MAKING AUSTRALIAN CITIZENSHIP MEAN MORE
Katharine Betts and Bob Birrell After over 30 years of increasingly easy access, Australian citizenship is becoming harder to acquire. Permanent residents must now wait for four years before applying (instead of two), and the Government intends to introduce a formal citizenship test. This latter change is the subject of heated debate. The emotion surrounding this debate can be best understood as an instance of the clash of two competing views about what citizenship ought to mean: the procedural and the patriotic.
INTRODUCTION atively arduous (for non-British subjects).2 This paper outlines changes in the rules Applicants had to have lived in Australia governing access to Australian citizenship for at least five years. They also had to: have over the last 34 years. It shows how these ‘adequate’ English,3 show that they were rules became increasingly relaxed up until loyal and of good character, produce three 2002. In 2005 the pattern began to change references, declare an intention to natural- and the Howard Government is now putting ise two years before the application,4 and a regime in place where applicants will have place an advertisement in the newspapers to wait much longer before they can apply, notifying others of this intention. This was and will need to pass a test on their knowl- to give members of the public time to lodge edge of English and the Australian way of confidential objections to their application.5 life before their application is accepted. Two The last 34 years have, however, seen a questions lie behind our analysis of this his- steady dilution in these demands. In 1973 tory: why is the Government making these British subjects were put on the same changes, and what does the debate sur- footing as aliens (and both were referred to rounding these changes tell us about how as ‘non-citizens’ from then on), the waiting people feel about being Australian. period was reduced from five years to three years, and the Act was renamed the ACQUIRING CITIZENSHIP BY Australia Citizenship Act.6 In 1984 the GRANT: 1973 TO 2002, THE waiting period was further reduced to two TRAJECTORY TOWARDS EASY years and the English language requirement ACCESS watered down to a ‘basic’ understanding, Australian citizenship may be obtained in with people over 50 made exempt.7 Under four ways, by birth, descent, adoption or the 1920 rules applicants had had to publicly grant, but almost all permanent residents renounce ‘all other allegiances’ in order to who become citizens do so by grant. The swear their loyalty to Australia, a Nationality and Citizenship Act of 1948 requirement that remained in the 1948 Act. established the status of Australian citizen While this renunciation had no legal (as distinct from British subject with per- standing, most applicants and possibly most manent residence) for the first time, but Australian officials did not realise that it was maintained most of the rules for naturalis- only a symbolic gesture.8 But in 1986 the ing aliens that had been developed for the renunciation was dropped and this symbolic Nationality Act of 1920.1 These rules meant burden was lifted.9 The implication was that that obtaining citizenship by grant was rel- migrants could keep their previous
People and Place, vol. 15, no. 1, 2007, page 45 citizenship (if their country of origin Australia’s leading poet, Les Murray. But allowed dual citizenship). Becoming an most aspects of these changes devalued Australian citizen no longer implied an citizenship and all of them took place under exclusive commitment of loyalty to and Labor Governments. Liberal politicians, identity with Australia. however, did not oppose them. For example These changes all made citizenship in 1982 the then Minister for Immigration easier to acquire and reduced the personal in the Fraser Government, Ian McPhee, cost of applying. The only move in the said: opposite direction was taken in 1986 when Acquiring Australian citizenship should the Hawke Government tightened not require suppression of one’s cultural provisions governing the acquisition of heritage or identity. Rather, the act of citizenship by birth. After 1986 Australian- becoming a citizen is—symbolically and born children of visitors, temporary entrants actually—a process of bringing one’s own and illegal immigrants no longer acquired gift of language, culture and traditions to citizenship automatically at birth, a step enrich the already diverse fabric of taken to prevent people without permanent Australian society.15 residence using an Australian-born child to In 2002 a further significant change was circumvent immigration law.10 introduced, this time by the Howard The mass immigration of the post-war Coalition Government, when section 17 of years magnified ethnic diversity. By the mid the Act, governing dual citizenship was 1970s multiculturalism, the policy of repealed.16 While migrants who had valuing cultural pluralism and encouraging naturalised had long been permitted to keep migrants to retain their culture of origin, was their two passports, anyone who was well established.11 Indeed some argued that already an Australian citizen and took active one of the purposes of immigration was to steps to acquire the citizenship of another increase cultural diversity.12 This had country lost their Australian citizenship. The consequences for citizenship and, in 1993, repeal of section 17 