Last Thursday, the Australian Treasurer, Peter Costello, made a speech, titled “Worth Promoting, Worth Defending: Australian Citizenship, what it means and how to nurture it.” The speech got some play on the media. I found the speech to be disappointing and mildly terrifying. (I recommend reading the original<\/a> before forming your own opinion.)<\/p>\n The thesis of the speech is that immigrants who come to Australia and become citizens should be sure to adopt Australian beliefs and values. If they don’t (and they are still citizens of another nation) they should have their Australian citizenship revoked.<\/p>\n I think there were several flaws in his argument, and I am annoyed enough to want to address them here.<\/p>\n Costello starts by admiring a couple of Australian expatriates, who lived overseas but were seen as patriotic Australians. He explained that Australians who live overseas have not “turned their back on their country”, and that they can “demonstrate the warm hearted nature of the Australian character”.<\/p>\n Yet, he denigrates some immigrants for demonstrating the exact same behaviour – loyalty to another country. “To be an Australian citizen one pledges loyalty first:- loyalty to Australia.”<\/p>\n I have noticed this discrepancy before. If we are (quite rightly) expected to call recent citizens “Australian”, then we should logically no longer make claim to people who have renounced their Australian citizenship in order to get the citizenship of an adopted country. Ergo, Rupert Murdoch is now American, not Australian.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n Costello argues that there are some obligations that fall on new Australian citizens. I would argue that there are equally some obligations on the Australian government.<\/p>\n If a new Australian gets a job, they should pay taxes. It is part of being Australian.<\/p>\n If a new Australian gets sick, the Australian government should provide medical assistance. It is part of being Australian.<\/p>\n If a new Australian breaks an Olympic record, they should let the Australian government gloat. It is part of being Australian.<\/p>\n If a new Australian breaks the law (not just expresses opposing views, but breaks the law<\/em>), the Australian government should provide appropriate prison facilities. It is part of being Australian.<\/p>\n It is not acceptable to simply fob off the trouble-makers to another country; especially if it is a poorer country that has enough of its own trouble-makers to deal with. I believe it is the Australian goverment’s responsibility to deal justice to their own citizens.<\/p>\n Costello seems to realise that he can’t strip just anyone of citizenship. He can’t kick out people who only have Australian citizenship.<\/p>\n Denial of Citizenship (leading to statelessness – people with no nationality) is a serious problem. A UN report<\/a> last year suggested that one of the causes might be:<\/p>\n Weak states or failed states may chose (sic) to pursue exclusionary policies in order to cope with an ailing social, political or economic system and reinforce national unity and mobilise support for the country\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s leadership<\/p><\/blockquote>\n I am sure even Costello would never let that happen. <\/p>\n Costello’s speech does deal with single citizenship Australians who don’t share His method of dealing with these people is rather unclear – dare I say, “mushy”? He plans to:<\/p>\n “explain our values, explain why they are important, and engage leadership they respect to assist us in this process. Ultimately however it is important that they know that there is only one law and it is going to be enforced whether they acknowledge its legitimacy or not.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Whatever this procedure means, if it is effective, then why not apply it equally to dual citizens as other Australians?<\/p>\n The Universal Declaration of Human Rights<\/a> contains a few relevant clauses.<\/p>\n Article 2: Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion<\/strong>, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. […]<\/p><\/blockquote>\n That’s right. Human Rights apply even to people who disagree with you!<\/p>\n Article 9: No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile<\/strong>.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n I am no lawyer, but surely stripping you of citizenship, and kicking you out of the country could be considered “exile”. (I’ll address the “arbitrary” part in the next section.)<\/p>\n Article 14: (1) Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n The General Assembly of the UN obviously forgot to include a clause that said “but only if they agree with the government.”<\/p>\n Article 15:<\/p>\n (1) Everyone has the right to a nationality.<\/p>\n (2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n There’s that “arbitrary\/arbitrarily” issue again… I’ll get to that.<\/p>\n Article 18: Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n I wonder if “freedom of thought, conscience and religion” includes “freedom of values and loyalties”. I would suggest it does.<\/p>\n I don’t know if the Universal Charter on Human Rights is binding on the Australian government… but we should act as though it is!<\/p>\n Costello threatens to kick people out if they don’t hold Australian values.<\/p>\n So what are Australian values? I hate to think…<\/p>\n \nFourth Bruce: No. Right, I just want to remind you of the faculty rules: Rule One!