Thursday, April 27, 2017

Breaking News
   Sushma Swaraj Asks Saudi Embassy Officials To Rescue Indian Woman Harassed By Her Sponsor   Onus on players to deliver   You can withdraw 90% EPF to buy home, pay EMI from a/c   India to export mangoes to Australia for the first time   BSNL gives Reliance Jio a run for its money with new offers   No service tax on online rail tickets till Dec 31   Black money: India to gain access to Swiss bank info from Sept 2019   Cash curbs paralyse ops in co-op societies   Margao business, markets reel under liquidity crunch   Customers, bankers kept on toes in Mapusa   Long queues at banks on Day 1; cash crunch hits State   Anger And Scramble To Stash Cash In Black Money Squeeze: Foreign Media   After PM Modi Speech, Hawala (Money-Laundering) Spiked, Triggering Raids   Defence Minister Parrikar\'s Nuclear Remark Stressed As \'Personal Opinion   \'If You Succeed, The Country Succeeds\': Obama Tells Trump During Meet


Aussie citizenship: What the changes mean

Story: | 21st April 2017, 06:46Hrs

Citizenship is an important mechanism to foster integration and make people feel fully connected and committed to Australia. There is a risk, however, that if citizenship is too hard to attain, a two-tier system of permanent residency will develop in Australia: those who are full citizens, and those who failed to become citizens – though they are permanent residents.
The proposed requirement is stricter than what exists. Currently, applicants for citizenship need to be resident in Australia for four years, but they only need to be a permanent resident for one year. Under proposed change, applicants need to be permanent residents for four years. This will affect those who entered Australia on temporary work or humanitarian visas and has the potential to inflict harm on refugees, many  of whom are only granted temporary protection visas. 
A second change is new English-language testing. Potential citizens will have to show in their written application that they have integrated through participation in work, community activities and schooling for children.
These changes are potentially positive. A cohesive multicultural society like Australia requires a core level of integration among its members. It is reasonable to expect people choosing to make a life here to participate in the community.
Most applicants for citizenship, including refugees, will welcome the opportunity to demonstrate their commitment to Australia. There is a danger, however, of creating an unnecessary administrative burden both for applicants and for the Department of Immigration by adding a significant section to the written application.
In Australia, the ability to communicate in English is important to achieving integration. Under the current application process, the citizenship test is a grossly inadequate proxy for measuring English-language ability. A multiple-choice test with complicated concepts about Australia’s institutions of government do not test “basic” English skills.
There are three proposed changes to the citizenship test. The new test will contain more meaningful questions that assess an applicant’s understanding of, and commitment to, shared values and responsibilities. A person will be able to sit the test a maximum of three times.Cheating on the test will lead to automatic failure.
The US, the UK and Canada all have citizenship tests. All test different things – history, values, institutions and symbols. Since its introduction in 2007, the Australian citizenship test has been a controversial part of application process. It is hard to conceive how a multiple-choice test can possibly test a person’s “understanding of and commitment to” shared values. The test of a person’s values is in their actions, not their knowledge of values. The new requirement that an applicant must demonstrate their integration into the community is a far better test of values.
The role of English-language ability in failure rates is evident in Department of Immigration statistics. In 2014-15, the failure rate among Chinese applicants was more than seven times higher than among Indian applicants. For Vietnamese it was 17 times higher. This is almost certainly related to the higher level of English competency among Indian applicants. Given the test’s inadequacy, and its strong bias toward those with a higher level of English, the proposal that an applicant can no longer apply for citizenship after a third failure is most concerning.
We will have to wait for the full details, but it is hard to imagine that the government really intends to exclude from citizenship forever a permanent resident of long standing and good repute, and whose life is intrinsically connected to Australia, simply because they failed a flawed test of their values due to their poor English-language skills at the time they were tested.
The three strikes provision will have a disproportionate effect on refugees applying for citizenship. The 2014-15 statistics reveal that, in the skilled stream, on average people needed to sit 1.1 tests to pass. In the family stream it was 1.4 tests. And, in the humanitarian stream, it was 2.4 tests. This means there is a significant number of humanitarian migrants requiring more than three attempts.
One possible implication of the limitation on attempts at the test is that humanitarian migrants will delay applying for citizenship. This has negative consequences for their wellbeing and their integration. Refugees are known to be particularly loyal to Australia. Once they have been accepted they rarely return to their country of origin. As a result of adding a standalone English-language test, and a requirement that applicants demonstrate how they have integrated into the community, there is a strong case for eliminating the citizenship test altogether.
Australia already assesses who to allow in – and to whom to grant residency – before any issue of citizenship arises. Permanent residents in Australia enjoy almost the full range of civil and political rights as citizens. They have access to the welfare system (after initial waiting periods), Medicare, and education. Citizenship is the last step on the path to full membership. By the time someone is applying for citizenship, they have already been in Australia for a minimum of four years, and have made a life here. We should be encouraging permanent residents to take up citizenship and to commit fully to Australia. Citizenship, in this sense, is a positive mechanism for inclusion. The government’s focus on citizenship as a mechanism for exclusion in its rhetoric and some of the proposed changes is, therefore, counterproductive.

comments powered by Disqus