permitted citizens to a preamble was inserted into the Act acquire another citizenship without penalty acknowledging and implicitly valuing (or indeed to acquire multiple citizenships, Australia’s cultural diversity: if they were able). Australia citizenship is a common bond, This article examines recent debates involving reciprocal rights and about changes to citizenship legislation obligations, uniting all Australians, whilst introduced, or foreshadowed, by the respecting their diversity …13 Coalition Government in 2006. These changes have two main features, both of At the same time the old oath in which which are explored in more detail below. new citizens swore their allegiance to the The first is to increase the qualifying period Queen of Australia was dropped and a new of residence from two years to four, and pledge introduced. the second is to introduce a citizenship test. From this time forward, under God, As citizenship does little to increase a I pledge my loyalty to Australia and its migrant’s welfare once he or she has people, obtained permanent residence, these whose democratic beliefs I share, changes are mainly symbolic. But the whose rights and liberties I respect, and debates surrounding them are often heated. whose laws I will uphold and obey.14 The emotion they reveal can best be The pledge has a simple patriotic tone analysed if we understand the two main to it, possibly because it was drafted by perspectives that lie behind it.
People and Place, vol. 15, no. 1, 2007, page 46 Proceduralism versus patriotism because it accommodates their At the same time as the legal and symbolic internationalist values and the latter because changes described above were reducing the it is consistent with removing government cost of citizenship, a relatively open-bor- constraints on their freedom of action. A ders approach to citizenship, consistent with solid academic case can be made to support these changes, was gaining ground in aca- the idea that exclusive loyalties to the nation demic and legal circles. In this perspective are indeed becoming obsolete.20 But this is membership of the nation state was seen, not the point here. Our interest is in what not as a sign of belonging to a distinct peo- the recent controversy over the Coalition ple with their own history, memories, Government’s policies to reverse the trend evolved culture, and sense of facing a com- towards procedural citizenship tells us about mon future. Rather such membership was the thoughts of elites, some intellectuals and described by adherence to laws and proce- ordinary people on the meaning of dures rather than by patriotism and loyalty. citizenship. Apart from obedience to the law, the only In our view most Australians embrace value citizens needed to share was toler- an alternative view of citizenship. They see ance. In this view, often known as it as a union of people who have something proceduralism,17 new members could be like a family feeling for each other, in the readily accommodated, provided only that sense that they acknowledge strong bonds they were law-abiding and tolerant. As with their fellow Australians and thus a former Labor Prime Minister Bob Hawke compassionate interest in their compatriots’ once said, an Australian is ‘someone who well-being. They also have deep feelings chooses to live here, obeys the law and pays of attachment to their native land. In other taxes’.18 Proceduralism sits well with mul- words they are patriots. Belonging is not ticulturalism. It was also popular with just a question of tolerant individuals living advocates of the republic. As one of its well- side-by-side in a law-abiding fashion and known advocates (Don Watson) put it, most definitely it does not involve Australia should be a republic that was ‘post embracing diversity. As would be expected modern … pluralist, complex and various: where people think of their nation as a not oppressive or prescriptive but light, iron- bonded community, there are innumerable ic, free’.19 polls indicating that most ordinary The changes in citizenship law up to Australians expect migrants to live like 2002 were consistent with the proceduralist Australians. They do not support perspective. The fact that migrants might government expenditure to help newcomers be citizens of another country and might sustain the culture of their homelands.21 Not strongly identify with that country or its surprisingly they also support the Coalition culture (as is the case with many Australian Government’s recent moves to tighten Jews and Muslims) did not concern access to citizenship and its insistence that advocates of this position. As long as this should be akin to joining the Australian migrants followed the procedural rules in ‘family’.22 Australia this should be all that was required The underlying division between of them. Proceduralists often argue that the proceduralists and patriots explains the nation state and its accompanying demands controversial nature of the current of exclusive national loyalty are becoming citizenship debate. When Prime Minister obsolete as a consequence of globalisation. John Howard welcomed new citizens at a Proceduralism appeals to elites on the left ceremony on Australia Day 2007 he said: as well as to some on the right, the former [We are] deeply honoured we are that you
