By Stephen de Tarczynski
MELBOURNE, Feb 18 2008 (IPS)

Refugee and multicultural advocates say that Australia’s controversial citizenship test, introduced late last year by the previous government, discriminates against applicants from marginalised, non-English speaking backgrounds.

Refugees who come “from particularly the horn of Africa have indicated to us that they find the computerised test difficult because many of them have a limited English language proficiency and are not familiar with computerised tests. They may not have had formal schooling,” says the chief of the Ethnic Communities’ Council of Victoria (ECCV), Peter van Vliet.

Implemented in October 2007, applicants are required to correctly answer at least 12 out of 20 multiple choice questions in order to be eligible for Australian citizenship. Questions are sourced from an information booklet on Australia.

Figures released last month show that 93 percent of applicants passed on their first or subsequent attempt – there is no restriction as to how many times a person can sit the test – but there are concerns that some applicants are being disadvantaged.

A snapshot from the first three months of the test’s usage shows discrepancies. Skilled migrants successfully completed 97 percent of tests attempted while 90 percent from those in the family migration program passed. For applicants, including refugees, who arrived in Australia under the country’s humanitarian program – accounting for 16.9 percent of all applicants taking the test – the pass rate drops to 80 percent.

Van Vliet says that while the test does not pose a problem for skilled migrants, it is a barrier to others. “It’s really those refugees from non-English speaking backgrounds who are having trouble with the test,” he says.

“Most people who sat the verbal test passed. Those who did not were sent off to a course and subsequently passed. The new test has actually seen people who want citizenship fail to obtain citizenship for the first time and we think that’s not a good thing,” says van Vliet.

Pamela Curr, from the Asylum Seeker Resource Centre (ASRC), argues that “it’s fairly obvious” that people from educated, English-speaking backgrounds “are going to have a better chance of getting the answers right than applicants who come from a totally different culture’’.

Applicants from Britain, with a failure rate of just 2.2 percent, fared far better than those from countries such as Sudan (29.7 percent failed), Afghanistan (24.8 percent) and Iraq (16.1 percent).

Curr says that some potential Australians find the experience of failing so traumatic that they do not want to attempt the test again. “I know people who have failed and who’ve been really distressed by that failure. And yet they’re good people. Working, living in the community, paying taxes, doing the right thing,” she told IPS.

The number of applications indicates that the test is indeed daunting. In the first nine months of 2007, applications did not fall below 11,000, peaking in September – the month prior to the test’s introduction – at more than 21,000. Following the test’s introduction, however, applications dropped dramatically, with just 2,170 in October, 3,400 in November and 3,190 in December.

But the cost of applying for citizenship also appears to be a factor in the reduced numbers, with the doubling of the application fee to AUD$240 (218 US dollars). Van Vliet argues that the increased cost is a disincentive to applicants from marginalised backgrounds.

For refugees, says the ECCV boss, “money is very scarce. For the first few years they are often unemployed and struggling to get their settlements going, with all the sorts of costs involved in that’’.

But there is hope that the Rudd government will take steps to address these issues. Immigration Minister Chris Evans has express his concern that people from the humanitarian program are being put off. “We need to make sure that the test does not disadvantage those people who most need our support,” said Evans in a statement.

Last month, Evans announced that the government – which backed the implementation of the test when in opposition and remains supportive of it – will undertake a review of the citizenship test in April in regards to “the content of the test and the support services provided with it”.

“We’re very pleased that the government is reviewing the test and is considering making the test more inclusive,” says van Vliet.

Curr, meanwhile, questions the need for any test. “If the aim of the exercise is to prepare people for Australian citizenship so that they know some of the basic forms, culture and rules of our society, wouldn’t it be better to offer them information sessions?” she asks.

The ASRC conducted surveys to find the areas in which the refugees themselves believed their knowledge to be lacking. “What seemed to come out of these sessions is that even those humanitarian refugees who are invited to come to Australia, they learn very little about the country before they come. There is little information given,” Curr told IPS.

According to Curr, refugees are more interested in information regarding practical situations than learning some of the information in the booklet, such as who Australia’s first prime minister was or which sport Don Bradman played.

“They wanted to know what sort of laws there were about driving cars, insurance. The correct, legal way to go about that sort of thing, About work, what sort of laws and rights they have as workers, what sort of taxes they should be paying,” says Curr.

She adds that these are “things that we (Australian citizens) take for granted. Again, a citizenship test is not going to help there, is it?”

But Curr argues the importance of citizenship, especially for refugees and asylum seekers, cannot be overstated, “with our human rights and our legal rights very much tied to our status as citizens.”

“The thing they most value is to have a country to call home. To have a piece of paper that gives them the status of citizen,” she says.

Excerpt: