[hussein]

Quote:

Bradman out for duck in citizenship test
Phillip Coorey Chief Political Correspondent
January 29, 2008

A QUESTION about Sir Donald Bradman is expected to be dumped from the citizenship test under an overhaul by the Rudd Government to make the test fairer and more relevant to migrants of all backgrounds.

The question is one of several Labor believes was written by the former prime minister, John Howard. Another, which expects budding citizens to know that 1788 was the first year of white settlement, is also likely to be jettisoned, sources say.

The Minister for Immigration and Citizenship, Chris Evans, will commission a review of the questions today. It will be conducted in April, which will be six months after the test was implemented.

Senator Evans will also release figures today showing that during the first three months of the test, from October to December, 18 per cent of the 9043 people who sat it failed at their first attempt.

People can sit the test as many times as they need to. After subsequent tests, the failure rate fell to 7.1 per cent.

The test was introduced by the Howard government. It involves a sample of multiple choice and true-or-false questions selected from a pool of 200 questions.

Senator Evans said while the test was generally working, "a range of concerns" had been raised about some of the questions and these would be dealt with in the review.

"More work needs to be done to make sure the right questions are asked and there are no unintended barriers for people who wish to become Australian citizens," he said. "We need to make sure that the test does not disadvantage those people who most need our support."

The Bradman question asks prospective citizens to name Australia's greatest cricketer of the 1930s and the answers give them a choice between Sir Donald Bradman, Sir Hubert Opperman and Walter Lindrum.

Given that citizens from 172 countries have sat the test, a senior Labor source said this question was unfair to many.

"It must be fair for people of all different cultures, and asking them about cricket is a bit of an ask, to be honest."

Most questions, which expect people to acknowledge basic values such as freedom of religion and association, as well as to be aware of Australia's democratic and judicial institutions, would be retained.

"Then there's a whole set that John Howard wrote," the source said.

"They are focused on things that aren't necessarily critical to become a citizen."

The figures to be released today show people from Sudan, Afghanistan and Iraq struggled the most, with failure rates of 29.6 per cent, 24.9 per cent and 16 per cent respectively.

South Africans, Indians and Filipinos have the lowest failure rates, of 0.9 per cent, 1 per cent and 1.9 per cent respectively.

Skilled migrants were the most successful, with 97 per cent passing the test. Family migrants have a 90 per cent pass rate, and refugees admitted under the humanitarian program have a pass rate of only 80 per cent.

This story was found at: http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2008/...369038752.html

There is just something about the Australian Citizenship Test that gives me the creeps. Maybe it is the fact that I watched a TV sample poll of Australians to see who was the first Prime Minister of Australia, to find that a large number didn't even know this. Yet the Commonwealth of Australia expects that immigrants must know who the first Prime Minister of Australia was (it is Edmund Barton, by the way, which I learned in sixth grade) in order to become an Australian citizen.

I'm glad at least that they got rid of the question on Sir Donald Bradman. That is got to be the most stupid question of all time to include in an Australian Citizenship Test. I know plenty of Australians, who aren't exactly passionate about cricket, who wouldn't know who the greatest Australian cricket player of the 1930s was, but I don't see our country deporting them on this basis.

For me, the more important thing is that they are committed to Australian values, and they are willing to contribute to Australian society.

Here are sample questions from the Practice Test on the Australian Citizenship Website.

Question 1: Which of these is a responsibility for every Australian citizen?

Renounce their citizenship

Serve in Australian Diplomatic Missions overseas

Join with Australians to defend Australia and its way of life, should the need arise

Personally, I think this is a very poorly worded question. Obviously, the person who wrote this question didn't hear of Australian conscientious objectors during WWI.

Question 2: Which one of these values is important in modern Australia?

Everyone has the same religion

Everyone has equality of opportunity

Everyone belongs to the same political party

An alright question I suppose, though I laugh if it were the Chinese citizenship test.

Question 3: What is Australia's national floral emblem?

The banksia

The waratah

The golden wattle

Heck, even I don't know the answer to this question (I think the last time I learnt about Australian floral emblems was in third grade), and I gave the Address at my School's ANZAC Day and Remembrance Day services. Upon looking it up, it turns out to be the golden wattle.

What are you guys' thoughts?

