After a review of the citizenship test that was controversially introduced in the last months of the Howard government, it seems that it is to be retained but overhauled radically. Questions alluding to Australian sporting figures and popular culture will be dropped, in favour of testing applicants' knowledge of their civic duties as Australian citizens. Basic proficiency in English will remain mandatory in order to pass the test, and the pass mark will be increased from 60% to 75%.

In general, I think the proposed reforms are a good idea. If someone wishes to become an Australian citizen, it seems to me that they need to be able to communicate with other Australians and to know what is expected of them with respect to their civic duties.

Indeed, I think that the test should be extended to all Australians before they are permitted to vote in Local, State and Federal elections. This would necessarily involve the removal of compulsory voting in Australia, but its replacement with democratic participation as an earned privilege would probably be a good thing for our electoral systems, in my view.

What do others think?

Well yes sort of, I want new Aussies to at least try to understand who we are.
But in a suburban post office waiting to buy stamps, I saw it in action.
A bossy woman told a young girl answering questions she should know the answer to one.
I would not have known what was taking place, but the girl broke down and cried, so did her two companions.
A working class suburb of Newcastle the place nearly did too.
What hurt most was the gruff rudeness of the questioner.
She was Asian Chinese and was not affected by the crying.
I and others told the well presented young Lady's we welcomed them to Australia.
And I reminded the rude one she had not been asked such questions on entering this country.

1. I think you'll find there was never a question on Bradman (although there was mention of him in the sporting blurb).

2.IMO a commitment to universal principles such as sexual, racial and religious (incl non-religious) equality is more important than proficiency in English (although being able to communicate is obviously important).

3. Bring on voluntary voting. Compulsory voting is counterintuitive in a democracy. I would also like to see the politicians actually have to argue policy, rather than the lowest-common-denominator campaigns they get away with now. But maybe I'm naive in thinking that voluntary voting would lead to more intelligent policy formulation.

The question of compulsory vs voluntary voting is one of those things that's only interesting to the paying attention minority. And neither can guarantee informed decisions.

Requiring people to demonstrate that they have at least a vague idea of what's going on would go some way to preventing people from voting for the candidate with the nicest haircut and finding out later he's a fascist.

Australia's had compulsory voting for so long that it's not just a legal requirement but a social one as well. I'd be willing to bet that an awful lot of people who object to having to roll up to the polling booth would also object to having to sit a test before they could vote.

It's a good thing the Bradman type stuff has been removed. It breaks another link in the history wars, culture wars, immigration chain of incoherent self righteousness we've lived with for so long.

There was never a specific question about Bradman although it was part of the blurb and therefore could form part of an ad hoc question.

So we are all really pleased that Kevvie removed a question that was never there - and this passes for intelligent dialogue.

On the other hand, when it was first muted that the question that never was would be removed, there was such an outcry that Kevvie denied he'd do it - after all being popular is so important. So there are probably lots of people who are really upset that the question that never was is never gunna be.

Who's Bradman? Why has he been dropped? Did he lose the Test?

Petro Georgio made the most astute summary of the citizenship test and his analysis remains as valid today as it did when he challenged the Howard government. Also, a reminder to all that Petro's parents were migrants from a non-English speaking country, which, obviously is no impediment given the success of their son.

"This test represents a fundamental shift away from our current focus on basic English speaking ability to a test of literacy: the ability to read, comprehend and respond to written English.

The clear fact is that thousands of people would fail such a test, even when English is their native language. Scientific studies conducted by the Australian Bureau of Statistics show that two and a half million Australians have very poor literacy skills. They have great difficulties in using many of the printed materials that are encountered in everyday life. One and a half million people who have English as their native language fall into this low skill category. These people for instance cannot "locate information on a medicine label giving the maximum number of days the medicine should be taken". They cannot "enter the number of theatre tickets required on an order form". Recently it has been indicated that alternative testing arrangements will be made for people with low literacy skills and that this would involve only a few people. The ABS data show that this is optimistic in the extreme."

I recommend reading in full Petro's speech before casting judgement on the latest incarnation of the citizenship test.

Just as an aside, Australian born as I am, I too would've failed the question regarding Bradman as I don't give a rat's about cricket.

Ooops, here's the link to Petro's speech:

http://www.australianpolitics.com/news/2007/03/07-03-14_georgiou.shtml

I USED TO THINK THAT COMPULSORY VOTING WAS WRONG. But when you think about it , "voting" is not compulsory, but registering is a good way of ensuring that we know who everyone is and ensuring that voting more than once is not possible, as you are crossed off the roll after you've taken your slip into the booth. You can write "Get lost!" if you wish, then.

Glad they dropped any reference to Bradman.
Misanthropic, one dimensional, draft dodger.

the question should read 'is(insert name here) the new Bradman?'

For voluntary voting to work passing a Civics course at school should be mandated; and for immigrants, govt. must provide the courses.

BTW, voting at Local level is compulsory?

C'mon OLO community. Who the deuce is Bradman? I've heard of Batman. I've heard of our Cathey. I've heard of Patrick White and John Olsen. And Marcus Oliphant and Pastor Doug Nichols.

But who is Bradman?

I've lived in Australia for decades without knowing who this person Bradman is. Funny, no-one ever asked me about him, at work or at school. Or started a conversation over dinner with his name. Or on the train. Or anything.

I thought I was a pretty upright citizen. Paid my taxes, never unemployed. No trouble with the police (though there was a speeding fine but the nice policeman didn't ask me about Bradman).

Am I a deviant? Or perverse in some way? C'mon put me out of my misery. What have I failed to do as a good Australian?

Dear CJ,

I've seen a copy of the "Becoming an
Australian citizen," booklet.

It's quite comprehensive, and covers
pretty much everything from Australia's
history, geography, the Australian people,
Australian values, the system of government,
on to the responsibilities and privileges
of Australian citizenship.

It's a pretty straight forward booklet and
people shouldn't have a problem with the
test. Example questions are given.

And the Australian Citizenship Pledge says
it all:

"From this time forward under God
I pledge my loyalty to Australia and its people
whose democratic beliefs I share,
whose rights and liberties I respect, and
whose laws I will uphold and obey."

(A person may choose whether or not to use the
words 'under God.'

cont'd

As for learning the English language.
This should be a pre-requisite before
applying for Australian citizenship.

This was the requirement in the past, why
should this be different today?

You're given enough time (years) to learn the
language of the country, and if you
intend to stay in the country, and become
a citizen,
speaking its language seems like a rather
basic necessity.
Even tourists make an effort
to speak the language.

Yes, Foxy, yes. I understand all that. But who is Don Badman?

Many thanks to all for your comments.

Belly - are you sure it was a citizenship test you saw being administered in a post office? As far as I can tell, citizenship tests are conducted in departmental offices, or Medicare/Centrelink offices in regional areas [ http://www.citizenship.gov.au/test/index.htm ]. I think you probably overheard a passport interview, which are conducted at post offices.

I take the points about English fluency. However, I understand that the test may be taken orally if reading English is still a problem:

<< It is expected that most people will need to be able to speak and read basic English to complete the citizenship test without assistance. If you have problems with reading in English, our staff will provide assistance by reading the questions and possible answers to you.

You will still be required to give the correct answers to the test questions to meet the requirements for citizenship.

To be eligible for this assistance, you will need to have completed at least 400 hours of English language tuition under the Adult Migrant English Programme (AMEP), and be assessed by the AMEP provider as not having the English language reading skills necessary to complete the test unassisted. >>

Given that the test is a requirement for citizenship rather than residency, I don't see that it's onerous to expect that prospective citizens can at least speak English at some functional level. Indeed, it's hard to imagine how anybody could make sense of the complexities of our laws etc without some understanding of the language in which they are written.

More later.

Dear Spikey,

You asked me who is 'Don Badman?'

'Don Badman?'

You sure you got the right spelling?

Just at a guess, he could be a relative
of Shane Warne...

Well the Citizenship Test review is now finished and the report has been released, together with the Governments response.

Am pleased to see the PM put paid to the silly notion the current applicants had to answer questions about Bradman. They never have since the tests inception. It also should be noted that ALL the answers to the questions are contained in the resourses booklet which is given to applicants. So much for early allegations of the test being too hard.

It appears that cosmetic changes only will be made to the test and the need for English (our official language) will remain. The questions will also remain confidential to keep the validity of the test. I trust the questions will not be watered down so much that the whole thing becomes a joke. I do not see any reason or indication of this happening.

I will reserve final judgement until the new resources booklet is produced and the change to the new test is made.

However one thing I am pleased about is that the government has committed to the teaching of 'civics and citizenship' in our schools. This has long been overdue and I hope even a bit more Aussie geogphary
and History will be included.

Dear Banjo,

Thanks for the information.

It's good to hear.

I have a copy of the old book that
I managed to obtain from my MP when it
was first released (curiousity).

I did not see any problems with it.

The questions in the test were based on the
information contained in the book.

I'm glad that they're retaining most of
it.

Foxy

Thanks for that, but I'm still confused. Isn't Shane Warne that guy who works for Telstra?

So I might have spelled Badman's name right if they're related.

Dear Spikey,

It wouldn't surprise me at all
if Shane Warne ' worked' for
Telstra.

He does bring more fun to the phone.

Now, I won't be answering any more of
your questions. Simply because its
CJ's thread and its not appropriate
to derail it.

If you've got any more questions, just
google them...or go to your local library.

Cheers.

Foxy,
Yes, I am pleasantly surprised that the test is retained and no real radical changes made. There are some changes as you would expect and probably for the better. The new resources book will be interesting.

What I am more interested in is what the Minister has decided about the information that was intended to be given to prospective migrants before they actually applied for a visa. He was to review this as well.