People and Place, vol. 15, no. 1, 2007, page 47 have chosen Australia to be your national Federal Court judge, Marcus Einfeld, has family for the rest of your life … described permanent residents as You may be drawn from the four corners ‘Australians in all but law’,26 and Kim of the earth but you are united by a Rubenstein, among others, considers that common love of this country of ours …23 residence would be a more ‘inclusive’ This reference to families and love is a criterion for full political membership of the world away from Hawke’s claim that an community than citizenship.27 Why, she Australian is someone who lives here, obeys asks, should we insist on citizenship before the law and pays their taxes. The two immigrants can vote? ‘If people are … statements are drawn from two very legally entitled to live in Australia different perspectives about what it means permanently and participate in the to belong to a nation and its people. community in other ways, why should they not be entitled to vote?’28 Citizenship versus permanent Clearly the citizenship debate is not residence about degrees of access to the benefits of Australian citizenship is now largely sym- living in Australia but about what being an bolic, since almost all the material benefits Australian means in terms of loyalty and of citizenship (access to Medicare, welfare commitment to the nation. benefits and education) are available to per- manent residents. Since 1997 migrants only Citizenship policy under the Coalition achieve this after a two year wait in the case The Coalition Government has recently of unemployment benefits and ten years in adopted a tougher position on access to cit- the case of the old age pension but, after izenship. Given this, readers may be this period, they have full access. With or surprised by some of the views published without citizenship migrants face few le- in 2000 in a report by the Australian Citi- gal barriers to full participation in Australian zenship Council (appointed by the Coalition society. The Coalition’s recent actual and in August 1998), Australian Citizenship for proposed changes to the rules governing ac- a New Century. These supported the pro- cess to citizenship do not change this cedural approach and paved the way for a situation. further dilution of the meaning of Austral- Citizenship confers the right (and duty) ian citizenship. to vote and serve on juries, and the right to The Council, chaired by former a passport. Citizens may also apply for work Governor General, Sir Ninian Stephen, had in the public service, though many been asked to report on contemporary issues departments now accept applicants without of citizenship policy. In keeping with the citizenship on a temporary basis.24 procedural approach it drew a distinction Citizenship also offers minor advantages in between ‘small “c” citizenship’, an idea sponsoring relatives as migrants, and almost based on full participation in the complete immunity from deportation.25 community, as opposed to legal, ‘capital C A passport may, in some instances, be Citizenship’.29 The authors of the report valuable, and immunity from deportation were anxious that barriers to capital C will be sought by a few, but in most cases Citizenship should not be increased in any the practical difference between permanent way, because they feared this would create residence and citizenship is slight. One a sense of social exclusion among potential could then take proceduralism to its logical applicants.30 They argued that, ‘Maintaining conclusion and abolish the distinction relatively little distinction between between the two statuses. Indeed former Australian Citizens and non-Citizens helps
People and Place, vol. 15, no. 1, 2007, page 48 promote inclusiveness and minimize urged that ideas about ‘what is peculiar to discrimination in the Australian the Australian experience … ought never community’,31 adding that, ‘A peaceful and to form the basis of nationalistic boasting fruitful social cohesion does not come from or self-regard’.37 imposing uniformity. It comes from Finally, they addressed the vexed accepting difference and negotiating it’.32 question of Section 17 of the Australian The Council also endorsed the previous Citizenship Act, recommending that it be Labor policy of actively promoting abolished. They considered that as ‘we citizenship. The authors argued that such move into the twenty-first century, the promotional activity ‘would give a clear prevalence of dual citizenship message that the Government and the internationally will rapidly increase’ and that community value Australian citizenship Australia’s prohibition placed ‘a completely highly’.33 They estimated that, in 1998, unnecessary obstacle in the way of 940,000 eligible immigrants had not yet expansion of Australian presence in other taken out citizenship.34 Thus for the past societies’.38 This recommendation was decade and more, at least 900,000 eligible important because previous attempts to permanent residents have refrained from abolish Section 17 (as during the early going to the trouble of taking it out.35 1990s when the Keating Government was The authors did not stop at this point. in office) had generated fierce controversy. They spelled out the implications of their Patriotic organisations like the RSL approach for an alternative vision of (Returned and Services League) had Australian citizenship. They proposed a objected to the notion of dual loyalties. Their civic compact which embraced view was that an Australian citizen could