The Australia Test

The Australian government wants to introduce a test for potential migrants. The test will contain questions about the history and culture of Australia and also gauge the English skills and 'value system' of the applicant. Sense or xenophobia? Let's examine this idea from a few angles:

The idea itself is not a bad one. I mean, we can't expect that anyone who wants to emigrate can just waltz over here, wait around and then fill out a form without first displaying that their value system is akin to that of the people who already live here. It would also be handy, just to get around, to know a bit about the country you've moved to and be able to speak a bit of the language.

However, there are a number of problems surrounding the idea. The first question I would like to pose is: what is the motivation for introducing this test? Migrants already need to pass a 'points' test to determine whether they will be a valuable member of society. The points test includes, for example, their skills, their age, family connections and a history of criminal convictions. Obviously migrants who have a skill of which Australia has a shortage would be considered more valuable than one who has a skill that is in oversupply. Migrants who will contribute to society via employment are better than the elderly (who would be considered a burden to the health system) and you can kind of guess the value in the other attributes. Also, if you are very wealthy and not a criminal we reckon we'd be better off with you than without you.

So... the motivation for introducing this test seems rather political to me. Keep the 'riff-raff' out of the country via legal means, in a way. A former version of an 'Australia' test could be set in any European language that the tester chose. According to Mike Carlton's SMH column, former PM and federal attorney-general at the time, Robert Menzies once set a test for a known communist in Scottish Highland Gaelic in order to keep him out of the country. Which brings me to my next question -

Would most Australians pass the Australia test? If you randomly gave a test (in 'any European language' or otherwise) to an Australian citizen, even narrowing it down to a citizen who was born in Australia, would they be able to complete it? I don't think so. Full marks would be rare. I think maybe 40% of the population could answer questions on the name of our first PM, the rules of AFL or the number of Australian troops who died in WW2. Hell, I only know the answer to the first one. Besides, many Australians can't even spell and don't know where to place apostrophes (see Spelling 101), so they'd probably fail the English test anyway.

Speaking of which, isn't there just a tiny weeny bit of hypocrisy in British colonialism? Indigenous Australians never asked colonising Brits whether they could complete a test in 'any Koori language'. Those Brits just claimed the land and massacred the locals. Sure, we live in different times now ('civilised' or not) but the idea that this Australia test will allow people with knowledge of our history and culture and those with the same 'value system' and English skills in and keep those who fail out means that we'll be getting people that the government agenda deems desirable. Same old, same old. Where's the diversity?

Howard wants migrants to conform in as many ways as possible and yet pays lip service to keeping the essence of their former culture. What he means is for migrants to bring only the good things from their former culture, with the definition of 'good' determined by the government agenda. No wonder there are a bunch of alarmed people out there. For example, there are a number of Muslims who believe that this policy is designed to prevent any more Muslims entering the country. The barrier is not just religious, it favours migrants from an English-speaking background of a similar culture to Australia. Migrants from the UK, Europe and USA, in particular.

My conclusion on this matter is that you cannot tell anyone's suitability to citizenship by an Australia test any more than you can tell someone's intelligence by an IQ test. Sure, it might give a reasonably good idea of an applicant's suitability, but it misses out on some of the intangible things that cannot be expressed in the results of a test, things like passion for a nation, a willingness to become part of a community and to contribute to society. All I ask in return is: isn't there a better way to do this?