[Invictus2001]

You need to do a search b4 you post yet more threads


http://forums.utopiatemple.com/showt...tizenship+Test

[hussein]

I did. I typed in 'Citizenship' to see if there were any similar threads. Seeing no similar results, I went forward and created the thread. I didn't realise there was another thread on the same topic, until I saw 'Similar Threads'.

[Bigshot]

Don't feel bad about your citizens not knowing their stuff about your country. America is worse. Immigrants who take the citizens test here have to know A LOT about our government and it's history. Like naming Presidents and what years they served as President.

Most Americans would fail this test miserably.

[EvilDH]

Originally Posted by Bigshot:

Don't feel bad about your citizens not knowing their stuff about your country. America is worse. Immigrants who take the citizens test here have to know A LOT about our government and it's history. Like naming Presidents and what years they served as President.

Most Americans would fail this test miserably.

I would say the same is true for most countries. When it's your own history, it just seems boring. Or, in the case of Canadian history, it's not you and it really is mind-numbingly boring. At any rate, Canadians also have a hard time naming their first Prime Minister (Sir John A. MacDonald btw).

As for the test - I think it is a good idea to test potential citizens for their knowledge of the country. Afterall, if you wanted to move to a new country you would normally learn about the political system, legal system, social values...etc before you came. If I were to move to a new country, I would love the opportunity to learn new things about my adopted homeland. I presume that there is study material handed out by the Austrailian gov't for review?

And don't you want new immigrants and/or citizens in the country to improve the country as a whole? That's the whole point of immigration testing - to allow superior candidates and reject inferior ones.

[hussein]

I think it's just moronic asking questions which most of your own countrymen could not answer, so why pose these questions to prospective immigrants? I can guarantee you most Australians could not tell you the national floral emblem off the top of their head.

[Ninjoo]

check, ima post with out researching anything.

The test is really frickin bias man and I am glad that they are toning it down.

Omfg, I have no idea who the guy you mentioned is man.

granted, I am a retarted american obviously<<<

They make the questions way too frickin hard. You have to know trivial data.

If I decided "ausie" land was best for me.. I would know that trivial data...

Its not fair though because you do know way more then the citezens themselves.

How many americans do you think could actually answer the questions on those test?

Plus like PEOPLE are not the government. If I meet a immagrant who is illegaly here... I don't call the cops..

Land is land.. where ever you lie your head is home man... end of story.

I am so glad they are making the questions easier..

I don't believe in the concept of australia or america and screw that man

[Duo Maxwell]

Originally Posted by Ninjoo:

check, ima post with out researching anything.

The test is really frickin bias man and I am glad that they are toning it down.

Omfg, I have no idea who the guy you mentioned is man.

granted, I am a retarted american obviously<<<

They make the questions way too frickin hard. You have to know trivial data.

If I decided "ausie" land was best for me.. I would know that trivial data...

Its not fair though because you do know way more then the citezens themselves.

How many americans do you think could actually answer the questions on those test?

Plus like PEOPLE are not the government. If I meet a immagrant who is illegaly here... I don't call the cops..

Land is land.. where ever you lie your head is home man... end of story.

I am so glad they are making the questions easier..

I don't believe in the concept of australia or america and screw that man

The test isn't that hard. Especially considering they give you a book that outlines all the answers you'd encounter in the test, exactly the same way we run tests for Driving Permits.

Everyone has to remember this is only so a person can gain citizenship. You don't have to pass this test if you want to enter the country or even permanently live here. You only have to do it as part of the process of becoming an Australian Citizen.

But honestly there isn't a huge difference between Permanent Residents and Australian Citizens because both receive Medicare, PBS, Centerlink, Equality in job and education opportunities (except employment with National Security or Government, where some require Australian citizenship) and even first home buyers grants. The only real advantage is being able to vote in elections, hold public office/be nominated for parliament, get help from Australian embassies (although they will generally help you even if you're a permanent resident), get a passport and leave and reenter the country without a return visa.

[Ninjoo]

Seriously though, it has always been a fantacy of mine to move to australia.

The most I have ever traveled is 4000 miles away. I would love to seriously start a life there.

The only problem is I would need a legit reason to go there at first... like australia has a really frickin awesome art school.

Australia... sounds awesome to seriously live at.
Like if I went to hawaii the first thing I would do is check out there jungle OF COURSE.

