Citizenship - The Citizenship Testing Discussion Paper (1 Viewer)

[poloktim]

what is 'our Australian identity' exactly?

it's a very unclear response

I'm wondering that, also.

I'm not a fan of sports and I don't intend on becomming one. I'm not the most social person and don't often go out at night. To put it bluntly, I'm a skinny stereotypical computer nerd. Does this make me un-Australian? If so, why am I not treated like I'm un-Australian? Is it because I'm white and my accent is local?

The "Australian" way of life and "Australian" culture are both interesting concepts. How about we determine what lifestyle and values are common to Australians before we attempt to spring a test on potential citizens about what it means to be Australian.

On the other side, should there be an English test? Yes. The English test, however should probably be limited to conducting business in Australia. For example, shopping, understanding money, and understanding basic social issues to allow citizens to make an informed selection on the ballot paper when election day rocks up.

Should the elderly be excluded? Yes.
Should under eighteens be excluded? No. That being said, perhaps those who are under the age of fifteen should be. 0-14 year olds have a requirement to attend school in Australia. Attending schools in Australia means attending classes instructed in English. If I had a child and I put him/her into an Australian school at age thirteen, by the time s/he finishes, I'd expect him/her to have a better grasp of the English langauge than I'd have... even if I've spoken it longer than s/he has.

 

[iamsickofyear12]

I'm just going to come out and say what everyone else (including the government) is too politically correct to say. The problem is the muslims.

They have no interest in integrating at all. They just want to follow their islamic law and islamic traditions and we are forced to make special considerations for them. Even some of the ones born here don't consider themselves Australian.

The only reason they are here is because their home countries are so bad. They don't care about Australia at all until they need us for something.

They are creating a division in society. Just look back and all the negative events of the past 12 months that have resulted from it. It's obviously not all of them but it is enough to make an impact and for the issue to be discussed instead of being ignored because everyone is scared of being labelled a racist.

This all started from Costello I think it was telling muslims to learn english. The whole immigration policy is obviously directed at prevent them from having any more of a negative impact on our society than they already have but the government can't say that.

----------------------------------------------------

As for the Australia identity. It's not something you can define. Just think about yourself and the entire Australia population in general, the good things we have, the good qualities we display, the things we stand for. That is what the Australian identiy is.

 

[*Minka*]

The only reason they are here is because their home countries are so bad. They don't care about Australia at all until they need us for something.

I understand what you are saying, but do know that not all immigrants who come to Australia because of circumstances in their home countries are like that.

We left Croatia because of the civil war - three of my brothers were killed, we had no safety and had to leave so you could say we came here because things in Croatia were so bad. But that is not why we stay - we stay because we love Australia, because it has become home and it is a country we deeply care about. We could have left when we got here because thigns in Croatia settled down, but we have chosen to stay and have not regretted it in the slightest - we love it here.

I know some immigrants are like what you said, but not all are.

 

[Scanorama]

Should Australia introduce a formal citizenship test?
Definitely. When I went to my citizenship interview, the interviewer only asked some very basic questions such as if I got my jury duty letter, where should I go? Do I have to vote, questions like that. It's way too basic. But then I read from the paper yesterday it will ask questions like what date is the Melbourne Cup on. I wouldn't have a clue, neither will other native Australians. Also knowing the rules/cultures of Footy is useless, not everyone gives a damn about sport.

What level of English is required to participate as an Australian citizen?
At the very least, the same level of a year 4 student. Enough to get around the street everyday such as shopping, interact with other people, from your neighbours to employers and other people, seeing a doctor, answering the phone etc etc.

Under the proposal, people under the age of 18 or over 60 are exempted, so I can't see why adults can't learn english upto the level of a year 4 student.

How important is knowledge of Australia for Australian citizenship?
Extremely important. If they wish to become Australian, they need to learn more about this country. Anything from how this country was found (recogising the Aborginals were the first to live in this country from Captain Cook discovery in 1788 to the independance of Australia in 1901) to who the curent Prime Minister is; the Australian cultures, and the way of how Australians live.

How important is a demonstrated commitment to Australia's way of life and values for those intending to settle permanently in Australia or spend a significant period of time in Australia ?
If they can't/don't want to adapt the Australia's way of life, then they shouldn't come to this country at the first place.

 

[Comrade nathan]

As for the Australia identity. It's not something you can define.

That makes it easy. Let's just say White people, but not poor White people, battlers but not poor.

Just think about yourself and the entire Australia population in general, the good things we have, the good qualities we display, the things we stand for. That is what the Australian identiy is.

Good things, good qualities. Yes that's what makes us unique, we are the only people in the world who have "Good things, good qualities". Let's make sure people coming to this country bring good things and good qualities. Maybe have like a gift giving ceremony, we can get things like game boys and shit. And we can give them, wool and coal or whatever we produce, maybe ugboots.

 

[lengy]

Should Australia introduce a formal citizenship test?
Don't they already have a test? If not, yes.

What level of English is required to participate as an Australian citizen?
Conversational, enough to be able to at least attempt to sound out new words, or use a dictionary so they can learn new words. Maybe there should be an exam on usage of a dual language dictionary.

How important is knowledge of Australia for Australian citizenship?
Basic knowledge should be decent. Current politics.

How important is a demonstrated commitment to Australia's way of life and values for those intending to settle permanently in Australia or spend a significant period of time in Australia ?
The should respect autonomy, freedom, democracy and be tolerant and respectful of others opinions.

 

[wheredanton]

My example of 90% of overseas university students not being able to speak english properly was just an example.

Speaking English without an Australia accent doesn't mean you can't soeak English. However you can't really complain about the internationals too much. they subsidise your degree as well as mine.

 

[wheredanton]

I'm just going to come out and say what everyone else (including the government) is too politically correct to say. The problem is the muslims.
They have no interest in integrating at all. They just want to follow their islamic law and islamic traditions and we are forced to make special considerations for them. Even some of the ones born here don't consider themselves Australian.

I'm pretty sure Howard and Kim have come out and referred to the 'small minority' that have issues with integrating. The small minority that hate Australia. Those of the islamic faith are perhaps the first socio/religious group to not balance their integration very well...balancing their own culture and adapting parts of the culture of Australia. The thousands and thousands of Italians and Greeks and asians that came to Australia during the 60s, 70s and 80s are, pretty much, sucessfully integrated. This generation's children is generally culturally 'Australian' (ahgainst whatever that means?) as people that go back generations.

Some right wing pollies in Europe have actually stated that islam is totally incompatiable with western democratic practice.

At the extreme end it seems so. It's not just western countries that are having problems. Last night three bombs went off in southern Thailand, let of my islamic insurgents who want to claim southern thailand as an independent muslim state. The Thai government sends down the Army to kill insurgents.

 

[littlewing69]

As for the Australia identity. It's not something you can define. Just think about yourself and the entire Australia population in general, the good things we have, the good qualities we display, the things we stand for. That is what the Australian identiy is.

Wow. So impressive you can't define it. You sure as hell can't test for it then.

I don't see why anyone would want to enforce one set of cultural values over another in our society. Sure, I like being surrounded by people who use my turn of phrase, mannerisms, and understand me culturally, but I don't think it's healthy to have that all the time, nor do I think that the state should (or could) enforce such cultural hegemony. All that is necessary to live in this country is a respect for liberal democracy--the system which enables us to have different cultural groups yet remain stable. I don't care how these people talk at home, where they go to church/mosque/temple, or what clothes they wear, as long as they understand and approve of our liberal democracy.


EDIT: We need more immigrants like *Minka*

 

[ogmzergrush]

Howard's hijacking of implicit characteristics of the national psyche into shallow, propagandistic drivel is depressing.

Speaking of depressing, every time I see stuff like this I die a little bit inside. Such ridiculously pretentious and hollow language is better saved for your exams. I don't mean to single you out, just that yours was the post I was on when I decided it needed to be commented on. Seriously people, next time you string a whole lot of words together, try to *say* something.

Anyway, seeing as I'm feeling moderately constructive...

Should Australia introduce a formal citizenship test?
I'm undecided on this, the idea certainly has its merits, but on the other hand I have my reservations as to its application.

What level of English is required to participate as an Australian citizen?
A level whereby people who you interact with in your daily life are not greatly inconvenienced by your inability to comprehend the simplest of communication. I don't think there should be a rigid one-size-fits-all level for this, as individuals will take to the language differently due to various factors. I see this as working in same way that we don't expect the same level of English proficiency from those with various disabilities as we do from an "average" member of the community. At the bottom of it all though, I don't think anyone living here on a permanent or even semi-permanent basis should do so without being able to communicate with reasonable efficiency.

