Petro Georgiou on the proposed Australian citizenship test
March 25th 2007 07:32
I've included here some of his arguments against the citizenship test.
The first passage comes from a speech he delivered on Wednesday 14 March 2007, in Melbourne (to an "Italian organisation", says the ABC). Different versions have been published -- in the ABC's Newsonline, in the Canberra Times (16/03/07, p 13), in the Sydney Morning Herald, or at this blog.
The second passage comes from a speech delivered to the Murray Hill Society of the University of Adelaide on Wednesday 4 October 2006. The full text is available from The Australian.
***
Needless test for citizens
... The belief was that if we encouraged and embraced migrants who wanted to become Australians, we would build a better and stronger nation.
The inclusiveness of our approach to citizenship has been sustained through massive changes in the racial and cultural composition of our migrant intake. We have sometimes felt anxious about the speed and magnitude of this change. But Australia has held fast and not compromised its belief in inclusiveness. And we have been vindicated by history. The society we have produced is not perfect. It is, however, a society which is arguably the most successful, unified and harmonious multicultural nation in the world.
Nonetheless, in 2007, the Parliament will be asked to reverse the historic direction of inclusiveness, and Government and opposition seem inclined to do so. Our current system requires applicants to demonstrate a basic knowledge of English and an understanding of the responsibilities and privileges of Australian citizenship. These are assessed at a compulsory interview. What is proposed is that these will be replaced by a more difficult and complex formal "citizenship test". New requirements will include English-language comprehension and an understanding of Australian values, institutions, traditions and symbols. These would be assessed via a computer-based, 30-question, multiple-choice test.
What is involved even if it is not intended is a fundamental political and social regression that will erect unreasonable and unnecessary barriers to citizenship.
We are told that we need a tougher citizenship test because today Australia faces the unprecedented challenge posed by migrants coming from cultures far removed from our own, and from the cultures of European migrants.
The facts do not support this assertion.
[...]
Apart from the shift from European to Asian sources of immigrants, there have been no other major changes in our migrant intake. The Middle Eastern component of our total migrant intake has remained a steady 5 per cent for 30 years.
[...]
The statistics refute the claim that taking in migrants from cultures far removed from our own is a new challenge. Australia met that challenge 30 years ago, when the centre of gravity of our intake swung from Europe to Asia and stayed there.
[...]
It is said that imposing a tougher English-language test is necessary because it will provide a "real incentive" for migrants to learn English.
I absolutely believe that it is of the utmost importance that people are encouraged and supported to learn English...
The concern I have about this aspect ot the proposal is that it assumes without evidence that many migrants are unmotivated or resistant to learning English and that the threat of denial of citizenship is an appropriate and effective spur to get them to study harder.
This profoundly misunderstands the migrant experience. Migrants do recognise the centrality of English in Australian society.
Before using the stick of the denial of citizenship to penalise people, it is incumbent upon us to establish the nature and extent of limits on English-language fluency. Do certain immigrants not want to learn, or are they stymied by the lack of availability of classes? Are they fully occupied in meeting other demands, such as employment and family responsibilities? Are there simply limits on how much English some people can learn?
[...]
Can we reassure Australians by imposing a uniform identity on people who want to become citizens? Many of us have a notion of what an Australian identity is. The problem is that our concepts are not necessarily the same. The specifics of any elaborated Australian identity have been endlessly contested.
We need to recognise that definitions of national identity and national values are not fixed but are constantly in flux. Indeed, they can sometimes change at breakneck speed.
Toughening the laws on citizenship and excluding migrants who want to commit to Australia but who cannot jump the higher hurdle of a literacy test may reassure some people, projecting images of unity and conformity. I do not believe we should make it harder for people to become citizens in order to project an illusory reassurance.
***
From the speech to the Murray Hill Society
I now turn to a third aspect of the liberal tradition, the balance between change and continuity. Sir Robert Menzies saw the Liberal Party as a progressive party, not averse to experiment; as a party that believes in state action to secure economic and social advancement and that embraces sensible parts of the Burkean understanding of society. One of these insights is that when you are dealing with social arrangements that have proved that they work, governments need to proceed with great care. There is a substantial burden of proof required to establish whether something needs to be changed, and that the changes proposed will achieve the desired outcome.