<\/p>\n Everybruce: No Poofters!<\/p>\n Fourth Bruce: Rule Two, no member of the faculty is to maltreat the Abos in any way at all — if there’s anybody watching. Rule Three?<\/p>\n Everybruce: No Poofters!!<\/p>\n — Monty Python’s The Bruces<\/em><\/a>\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Perhaps I am being unfair to Costello now. He does try<\/em> to explain. He just doesn’t do a very good job.<\/p>\n According to different parts of his speech, Australian values are:<\/p>\n “Loyalty, democracy, tolerance, the rule of law”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n “democratic beliefs; to respect the rights and liberty of others; and to respect the rule of law.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n “Economic opportunity […] Security […] Democracy […] Personal Freedom […] The Physical Environment […] Strong Physical and Social Did you know that in Australia “inheritance and heredity do not govern a person’s economic opportunity”? I wonder if he got that quote from James Packer<\/a>.<\/p>\n Did you know that “Australia is not subject to revolution, war or political violence”? I assume that excludes the Boer War, Boxer Rebellion, First and Second World War, the incidents in Korea, Sudan, Malaya, Borneo, Vietnam and Afghanistan. I guess the current conflict in Iraq doesn’t count, nor does the previous one. Maybe all of those, and the Bali bombing can be ignored because they didn’t occur on Australian soil. (Well, except the bombing of Darwin<\/a>, of course.) But how does he exclude the Hilton Bombing<\/a>, or the Eureka Stockade<\/a>? If only Costello had been given a structured narrative<\/a> of Australian history….<\/p>\n I could argue whether “The Physical Environment” and “Strong Physical and Social Infrastructure” actually count as values of the people or just attributes of the country, but I shan’t. <\/p>\n Instead, I will just laugh hollowly at the idea that “an individual is free to write, to think, to worship and act as long as this does not impinge on others”, when it seems this very action could get them evicted from our country.<\/p><\/div>\n So which of these are the official Australian values? Maybe he should tell his boss.<\/p>\n His boss who wanted the Australian constitution<\/a> to state “We value excellence as well as fairness, independence as dearly as mateship.” and “In every generation immigrants have brought great enrichment to our nation\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s life.”<\/p>\n His boss, who was interviewed on radio on Friday<\/a> and avoided repeated questions about what “our” values are, and claimed “I\u00e2\u20ac\u2122m not trying to impose values on anybody.”<\/p>\n Surely it is not that ridiculous. I’m doing it right here, and I am sure many Australians are reading his speech carefully. (Many more or relying on what the media claims he said.) Surely you shouldn’t claim your colleague is “fundamentally accurate” without having a clear idea of what he said.<\/p><\/div>\n These Australian values seem to move around a bit; they are rather arbitrary. Arguing that you must agree to them or risk deportation is, I claim, also rather arbitrary.<\/p>\n In any case, I am rather dubious of being told by politicians what my values are. In fact, I am quite proud to report that my values do not always coincide with those of the Liberal Party of Australia<\/a>.<\/p>\n Values change. It wasn’t that long ago that our values were very different: equal opportunity for women, equal opportunity for races, drink-driving, smoking… the list goes on. We’ve even made some good ground in revoking The Bruces’ Rules One, Two and Three, although there is still plenty of room to improve.<\/p>\n One way in which our values can change and mature is by having our viewpoints broadened by people who have seen different alternatives.<\/p>\n Suppose an immigrant comes to Australia, and loves the environment, the people and all of their values… except one. Perhaps they feel that we treat Australian Aborigines too poorly? Perhaps they feel that we need to give animals more rights? Perhaps they feel that Australians would get to Heaven more easily if they wore different clothing? <\/p>\n Is that person expected to hold their tongue for fear of being deported? How can we forbid them from trying to persuade us to improve? Trying to blinker our values to those of our childhood is not the solution. Insisting that all changes to values need to spontaneously appear from within the Australian-born population is arbitrary.<\/p>\n In the USA they have (used to have?) a particularly harsh law regarding the deportation of (legal) non-citizens who commit certain crimes. The impact of this law on people’s lives has been horrific. This American Life<\/em><\/a> allowed some of the people affected by the law describe the impact it had on their lives. Their voices can describe the injustice better than I ever could.<\/p>\nInconsistency in Treatment of Incoming and Outgoing<\/h4>\n
Mutual Obligation Goes Both Ways<\/h4>\n
Inconsistency between Single and Dual Citizenships<\/h4>\n
his<\/del> Australian values – even if he is inflammatory in emphasising that they might be second-generation Australians, rather than acknowledging that this is a more widespread issue. (Would it be too clumsy to mention Martin Bryant here?)<\/p>\nBasic Human Rights<\/h4>\n
What are the Australian Values?<\/h4>\n
\nInfrastructure”<\/p><\/blockquote>\nResistance to Change<\/h4>\n
Cruel and Unusual<\/h4>\n