How important is knowledge of Australia for Australian citizenship?
Mixed feelings on this, I think it's important in that I would like to think that most people living here should have at least have some interest in the history of our country, but I'm not really convinced that it is a fundamental component of citizenship.

The reason for this is that basically I don't see that those who are lacking knowledge of our history will be any less able to function appropriately in our society, aside from being at a distinct disadvantage at trivia nights. At the same time however, I think it's *probably* reasonable on the most part to expect people not to be completely oblivious to the country around them. I guess my point here is that it's something which I think is desirable, but not really all that critical, to an extent at least.


How important is a demonstrated commitment to Australia's way of life and values for those intending to settle permanently in Australia or spend a significant period of time in Australia?
Very important. I think what has been said in relation to this seems a little wide of the mark so far, and I'm fairly doubtful that this wording is intended to imply that everyone is expected to get pissed, eat pies and go to the beach a lot. I'd be inclined to suggest that people making comments along these lines are confusing identity with stereotypes, and similarly I'd assume that "way of life" refers to something a little deeper than what you do to fill your day. In the same vein, I don't think that the people interpreting this as an attack upon other religions have quite grasped the point which is being made, at least not the point which I'm seeing here.

The Australian culture as I see it has a lot to do with letting people enjoy the freedoms which they have, with the sole provision being that they do not impinge upon the rights of others. As most reading on this topic suggests, Australia *is* a relatively new country, and as such our image may not be quite as easy to pin down as other countries, but I find one of the things which is most strikingly obvious is the diversity which does exist, and the fact that for the most part (and when things are running as they should) this diversity goes all but unnoticed by the people involved. While this isn't as successful as it should be so far, due largely to sadsacks trying to ruin it for others, I think as time progresses this combination of identities will become a lot more cohesive and gradually become something of an identity on its own. It seems to me that our identity hinges a lot more on how we interact with others rather than specifically what we're doing, with factors such as religion being of much less relevance than they may be in defining the identity of other nations.

With this in mind, I think that the requirement for demonstrated commitment to this way of life is an absolute must. I think what's being said here is that people simply aren't welcome if they're not prepared to coexist with others which are already here, or others who will be arriving. We do not welcome anyone who can't handle the thought of living near a synagogue. Anyone who does not like the thought of women being able to dress in whatever manner they wish and participate in society as they see fit is similarly unwelcome. If they're not willing to peacefully live with x race and like it, then they don't make the cut. Those who despise democracy should probably try a different country, and save both us and themselves the trouble. Those with fundamental grievances with Australian law should not come here with the intention of breaking it. If none of the above requirements sounds objectionable, then chances are you have "demonstrated commitment to Australia's way of life and values", seriously, I don't think they're talking about VB.

Basically, we do not welcome people who will not respect the rights of those around them, and the structures which are in place within the country. I don't think this is really an outlandish request, quite the opposite in fact. If there was a way to introduce a test which addressed *this* issue I think it'd be the most appropriate path here, as this is of much more functional importance than knowing the history of the country, though of course the history and the ingrained diversity are related.

Note: Typos and blatantly broken sentences are courtesy of me being on my way to bed. Enjoy, and I'll fix anything that's glaringly bad when I get up.

 

[littlewing69]

Speaking of depressing, every time I see stuff like this I die a little bit inside. Such ridiculously pretentious and hollow language is better saved for your exams. I don't mean to single you out, just that yours was the post I was on when I decided it needed to be commented on. Seriously people, next time you string a whole lot of words together, try to *say* something.

Blow me

I don't think what I said was too hard to understand, though now I re-read it, I can see it's pretty rapid-fire. All I'm saying is:

1. There are things peculiarly characteristic of Australians.
2. These have been taken hostage by the present government.
3. Like analysing a joke, dissecting the national character kills the 'magic'.
4. The government is happy to do this to score political points, while not even adhering to the ideas they identify as Australian.

As a result, I'm concerned that any test on Australian values would be a political wank. Comprende?