It is through this Burkean prism of the need to respect the complexity of social patterns, particularly successful ones, that I would like to contribute to the current debate about citizenship. In crude terms, what is broke and what needs fixing.
Let us look at our record. Since 1945, Australians have accepted 6 million migrants, an average of 1 million a decade. We have overcome our concerns about migrants coming from places other than the British Isles. We then overturned the white Australia policy which was for so long considered by both major political parties as essential to social harmony and cohesion. Today 28.2 per cent of our population was born overseas. Since 1949, 3.5 million Australians have become citizens by naturalisation.
By any standard, we are an exemplar of unity and respect for our multicultural diversity. We have, with remarkable success, brought together peoples of diverse nations, religions and cultures. Migrants to Australia have worked hard and committed themselves to this country. Through their efforts and initiative, and that of their children, and increasingly their grandchildren, they have profoundly enriched the Australian nation, of which they are an intrinsic part economically, socially, culturally and linguistically.
Until a few weeks ago, this was an article of faith on the part of every politician. Now we are told we need to make significant policy changes to address weaknesses in our citizenship laws.
What are the societal malfunctions that justify these changes?
I have looked closely at the federal government’s discussion paper, Australian Citizenship: much more than just a ceremony, and, in what has been said and written in connection with the proposed tests, I can find no detailed, robust analysis of a problem, and no evidence of how the new measures would resolve a problem that has not been demonstrated.
There is no equivalent of the Galbally report, which thirty years ago provided a rigorous philosophical and evidential basis for the Fraser government’s adoption of the policy of multiculturalism.
I have no doubt that more can and should be done to encourage immigrants to integrate effectively into the Australian community. But in order to do so sensibly, I would like to know pretty precisely what is the scale and nature of the issue. For example, how do we define integration and assess whether it is occurring? Who is not integrating and why is that so -- are there attitudinal or language barriers or do they suffer from discriminatory barriers?
I am all in favour of encouraging non-English speaking immigrants to learn English -- acceptance of English as the national language and promoting its acquisition have always been central tenets of multiculturalism. Where is the evidence showing who does not learn adequate English and the reasons for that? Do immigrants not want to learn or are they stymied by the lack of availability of classes or are they fully occupied in meeting other demands, such as employment and family responsibilities?
Instead, we are told that changes to the Citizenship Act are needed because the present system showers citizenship around like confetti -- throwing citizenship at people who do not value it, in part, because it is so easy to get.
Such assertions are nowhere supported.
The discussion paper tells us that testing will “assist social cohesion and successful integration into the community”. The implication is that this is not happening now. Yet there is no evidence provided for this -- no research to support it.
We are told that people take out citizenship because it is easy. It is easy we are told because there is no “formal test” of English or suitability or commitment to our country. A hearsay anecdote is related about people leaving a citizenship ceremony before the singing of the national anthem. This, we are told, “suggests that there are many people who are taking out citizenship who may see it as no more than a passport.”
The discussion paper proposes “formal”, more difficult and more protracted tests before people become citizens. These will, the paper asserts, provide a strong incentive for people to learn English.
A number of underlying premises in the discussion paper are problematic. I will address three.
The first of these is that people take up citizenship without commitment because the requirements for English proficiency are so low. Yet it is those people most proficient in English who are the ones least likely to take out citizenship. The reality is that take up rates of citizenship are lowest amongst those who are English speakers -- immigrants from the UK the USA and New Zealand.
The second underlying premise is that there are no existing tests, and no signatures of commitment. I have seen a recent poll that a significant proportion of Australians are in favour of the introduction of a formal citizenship test. The fact is that tests have long been in place.
I am not going to play a semantic game about when a test is formal or informal. What I can say is that following the requirements of the Australian Citizenship Act 1948, people are currently assessed on the following: basic English language knowledge; understanding the nature of the application and its meaning; and an adequate knowledge of the responsibilities and privileges of Australian citizenship.
This assessment is made during a compulsory, formal interview. Additionally, those seeking Australian citizenship are required to formally commit to citizenship by signing a declaration as part of the application. At the citizenship ceremony candidates are required to affirm their commitment to Australia in the words of the Australian citizenship pledge, and I quote:
"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."
