I've previously written a few posts about the citizenship test and was just about to let the topic rest, until I read a wonderful opinion piece by Alice Pung, in the Age yesterday and felt that I had to comment. As a declaration of bias - Alice is a friend of mine, but the motivation for this comment is not our friendship but a shared experience of growing up in migrant families and communities.
When I looked at the citizenship test questions, I found them laughably easy. But that is because I have had the advantage of the best education, both at school and at university, during which I had the support of my family - my parents and my grandparents. Like Alice's parents they worked long hours and long weeks to make sure that their children could obtain the best education and the best prospects possible. The same applies to most migrant families I know. As the children of these migrant families we benefited from their support. We are now lawyers, doctors, accountants, vets, teachers, you name it. We all know what the floral emblem of Australia is, we have all heard of Donald Bradman and most of us can name the first PM of Australia. Does that make us good citizens? Or are we good citizens because we do something productive with the opportunities we were given?
I suspect that one of my parents would not pass the citizenship test. My elderly grandparents certainly would not. Quite a few migrant families that I know would have at least one member who would have struggled with the test. Does that mean they are unworthy of citizenship? If my grandparents spend most of their time helping their children and grandchildren succeed, are they un-Australian simply because they may not be aware that, at 80 something years of age, one of their supposed duties as a citizen is to take up arms and fight enemies of Australia? Are my parents bad citizens if they can't recall the date of Australia Day holiday because in their jobs they never got the day off? Are they unworthy to be Australians because instead of attending 400 hours of English classes they worked full time to make sure their family didn't have to rely on the dole? If they stayed on the dole no doubt they'd be labeled as a burden to Australian society, but because they chose to work or run their own businesses, rather than learn about the golden wattle, the government says they are not citizen material.
Is this what citizenship is about - memorising a few random facts about Australia? Is a handful of trivia more important than real achievements, real struggles and real victories? Is it more important than making a substantive improvement to Australia, not just through their own work, but by giving it and supporting the next generations who excel in their fields of endeavour?
Alice's article struck a chord because, in the same way that the citizenship test devalues the achievements and contributions of her family to Australia, it devalues the achievements of my own family and countless other families I know. It says to them that what they have done, what they have sacrificed and what they will do for this country is less important than playing a game of 20 questions, that living in the spirit of Australian life is less important than being able to recite the first line of the national anthem. It penalises those who chose to live as good citizens, rather than study about becoming good citizens.
The citizenship test is a pointless and misguided policy. It is a bad policy. And bad policies don't make good citizens.
Mr Howard may still remember longingly the "good old times" when the Australian government could keep out people with skin colour or political views it didn't like by the simple expedient of giving them a language test in any European language. The Australian people have allowed the Howard government to get away with a lot, but even Howard isn't arrogant enough to think that the electorate would accept citizenship aspirants being given a language test in Gaelic. He didn't go quite that far - his new "citizenship test" is a pale echo of the infamous language test of White Australia, but it is an echo nonetheless.
New citizenship aspirants will need to demonstrate an adequate knowledge of English (whatever that means) and be able to answer at least 12 of 20 questions on the citizenship test. The Age published some sample questions and answers. Here are the questions if you want to have a go:
1. In what year did Federation take place? 2. Which day of the year is Australia Day? 3. Who was the first Prime Minister of Australia? 4. What is the first line of Australia's national anthem? 5. What is the floral emblem of Australia? 6. What is the population of Australia? 7. In what city is the Parliament House of the Commonwealth Parliament located? 8. Who is the Queen's representative in Australia? 9. How are Members of Parliament chosen? 10. Who do Members of Parliament represent? 11. After a federal election, who forms the new government? 12. What are the colours on the Australian flag? 13. Who is the head of the Australian Government? 14. What are the three levels of government in Australia? 15. In what year did the European settlement of Australia start? 16. Serving on a jury if required is a responsibility of Australian citizenship: true or false? 17. In Australia, everyone is free to practise the religion of their choice, or practise no religion: true of false? 18. To be elected to the Commonwealth Parliament you must be an Australian citizen: true or false? 19. As an Australian citizen, I have the right to register my baby born overseas as an Australian citizen: true or false? 20. Australian citizens aged 18 years or over are required to enrol on the electoral register: true or false?
The answers can be found here. Now I may be too cynical, but I am not convinced that Australian-born citizens will be able to answer all these questions. I wonder how many know who the first prime minister was or what the floral emblem of Australia is or are able to tell the difference between head of state and head of government. Recall that a survey done some years ago found that 50% of the population didn't know that Australia had a written constitution (and a majority of those who did know, thought it contained a Bill of Rights).
These questions are supposed to ensure that the citizenship applicants share "Australian values" (whatever they may be these days). It is hard to see how knowing the floral emblem of Australia indicates an acceptance of Australian values. I wonder whether the questions would include weightier topics such as the stolen generation, the White Australia policy, the internments during the second world war, etc.
To be honest, I believe that if one comes to live in Australia and applies for citizenship, one should accept certain fundamental values - tolerance, mutual respect, etc. But it is hard to believe that there is a correlation between the ability to memorize the colours of the Australian flag and accepting the core Australian values (especially given that certain members of the present government appear to have forgotten those values themselves).
Why is an elderly migrant grandmother, who helps her family to raise the children as their parents work, ensuring that those children grow up to be productive citizens, any worse a citizen because she can't remember when Australia day is? Why should she be required to demonstrate her fitness for citizenship by answering superficial questions, while a wife-basher, a rapist or a robber doesn't have to merely because they had the good fortune to be born in Australia?
The test does nothing to ensure that citizenship aspirants are "good citizen" - it only defines them as the "other", as suspicious characters who must prove their fitness to become a part of our society by taking an arbitrary test. As if answering a few superficial questions demonstrates that fitness any better than passing a test in Gaelic.
Half the world is composed of people who have something to say and can't, and the other half who have nothing to say and keep on saying it. - Robert Frost
RSS
