The problem with the Howard Government's new citizenship test is not the requirement that applicants must learn English -- a greater focus on the language skills of citizens and residents is long overdue. The ability to speak English is important because without it individuals can't fully participate in Australian society. A desire to learn the language of the country in which they live is a demonstration by recent citizens of their desire to integrate into their new community.
Of more concern is the obligation on candidates for citizenship to uphold "Australian values". The problem is that these are impossible to define. No one, ever, should be required to commit to something as subjective and vague as "Australian values". The only obligation that is reasonable to impose on new citizens is the responsibility to obey the law -- nothing more and nothing less.
While we like to believe that "a fair go" and "mateship" are part of our national culture -- and perhaps they are -- these sentiments can't be turned into a set of administrative rules. Yet this is exactly what the Government is suggesting should happen.
A fortnight ago, Minister for Immigration and Citizenship Kevin Andrews spelt out some of what he believed were part of the country's values. They included freedom of speech, freedom of religion, support for parliamentary democracy and the rule of law, equality of men and women, tolerance, compassion for those in need, and peacefulness.
The first thing to notice is that there's nothing uniquely Australian about many of these values. They exist in any liberal democratic country.
It's also obvious that there is nothing straightforward about their implementation. How a new citizen demonstrates their "compassion" is unknown. Concepts such as "peacefulness" and even "freedom of religion" are problematic because none of these values is absolute. There is no right to practise a religion if it contradicts other values such as equality of men and women.
Whenever governments take it on themselves to decide what the nation's values are, the urge by ministers to politicise the process becomes irresistible. If a Coalition minister decides that "compassion" is an Australian value, it is open for a minister in a future Labor government to decide that "belief in the virtues of public ownership" is also an Australian value.
Despite all the debate about the citizenship laws, the Government hasn't actually said what it is seeking to achieve by these changes. According to the draft citizenship test released by the Government, a potential question might ask what Australia's national sport is. Apparently it's cricket. Why having such knowledge is a prerequisite to becoming a citizen has not been explained.
Nor has it been explained why when candidates sit the citizenship test they are expected to pass judgement on complex historical and political questions. Another question from the draft test asked about the basis of Australia's values. Possible answers were (a) teaching of the Koran; (b) the Judeo-Christian tradition; (c) Catholicism; (d) Secularism. According to the Government, the correct response was (b).
Undoubtedly the Judeo-Christian tradition has been enormously influential in shaping Australian values, but so has secularism. In fact, it could be argued that in recent times secularism has been more significant in shaping public attitudes than any values derived from religious belief.
On the surface, at least, these latest efforts to tighten the requirements to become a citizen are at odds with other aspects of government policy. Over the past few years, the Coalition has made it easier for individuals to hold dual or multiple citizenship. It makes little sense to introduce new tests to encourage a greater feeling of belonging to Australia while allowing Australian citizens to also be citizens of one or more other countries.
There's no evidence of any connection between a person's willingness to become a citizen and their desire to integrate into Australian society. There are nearly a million permanent non-citizen residents who are eligible to take Australian citizenship and who haven't. Half of these are people from the United Kingdom and New Zealand. If citizenship was really as important as the Government says it is, then more should be done to encourage permanent residents to commit to this country.
If the Department of Immigration and Citizenship is granted the authority to require of applicants for citizenship that they do more than obey the law, then the Government will have been handed sweeping and unwarranted power that is open to abuse. Existing citizens are required to do no more than adhere to the law, and exactly the same test should apply to new citizens.
ADVERTISEMENT
No comments:
Post a Comment