The third premise is that somehow we have fallen behind other countries in the stringency of our requirements. The countries that we are falling behind are cited as the US, the UK, Canada and the Netherlands. Look at their record of harmony. Australia’s record is second to none in multicultural harmony and integration. We are uniquely successful. Why should we emulate countries with a less distinguished record?
The discussion paper has had one unintended, and I believe beneficial effect. It has made many Australians reflect on the challenges that faced their parents and grandparents. For my part, my mother and father were among the many people who became Australians despite only limited fluency in English. My father was desperate to speak English properly -- and thought he did -- but he really didn’t, because he worked two jobs for most of his life.
A recent letter published in The Age reflects the experience and the sentiment of hundreds of thousands of migrants to this country. Speaking of the Greek community, the author writes:
"… older migrants were not subjected to an English-language test and, in many instances, they never did master the language of their new country. Finding work, establishing a home and family and ensuring a secure future for their children took all their energy and resolve. They did not underestimate the importance of developing knowledge of English and there was a sense of regret and sometimes despair that they needed to rely on others to ease their way in an English-speaking environment..."
Reflecting on her personal experience she continues:
"… My Greek migrant parents, relatives and friends who made it possible for me to develop into a tertiary-educated bilingual Australian, who nurtured me in my youth, set an example, and gave me a sense of responsibility towards others, were in many cases illiterate in English. They were, however, model Australian citizens and their loyalty to this country was rock-solid. Their own Greek-speaking community helped them adjust to their new country." (Nina Mills, Blairgowrie)
Throughout our history, very many people have become citizens despite having little fluency in English.
But that did not prevent them from making substantial contributions to our society -- people who worked hard in jobs that many English-speakers were loathe to take; people who obeyed the law, were good parents and fine neighbours.
Aren’t such personal qualities the essence of good citizenship?
How can it be in the national interest to impose new barriers to citizenship, barriers which would have prevented its acquisition by so many who have demonstrably proven to be model citizens?
Ladies and gentlemen, the liberal tradition has facilitated the success of one of the most successful migration processes in modern history. That has been made possible because the Liberal Party was progressive and committed to nation building. There are no doubt many reasons why it has been a success. I believe it has something to do with the Australian character that is fundamentally tolerant and accepting of people trying to make a go of it, especially when they come to know them as individuals. I believe it is partly because of the openness of Australian society. I believe it is partly because of the policy of multiculturalism that embraces diversity as a value within a commitment to Australia. And I believe that it is due to the fact that we have sought to accept as Australian citizens those who made a real commitment to Australia, even if they spoke only basic English and probably couldn’t answer many multiple choice questions about Australia.
But beyond this, as a liberal I am enough of a Burkean to know that recipes for social cohesion and commitment are complex and if the mix has succeeded, we need to have imperative, overriding reasons to change it. In my view, the discussion paper in no way demonstrates the need to change our longstanding processes, and the proposed new approach potentially undermines our unquestionable success.
| 100 |
| Vote |
Add To: 
subscribe to this blog
Comment by Damo
I wish that I had time to write more but I have to go out.
Comment by Adrian
Philosophy Blog
But I thought it had to be posted, for the sake of expressing that side of the discussion. I myself didn't really know what people were saying against the citizenship tests and the English-language requirement.
Comment by Cibbuano
Hunt Famous
Orble Post of the Day
Fat Cult
Techbreak
Comment by Adrian
Philosophy Blog
One point that should be made (and this is not clear in the extracts above, because I edited them slightly), is that the proposed test will apply to citizenship, not to temporary or permanent migration (such as permanent residency).
So the upshot is that, if it's implemented, it will be just as easy as it ever was to get into the country -- it's just harder to make a commitment to it if you want to.
Comment by Damo
Petro makes certian points that agree with. They all seem to have a similar theme.
What problem or sudden crisis is the test meant to solve?
I can see nothing short of prejudice or a desire for red tap.
Every new migrant group act like fish out of water until they find their way. Every second generation migrant is indistinguishable from mainstream Australia.
Yet this test wishes to impose a difference that is not there.
Comment by KylieW
Celebrity Obsession
I really like this. I'm with Petro. I think we have one of the most harmonious multicultural societies in the world. Is there really a problem? It sounds to me like a way to discriminate against migrants. Honestly, it's only a matter of time until someone proposes a white australia policy as again being necessary with the threat of terrorism so rife.
I really liked what Petro had to say.