Plus there are cool snakes in australia.. I have only delt with gardner snakes and copper heads...

eh sorta off topic..

I want it to be easy to live there... seems like a cool enviroment to live in.

The question does seem ridiculous though and I am still glad they took it out

[Voice of Reason]

Originally Posted by Bigshot:

Don't feel bad about your citizens not knowing their stuff about your country. America is worse. Immigrants who take the citizens test here have to know A LOT about our government and it's history. Like naming Presidents and what years they served as President.

Most Americans would fail this test miserably.

It is the same in the UK too. Citizenship test are normal, and rightly so.

Quote:

I think it's just moronic asking questions which most of your own countrymen could not answer, so why pose these questions to prospective immigrants? I can guarantee you most Australians could not tell you the national floral emblem off the top of their head.

What's moronic about it? Aspiring citizens have something to prove, existing citizens don't. The questions are only hard if you don't know the answer, and if a potential citizen really wants that citizenship they will learn the answers. They are given the information, and can have as many attempts as they like. What is so unfair about that?

[DHoffryn]

Quote:

What are you guys' thoughts?

I think it's a wodnerful idea. And i hope that there is also a mandatory english test to ensure that they know the language well enough. Altough the questions seem a bit too easy judging by the first two. They should defintly make them tougher. If you want to become a citizien you should put some real effort

[Celtic21]

Quote:

What's moronic about it? Aspiring citizens have something to prove, existing citizens don't. The questions are only hard if you don't know the answer, and if a potential citizen really wants that citizenship they will learn the answers. They are given the information, and can have as many attempts as they like. What is so unfair about that?

As so basically all the people who wish to be [insert country here] citizens must be more intelligent then the residents who actually live there?

What do they have to prove? That they can learn some information out of a book. A lot of people can do that with relative ease. However when the questions are completely stupid such as:

Quote:

The Bradman question asks prospective citizens to name Australia's greatest cricketer of the 1930s and the answers give them a choice between Sir Donald Bradman, Sir Hubert Opperman and Walter Lindrum.

What does a sport have to do with a countrys history? And "Who was the best at something" question is really a matter of opinion, not a fact such as "Who was the first prime minister of [insert country here]"

[CloudHeartsMeli]

Originally Posted by hussein:

Maybe it is the fact that I watched a TV sample poll of Australians to see who was the first Prime Minister of Australia, to find that a large number didn't even know this. Yet the Commonwealth of Australia expects that immigrants must know who the first Prime Minister of Australia was (it is Edmund Barton, by the way, which I learned in sixth grade) in order to become an Australian citizen.

I remember that. That's how I learned who the first prime minister was.

Quote:

Heck, even I don't know the answer to this question (I think the last time I learnt about Australian floral emblems was in third grade), and I gave the Address at my School's ANZAC Day and Remembrance Day services. Upon looking it up, it turns out to be the golden wattle.

Aww, I knew that. There are just some things you don't forget from primary school.

Incidentally, I'm in the process of obtaining citizenship. I was born in New Zealand, so I automatically have permanent residency. However, I need Australian Citizenship in order to obtain HECS for University.

Luckily I'm still under 18 so I don't need to sit the test. It sounds rather tedious anyway. You didn't have to sit a test in the past.

[SirOz]

Originally Posted by Celtic19:

What does a sport have to do with a countrys history? And "Who was the best at something" question is really a matter of opinion, not a fact such as "Who was the first prime minister of [insert country here]"

Fairly simple as far as Australia goes. Sir Donald Bradman was entertaining to watch (lol, as far as cricket goes) insofar that his lifetime batting average was 99.94 runs per test (many confuse this with a strikerate, comparing to how many balls one would hit that were delivered). The nearest lifetime Test batting average is some 30 runs lower than that.

Throw in the fact that Australia was only technically formed as a country in 1901 (the year of Federation) so this was done during our very early formative years. To have someone so skilled at what they do and also be proudly Australian, The Don (as he is and was known) is somewhat of a national hero.

You try and cram in a measly 200 years of total national history into an exam that would be difficult to pass without a cursory study, but relatively easy with the proper short guidance and education.

[hussein]

Quote:

Citizenship test: Bradman not out
Phillip Coorey Chief Political Correspondent
January 30, 2008

Advertisement
DON BRADMAN will remain part of the citizenship test after the Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, pulled rank yesterday and declared "the Don is safe".