 

[_dhj_]

Values
The imposition of values as requirements for becoming a citizen is clearly arbitrary. Values are indeterminate. What is "democracy" or "respect of the opinions of others" or "fair go" etc. Does democracy refer to system of government? Does the average Australian have an understanding of our system of government beyond the fact that it is a "democracy"? These seem to me like mere intellectual and character traits which are both open to interpretation and variable among the Australian population. What about mentally handicapped people? Are they "unAustralian" because they are unable to understand such values? Who is to say that Australians are more predisposed with the notion of "fair go" than those of any other nationality? Who is to say that democracy is intrinsically Australian, or that the Communist Party of Australia should not exist in Australia because it does not believe in liberal democracy? The notion of respecting the opinions of others, while does seem to be fairly legitimate on the surface, is actually a nonsensical notion in practice. Most people probably don't respect any opinion that they do not agree with. The fact that immigrants are willing to enter a new country suggests that they would, on average, have a higher likelihood to respect foreign values than the ordinary "aussie" Australian. To me, there seems to be no reason generally speaking to impose value requirements for attaining citizenship. It is sufficient for any entrant into Australia to adhere to the laws of Australia or face punishment.

Muslims
Some of the posters here are saying that this has everything to do with integrating Muslims. I think the opposite is the case here. If the government intended to integrate Muslims, they would actually encourage Muslim immigrants to take out Australian Citizenship rather than making the test stricter. After all, who is more likely to be integrated - a Lebanese permanent resident, or an Australian Citizen of Lebanese background? Becoming an Australian citizen has the subconscious effect of integration. Passing the test itself does not make anyone more integrated. If somebody merely wanted a passport, they would not be "fair dinkum" when learning about Australian history or agreeing to so-called "Australian" values.

The effect of a citizenship test, besides its populist appeal, is the temporary generation of some nationalist sentiment. While unitary nationalist sentiment may be useful in times of war or national disaster, divisive nationalist sentiment should never be encouraged. To make Australian citizens more exclusive will not encourage integration, but instead provoke antagonism and discrimination. Of course, this may be the underlying intentions and desired effect of the Coalition - to somehow create an environment where they can discredit multiculturalism pertaining to their ideological outlook.

 

[banco55]

Muslims
Some of the posters here are saying that this has everything to do with integrating Muslims. I think the opposite is the case here. If the government intended to integrate Muslims, they would actually encourage Muslim immigrants to take out Australian Citizenship rather than making the test stricter. After all, who is more likely to be integrated - a Lebanese permanent resident, or an Australian Citizen of Lebanese background? Becoming an Australian citizen has the subconscious effect of integration. Passing the test itself does not make anyone more integrated. If somebody merely wanted a passport, they would not be "fair dinkum" when learning about Australian history or agreeing to so-called "Australian" values.

The effect of a citizenship test, besides its populist appeal, is the temporary generation of some nationalist sentiment. While unitary nationalist sentiment may be useful in times of war or national disaster, divisive nationalist sentiment should never be encouraged. To make Australian citizens more exclusive will not encourage integration, but instead provoke antagonism and discrimination. Of course, this may be the underlying intentions and desired effect of the Coalition - to somehow create an environment where they can discredit multiculturalism pertaining to their ideological outlook.

I think the government and certainly ASIO is hoping that some of the lebanese muslims in particular return to their homelands where they can go back to cutting each other's throats, killing the druze, the phalangists and so on. So making citizenship harder to get would be counter-productive.

 

[Aryanbeauty]

What is the difference between a country and a nation? Sorry for the stupid question, but I am not a native English speaker.

To my understandings both of them are very similar but nation may or may not have sovereignty but a country always does. Croatia was a nation but not a country until 1992? It was part of a country called Yugoslavia. There were many nations under Soviet Union such as Latvia, Estonia, Russia, Uzbekistan, Ukraine etc but they all belonged to a country USSR. Scotland is a nation but it is not a country, it belongs to a country called UK.

On the other hand, Japan is a nation and also a country as there are no seperate nation under Japan except japanese themselves.

Nowadays, the word national and nationality is used interchangedably with the word Citizenship and makes it more confusing.

 

[yy]

To my understandings both of them are very similar but nation may or may not have sovereignty but a country always does. Croatia was a nation but not a country until 1992? It was part of a country called Yugoslavia. There were many nations under Soviet Union such as Latvia, Estonia, Russia, Uzbekistan, Ukraine etc but they all belonged to a country USSR. Scotland is a nation but it is not a country, it belongs to a country called UK.

On the other hand, Japan is a nation and also a country as there are no seperate nation under Japan except japanese themselves.

Nowadays, the word national and nationality is used interchangedably with the word Citizenship and makes it more confusing.

i thought it's the other way around!
aren't england, scotland, wales and northern ireland countries?
but again nation doesn't imply sovereignty either, i think the correct term is state?
but state also could mean states within a country, ok, i give up

 

[HotShot]

i thought it's the other way around!
aren't england, scotland, wales and northern ireland countries?
but again nation doesn't imply sovereignty either, i think the correct term is state?
but state also could mean states within a country, ok, i give up

country is geographical term, whilst a nation is a group that hold a common values. so scotland, etc are nations. and uk can be deemed a country but so can england. thus nation is more specific.

 

[Comrade nathan]

I think Aryanbeuty confused unions with countries. The USSR and Yugoslavia was a union of sovereign countries. It would be better to use the China and Tibet example. Tibet is a nation within the country China.

YY the United Kingdom is a country and a Union of other countries. England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are countries within the UK. Well that's the explanation from Wikepedia. England, Scotland and Wales can be seen as nations, but there economies are so well integrated it is a stretch to call them distinctive nations. People mostly look at the different history of language and culture.

With "Northern Island" the national question is contradictory. Some view it as a UK country, others view it as an occupied Irish Nation. So you can view North of Ireland as a Irish nation with a settler nation in power.

 

[Comrade nathan]

The whole citizenship test is crazy because it implies that "Australian Values" (yet to be clearly determined) are shared by each Australian.

We talk about democracy as a passive thing, yet new citizens are meant to accept democracy as if it is participation. Membership in political parties, in unions and political knowledge is not a strong aspect of Australian Society. What are we going to be testing new citizens for, apathy?

No one has made clear which segments of society lack basic english. Whether these are working individuals, or older people who do not interact beyond family and friend networks. It has not been made clear the problems that migrants have with picking up the english langauge, and the problems poor english speakers have with integrating. So far people have said it is a good idea for all Australians to speak english (who can deny this?), but no one has proved that we have a problem with this.

The whole test implies that there is a common Australian and all Australian share this common Australian identiy. This is not the case. History is divided between Indigenous and settlers. Between classes, should we teach immigrants union and working class history? From which perspective should we teach them?

We haven't even achieved reconciliation, and the government thinks they can force immigrants to adhere to a mystified Australian morality. It's so ludicrous, it is obviously a populalist stunt.

 

[HotShot]

Yeah spot on nathan;

From my point of view, i dont think that such a test is necessary in australia.

f you have immigrated to Australia, then you can qualify for Australian citizenship if:

* You have lived in Australia as a permanent resident for at least 2 of the last 5 years; AND
* You have lived in Australia as a permanent resident for at least 12 of the last 24 months

That is, you can qualify for Australian citizenship if you migrate to Australia and live in Australia continuously for 2 years. You must also be aged over 18, be of good character and understand your obligations as an Australian citizen.

thats the basic prerequisite if you wanna become an aussie citizen, IT basically says that u have to been in australia a minimum of 2 years and live here continously in the last 12 months.

If you can survive here for at least 2 years, and the application is successful, i see no reason why a test would be required.

In terms of english, i have never had any problem communicating to anyone asians, arabs europeans etc. in terms following australia values , i think the fundamental value of australians is that we respect other people's values and cultures. there might be the minority who fuck up this world. but they will fuck it up anyway even with the test.

 

[Aryanbeauty]

I think Aryanbeuty confused unions with countries. The USSR and Yugoslavia was a union of sovereign countries. It would be better to use the China and Tibet example. Tibet is a nation within the country China.

YY the United Kingdom is a country and a Union of other countries. England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are countries within the UK. Well that's the explanation from Wikepedia. England, Scotland and Wales can be seen as nations, but there economies are so well integrated it is a stretch to call them distinctive nations. People mostly look at the different history of language and culture.

With "Northern Island" the national question is contradictory. Some view it as a UK country, others view it as an occupied Irish Nation. So you can view North of Ireland as a Irish nation with a settler nation in power.

I think you are confused with the word Sovereign. Sovereignty is the pillar of a nation to become independent state as a country.

No republics under USSR were sovereign nor under yugoslavia. None of them were represented in the UN and never made any sovereign actions such as invade other country, conclude treaty with other countries without the permission from Moscow or Belgrade. Hence no sovereignty, without sovereignty there is no independent state or country. Yes Tibet is a good example of a nation, so does Croatia, Slovenia or Bosnia under Yugoslavia. All of them were nations, none of them have sovereignty until they gained independece from Yugoslavia. With independence they have sovereignty and became a country or in political science term " A State".