Kylie
Comment by Adrian
Philosophy Blog
Say, for instance, that -- shock! horror! -- that terrorists became citizens. Well, that might mean we couldn't deport them, for planned or actual terrorist acts, but we could still lock 'em up.
It's not clear, in any case, how a higher English literacy hurdle would stop terrorists from becoming citizens...
Comment by Adrian
Philosophy Blog
=====
Apparently, the test will be 20 questions from a set of 200, and you need 60% (I don't have a good source for this, but I think you'll find this description reported in various newspapers). Here's the Sydney Morning Herald's sample test (no idea what they base their sample on).
====
Daily Telegraph, 19/5/07, page 28
Tolerance test
In Australia, we like to think of ourselves as a friendly and hospitable mob. We reckon we’re pretty resourceful, we’re industrious, we’re loyal, we’ll stand up for a mate, and we’re prepared to have a go, whatever that might mean.
They’re what we like to think of as "our values", as near as you can spell them out and like every other place on earth, we’ve got our own identifying marks. We know a jumbuck from a stump-jump, and when someone says "fair dinkum" we know what he means. Oh, and we speak English, or at least a version of it. And if you want to be one of us, we expect you to fit those well-worn parameters.
Sort of. Some of us nowadays wouldn’t know a jumbuck from a junta, but they’re nonetheless Aussie for that. Some of us have never read a line of Banjo Paterson, and the number of Australians who know our first prime minister was a bloke called Barton would be a definite minority.
The thing about Aussie values is that they tend to look a lot like the values any decent society in any part of the world would own to.
Of course we want new citizens to sign up to our values -- let’s insist on it by all means. But perhaps the value we should prize above all others is tolerance. How do you test for that?
====
West Australian, 19/5/07, page 61
Potential citizens can take tests many times
Potential new citizens will be allowed to sit a planned new citizenship test as many times as they need to pass, Immigration Minister Kevin Andrews says.
And they will only need to get 60 per cent 12 of the 20 multiple choice questions right to win the right to become a citizen.
"What’s important is not pass you’re in, fail you’re out ’," Mr Andrews said.
"What’s important we think is that we encourage people coming to Australia, who come from many different countries and cultures around the world, to understand what it is to be an Australian.
"So the encouragement is that if you don’t get it the first time, go away, look at the material, learn some more about Australia and come back and do it again." Test takers will probably have to know about Aboriginal occupation and the colours of the flag but memorising Don Bradman’s batting average will not be a requisite for becoming a dinkum Aussie. The questions will be based on an Australian Way of Life, a booklet developed by the Immigration Department.
Comment by One of migrant
I will not blame any one here in Australia because we are all migrant But John Haword is playing with new migrant because he arrive first in Australia .
Thank
Isaac Thok
Ballarat
Comment by Adrian
Sunday Herald Sun (Melbourne) 26/8/2007, page 2
Being fair dinkum
New citizens test revealed
by Lincoln Wright
Migrants will face a tough new citizenship test obliging them to endorse the values of mateship and a fair go as well as learning English.
For the first time, the Federal Government has laid out what it regards as the 10 essential Australian values every citizen must embrace.
The Sunday Herald Sun has obtained a copy of the pamphlet, Becoming an Australian Citizen, which will be given to all new citizenship applicants before their test.
It was largely written by Immigration Minister Kevin Andrews and Prime Minister John Howard. A draft will be released today.
It describes Australia as "a nation at ease with the world and itself", but lays down a firm obligation on aspiring citizens to respect the nation ’s core values.
"Australian citizenship provides for an overriding commitment to Australia," the pamphlet says.
"Modern citizenship also rests on sentiments of nationhood and enduring attachment to what Australians hold in common."
Migrants will face a 20-question test drawn at random from a list of 200. They must correctly answer 60 per cent of the questions, including three on the responsibilities and privileges of citizenship.
At the heart of Australian values lies the idea of mateship, which the pamphlet says stems from the struggle of the early settlers.
The 10 Australian values focus heavily on mateship and a fair go.
They include tolerance and mutual respect and compassion for those in need, dignity and freedom of the individual and the freedom of speech. They also include 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 and peacefulness.
"On the whole, Australians support the principle of live and let live," the pamphlet says.
