I agree there should be a language test, but one that's not too hard. Countries that accept migrants often find some migrants refusing to learn the national language, with the result that their kids don't speak it either. Integration = zero.

When I first read your post I thought eh? Migrants already have to take the IELTS as a prerequisite for the visa...another English test?

Ah. It's a test to be answered in English. I see.
But John Howard appears to be deflecting the opposition's concern abt tbe link to "Australian values" by emphasising the English aspect instead...which becomes irrelevant, given that migrants already do take the IELTS.

I think the more worrying focus of the test is its reference to Australian Values. Given the tensions that have arisen over the past year with regards to cultural practices of migrant communities, this test is a Pandora's box in itself.

Really. It's not so much abt English than it is abt cultural integration.

How would you pledge allegiance to your new country of citizenship if you didn't know any thing about it in the first place?

Imagine if you're a vietnamese immigrant who's applying for a visa based on an "in-demand skill"...(you'd be surprised, vocational trades like baking, sewing, hairdressing etc get top marks on the points test).

Bear in mind that migrants need to get at least a score of 5 on IELTS for vocational English.

Is it fair for you to have to know abt Australian history, the technicalities of jury service, the constitution...IN ENGLISH???

I think it's a tough call even for Malaysians and Singaporeans who've grown up with English (however faulty) to try to understand the technical concepts involved.

I agree that citizenship ought to be meaningful in the sense that one ought to be aware of the contextual details. But I believe that this issue is already addressed at the point when a permanent resident decides to take up citizenship...i think at that point in time, it is fair to make ppl take such a test.

Or at the point where the permanent resident applies to extend the PR visa.

But to make it a pre-requisite for entry...that's obviously a culling exercise.

spot: i've read thru all the skilled visa migration papers.. yes, & i'm not surprised, bricklayers get more points than me! but the test, as vague as it sounds at the moment, doesn't test on labour skills in english. just knowledge about the country in the topics mentioned. yes, i think its fair. because if you're going to apply to become a citizen, i believe you should know the judiciary system you'll be expected to practice your rights for. why do you think this is unfair? the test is for the citizenship stage. citizenship to a nation like Australia would be a privilege, no? it is an English-speaking country after all. in Malaysia, we know and have our citizenship, but don't have the privileges of it. and we know the constitution, among other things, in Bahasa Malaysia. imagine the same for non-BM speakers (e.g. my mum). i think it's fair.

assimilation to a culture needs to find a common communication tool. and I think John Howard believes it is English. alot of Asian countries except Malaysia does that.

btw, there's also a loophole in the family migration visa application, in that being sponsored by dependants, you don't need to take the IELTS. i think refugees don't have time to do that either.

Isnt this test for new migrants? I assumed that meant those who've newly arrived as PRs but not yet become citizens. Sorry...the migration jargon sticks. :)

On that basis, I assumed it means that the test wd be done very soon after first arrival...which is where it's unfair. How many newly arrived migrants have had a chance to study the concepts of judiciary, government, society history etc? And in English.

If this test is indeed for the citizenship stage (ie after living as a PR for at least 5 years), then yes, I agree, as I've said, with the topics. That it would be conducted in English goes without saying.

I don't doubt the importance of English as a cross-cultural bridge. It's a problem when migrants stick to their own ethnic communities without attempting to learn English.

But what I'm trying to point out is that the "speaking English" issue is separate from the "Australian Values" issue.

The real focus of this test is the "Australian Values", NOT so much English. And the former is the more contentious issue, because it's very much related to religious/cultural tolerance.

But John Howard (whose stand on immigration and multi-culturalism is more than...shall we say...conservative) is trying divert attention from it by emphasising the English issue.

Example. A few months ago, the idea of creating special women-only beaches for Muslim women who wear veils was discussed. Of course, the issue of Australian values came up. Oh, these migrants shd respect that they've come to Australia where our cultural values promote equality etc etc, why must they have special treatment etc etc.

