mentally mingy
I know I am the last person to have a go at the new citizenship test, but I think it is so fundamental I want to hoist my own flag.
The Feds are now arguing that you can’t become a citizen if you don’t know who Phar Lap is, or Don Bradman, or the nature of the Queen’s representative in Australia.
You can slog your way across the world, endure terrible hardship, risk your life on an open boat or rot for years in a refugee camp, work on your knees in blood and slime, and be denied citizenship because you don’t know this kind of stuff?
The explanatory booklet contains some wonderful paras -
“Australia prides itself on being an egalitarian society where no one is regarded as better than anyone else by virtue of who they are or where they were born.
Australia has a strong tradition of ‘mateship’ – where 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 a friend. A mate can also be a total stranger.
Government support in the form of a social safety net for those who struggle through life through no fault of their own is part of Australia’s egalitarian ethos. There is also a strong tradition of community service and volunteering. These values have been promoted and discussed by Australians over many years. They have helped Australia to absorb and integrate successfully millions of people from many ethnic groups and cultural traditions.”
Living proof that the government is delusional. Do our elected officials really believe that people in other places don’t help strangers? That “mateship” is some kind of unique social glue? That phrase “through no fault of their own” implies the opposite thought – that if they “brought it on themselves” they just deserve to suffer and forfeit the right to mateship, leaving us with only an egalitarianism of those judged innocent.
The draft booklet rabbits on to define Australian culture for about 34 pages, covering the history and political structure in anodyne detail, throwing in references to the value of deregulation, Gallipoli and “conflict” between Aborigines and early settlers. It reads like my primary school textbook in grade seven, around 1962, with a bit more acceptance of multiculturalism and the right of women to work.
Prospective citizens are expected to read this linguistically advanced booklet, and answer multiple choice questions about it. The booklet helpfully suggests that non-citizens “ask a friend or family member to help you practice answering questions about Australia.” And “take language classes”.
You can’t be a citizen any more if you can’t read and write English to the level of .. I’m guessing here, but … an average Australian fourteen year old. Possibly higher than the literacy level required to enter the army.
Not only would most Federal politicians fail the thing without study, they would also find that study onerous. By my reckoning, at least ten percent of adult native English speakers would not be able to read the draft document, let alone answer it. That is a very conservative estimate.
It does mention the right to join a Trade Union, but does not mention education, non – public holidays, housing or medical care. The only reference to small business ascribes it to the Irish. The text mentions Henry Lawson, Banjo Patterson and the Heidelberg School as the sum total of our cultural achievement.
Imagine failing a citizenship test for thinking that the Heidelberg School referred to a bunch of philosophers.
The government promises a large pool of questions from which twenty will be drawn. Applicants need to get sixty percent of the multiple choice questions right. Ironically, many prospective citizens come from rote learning cultures, who will pay “experts” to teach them how to answer, even if they don’t understand what is going on. These people come from the very cultures of which we are most frightened.
It doesn’t matter how long you have lived in Australia – you can be an effective, functioning, tax-paying parental resident, but still not good enough to be a citizen without this test. You have to do it before any questions are asked about your effectiveness as the aforementioned human being.
We all know this is crap, of course. Citizenship is not about understanding institutions or spelling the word “mateship”. You are not undesirable if you don’t understand cricket, and the very idea makes a mockery of the claptrap about our shared values. Citizenship is about participating and making a contribution. Sometimes citizenship should be about no more than our desire to protect people who have suffered greatly – and perhaps that is the best reason, and these people our most valued additions.
This is a mean document and a mean policy made for mean reasons. It diminishes us as a culture. And the fact that you can now only become a citizen if you are fluent in English fills me with horror.
The art work, in which a shirt is a map and a map is a shirt and somehow suggests a man clad in nothing but a political terrain of borders, comes from Hossein Valamanesh, an Australian artist born in Iran in 1949.
Do you think he cares about the stump-jump plough?
August 28th, 2007 at 11:15 am
In the diverse Australia I grew up in this booklet, the fridge magnet, even the dob-in TV adverts would have been laughable, but that Howard has managed to tap into a part of the very same people and comfort many of them with these “it’s ok” cuddleups to their darker selves. And it must be seductive to regard a nation this way, as Abbott, Downer, Nelson, Bishop.. on and on.. grew into the patronising role. Delusional as said, for this rubbishy politicking cannot last, out of sheer boredom for it if nothing else. What then? Hammered out by time the real steel on the anvil is the stuff of an open and good, young nation trying to find itself. The gas phuffing off is Howard after loss of the ability to seem or create the seemingness; and the booklets, fridge magnets and advertisements are the stuff of clear hilarity.
