A test that will divide, not unite

A citizenship test would exclude people who for all practical purposes are Australians, write Brian Costar and Peter Mares THE prime minister says his intentions are honourable. The federal government’s planned citizenship test is about “cohesion and integration” not “discrimination and exclusion.” The test is designed to ensure that new citizens have a “working competency” in the English language and “a sense of what makes Australia tick.” But can a multiple choice exam of thirty questions achieve such aims or will it produce other, less desirable outcomes? In our view the test will unfairly penalise and disenfranchise certain vulnerable migrants, especially when combined with changes (contained in the Australian Citizenship Bill 2006) that double the period of prior residency required for citizenship from two years to four. Citizenship tests hold out the superficial promise of acting as some kind of population filter to ensure that migrants measure up to certain predetermined Australian qualities and values. But the test will have no impact on the composition of the migration program or make-up of Australian society, since all potential candidates for the test are by definition already living here as permanent residents. If permanent residents fail the test, they will probably go on living here, having expressed the desire to become citizens and suffered humiliating rejection. They will also be prevented from expressing their political preference at elections. The key power conferred by citizenship is the right to vote. The practical effect of a citizenship test will be to bar many long term residents from the electoral rolls on the basis that their English language skills are inadequate or they don’t know enough Australian history. This represents a further restriction of the franchise, compounding recent changes that made it harder for citizens to vote by closing the rolls soon after an election is called. The parliamentary secretary for immigration Andrew Robb says that “Australian citizenship is a privilege not a right.” But for those of use who are born in Australia to Australian-citizen parents the opposite is true. No one can take away our citizenship or expel us from the country, regardless of how obnoxious, depraved or criminal we may be. Australian citizenship is our birthright, even if we remain blissfully ignorant of the responsibilities it imposes upon us or of so-called “Australian values.” The push for a citizenship test diverts attention from the more important issue of raising the civic understanding and democratic engagement of all Australians, not just new arrivals. Then there is the insurmountable problem of determining which values are quintessentially “Australian.” Should we have an antipodean version of the “cricket test” proposed by former British cabinet minister Norman Tebbit, where no immigrant is truly Australian until they support the Australian test side? A citizenship test cannot help but trivialise the complexity of Australia”s constitutional arrangements. Earlier this year The Australian newspaper suggested that one citizenship question might be: “Who is Australia’s head of state?” Three potential answers were offered: (a) the Queen of England, (b) the governor general or (c) the prime minister. All are incorrect. (The correct title of Australia’s head of state is Her Majesty Elizabeth the Second, Queen of Australia). Equally, a tick-the-box exam can only serve to oversimplify Australia’s rich (and richly contested) history. A sample question in the Canadian citizenship test is “Why are the Aboriginal peoples of Canada working toward self-government?” An equivalent question in the Australian context might be “Why are land rights important to indigenous Australians?” - a question which defies a simple one-word answer. Experience elsewhere is illustrative of the potential pitfalls. A visit to the Ellis Island Immigration Museum in New York a few years ago revealed that the official answer to a question on the First Amendment used in earlier immigration tests in the United States was wrong. Of more recent embarrassment was the discovery that the manual prepared by prominent academic Sir Bernard Crick for those wishing to pass the British Citizenship Test was littered with “historical howlers.” A citizenship test based on a list of two hundred potential multiple-choice questions is likely to do less for civic education of migrants than it does to encourage a flourishing cottage industry in cramming schools for aspiring Australian citizens. English competency is not an issue for most migrants but it is for some. Skilled entrants generally have already demonstrated proficiency in English language as a pre-requisite for getting a visa to work in Australia in the first place. So those migrants most likely to struggle with a language test are the 13,000 refugees and other displaced people who come to Australia each year under the humanitarian component of the migration program. Yet refugees are often the most eager of any migrants to confirm allegiance to their new home. This can have a practical aspect: some humanitarian migrants are stateless or are unable to access the consular services of their former homeland and Australian citizenship is the pathway to a new passport. In future, they will need to wait at least four years before qualifying for this privilege. More important is the refugee’s desire to complete the emotional process of settlement. Citizenship offers the sense of certainty and belonging that is achingly absent from the refugee experience. It is also a way in which refugees can demonstrate their commitment to Australia and as an expression of gratitude for the safe haven that had been offered to them. English language skills, understanding the fundamentals of the legal system and familiarity with Australian history may indeed aid people in the process of settlement and belonging, but a formal test of such knowledge is more likely to divide than to unite. And it will further erode the principal of universal adult franchise, by withholding the right to vote from large numbers of people who are for all practical purposes Australian. • Brian Costar is Professor of Victorian Parliamentary Democracy at the Institute for Social Research at Swinburne University. Peter Mares is a senior research fellow at the Institute. Photo: iStockphoto.co