The citizenship test
The long awaited citizenship test is out, with the "Australian" values. It can be found here.
The values are not as bad as I believed they would of been. Our values are divided ito:-
• respect for the equal worth, dignity
and freedom of the individual
• freedom of speech
• freedom of religion and
secular government
• freedom of association
• support for parliamentary
democracy and the rule of law
• equality under the law
• equality of men and women
• equality of opportunity
• peacefulness
• tolerance, mutual respect and
compassion for those in need.
The booklet says that "These values and principles are central to Australia remaining a stable, prosperous and peaceful community. They provide the common reference points for our free and democratic society. While shared to some extent by all liberal democracies, they have been adapted to Australia’s unique setting, moulded and modernised through waves of settlement by people from all over the world.
The booklet then goes into each of points in a little more detail. The unique Australian setting that they have adapted to appears to be nothing more then insisting the word "Australian" (or it's variants and suffixes) one mention of "fair go" and Howard's personal touch "Mateship" (Little git had to get it in there somewhere)
One part did surprise. Under a "fair go" it talks about how all Australians, no matter their gender, race, sexual orientation disability etc have equal standing in the law and equal opportunities. How does this gel with the Howard government's stance on gay marriage? Isn't that a denial of equal opportunity?
While the values spelled out in the booklet are okay, the test itself is worrying . You can't view the questions themselves but you can take a practice test, which consists of five questions. These questions do not appear to change or randomise. One of the questions is "Which one of these Australians is famous for playing cricket" The answer being "Sir Donald Bradman". I have to ask the question, how is this essential knowledge of Australian culture - considering that according to the Australian Bureau of Statisitics only 4.7% of Adult males play out door cricket and only 8.9% of adult males attend cricket matches (there are no figures for females playing and only 3.5% attend) and according to Oztam, the official tv ratings no cricket made it into the top twenty broadcasts. A lot of other sporting events did, including the winner Commonwealth games (opening and closing ceremony), NRL grand final, AFL grand final, Australian open, and the World cup. Cricket did make into the weekly break downs but only for two weeks and at only under 2,000 viewers, in a country of 21 million, which makes it less then 1% of the population.
So it appears that Australians don't really like cricket all that much. So why did those from other countries seeking citizenship have to know anything about it if those of us already citizens don't give a shit about it? Based on the ABS and Oztam we should be asking them an AFL question, Attendance at AFL games is a whooping 21% and the AFL grand final made it to number 2 for most watch TV shows last year.
Another thing that bugs me is in the booklet. It ha a little table to break down Australia into statistics for an overview. In the religion part it mentions Christians, Buddhists, Muslims, Jews but fails to mentions Atheists despite the fact that at the last census we accounted for 18.7% of the population - which is more the the Jews, the Buddhists, the Hindus and the Muslims combined. Their value systems says that we don't have to have a religion yet the government seems willing to ignore us.
Anyway I could rant on, but it's late and I need sleep. Hopefully this will reprise the much missed debates and discussions that use to a vital part of our blogs.
The values are not as bad as I believed they would of been. Our values are divided ito:-
• respect for the equal worth, dignity
and freedom of the individual
• freedom of speech
• freedom of religion and
secular government
• freedom of association
• support for parliamentary
democracy and the rule of law
• equality under the law
• equality of men and women
• equality of opportunity
• peacefulness
• tolerance, mutual respect and
compassion for those in need.
The booklet says that "These values and principles are central to Australia remaining a stable, prosperous and peaceful community. They provide the common reference points for our free and democratic society. While shared to some extent by all liberal democracies, they have been adapted to Australia’s unique setting, moulded and modernised through waves of settlement by people from all over the world.
The booklet then goes into each of points in a little more detail. The unique Australian setting that they have adapted to appears to be nothing more then insisting the word "Australian" (or it's variants and suffixes) one mention of "fair go" and Howard's personal touch "Mateship" (Little git had to get it in there somewhere)
One part did surprise. Under a "fair go" it talks about how all Australians, no matter their gender, race, sexual orientation disability etc have equal standing in the law and equal opportunities. How does this gel with the Howard government's stance on gay marriage? Isn't that a denial of equal opportunity?
While the values spelled out in the booklet are okay, the test itself is worrying . You can't view the questions themselves but you can take a practice test, which consists of five questions. These questions do not appear to change or randomise. One of the questions is "Which one of these Australians is famous for playing cricket" The answer being "Sir Donald Bradman". I have to ask the question, how is this essential knowledge of Australian culture - considering that according to the Australian Bureau of Statisitics only 4.7% of Adult males play out door cricket and only 8.9% of adult males attend cricket matches (there are no figures for females playing and only 3.5% attend) and according to Oztam, the official tv ratings no cricket made it into the top twenty broadcasts. A lot of other sporting events did, including the winner Commonwealth games (opening and closing ceremony), NRL grand final, AFL grand final, Australian open, and the World cup. Cricket did make into the weekly break downs but only for two weeks and at only under 2,000 viewers, in a country of 21 million, which makes it less then 1% of the population.
