Okay- try this tutorial Test - the Australian Govt one.
It probably won’t suit those who want to be upset.
That one’s a lot more sensible. I still don’t understand why they’re asking about cricket, though.
National sport- I suppose Bradman would be akin to Babe Ruth in the USA. However, I agree- I don’t think it makes much difference if you have heard of him or not.
I mean, I know who he is, but then I am (or was) a cricket fan. Anyway, even the US citizenship test isn’t silly enough to ask about Babe Ruth, and the UK test doesn’t ask who Jack Charlton is.
I suppose the NZ test might ask who Grant Fox is, but it’s probably all questions about sheep.
W00T! 100% and I get to stay in the country.
Interesting - that test (and the booklet) looks a lot more reasonable, althoug the five test questions are dead easy and the ones in the booklet are fair (and, I think, cover quite good things). So, where did the questions that the OP was complaining about come from?
The questions come from a random pool of 200 that are sourced to make up the general information sections. They are real, not fabricated, and I am not going out on a limb purely for the sake of getting angry. I’m angry because they are simply not relevant to testing whether or not a person is of good enough character and understanding of a culture to become a resident. The family in question have been in Australia for 12 months and the English language (not to mention the Australian vernacular ie; what is ‘mateship’) is not their first, second or even third language.
Two of the family members have sat and subsequently failed the test because of the obscure nature of the questions.
Additionally, there are so many new citizens each year because there isn’t a time limit on it. There are people from all over the world who have been in Australia for many many years who have finally decided to apply for citizenship. My primary problem with the Federal Liberal Government’s intolerance of illegal refugees (read here ‘boat people’) was the fact that they incarerated people so desperate to leave their homes that they risked death to get here, when in fact Australia at any given time has literally thousands of American, Canadian, New Zealander, and UK citizens who have arrived on a visitor’s visa and have overstayed it by, oh, let’s just say YEARS.
These visa over-stayers (hey! I just invented a word I think!) have had relationships, bought property, had access to Medicare, held down high-paying (in some instances) jobs, had babies, had their children educated by our public school system (I know, I know, such as it is), and been afforded every courtesy. They could’ve gone on forever, and guess what … some of them do. However, my moral outrage is levelled at the Citizenship Test for it’s unfair bullshit questions, and certainly not for anyone on this forum who asks why. After all, that’s why we’re here eh?
For the record - my father died 7 years ago and his epitaph reads “Here lies and Englishman who loved you”. My father was never an Australian citizen - but loved Australia and would’ve aced the test. After all, he had been here for 32 years.
You sound like you’ve got some knowledge of Immigration Law; in which case you should be aware that New Zealanders do not have “Vistor’s Visas” the way Tourists/Businesspeople from other places do.
They have a “Special Category Visa” which gives them the right to live and work here as long as they choose. The only things they can’t do is vote and get the dole, so it’s not really fair to be considering New Zealanders “Overstayers” in the same sense of the word as a American backpacker who met an Australian whilst on holiday and decided to stay instead of going home, when NZers are legally entitled to stay, live, and work here as long as they like simply by virtue of having an NZ passport.
Also, I think that people from Commonwealth countries can get visas to live in Australia without any major problems either, but I haven’t looked into that in any detail. So someone from Canada or the UK probably isn’t “Overstaying” either, in the sense that it’s not especially hard for them to be living here legally in the first place.
I have to disagree with that. There are problems posed by smugglers that aren’t going to be an issue with people who enter the country legally, even if those people overstay their visas. If the government wants to stop contraband, diseases or criminals from entering the country, someone who enters the country openly is going to be less of a threat than someone who pays smugglers to sneak them in without any opportunity to check them out.
Absolutely. I’m sorry my intent was misinterpreted. My original beef was with the test being so hard. I don’t want to come across as cranky about illegal immigrants. I think Australia is a big enough country to accommodate all who come to it regardless of need or want. I just wish the test was fairer. ("Fair suck of the sav and … all that!)
That one I knew! There’s a statue of him outside our post office - he was born right here in my hometown. Who’da thunk anything of any significance would come out of here? 
