to make the test fairer and more relevant to migrants of all backgrounds.”
Hurray! The Don is out and test is fairer. But only the day before the SMH quoted the Prime Minister as saying:
“The Don wasn’t in the questions set under Mr Howard and the Don isn’t in the questions set under me.”
In other words, there was never a question about Sir Donald Bradman. So the SMH has announced that a question that had never existed was dumped to make the test fairer and more relevant.
Besides, what is so unfair and irrelevant about such a question? Is there a rule that migrants must never be asked about the most famous Australians of all time, when their names are prominently mentioned in the preparation booklet? Why are so many people so ideologically opposed to the proposition that migrants need to learn a few things about the history and culture of the country of which they want to become citizens? Are history and culture irrelevant?
Here’s another irrelevant fact about Australia’s history:
“Another [question], which expects budding citizens to know that 1788 was the first year of white settlement, is also likely to be jettisoned, sources say.”
The words “expects budding citizens to know…” suggest that citizens are expected to know something which they can’t or shouldn’t know. But it’s all in the booklet. All they have to do is read it and in doing so – God forbid – learn a few things about Australia (like when it started). Yes, the Australian citizenship test was designed to teach and test people about Australia. It’s like complaining that a physics test tests physics.
Besides, the test is very fair as it is. The same SMH article reports:
“Senator Evans will also release figures today showing that during the first three months of the test, from October to December, 18 per cent of the 9043 people who sat it failed at their first attempt.”
And failure at the first attempt is hardly the end of the world as applicants can sit the test for free as many times as they want.
It seems to me that the opposition to this test is not really about fairness to migrants. It’s just that some people don’t believe budding citizens should be expected to know – to use a familiar phrase – basic facts about Australia. It’s all a racist, imperialist scheme concocted by John Howard.
Good day. To start with I need to say that I actually like your weblog, just found it last week but I have been following it since then.
I look to consent with most of the ideas and opinions and this submit is no different. I fully
Thank you to get a great web site and I hope you hold up the beneficial work. If you do I will carry on to browse through it.
Have a very wonderful day.
