Comments on: Australian Citizenship Test

By: tezza

tezza — Fri, 21 Nov 2008 02:05:42 +0000

my friend just got his citiezenship which got me interesting what are the question were …holy …i dont think all of native australian would able to answer them all correct . Should the test be like “how many beer you can drink within 30 mins ?” “What football team you follow?” etc .

By: Men in silly hats : Godless Business

Men in silly hats : Godless Business — Sun, 27 Jul 2008 09:32:55 +0000

[...] Of course, it is possible that the government of the day (purporting to be secular in nature, but holding deep seated ties to the Jewish/Christian values (whatever that means)) secluded these riff raff so they themselves where not embarrassed at their own lack of support for these individuals. (Question 15 http://culturematters.wordpress.com/2007/05/30/australian-citizenship-test/) [...]

By: Mathew Morton

Mathew Morton — Tue, 02 Oct 2007 01:10:34 +0000

Question 15 is wrong, and it pisses me off.
If our values were taken from religious contexts like the bible, shouldnt we disagree with the fact that the aboriginal people lived in australia thousands of years before the bible says earth was created?

By: Nursel Guzeldeniz

Nursel Guzeldeniz — Thu, 31 May 2007 10:23:32 +0000

And the test will encourage the migrants with little English and education level to apply for citizenship, and they won’t be able to benefit from the rights which comes with it.

By: Nursel Guzeldeniz

Nursel Guzeldeniz — Thu, 31 May 2007 10:19:46 +0000

Of course citizenship is always discriminatory. But I believe the test is very much politically motivated. I think some countries in Europe have also introduced similar tests. It is a general political shift in the West to anti-immigrant attitutes and general anxiety that everything might fall apart. People wouldn’t learn values etc just by answering the questions in the test . And probably people will only memorise the right answers just to pass the test. The government is aware of it. The test is only a ‘warning sign’ based on the idea that immigrants have been challenging the ‘law and ‘order’. Another thing is some questions are even difficult for Australians born and educated in Australia.

By: Geoffrey M

Geoffrey M — Thu, 31 May 2007 10:18:23 +0000

I think you’re right about my opinion, but reflecting on it I think it may be that I see the two (the test and the situation giving rise to it) as inseparable. There is no neutral test that could be introduced in our current context, the test could not be formed in an apolitical vacuum . So you’re right in that I have less a problem with the test and more a problem for what I perceive as its purpose. Whatever tool was used to frame these individuals as deviants I would have a problem with.

About a test in itself, I can’t have an opinion on because I just can’t conceive of one apart from a context in which there was some political purpose in mind (perhaps a fault of my thinking).

By: Third Tone Devil

Third Tone Devil — Thu, 31 May 2007 00:40:12 +0000

Well, but if there is only one correct answer to that question, then isn’t it most likely “secularism” and not “Judaeo-Christian”? If it is the latter, yes, I object too. But the main thrust of your comment seems to be that the problem is not with the test itself, but that it is discursively *used* to frame particular (i.e. Muslim) immigrants as not conforming to particular “values”.

By: Geoffrey M

Geoffrey M — Wed, 30 May 2007 23:31:31 +0000

My problem with this test is the values part. I don’t think demanding that people accept certain values is a priori wrong (when it is these current values concerned). However, the way these questions are framed gives these values a specifically “Australian” feel: again, a “fair go” is not something that is confined to our borders. These values are just so overt and explicit in their deadening repetition the past couple of years that they are becoming mere caricatures of themselves, things we tell ourselves that we hold valuable–in some cases lacking any practical application (fair go for asylum seekers, male-female inequalities).

Also, the talk of Australia’s values being Judaeo-Christian. This is interesting because it brings up the whole question of ‘particularly, where do our values come from?’ I know that Australian values are not simple reproductions of the Old and New Testaments, there have been other things that have formed Australia’s values since Christ. What I’m trying to say is that we can’t simply isolate Christianity or Judaism as constituting Australia’s ethical foundations, and ignore everything else that has changed how we interpret the Bible and even things that the mass comes to widely value that aren’t in the Bible (Hayek and the free-market? The Welfare State?).

I don’t think I made too much sense with that second paragraph, but I just believe that putting this question about ‘Judaeo-Christian’ values in is only for the purposes of putting us in opposition to Islamic values (or possibly, even more naively on the test creators’ part, ‘reminding’ Muslims that they are in a Christian country where sharia will never be implemented?). If this test were to occur before 9/11, or whenever the *current* anti-Musim hysteria began, I don’t think we would see any references to Australia’s religious past.

By: Third Tone Devil

Third Tone Devil — Wed, 30 May 2007 10:28:44 +0000

Of course these questions are discriminatory. But citizenship is discriminatory by definition. The question is, are these particular questions discriminating against the right people? This test seems to go pretty easy on “values”. You could dispute “mateship,” but is the principle of demanding that people accept certain “values” a priori wrong? Can it not be a useful exercise to agree, or in the absence of consensus, even to impose certain “values”? For me, the question is much more what those should be.