The Australian government’s recent decision to impose an English proficiency test on anybody seeking Australian citizenship has been met with scepticism and criticism. In response, Shira Neupane’s letter to the editor “Why the unfair, broad-brush approach?” contends in a pragmatic yet disapproving manner that the proposed policy is “illogical” and should only apply to migrants who are not on student visas. Neupane’s letter targets Australian voters and the Australian government itself, primarily appealing to their democratic and national values in an attempt to reveal the policy’s flaws.
Neupane commences by arguing that those who arrive in Australia on student visas have already proven their proficiency in English, making the policy redundant for them. Her blunt, matter-of-fact voice, as she systematically outlines the application process for Australian citizenship, illustrates the repetitiveness of the continual English tests, implying to readers the futility of the policy. This view supports the rhetorical question she poses in her title, which encourages readers to evaluate and contest the meaningless purpose of the policy. Augmenting her rational stance, Neupane admits that she understands and endorses the government’s current policy, despite being a foreigner herself; this serves to present herself as an impartial observer of the issue. Having thus established her view as balanced, Neupane’s subsequent “baffled” reaction to the proposed policy belittles the test, which apparently serves to examine “proficiency in writing, speaking, reading and listening” – seemingly lofty words which are reduced to mere political rhetoric.
Shifting her tone from pragmatic to sarcastic, Neupane proceeds to argue that many Australians themselves are far from the standard of English proficiency expected of foreign students. Her anecdotal reference to hospitality workers being unable to spell even work-related words – such as “cucumber” and “zucchini” – paints a satirical image of unprofessional Australian service. This, juxtaposed against the image of highly qualified and motivated migrant students, prompts readers to realise the injustice of the policy, as it thwarts the potential migrant students have to contribute to Australian society. This line of argument is substantiated by Neupane’s hyperbolic statement – that she has “donkeys’ years”’ worth of experience in this country – as it places her on the same level as her Australian readers and thus, portrays her view as truly reflective of the Australian community. Her connection to her Australian readers is strengthened by references to fairness and to the “sacred morality” of multiculturalism, which carry connotations of purity and integrity, and which present her as a woman truly aligned with Australian morals. In contrast, the government’s “vested political-interests” suggests that Australia’s leaders are driven by an egoistic, unAustralian mindset, engendering doubt and suspicion with readers’ minds towards their new policy.