So it appears that Australians don't really like cricket all that much. So why did those from other countries seeking citizenship have to know anything about it if those of us already citizens don't give a shit about it? Based on the ABS and Oztam we should be asking them an AFL question, Attendance at AFL games is a whooping 21% and the AFL grand final made it to number 2 for most watch TV shows last year.
Another thing that bugs me is in the booklet. It ha a little table to break down Australia into statistics for an overview. In the religion part it mentions Christians, Buddhists, Muslims, Jews but fails to mentions Atheists despite the fact that at the last census we accounted for 18.7% of the population - which is more the the Jews, the Buddhists, the Hindus and the Muslims combined. Their value systems says that we don't have to have a religion yet the government seems willing to ignore us.
Anyway I could rant on, but it's late and I need sleep. Hopefully this will reprise the much missed debates and discussions that use to a vital part of our blogs.
posted by Renegade79 at 9:05 am
8 Comments:
"The objective of the test is to help migrants integrate and maximise the opportunities available to them in Australia, and enable their full participation in the Australian community as citizens. It will provide a strong incentive for new arrivals to learn English and to understand the Australian way of life. From a broader perspective, it will support social cohesion and successful integration into the community."
"integrate and maximise the opportunities"
How does a 20 question multi-guess exam, with unlimited resits, do this?
What exactly DOES "integrate and maximise the opportunities" MEAN? That they should help attend the poor attendance at cricket matches?
Just a thought. What if the point of the citizenship test is to make it easier to revoke citizenship further down the track?
With the recent increase in influx of Middle Eastern (read Muslim) immigrants during our so called war on terrorism (read Muslims) this might make it easier for the government to revoke the citizenship of the family of a suspected terrorist or the families of those involved in events such as the riots in Sydney a year or two ago.
As the values state that the overriding prinicple of all Australians is to rise to the defence of Australia and it's way of life.
By doing the test the immigrants are signing a statement (thanks Linds for finding that in the budget papers) to up hold the values and laws of Australia, so if they family member or friend commits a crime and they don't turn them in then the entire family can be expelled from the country.
And Howard may really want to save cricket.
"The Government will provide $123.6 million over five years (including $18.6 million in 2006-07) to develop a formal Citizenship Test."
...also from the budget papers.
Yes, thats right, we are spending $89.2m on this piece of fluff (once you note "revenue of $34.4 million over four years" in fees).
This comment has been removed by the author.
Interesting opinion piece on ABC
Today was the first day of tests. Nobody failed.
So we are paying ~$90m for a test that everybody passes and teaches a whitewashed version of endorsed history. This is the definition of unneeded red tape, expensive and ultimately useless.
Why even have a test if the point is for everybody to pass?
I don't think anybody has been able to answer the question "but what does it accomplish?" by pointing to quantifiable facts instead of some wishy-washy subjective answer.
The test has been rolled out with only half of the 200 questions - this the government says was it's intention all along - to phase the questions in.
Why release it when it's only half done?
But to answer your question Linds as to why have a test if people are meant to pass it? The test means the cost of becoming a citizen has now doubled to $240 and all capable people aged between 18 and 60 must take it. (http://abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/10/01/2048128.htm)
The test has also been panned by ethnic groups who state that people with poor English will be disadvantaged. Couple this with the ability to take the test as many times as is required and bam more revenue (though will this meant the cost of the adverts which seem to have had more time and money devoted)
And again I refer to a previous comment about making it easier to deport someone. Another example of what could happen:-
Police: So you say you heard a woman's scream at 4am yesterday?
New citizen: Yes that's right
Police: You're a new citizen right? Then it's my duty to inform you that you have failed in your duty to rise to the defence of Australia and it's way of life and you're under arrest.
Or am I just being cynical?
Sorry to join this one late.
Sinister possibilities aside, I wouldn't be surprised if Johnny Bush Howard has pushed this simply because the US has a citizenship test (I'm not sure when it was introduced).
As has already been pointed out, there are some obvious problems. Starting with the fact that Australia has no quantifiable "way of life". Johnny Bush Howard's definition is bound to be vastly different to that of 95% of the rest of Australia.
There's also the fact that half of the things mentioned as "Australian values" aren't even upheld by our constitution!! (especially freedom of speech and religion)
Cart-horse-before.
Perhaps JBH is just trying to grab the votes of all those immigrant-haters we have in Australia (by golly, I bet there's a lot of them).
Why our deplorably selfish immigration/foreign adoption policies remain untouched while JBH plays the teacher at citizenship school is ... well ... mysterious.
Post a Comment
<< Home