Do you see the smokescreening? Australian Values is a convenient excuse for bigotry and intolerance isnt it?

How easy it would be to use "Australian Values" as a way of ostracising and downright excluding those who don't "fit in" with Us.

I do see that generally, the onus is on the migrants to fit in, just as it is the moral obligation for the host country/citizens to welcome them.

However, there will always be those who see them as invaders or unwelcome intruders. Pauline Hanson, ring a bell?

And it's that kind of ppl who will be trotting out the Australian Values argument (which essentially is the White Australia policy).

What I'm saying is that the issue raised by the opposition must be allowed to be debated and examined, so that Australia can have a clear conscience that its policies arent headed back towards the White Australia days.

As our brilliant slogan says..."Read, and you will be well-read"....I did not read the article properly before commenting. :)

It is a citizenship test, not an entry-point test. Heh. My mistake.

I guess I'm just very wary of any of John Howard's immigration policies.

hehehe.. no worries ^_~ I see your point, b.c. reading article. maybe i shud reword the bits to Australian "MIGRANTS seeking citizenship"...

there are alot of other incidents using this English test as smokescreen. one was also the Aussie govt demanding that the Muslims here teach their religion in English instead of Arabic. tho the request was "noble" to combat terrorism, it was offensive to others who are genuinely teaching religion and not abusing the use of Arabic to communicate terrorist plans. you can't accuse a host for trying to protect its own country, really.

You need to take this test as part of becoming a citizen. You have no idea how many migrants are actually fluent in english. I actually know some that still don't know how to speak english properly and a lot of them are chinese, so it makes perfect sense because it's really aggravating to not understand them at times.

Though...for Permanent Residency, you need to take the IELTS no matter what which to me sucks because we need to pay to take something that's redundant. I took Cambridge A-Level General Paper and Mel took South Australian Matriculation and we still have to take this test for permanent residency.

On the other hand, only the few older people can guess I'm Malaysian, the rest think I'm a Yank. Funny, but it always works out well in conversations. :)

i get the same re: Yank, except when i'm in the Philippines. then they think i speak Brit. i think we speak a mix of American English obviously from TV =P

i know what you mean by a waste of money paying for the IELTS when we already grew up speaking English at home. but what to do, we come from a country where its declared not native English speaking nation. nyek.

Take IELTS in Malaysia. It's cheaper, after conversion.

The only nice thing abt being forced to take IELTS is getting a score of 8.5 on the harder version, which according to my agent was the highest he's seen for a very long time. :)

Religion shd ideally be taught in the language of its origins. I've always liked the idea of the fundamentals of Islam being taught in Arabic and Buddhism in Sanskrit. The problem with translation is that its too open to subjective interpretation.

for some, its more expensive to fly back to Msia just to take the IELTS ^_~ speaking on Edrei's behalf.

if that's the case, then i'll need to learn Aramaic to learn Catholicism/Christianity. i agree tho, alot of meaning is lost in translation with religions taught in non-native language. but there's a reason why we have the Vatican too. Islam doesn't have a head of its religion create uniformity and unity in its teachings.

I don't see the harm in that - the same is practised/will soon be a practice in France.

I'd have to speak the language well enough to fit in and with good reason: a lot of the local culture is tied in with the language. And if I want to be a citizen, I have to answer questions on topics like history, French culture and etc.

Hence why when you study a language like French, they teach you the culture there as well.

I say that if you're going to move to Australia or any other Western country, you have to be able to speak English. Period.

Sweden's now having problems with their immigrants who refuse to learn neither English nor Swedish and, thus, are unable to fit in.

By fitting in I'm not talking about becoming Swedish and pushing aside your own culture, but you have to be able to communicate, for God's sake! You can't expect the Swedish people to know or learn your native language. You're the one whose moving to their country and not the other way round.

Know the language; know the culture; all the while remaining true to your culture and religion. Problem solved.