I only found out about 2 years ago that information about our society and culture, etc. had only been given out to migrants after they got a visa. This had been the situation for ever and not good enough as prospective migrants had to find the info themselves before deciding to migrate. I think that their friends here would want them to come so painted a rosy picture. I reckon many would get a shock to find things different to what they expected. No wonder some took offense at some things like near nakedness at beaches, women going out alone, etc.

I have been lobbying the government about this information problem and it was finally changed not long before the last election. I just hope the current Minister continues with it, even if he makes some changes.

I think it terribly important that we give full and accurate info so people can decide before commiting to come.

Have not seen anything as yet so may have to write to him.

Dear Banjo,

I couldn't agree with you more.

Do write to the Minister.

And I will too, if it will help.

This is an issue that I feel strongly about.

People should be given a full and accurate picture,
prior to being granted a visa.

The more informed people are the more realistic
their expectations will be.

Foxy - thanks, but I get yours and Spikey's points, i.e. that to a large percentage of Australians the whole Bradman cultural phenomenon is - and probably has always been - totally irrelevant. More to the point are the various assumptions contained in the test, and it seems to me that the current administration recognises that it's not mandatory to subscribe to sport and other spurious "values" in order to be an Australian citizen.

Banjo actually makes some good points, although the subject is citizenship rather than residency. I think that a period of permanent residency prior to application for citizenship is probably a good idea, because during this time prospective citizens undoubtedly learn about Australian civic duties, popular culture and of course improve thier English skills. I don't think it's reasonable to have the same expectations of new arrivals as we would expect from those seeking citizenship.

Lastly, Badman? Wasn't that the name of the Englishman who stole Port Philip Bay from the Kooris?

Foxy & CJ Morgan

Thank you for your indulgence.

I just happen to think the whole thing is an absurdity. We all live our different lives here in Australia. Some of us express ourselves in the arts - opera, ballet, photography, painting - others in sports; some in pub life, others in night clubs. Some in work, others in our kids and family. Some of us struggle living on the streets; others slum it in Vaucluse and Toorak. Some go to the trots, others to the beach. Some chase birds; others chase blokes.

In short, the claim that there's a quintessential Aussie is a myth. So to test people to see if they comprehend what it is to be Australian ludicrous.

PS: Batman didn't con the Khouris. It was their Lebanese mates. Always out to make a quid.

*<< It is expected that most people will need to be able to speak and read basic English ....


Here`s the real deal- EG
If your an IT student you are promised PR In Australia 'before you leave your country.

Once your In Australia and 'before you finish uni or the school you are attending someone visits you and shows you how to fill out papers for the dole.

After leaving Uni you can apply for PR. In the case of my friend from India he had it within six weeks of leaving.

This is an exciting time for friends and family also. Often a PR party will be a bigger event than that years birthday.

I gave my friend a PR party-. I was amazed by the difference between the younger ones.) Not that they were kids)

They were extremely polite while listening to a elderly lady playing music. ( I would suggest far more than our youth would be)

Of course what would a PR party be without a medi care card.
It was passed around and around and there were many pictures of him holding it.

That medi care card ended up being used by at least a dozen of them for one thing or another.

While I understand it must be very exciting to get free health care we must put a photo on them the same as a licence.



Remember the ambulance driver lady who was punched in the stomake when Dad walked in because she wanted to take a very ill child to hospital.

She said just prior to that the mother was getting flustered because she was going through her 15! medi care cards( All in similar spelling )looking for the right one.


bTW any sport is illegal and offensive to some cultures.
I think thats why Rudd took old Brad out after it was requested.

After all we wouldn`t want to offend some of our biggest political party contributors would we.

http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2389000.htm

Just what we need - an off-topic xenophobic rant from the frootloops at PALE&IF.

I repeat, the discussion is about citizenship rather than permanent residency. In which case PALE&IF's dubious claims are not only offensive but irrelevant, as they so often are.

Stick to the live exports, PALE&IF - at least you seem to have some actual knowledge about that issue.

I don't think we need to be too pedantic about English skills, for example I could go to France and make myself understood, although my written skills would be rather deficient. And that is the case for many migrants, in 12 months or so the majority are doing very well.

Part of my public service work was interviewing non-English speaking people and you would be amazed how much I could explain and vice versa without the use of an interpreter. That's why I wanted people to read the Petro Georgiou speech because it really sums up just what we can reasonably expect from people wanting to live in Australia.

BTW

CJ & Spikey

"Lastly, Badman? Wasn't that the name of the Englishman who stole Port Philip Bay from the Kooris?"

"PS: Batman didn't con the Khouris. It was their Lebanese mates. Always out to make a quid"

Nah, you're both wrong it was Batman's side kick Robin... Hood or something, stood on the beach at Port Phillip Bay, fired an arrow and claimed all the land it flew over, he was very lucky that there were no cliffs.