"Australia has a strong tradition of mateship in which people help and receive help from others voluntarily, especially in times of adversity. A mate can be a spouse, partner, brother, sister, daughter, son or friend. A mate can be a stranger."
The pamphlet also takes aim at religious extremism: "Religious intolerance is considered unacceptable in Australian society. Religious laws have no legal status in Australia."
Basic English is also a test requirement as is a respect for Australia ’s heritage from the British, the Judaeo-Christian ethic and the separation of church and state.
The 40-page pamphlet also provides a summary of Australia ’s history, its political institutions, economy and cultural history and the fate of Aborigines.
It also provides a frank history of the convict system and the impact of European settlement, including its effects on Aborigines.
Questions in the citizenship test will range from the types of official flag, the national flower and colours, sporting heroes, national days to military achievements, convict history and the fate of Aborigines.
Comment by Nonymous
Philosophy Blog
"We don't want migrants coming here with their rich culture"
by Catherine Deveny
YOU can shove your citizenship test up your poxy date. No one has the right to decide what being Australian is. I was born here and I have no idea. But I do know what it isn't, and what being Australian isn't is testing people on what they know about some white pen-pusher's idea of Australia. This is the country whose citizens pride themselves on not knowing the words to their own country's anthem.
If I wanted to be an Australian citizen and I was told that I had to pass a test first, I'd bugger off to New Zealand.
Who are we trying to keep out with this test? How will knowing the name of Australia's first prime minister or the date of Federation keep out terrorists, wankers or bludgers? The citizenship test questions are irrelevant and offensive. Here's my citizenship test and if you don't like it you can rack off and go back to your own country. You know what the most un-Australian thing in the world is? Migrants. And we don't want them coming here with their fancy food, classy culture, rich traditions and willingness to contribute.
[...]
Comment by Nonymous
Philosophy Blog
Twenty-six people this week became the first to sit the controversial new Australian citizenship test. The Federal Government said one person failed the test.
Comment by Nonymous
Philosophy Blog
Citizen test unfair
THE only obligation on Australian citizens is to abide by the law. There never has been any obligation for citizens to show interest in, or knowledge of, history, geography, politics, current affairs, religion or anything else. That is what makes us a democratic society.
How then can we deny someone citizenship on the grounds that he or she cannot answer questions on topics that are in no way mandatory for citizens to know? That is blatant discrimination and as such, surely is illegal.
Making it compulsory for migrants to be able to speak our language is common sense. Other than that, they must, of a necessity, be given the same freedoms as all Australian citizens.
HOWARD EVANS
Palmyra
Comment by Nonymous
Philosophy Blog
[...]
What's more, to a new arrival (as opposed to those who've been here for years, and would be getting citizenship) some of the information would be genuinely useful, such as which level of government is responsible for what.
But to test people on this stuff, and only give them a passport if they get 60 per cent, is a silly notion, both symbolically and practically. Practically, the impact will be mere inconvenience. What will happen is that migration agents, or someone involved in the lucrative process of helping people settle here, will quickly cobble together a complete copy of the 200 questions and answers, and those taking the test will simply memorise them all, thus passing the test with flying colours. If people are willing to spend years and thousands of dollars getting citizenship, they'll be willing to cram for a test.
This process will also negate the more sinister aspect of the test, which is the attempt to test everyone's level of English. Personally, I don't believe English competence should be necessary for citizenship. Living in Australia without English skills is tough, and the incentives to learn are many - but for migrants in their 40s and 50s (over 60s are exempt) who might find it harder to learn, I really can't see why it's absolutely necessary for them to do so. Generally they will have younger, fluent relatives who can help them cope. If some migrants largely prefer to stay within their communities and converse in their own tongues, then good luck to them. People who aren't in a rush to integrate just don't bother me the way they seem to bother, say, callers to talkback radio. Anyone who's seen Australian expat communities will know that they aren't exactly distinguished by a rush to embrace a new culture and language.
By all means, the Government should offer free classes, and try to encourage everyone to learn English - it's inherently worthwhile - but requiring it seems excessive. A fiftysomething grandparent who arrives here on a family reunion visa should be allowed to become an Australian without having to prove they can answer multiple-choice questions about Phar Lap, especially when passing the test proves precisely nothing.