The Immigration Minister, Chris Evans, had previously said the question about Bradman was an example of the sporting trivia that was not critical knowledge for citizenship.

He said these types of questions, as well as those requiring people to learn by rote such historical dates as when the Australian flag was first flown, would be abolished as part of a review he has commissioned.

Senator Evans told the ABC yesterday the Bradman question was a symbol of the "political interference" in formulating the original test, a reference to the former prime minister, John Howard.

"To ask them to sit a test in English when they have very low or no literacy skills and then to ask them about Don Bradman and his cricket record for Australia, magnificent as it was, is probably a bit confronting for them," he said.

But later, after Mr Rudd had spoken, he said: "The Don is safe and I won't be rewriting the test."

The question concerning Bradman is a sample question and not part of the current test, which is a series of 20 questions drawn from a pool of 200.

Despite sparing Bradman, Senator Evans announced the review would be conducted in April - six months after the test was implemented - and the questions made more appropriate so as to be fair to people of all backgrounds.

Between October and December last year, 18 per cent of the 9043 people who sat the test failed at their first attempt. The failure rate declined to 7.1 per cent after those who failed tried again.

Senator Evans released more figures yesterday showing applications for Australian citizenship had fallen by 4 per cent, or by 3557 people, in the last six months of last year, possibly a result of the introduction of the citizenship test.

Labor remained committed to keeping the test but improving it.

"It's a question about whether people ought to be failing the test on the basis of sports trivia answers, many of which would be failed by current Australians," he said.

He said the level of English required to sit the test may be too high and some had problems doing the test on a computer.

This story was found at: http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2008/...369135263.html

Imagine my displeasure as I approached my daily regime of reading the Sydney Morning Herald, to find this very unsavoury development. I can't believe that Kevin Rudd, an intelligent man, would allow such a moronic question in. What are we going to ask next in the citizenship test - Russell Crowe's filmography? The name of John Howard's grandchild? Such a question is not a suitable basis on which to decide whether a prospective immigrant can be a good citizen for Australia. I bet half the girls I know, here in Australia, wouldn't be able to answer such a question.

[Duo Maxwell]

Originally Posted by Celtic19:

As so basically all the people who wish to be [insert country here] citizens must be more intelligent then the residents who actually live there?

That is truly an idiotic statement. It isn't a matter of intelligence and you don't even have to have an average intelligence level to pass the test.

Originally Posted by Celtic19:

What do they have to prove? That they can learn some information out of a book. A lot of people can do that with relative ease.

Well considering the primary aim of this test is to check English literacy levels, if you can read English then the questions shouldn't be a problem especially considering the answers are given to you. If you do the work then it shouldn't be a problem to pass. It is irresponsible for the Government to allow people who do not have a sufficient level of English into the country, because the government (and by extension the citizens) would be forced to support these people who would be unable to gain employment because they don't even know English!

Originally Posted by Celtic19:

What does a sport have to do with a countrys history? And "Who was the best at something" question is really a matter of opinion, not a fact such as "Who was the first prime minister of [insert country here]"

Well, considering Opperman was a champion cyclist - and Lindrum was a Billiard champion, the question isn't exactly a matter of opinion. Is the question flawed? Perhaps. But the answer is clearly outlined in the handbook they give you - it isn't like they expect you to have previous knowlege!

I don't think it is unreasonable that if someone wants to become a citizen, that they at least speak English and have some knowledge of the country that they think is good enough to become their home.

[HarleyQuinnROX]

Originally Posted by CloudHeartsMeli:

Incidentally, I'm in the process of obtaining citizenship. I was born in New Zealand, so I automatically have permanent residency

there you go people theres your back door into Australia if you want to immigrate =)

Australia is one of the hardest country's in the world to immigrate to from a western country ....... New Zealand's our back door

[SirOz]

Originally Posted by HarleyQuinnROX:

there you go people theres your back door into Australia if you want to immigrate =)

Australia is one of the hardest country's in the world to immigrate to from a western country ....... New Zealand's our back door

Usually I'm a fan of back doors. In programs, houses, schemes and such. But if NZ is to be my back door I am going to claim to be just a little worried... considering the assorted connotations with the fluffy grazing animals.

j/k

But on that, what's it like trying to get into NZ?