August 28th, 2007 at 5:17 pm
Amongst all this, I like the sample questions in the Age which asked “Who do Members of Parliament represent?” and The Herald Sun’s “What do you call the elected head of a state government?” Both are begging for witty sarcastic responses.
August 28th, 2007 at 10:53 pm
Well remember that it would have been originally drafted in Canberra by a clerk class x-1 public servant before being rolled microscopically through the backwards looking glass of Howard’s myopia. It’s not surprising that it doesn’t relate to the Australia that the rest of us know or that it doesn’t make sense. It’s not intended to make sense.
Don’t think for a moment that it doesn’t make me mad, though.
August 29th, 2007 at 12:18 am
If its multiple choice and they offer one sarcastic choice for every question then they can filter out the smart-arses from becoming citizens. Then again, to be a real Aussie you should be giving at least a few smart-arse answers — real Aussies don’t bow and scrape in front of puffed-up authority figures.
Gets a bit creepy hearing the Howard government talk about an egalitarian society and giving everyone a fair go. I’ve lived my life in Australia and only these last few years have I been seeing thin people standing at railway stations and in parks around the city — by that I mean guys who obviously don’t eat much. The gap between rich and poor in this country is bigger than ever and growing wider. Lots of employment problems are swept under the rug… people doing jobs beneath what they are qualified to do, people working less hours than they would like, people who have given up — none of these are counted in the unemployment figures. Likewise a lof of young people are finding it difficult to get work but also finding it difficult getting the skills they need either because of the cost of education or because employers always ask for experience in preference to certificates.
Seriously though, I would like to see more Australians learn English. It would be nice if the Fed was willing to put a bit more funding into teaching English to migrants because that actually helps the entire nation move forward (people who communicate, also work together, trade, cooperate, etc). I’d also like to see more Australians able to answer simple questions about how democracy works, how a fair trial is supposed to work, what are basic human rights.
How to test all of this is a big challenge. Whoever gets to set the test questions suddenly becomes very powerful because they can define the “Official Truth about Australian culture and history”. I can appreciate that the RTA driving test might have well defined answers regarding road rules and such but history and culture are fuzzy and debatable points. What happens when they start putting political or religious questions into the test to screen out people who might disagree with the government’s point of view? Only a matter of time…
August 29th, 2007 at 2:50 am
I agree particularly about the English bit – migrants need to learn the language.
It is just bloody difficult if – as with the Syhlyeti people who came from Bangladesh to London whose home culture doesn’t have a written language – the education background of the migrant is thin, and the person ain’t so young any more and maybe this is the fourth language they have learnt.
Generations of migrants speak what is called “factory English”, which is a serviceable, specialised version of the tongue which works fine on the assembly line but can’t hope to stretch to this.
And besides, the Feds cut funding to the very migrant English classes they assume people attend in order to read the book. Funny definition of a fair go.
August 29th, 2007 at 9:45 am
Why are “Australian values” always assumed to be good? – Always the “values” the allegedly civic-minded speak about intead of the “values” we demonstrate every day by what we do?
The Gunns’ pulp-mill in Tasmania is as Australian a “value” – cf the stump-jump plough – as Simpson’s compassion.
Adam Lindsay Gordon counselled courage and went out and shot himself. Which bit of that was the “Australian” bit?
This is the Off-White Australia policy, a stepping-stone between dreadful Whitlamism and Empire’s former splendour. Its essential Australianness, or lack of it, is a red herring. A furphy, if you like.
August 29th, 2007 at 1:45 pm
“The text mentions Henry Lawson, Banjo Patterson and the Heidelberg School as the sum total of our cultural achievement.”
Well, I wonder what Aboriginal arts practitioners think of that. Is it too much to consider how works by artists such as Emily Kame Kngwarreye and Rover Thomas setting records in sale prices – albeit for Aboriginal art – are potentially indicators for how important these cultural products are to Australian culture? Or maybe the establishment only cares about Aboriginal cultural products as commodities that fetch high prices, rather than as expressions of an ancient and dynamic culture that are part and parcel of Australia’s culture(s). Come to think of it, I think I’ve just answered my question. White Australia rolls on.
“if you don’t understand cricket” – Well, I’m stuffed!
Nice hatchet job on the Citizenship test, David. Where would I be without you?
Oh. Using one of the citizenship test tutorial services you mentioned? Anyone game?