Does answering questions about mateship show you actually believe in it? Does choosing "Yes" when asked whether Australia believes in religious tolerance actually demonstrate a commitment to it? Of course not. You don't integrate people by lecturing them. Values are transmitted by community contact, not by government handouts.
[...]
The sample questions reveal just how banal and pointless the exercise is. They read like a particularly dull game of Trivial Pursuit. Honestly, who cares when our Federation happened, or what our floral emblem is? Knowing these factoids have absolutely no bearing on whether someone has integrated into our community, or can make a contribution to our society, or is committed to being Australian.
[...]
As for Andrews, he should spend less time making migrants answer trivial questions about Simpson's donkey and more time answering important questions about our treatment of Mohamed Haneef.
Comment by Nonymous
Philosophy Blog
Governor slams citizen exam
Farah Farouque
VICTORIA'S Governor David de Kretser has spoken out against the Howard Government's "disappointing" new citizenship test and made a strong defence of multiculturalism.
"It focuses not only on language but also on some aspects of our history which are certainly not representative of the wide and diverse backgrounds of our current citizens," he said.
Professor de Kretser, who usually does not enter the political fray, made his remarks at a reception last night at Government House to mark the opening of the Metropolis migration conference.
He also defended the right of people to don religious clothing of their choosing. "Politically and socially, notions of assimilation have begun to replace multiculturalism in the way our community speaks about culture and migration," he said.
"There are trends to criticise traditional forms of dress and religious practice -- which can serve to perpetuate intolerance and accentuate divisions."
Professor de Kretser, a Sri Lankan-born migrant to Australia, noted there were also "tendencies" to link community tensions to religious and racial difference, instead of acknowledging that these may have arisen from disparity in unemployment, education and access to community resources.
Professor de Kretser noted that he had recently attended a reception for the Victorian multicultural awards at which some of the migrants, who came to Australia shortly after World War II, extolled the virtues of Australia in "English that was still not polished". He said some of these award winners may not have passed the citizenship test.
"More than ever, a socially cohesive society is necessary to ensure the success of Australia's high immigration intake," he said. "Melbourne is home to one of the world's most diverse and multicultural societies.
"On the whole, the migration to Australia has resulted in a cohesive multicultural society but there are examples of where stresses and strains have become apparent. This is most glaring in the outcomes from the first migration, or I should more appropriately have used the term colonisation. We still today have an indigenous community that is markedly disadvantaged."
Comment by Nonymous
Philosophy Blog
Sunday forum
Dodgy citizenship test must be "first to go"
by Scott Stirling
AUSTRALIA to review dodgy citizenship test -- the headline taken from an Indian daily newspaper says it all, really.
The controversial citizenship test introduced by the Coalition Government last year could be the first symbolic sacrifice as Australia begins a transformation away from the divisive and nationalistic nature of the Howard years.
[…]
A core element of the Howard strategy and the Howard mantra during his term as Prime Minister was the promotion and fuelling of a nationalistic fervour amongst Australians, especially the youth.
While Keating had fostered and promoted a global view encouraging Australians to embrace the value of being part of something bigger than just our own nation, Howard worked hard to turn the focus back inward to our own white picket fences and our nice back yards.
[…]
In many ways the introduction of a citizenship test was a culmination of the build-up of nationalistic fervour and was a physical accompaniment to the famous John Howard statement that "we decide who comes into this country and the circumstances in which they come".
The official line from the government website is that the test helps potential Australian citizens to "gain an understanding of Australia’s values, traditions, history and national symbols".
What it does in practice is marginalise potential Australian citizens that we should be embracing with open arms.
Australia is, after all, a nation built on the back of migration -- colonised by migrants in 1788.
Ever since, we have relied on migration to fuel our growth as a western democratic country. The economic prosperity that we all enjoy today is in no small part thanks to the thousands of migrants who have chosen to pursue Australian citizenship and to put their lot in with ours.
Whether it was the flood of Europeans in the 1950s or the boat people of the ’70s and ’80s, Australia has enjoyed immense benefit from migration and no citizenship test has ever been required to validate it.
The Snowy Mountains Hydro Scheme is a classic example of the contribution of migrant labour -- 70 per cent of the workforce who developed the incredible engineering project were skilled migrants attracted from post-war Europe. Many of these people stayed on after the completion, bringing their families out to join them.
