Question 2 - In sentences, identify quotes, and explain factors, perspectives and data from each source, relevant to the Australian citizenship test.

D. The discriminatory impact of the test

10. The available information on the Citizenship Test shows evidence of the
following:
• There has been a fall in the number of people applying for citizenship since
the test was introduced in October 2007. In the 6 months since the new test came
into operation, 25,067 people applied for citizenship. This is lower than the
comparable period from October-March in any year for the last decade, when the
number of applications ranged between 35,889 (1999-2000) and 75,757
(2006-2007)
• Applicants under the Humanitarian Program have failed the test at a much
higher rate than other applicants
• Applicants from non-English speaking countries, like Afghanistan and Iraq,
are not able to gain Australian citizenship as readily as other applicants who
are born in English speaking countries
• Computers and information technology represent an obstacle to some groups gaining citizenship
11. The above findings confirm HREOC’s initial concerns that the test is having a
discriminatory impact on NESB applicants. Applicants with low levels of English
literacy are also disadvantaged by the test.
12. The report also indicates that refugees are being disadvantaged by the requirement of a formal test. This finding suggests that people with low levels of English literacy have failed the test at a higher rate than other more literate applicants, such as those in the skilled migration stream and applicants from mainly English speaking backgrounds.
13. These disparities are likely to be exacerbated if the level of English required to understand and therefore pass the test is above a basic English standard. Petro Georgiou’s submission sets out the views of linguistic experts Professor Ingrid Piller of Melbourne University and Professor Tim McNamara of Macquarie University that the current test exceeds a basic English standard.
14. Applicants disadvantaged by the test in its current form are not able to
enjoy to the same extent as other applicants the benefits of being an Australian
citizen, including employment in the public sector, protection from deportation
or having the ability to travel as an Australian citizen.

1 answer

The available information regarding the Australian citizenship test reveals significant disparities that underline its discriminatory impact, particularly on non-English speaking background (NESB) applicants.

One notable point highlighted is the decline in citizenship applications since the test was implemented in October 2007. The report states, "In the 6 months since the new test came into operation, 25,067 people applied for citizenship," which starkly contrasts with figures from previous years, where applications ranged from "35,889 (1999-2000) and 75,757 (2006-2007)." This data illustrates a substantial decrease in interest or capacity to apply, suggesting that the introduction of the test could be a barrier for many potential candidates.

Additionally, the report emphasizes the challenges faced by applicants under the Humanitarian Program, noting that "Applicants under the Humanitarian Program have failed the test at a much higher rate than other applicants." This point underscores a critical perspective on how the test may not only fail to accurately assess integration and understanding of Australian values but may also inadvertently penalize those who often require more support due to their backgrounds.

The issue is compounded for applicants from non-English speaking countries. "Applicants from non-English speaking countries, like Afghanistan and Iraq, are not able to gain Australian citizenship as readily as other applicants who are born in English speaking countries." This disparity raises questions about fairness and equity in the citizenship process, suggesting that language proficiency—imposed by the test—plays a crucial role in one’s ability to navigate the requirements of citizenship.

Furthermore, the notion that "Computers and information technology represent an obstacle to some groups gaining citizenship" indicates that the test design does not consider technological literacy, thereby excluding certain demographics from participating fully and fairly in the citizenship process.

This report resonates with the prior concerns raised by the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (HREOC), stating that the test has a discriminatory impact on NESB applicants and those with low English literacy levels. It reveals a systemic barrier where "refugees are being disadvantaged by the requirement of a formal test," exacerbating their challenges. This perspective highlights an inherent bias against those not equipped with the necessary language skills, emphasizing that "people with low levels of English literacy have failed the test at a higher rate than other more literate applicants."

Additionally, linguistic experts, as referenced in Petro Georgiou’s submission, argue that "the current test exceeds a basic English standard." This assertion suggests that the requirements may be unrealistic and create further obstacles for individuals who are not familiar with the complexities of the English language.

Lastly, the implications of this test extend beyond mere examination; the report notes that "Applicants disadvantaged by the test in its current form are not able to enjoy to the same extent as other applicants the benefits of being an Australian citizen," such as public sector employment, protection from deportation, or the right to travel. This highlights how the citizenship test can lead to broader social inequities, reinforcing systemic discrimination against specific groups.

In summary, the data and perspectives presented indicate that the Australian citizenship test disproportionately impacts NESB applicants, exacerbating barriers related to language proficiency and technological access, thus questioning the fairness of its implementation and the equitable treatment of all prospective citizens.