August 29th, 2007 at 7:29 pm
Tel, immediately came to mind ,Kate Wolfs song “You’re not standing like you used To”, re; your remark, ‘thin people’.
August 29th, 2007 at 11:28 pm
[...] Roger Migently mocks the proposed Australianosity test and later highlights a particularly eloquent comment to that post. barista is befuddled over why immigrants should care about Australiana. Mark Bahnisch wonders how many dinkum aussies, including his own politics students, would pass on the basis of the political questions in the test. The whole thing is a farce. I wonder if prospective citizens are let into the mystery of the definition of “aspirational nationalism”. [...]
August 30th, 2007 at 7:22 am
“The text mentions Henry Lawson, Banjo Patterson and the Heidelberg School as the sum total of our cultural achievement.”
Stone the flamin’ crows Dave! Anyone who doesn’t think that a bit of rumpity-thumpity-Kiplingly verse about horses and cows isn’t the height of our cultural achievement outta be strung-up, I reckon.
And let me tell you this for nothin’: I dunno about those daubers at the Heidelberg School, but clearly the pinnacle of our Leonardo tradition is Ned Kellys and lots of ‘em, by, you know, what’s his face. Or the other fella with the spaghetti because he came from Broken Hill.
Is there nothing in the test about Chips Rafferty? He won the war I understand.
Anyway, as a strong believer in mateship, I reckon that anyone who doesn’t think Australia isn’t the best country on earth should be sent back to Russia.
Carn the Pies.
August 30th, 2007 at 7:37 am
Russia is looking good.
August 30th, 2007 at 12:10 pm
So the net result is to be as insular and mono cultural as possible.
Fine for a country like the US where they are insulated from their strategic failures by their military.
We don’t have that luxury.
Couple a decline in foreign language tuition in our schools and discouraging of foreign language speakers – what brilliant policy making.
That leaves, in effect, one strategic option for this country – a parasitic and desperately one-sided engagement with the US – no matter how bizarre and self- defeating a foreign policy route the Americans choose to go down.
And hope that we remain useful to them is someway, and they are not busy with other matters at the relevant time.
Didn’t we go down this road in the last big war?
What is really annoying is this anti-migrant dog whistling is a 1950’s holdover, we shipped in large numbers of southern European migrants as factory fodder – and no one gave a toss about language tuition, preferring just to look down from our Anglo superiority.
Today it would be more pertinent to worry about the quality of English spoken by native born Australians.
Don’t worry about Banjo and company the most important book ever written in Australia is the “The Lucky Country”.
Most migrants will soon grasp the deep irony intended. A bunch of self – important second- raters stumbling into good fortune despite themselves.
August 30th, 2007 at 7:26 pm
You are off the mark there Phrog.
The 2001 census shows over 750 thousand Australians who speak Asian languages natively and nearly 4 million who speak some non-English language natively in the home. That’s a big resource of translators for commerce, joint-projects or strategic negotiations — being able to speak a foreign language is not a skill in short supply.
Traditional secondary school languages have always been French, German and Latin. The languages are useful for trade with Europe but these days Europeans all speak English. For a native English speaking Australian to try and learn a language at secondary school level (up to HSC) means they are competing against native speakers so their marks will be scaled back. There’s no incentive to commit HSC suicide just to pick up a skill that is not in short supply.
I’m not sure what you mean by “a parasitic and desperately one-sided engagement” but Australia certainly gives the USA a lot more than we get back in return. At the last round of trade negotiations we had heaps of leverage — we had troops in Iraq, troops in Afghanistan, the only country in the world with clean beef, plenty of countries desperate to sell us manufactured goods.
Mark Vaile and team should have pushed damn hard. They should have said, “give us sugar markets or Aussie troops come home”. Instead, our negotiators didn’t even start negotiating… they just took whatever they were given and walked home dizzy.
That was NOT because Australia had a lack of options… we are trading with Asia like nothing else. Our troops are considered elite and we have more than enough military to defend ourselves (especially when you consider our notable lack of enemies) if we stopped fighting wars overseas. The problem is that our current government have a deliberate policy of obedience to the US — regardless of what might be in Australia’s best interests.
August 31st, 2007 at 12:34 am
Tel my comment was based on my dislike of the proposed citizenship test. I think that the diversity of our immigration has been a good thing and I don’t fear any shortage of foreign language speakers.
While most of the verbiage in the citizenship booklet is anodyne and inconsequential, I dislike it because in my view there are assumptions being made about who we are, and about who we want to come here as migrants, that I think are simplistic and debatable.
