The revised Australian citizenship test gets its first airing today. Its original incarnation, which ran for two years (October 2007-October 2009) was the subject of ridicule, derided primarily for the Bradman question, which remained on the DIAC website as a practice question throughout the life of the test. The Don, along with the stump-jump plough, the list of Australian Nobel Laureates and Burke and Wills has since been relegated to the non-testable section of the new test preparation booklet Australian Citizenship: Our Common Bond.
The original test preparation booklet for citizenship applicants Becoming an Australian Citizen also came in for its fair share of criticism. Of the 122 published public submissions to Dick Woolcott’s Citizenship Test Review in 2008, many came from historians affronted by the white-washed, triumphalist version of Australian history peddled by the government in what has been described as resembling more a travel brochure than an historical account. The reason that history departments get built at universities after all is that history, at its core, is contestable and it was a bold move indeed by the government to present such tosh in the first instance.
Our Common Bond, while more tempered than its predecessor, does have its problems. Again, there is significant space afforded to a (testable) definition for the “spirit of mateship” written as though no other country on earth has a system whereby people might become friends or help each other. Was it P J O’Rourke who said that you never have to argue alone in the Middle East? That someone will always weigh in with you and take up your case?
For those unclear on the concept of “mateship”, the glossary entry in Our Common Bond reads:
mateship
helping and receiving help from others, especially in difficult times
When my car broke down, the other drivers helped to push it in the spirit of mateship.
Now there’s a sentence a new Australian might like to try out on work colleagues.
The concept of a “fair go” is also testable, though, sadly, it doesn’t rate a mention in the glossary or require an example sentence for illumination. It is interesting, however, that prospective citizens are expected to understand the concept of a fair go while a significant proportion of them are not getting one. Contrast, for example, an educated Briton who spends a couple of hours reading the booklet and five minutes doing the test to get 20 out of 20 with a humanitarian visa entrant from an oral culture who, upon arrival in Australia, had never held a pen or sat at a computer, or ever made a phone call.
And then there is this, from Part 3 — Government and the law in Australia:
Australians are proud of the fact that their nation did not emerge through revolution or bloodshed, but by negotiation and referendum.
That’s a curious statement by anyone’s standards.
Kerry Ryan, Institute for Social Research, Swinburne University of Technology
Citizenship test? God it’s embarrassing.
Mateship? Make ’em watch “Wake in Fright” before sitting the test…
[Australians are proud of the fact that their nation did not emerge through revolution or bloodshed, but by negotiation and referendum.]
Bloody hell!!! I’m gobsmacked.
That would be brilliant “Pythonesque” humour, if it wasn’t so blatantly and tragically false.
Clearly, some people’s blood just doesn’t count.
The white blindfold view of history I guess. 🙁
So what are we complaining about?
From the “Old Customs House” web-site:
“The Dictation Test
From 1901 customs officers were given the power to exclude all non-Europeans. This became the cornerstone of the so-called White Australia Policy.
In the face of considerable international criticism, officials looked for a way to exclude people without making it seem due to race. The answer was the notorious Dictation Test. Immigrants could be required to pass a language test in any European language. If they failed, they were refused entry.
Maltese applicants were given a test in Dutch. A political activist who spoke several European languages eventually failed when he was tested in Gaelic.
This technique continued to be used by Customs until the early 1960s”.
A similar technique is currently being used in remote Aboriginal Australia. School children are being tested in English (NAPLAN testing) and their failure to reach certain standards is then used as an excuse to destroy bi-lingual programmes.
The current citizenship test is a breeze. Give us another half a century and we will be a truly enlightened Nation.
Just wondering, do we really want to teach new citizens that our expectation is for them to blithely repeat whatever they’ve been told?
This is embarrassing isn’t it? I think it’s racist and quite revolting. A citizenship test proves what? That people can learn some elements of a subject and then pass the test and then what? As others questioned, what’s happened to the real history. I understand that there was a war with aboriginal people that lasted about 100 years(or still is happening, depending on your view?) and conservatively, 20,000 aboriginal people were killed. I don’t think that includes the women who were raped by white pearlers and when their pregnancy became obvious, they were thrown into the ocean?
I don’t celebrate Australia Day for reasons that must be quite obvious. I wear my favourite T-shirt which was the protest one against Jabiluka Uranium mine, and I try to do something positive to let people know why I’m wearing it. I feel a great sense of shame on that day, in fact on every day. This is just disgusting and hurtful to put these lies on such a test! One of the questions is a multiple choice question on the colours on the aboriginal flag. A better one would be what those colours represent! I’d get rid of the damned questionaire. Apart from anything else it’s infantile!