Darwin is no stranger to multiculturalism. It is one of the most celebrated aspects of our community and one of the biggest draw cards when it comes to all-important tourism.
Who could imagine a life in Darwin without the tastes and aromas of the various markets, the amazing cultural festivals that we enjoy each year and the less visually obvious, but no less important economic contribution, made by Territory families with a migrant background.
While the citizenship test was sold by the Howard Government as a harmless tool that would help to ensure that only really committed wannabe Aussies could obtain citizenship, it has had the effect of making citizenship harder to come by and the inevitable result of turning people away from the process.
In this context, it is positive to hear that new Immigration Minister, Senator Chris Evans, has announced a review of the citizenship test process.
While the test is unlikely to be scrapped in the short term -- Evans has committed the Government to supporting the overall concept -- it is the nature of the questions and the support provided to potential citizens that will be improved.
Rather than being an obstacle to Australian citizenship and a symbol of Australian nationalism I am hoping that the new Government finds a way to use the test as a tool to encourage the uptake of Australian citizenship amongst our migrant community.
By improving access to English language training and to other broad adult education services the Department of Immigration and Citizenship can play a positive role for our newest arrivals.
Our very own migrant success story Minister Ron Vatskalis spoke of his personal issue with the citizenship test on ABC radio this week and specifically the issue with access to English language training.
It is the great public contribution of people such as Mr Vatskalis and former Lord Mayor Alec Fong Lim that have made Darwin the amazing place it is today.
It would be sad if an ill-considered citizenship test were to rob us of such characters in the future.
SCOTT Stirling is the Darwin general manager for CPR Communications, a national corporate communications and public relations firm.
Comments can be directed to s.stirling@cprcomm.com.au
The CPR Communications website is www.cprcomm.com.au
Comment by Nonymous
Philosophy Blog
Citizenship test holds no values
Fair go, let’s drop the citizenship test, writes Mirko Bagaric
There are some values to which all people and communities should aspire. But they aren’t relative. They don’t depend on culture, race or personal preference. And certainly none of the values is to be found in the citizenship test -- which, with its 20 per cent failure rate, is proving to be a roadblock for many worthy people further enriching our opulent country.
The citizen test was a gimmick introduced by the Howard government to shore up desperately needed votes by appealing to the racist sentiments of some voters.
The ploy failed because Kevin Rudd, well ahead in the polls, played the "me-too" card and refused to give voters an emotive point of difference between him and John Howard.
But now Rudd is in power, it is time he showed leadership and abolished the citizen test or risk being tainted with the same racist brush as Howard.
The citizen test, with its focus on all things Australian, costs taxpayers millions of dollars to administer.
It also fuels resentment from applicants who are required to swot up for it and places a cultural gulf between Anglo-Saxons and the 4.8 million people in Australia who were born overseas -- especially those occupying the 16 per cent of households that don’t speak English at home.
The flip side of preference is discrimination. It can be no other way -- it’s a mathematical truth.
Unashamedly embracing Aussie ways necessarily requires abdication of non-Australian values. There is no upside to this.
It will place a wedge between some migrants and their neighbours.
Of course, things might be different if anyone could identify a subset or even single value that is predominantly Australian to which we should all aspire.
The best anyone has been able to come up with is mateship and a "fair go".
These dismally fail the "made in Australia" test. They are coveted in all societies. They simply go by different names. In other places mateship means loyalty. Fair go means ensuring that all people have the opportunity to prosper roughly commensurate with their talent and level of commitment.
Instead of forcing Australian citizenship aspirants to rote learn historical facts about Australia, Rudd should work towards achieving a morally enlightened (culturally irrelevant) mindset within Australia.
This would provide a concrete framework around which an entire community can be forged and live harmoniously as a result of a fair allocation of opportunities, benefits and burdens.
Within that framework, people would be free to express themselves and engage in any activities or projects of their choosing which did not unfairly interfere with the capacity of others to do likewise.
This would result in cultural dilution and enrichment, as opposed to cultural hegemony.
To do this, Rudd needs to broaden the horizons from which he obtains his values inspiration.
This would open his mind to a slow, but evident, convergence in the most important value judgments that define individuals and societies.
For a nation which is renowned for its tolerance and progress on matters of social justice, the citizen test is decidedly un-Australian.
Dr Mirko Bagaric is a lawyer and author.