I think by trying to exclude people on the such a basis can affect the image we project as a country badly, and offer limited benefits at best.
My other comment was not about trade or against the USA itself, it is an amazing country.
Our strategic interests are not the same, and we have to be sure that we don’t create problems for ourselves by adhering closely to the USA, when that may be not aid the USA in any meaningful way, and limit our options in dealing with other countries.
Self reliance necessarily implies a degree of independence in diplomacy and intelligence gathering, as well as in military capacity.
August 31st, 2007 at 3:33 pm
good post about an embarrassing subject. wonder what the next govt will do about it. Considering some cringeworthy remarks Krudd has made about ‘unAustralian behaviour’ in the past, I’m not too optimistic.
Being Adelaidean I’ve seen a lot of Hossein Valanamesh’s work, which powerfully evokes the tensions around displacement and belonging and cultural and personal identity. He’s also a charming man. The idea of subjecting such as he to a test like this leaves me rather lost for words.
September 2nd, 2007 at 12:06 am
“750 thousand Australians who speak Asian languages natively and nearly 4 million who speak some non-English language natively in the home. That’s a big resource of translators…”
Tel, there is a difference between being a native speaker and being a professional translator/interpreter. There is a difference between being ble to speak a mother tongue – at the standard of one’s parents’ education – and being able to speak a language fluently at an advanced level. If your parents didn’t get to go to high school or university, or learn to read and write their language and a high level, then the chances or you being able to speak, read, write, and therefore translate and interpret the language – even you mother tongue – is very slim. (admitedly, the mother tongue advantage is apparent in pronunciation and the ‘ear’ for the language, and more.)
To get to a professional level, students needs the chance to be educated in the language at high school and at a degree level. That is the minimum standard most professsional, accredited translators and interpreters need to work in diplomacy, business, commerce, or even to assist people who can’t speak English confidently access government and welfare services, or participate fully and equally in the courts.
Unfortunately, the diversity of languages being taught at higher ed levels has been dwindling in the past few years, and is particularly bad for Asian languages. (And this is not even getting into how Aboriginal languages are poorly supported, or taught. A judge recently lambasted the shortage of Aboriginal language interpreters available in the courts.)
Tel, as you’ve pointed out, most Europeans speak English so are less likely require an interpreter. But, if more high school kids have the chance to learn Italian, German or French than to learn HIndi, Chinese or Arabic, shouldn’t that be a concern to us?
Yet, in the context of the conversation Barista has raised here, I think what’s of concern is less the extent to which we can communicate with the rest of the world fluently – on their terms – and more how linguistic and cultural diversity is supported, enabled and recognised in Australia. And what this says about how we understand citizenship – and however else we take our places and make ourselves felt – in this country.
September 2nd, 2007 at 12:09 am
Uh, where I said “…being able to speak, read, write, and therefore translate and interpret the language – even you mother tongue – is very slim,” I meant at a professional level.
Sorry.
September 3rd, 2007 at 8:11 am
“Through no fault of their own” was a recurring phrase of my childhood. From the minute the First Fleet came ashore, guilt has been managed like a portfolio. The public discourse in Oz is still about guilt management: refugees might be guilty of being terrorists, so throw them into penal camps in the desert. Feel “relaxed and comforable” about taking over Aboriginal lands, they’re guilty of child abuse so we can’t be guilty of racism…
The more I think about values like mateship (generosity? camaraderie?) and the more I think about their being constructed as uniquely Australian by Lawson and The Bulletin, the more I suspect they were always so much rarer than their opposites they were tanamount to lies.
Sometimes a government can behave as though the lie is the truth (cf the Australian government welcoming Jewish refugees before & after WW2).
However, because the lie is a lie to begin with, a government can also get away with ignoring it and appeaing to the bedrock truth beneath (cf John Howard’s smearing of Moslems, Aborigines, working women, unionists, public schools, gays, the unemployed).
The truth beneath the public avowals of Australia, which has been encouraged into nakeness by the Howard government, is pretty much what you see in any police-and-prison culture: constant brutality, viciousness, trampling of the weak.
Ah, you’ll say. So why the need to manage guilt, then?
There is less need to take guilt seriously, certainly seriously enough to invoke the idea of atonement, as available government practice moves further from the reality described by the mateship lie, the egalitarian lie, the fair go lie.
“Values” become mantras, increasingly thin and meaningless verbal veils indicating the outlines of the prison, disguising the worth and humanity of those caught in it.
Guilt without punishment or consequence stops being awkward to live with; stops, finally, being guilt at all.