proceduralist values and, apart from a not be loyal to, or identify with, two reference to the land, explicitly excluded countries. Thus it was appropriate that any elements of a particularistic Australian Australians who took out another country’s patriotism. Their compact depended on a citizenship should forgo their Australian commitment to seven civic values: citizenship. •To respect and care for the land we share It is not widely known (because there •To maintain the rule of law and the ideal was no public record of the event) that one of equality under the law of all of the first proposals put by Philip Ruddock Australians to Cabinet when he became Minister for •To strengthen Australia as a Immigration in the 1996 Coalition representative liberal democracy based Government was a measure to abrogate on universal adult suffrage and on Section 17. His initiative was soundly freedom of opinion defeated in Cabinet. Yet a few years later •To uphold the ideal of Australia as a the Citizenship Council, appointed by his tolerant and fair society which values Government, repeated the recommendation. its diversity This outcome can be explained by the make- •To continue to develop Australia as a up of the Council. It included Donald Horne society devoted to the wellbeing of its and Robert Manne both of whom were people articulate and outspoken proceduralists. •To value the unique status of the According to Gary Johns (a federal Labor Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander MP until 1996) who was also a member of peoples.36 the Committee, Horne played a crucial role The authors said that their civic values in drafting the Committee’s report and in were the ‘very opposite’ of nationalism and setting its intellectual tone.
People and Place, vol. 15, no. 1, 2007, page 49 It is no surprise that a report shaped by over the last couple of decades); they can Donald Horne favoured the abolition of restrict welfare benefits to citizens only section 17. From Horne’s perspective the (a strategy suggested by the FitzGerald idea that mobile professionals could be report but not adopted);41 or they can good citizens in many lands was perfectly make it harder to acquire, and in so doing, reasonable, as was the notion that patriotic reverse the low-cost trajectory of the last notions of exclusive loyalty were outdated.39 34 years. The puzzle is that the Howard Government The first strategy has had moderate would subsequently put this proposal into success in meeting the twin goals of law (after rejecting it in 1996). In 2001 the persuading migrants to naturalise while Government published a discussion paper reassuring Australians that immigration on Section 17 in which various options were is about integration as well as economics. canvassed.40 The paper did not generate (Indeed since 1999 people who are much controversy. The abolition of Section already citizens can participate in an 17 was strongly supported by the Southern affirmation ceremony, in which they can Cross Group (a group of expatriate restate their loyalty.)42 However its low- Australians), which by that time had cost, inclusive approach falls short of established itself as an influential voice for meeting these twin goals. It also has the Australian diaspora, and by business and practical disadvantages in the present science bodies. These interests argued that, unsettled climate. For example, if if Section 17 remained in force, Australia potential terrorists or those who could lose connection with thousands of sympathise with Australia’s enemies can talented Australians. While the abolition naturalise quickly, and thus insulate would probably have been unpopular with themselves from deportation,43 national many Australians, no opposition group security can be compromised, public mobilised against it. Soon after the 2001 feeling be outraged, and immigration fall election (in April 2002) the deed was done. into disrepute. By this time the Government was The second strategy could indeed presiding over a citizenship regime which persuade laggards to naturalise but would allowed hundreds of thousands of recent create a poor impression. Australians migrants to Australia to be dual citizens as could, with some justice, feel that well as tens of thousands of native citizenship was being used as a ticket to Australian who had taken out another welfare rights. (It would also expose some country’s citizenship. This was the apogee migrants, who were not in a position to of proceduralism in Australia. naturalise, to unwarrantable hardship.) This leaves the third strategy, that of The return of patriotism making citizenship harder to acquire. Beginning in 2005 the Coalition decided Here it may well be that fewer permanent to reverse the trajectory of past policy. Its residents would naturalise, but the host proposals make citizenship harder to ob- society could be reassured that those who tain and it has used patriotic language to did do so were more likely to mean it. justify this. (Instrumental reasons, such as gaining a There are three basic strategies that a passport would, of course, still be a factor government can take to increase the value but they might look less obvious.) A of citizenship, in the eyes both of reluctant longer waiting period would also make it applicants and a restive host population. easier to conduct security checks before They can talk it up (the strategy adopted it was too late.
