The Australian Citizenship Test by Katerina Pavlidis

The Australian government has not had a pristine track record of how it deals with 'the other'. In light of the controversial detention centres, the Tampa affair, the Mohamed Haneef bungle and the denial of racism in Australia, even after the Cronulla Riots, it seems difficult for the government to induce confidence in how it relates to issues such as migration and refugees. Seemingly, this is why the introduction of the Australian Citizenship Test, announced on the one-year anniversary of the Cronulla riots, has been met with such intense debate. Former Prime Minister John Howard's calculated political move of launching the test on this exact date is rife with symbolism. It demonstrates that the Prime Minister sided with the instigators of the riots. He eschewed calling the attacks racist and instead denounced those who had given the riots a 'tag line of racially motivated'. The Citizenship Test seems to imply that a solution to the violence, which was epitomised by the riots, would be to further restrict the 'type' of people entering Australia. Howard was indeed going to decide who was coming to this country and the circumstances in which they would be coming. Therefore, the Test is a symbol, or even an outcome, of wider changes in political reasoning in Australia.

It might seem trite to mention that this change has developed amid a global fear of 'border security'. However, when we're dealing with the consequences of this fear (such as individuals illegitimately detained, arrested, and convicted of terrorism) perhaps it is important to mention it. This fear is founded on the belief that anyone can be masquerading as a 'normal' person, but is instead quite different from 'us' and rather intent on destroying our cherished democratic way of life. In order to further perpetuate this fear, and therefore legitimise the citizenship test, the changing migration legislation, and the egregious situation of detention centres (the worst of which are now no longer operating), the term 'illegal refugee' has attained wide usage. The term is an oxymoron. This is because it is not illegal to cross a border if you consider yourself a refugee. As the UN Refugee Convention states, “refugee status exists prior to and independent of, the recognition of this status by member countries”. Labelling refugees as 'illegal' even before they have set foot in Australia and before they have had a chance to qualify for refugee status is not well-founded. The Migration Act also substantiates the view that it is not illegal. Furthermore, the Act explains that migrants and refugees who arrive with a visa are 'lawful non-citizens', while those individuals arriving without a visa are 'unlawful non-citizens'. Is illegal the same as unlawful? No. Something illegal is expressly proscribed by a statute, whereas an unlawful act is merely not authorised, it is a breach of rules in a specific context; it is not a crime against the state. The careful wording of the Migration Act as well as the UN Refugee Convention, of which Australia is a voluntary signatory, suggests that it is not valid to classify refugees as illegal or to dub those without visas as 'queue jumpers'.

Americans comprise the largest group of people who overstay their Australian visas and the British account for the largest nationality of illegal workers in Australia, but why are there no American or British citizens in Australian detention centres? I would be cautious in claiming that the migration and refugee policies in Australia are a return to the White Australia Policy, however it does seem easier for 'white', Western migrants to overstay their visas and work illegally. In a similar way the Citizenship Test excludes people who cannot speak English, as the test is only available in English. The ability to speak English is obviously not unimportant. Whereas in the past, individuals were denied Australian citizenship on the basis of their ethnicity, now it is denied on the basis of the language they speak. Needless to say, language and ethnicity are inextricably linked. The Citizenship Test fails those who need it the most; individuals who cannot rely on their previous citizenship because of despotic regimes that have stripped them of their rights. Often people in these countries are illiterate in their mother tongue as famines, natural disasters, wars (that Australia has sometimes wholeheartedly participated in and supported!) or their gender has cut their education short. Developing advanced literacy skills in a foreign language is a long, difficult process, which should not act as a barrier to people seeking citizenship.

Newcomers certainly need to understand the norms of Australian life. They need to be aware of their rights, the rights of others and the way in which Australia's democracy functions. Although I'm not sure to what extent the test can successfully examine this awareness. Can sentiments and the rhetoric of Australian values be transformed into a set of administrative rules? What is the best way to test whether a newcomer embodies the ideal of mateship? The Citizenship Test is currently undergoing change, which will hopefully distinguish it from the “Australian brand of trivial pursuit”, as it has been called in its current form. The Test is simply an example of how politicians have stepped in to determine what they believe a narrow set of Australian values ought to be. If Australians truly value a 'fair go' and have compassion for the needy, we need to ensure that our treatment of refugees and migrants is grounded in the ideology of these very values.