Are you serious? Do you mean geographically big enough? Or do you mean that our struggling Health, Social Welfare and other such support systems are large enough to support a couple of million people who should wish to come here?
Even the USA with it’s vast industrialism and financial resources has problems with illegal immigrants yet you say Australia can cope.
And FWIW I don’t think that if I was hoping to make another country my home it is too much to ask that I study a booklet and answer a few questions.
I note your earlier comment about the questions being drawn from a “random pool”- whose random pool?
So, uhm, what sport do you say that was?
I have problems naming more than one player in the Spanish Basketball team that brought back that silver from Atlanta and I actually like basket!
Are those things taught in any kind of “citizenship” class Australian students have to take? Spain doesn’t have a citizenship test, but if we did I’d expect it to include stuff from Citizenship and from Spanish History, not from the Sports Channel. Even Spanish Lit would be a stretch.
Horse racing. The Melbourne Cup is a big thing here, to the extent that even in primary school the class would pick names out a hat and see whose horse won, and Phar Lap is the best known horse in the whole sport, but I wouldn’t have been able to tell you what years he raced in.
I’m not sure the one’s on the first site linked are entirely random – they seem to have maybe focused on the really hard ones, perhaps to convince more people they need their expensive services.
And the government comes right out and says that a primary reason for the test is that it’s a stand in for an English language skills test. If the people you’re working with can’t pass the test because their English skills aren’t good enough, well, isn’t that kind of the point?
The “big silver” that helped cement the popularity of basket in Spain was Los Angeles. Kill me now.
[Or do you mean that our struggling Health, Social Welfare and other such support systems are large enough to support a couple of million people who should wish to come here?
And FWIW I don’t think that if I was hoping to make another country my home it is too much to ask that I study a booklet and answer a few questions.
I note your earlier comment about the questions being drawn from a “random pool”- whose random pool?
[/QUOTE]
I believe Australia is wealthy enough to accommodate at least another 2-3million people - this is my opinion which has been formed after 13 years in state and federal politics, working with Budgets and Estimates Committees and after many late night discussions as a consultant with economists and town planners of extremely large municipalities - so it is not a simple random thought. I know it’s a very unpopular belief amongst many people and I tend not to air it. I’m sure you’ll call bullshit, because it’s a popular sport these days talking down a country that has the greatest safety nets for the unfortunate than any other country. No, it’s not perfect, yes, it’s far from perfect, however it’s still a lot better than the majority of systems in place in other countries.
I don’t have a problem with asking people to ‘study a booklet and answer a few questions’. My problem is with the REVELANCE of the questions to our way of life, hence the title of the thread.
The random pool is made up of 200 questions by the Department of Immigration, whose answers are to be found in the booklet. And despite the languages listed the book comes in, kinda pointless isn’t it if the fucking test is in English? Incidentally two of the most common dialects are not provided.
It is not a comprehesion test of understanding and use of the English language - it is a comprehension test of understanding some of the most obscure trivial bullshit ever. There are people who are here in Australia as a result of religious or political persecution who didn’t wait around to get their gold star in English, they were too busy trying to stay alive.
If you really want to see a great Australian movie check out Bad Boy Bubby…a true classic Bad Boy Bubby (1993) - IMDb
Well, but this test isn’t for new immigrants is it? It’s for people who are applying for citizenship. In Canada, that would mean they’ve already been landed immigrants / permanent residents for a minimum of 3-5 years in which time they’ve presumably learned some English (or, in our case, French). Is that not true of Australia, as well?
From the official Federal site:
People who became permanent residents on or after 1 July 2007 must have been lawfully resident in Australia for four years immediately before applying including:
12 months as a permanent resident
and
absences from Australia of no more than 12 months, including no more than three months in the 12 months before applying.
If people became permanent residents before 1 July 2007 and apply before 30 June 2010, they must have been physically present in Australia as a permanent resident for a total of two years in the five years before applying, including one year in the two years before applying.
jacquilynne, I don’t know the ins and outs of the bureacratic side - but I launched the thread protesting at the relevance of the questions, but somehow it’s all turned to a debate about English levels.