People and Place, vol. 15, no. 1, 2007, page 50 The shift in the trajectory Australian Citizenship Amendment In 2005 a new Australian Citizenship Bill (Citizenship Testing) Bill in the Autumn was introduced to parliament. In many re- sitting of Parliament, 2007, for passage spects this was just an attempt to tidy up during that sitting.50 After a cabinet reshuffle the wording of the old 1948 Act and, in one in January 2007 the Department of respect, it continued down the easy access Immigration and Multicultural Affair was pathway. While Section 17 on dual citizen- renamed the Department of Immigration ship had already been repealed, Section 18 and Citizenship (DIAC), thus emphasising remained. This provided that people who the Government’s new stress on actively renounced their Australian citizen- citizenship.51 ship should lose it. The new Bill made it The language accompanying these easier for such people to resume their Aus- changes has been patriotic in tone. The word tralian citizenship, provided only that they multiculturalism has been banished. The were of good character.44 But in an impor- Government’s discussion paper on tant new step the Bill began a process of Australian Citizenship which floats the idea raising the barriers to citizenship because it of a new citizenship test says that becoming increased the period of residence to three an Australian is about embracing ‘the years.45 This was later amended to four Australian way of life’.52 The proposed test years,46 a step which appeared to delay the will include sections testing migrants on presentation of the amended Bill to Parlia- Australian history, culture and traditions, ment until November 2006. This Bill, now values, and national symbols. These are all known as the Australian Citizenship Bill aspects of life in Australia dear to patriots. 2006, also increased the age at which peo- It will also have components proceduralists ple were exempt from having to pass the would endorse, such as questions on English test from 50 to 60 years, and made Australia’s laws and system of democracy.53 it easier for the Australian Security and In- The discussion paper goes further and raises telligence Organisation to veto a person’s the question of whether applicants should application. It was finally passed by the demonstrate, not only that they know about Senate late in February 2007.47 It provides Australia’s history and culture, but also that one part of the new change in direction. they ‘are willing to commit to and uphold The second part is a proposed formal Australian values and to fully participate test for applicants for citizenship. At present in Australian life’.54 According to Howard, applicants have to demonstrate their basic people who have passed the test ‘will be English skills and their understanding of required to sign a commitment, a Australia at an informal interview. For commitment to Australia’s values and to example they have to be able to answer ‘yes’ Australia’s laws and all the rest, to or ‘no’ to questions about the rights and Australia’s way of life’.55 responsibilities of citizenship.48 A more extensive and systematic test would include Why the change? a written English test that moved beyond The combination of a doubling in the wait- basic skills and a test on Australian values, ing period together with the new, rigorous history and law. citizenship test represents a sharp break with The idea of such a test was first mooted recent history. It is possible to imagine at in April 2006 by Andrew Robb, then least two different kinds of reasons why the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Howard Government has taken these steps. Immigration and Multicultural Affairs.49 One possibility is that the citizenship The Government intends to introduce the proposals are designed to mollify public
People and Place, vol. 15, no. 1, 2007, page 51 opinion. High levels of permanent accompanying policies of economic immigration are proceeding apace.56 The globalisation—opening Australia’s markets Government justifies this by the skills to overseas competitors, looking on shortage and by asserting that further benevolently as companies go offshore, substantial migration is required in the face deregulating the labour market—are of demographic ageing.57 Given its unsettling many people. There is a housing commitment to high immigration it is not boom but an accompanying crisis in surprising that the Government is anxious housing affordability.60 There are to assuage public concern about migrant complaints that the Government is integration. A similar mode of thinking was importing large numbers of permanent obvious with the mid-1980s FitzGerald workers as well as temporary ones (on 457 inquiry, commissioned by the Hawke Labor visas), at the same time as it neglects the Government. Stephen FitzGerald and his tertiary education of locals and as jobs are colleagues were keen to see migration levels being off-shored. The Government is increased. However their research showed vulnerable to criticism that it is acting in that large sections of the public had lost faith the interests of international capital and in the program, seeing it as mainly those who profit from it. benefiting migrants not Australians. This Stay-at-home national citizens could be perception formed a barrier to high a dispensable nuisance for such a immigration and, in order to remove it, the government, except, or course, at periodic public had to be convinced that migrants elections. Thus taking a tougher approach were to be encouraged to integrate. Thus to citizenship may simply be a manoeuvre FitzGerald recommended making to appease public opinion. The public, with citizenship more meaningful by attaching its patriotic disposition, supports a tough access to some welfare benefits to it. The stance on citizenship. Table 1 shows that committee also floated the idea of requiring the proposed test, especially its English a citizenship declaration which would language component, is very popular with require prospective citizens to declare their the public, Labor voters as well as Coalition support for procedural values.58 FitzGerald voters. On the other hand, as we will see, and his colleagues wrote: the test is unpopular with many academics, The community perceives citizenship as a human rights activists, ethnic leaders, and symbolic and psychologically significant state (Labor) governments, groups that are act of commitment to Australia, of likely to include committed proceduralists belonging and identification with this as well as vocal and influential supporters nation’s destiny. The grant of citizenship of the Labor Party. The new proposals could appears not to be important to many be interpreted as driving a wedge between immigrants. … Labor leaders and Labor voters. This cynical It is a matter of concern that 43%, or one view of the Government’s stance is shared million, of those residentially qualified to across the left.61 take out citizenship have not done so.59 An alternative perspective is that the Today the Coalition Government is Coalition Government believes that high battling a wider range of public worries. immigration and free trade enhance the Though the economy is booming the welfare (on balance) of ordinary Government’s electoral prospects are Australians. Howard seems to understand sagging. Ironically, the strength of job that if ordinary people are to believe that creation has muted concerns about the size the traumas of economic globalisation are of the migration program. However the worth it, they need to be convinced that
People and Place, vol. 15, no. 1, 2007, page 52 these traumas are being suffered in the even evidence that such militants are active interests of the wider Australian community. in Australia.62 Sensible concern about His emphasis that taking out citizenship is terrorism, together with the need to try to akin to entering an exclusive Australian unite an expanding and diverse population, community which he likens to a family may may mean that the Government believes be an instinctive (or perhaps calculated) that tightening access to citizenship is good move to allay the fears Australians have policy. about the impact of globalisation. After all, Answering an array of questions about members of a family are expected to take Australia is not in itself a valid test of care of each other. commitment to Australia, nor is signing a The Government may have other commitment to Australian values. The sincere concerns about citizenship. Since the proposed new arrangements are more about 2000 citizenship report we have had deepening the symbolic significance of September 11, the Bali bombings, the citizenship. By toughening access and bombings in Madrid and London, the rise incorporating the language of patriotism into of global fears about militant Islam, and becoming a citizen, citizenship would no
Table 1: Attitudes to the proposed test, all respondents and by political support, Newspolls 2006 (per cent)
September 2006 December 2006 Favour or against a Favour or against ‘formal citizenship test’* ‘English being a requirement’** Political support Political support All Coalition Labor All Coalition Labor
Strongly in favour 53 66 48 64 77 55 Partly in favour 24 24 22 21 16 24 Total in favour 77 90 70 85 93 79 Partly against 9 6 11 6 4 7 Strongly against 10 1 14 6 1 11 Total against 19 7 25 12 5 18 Uncommitted 4 3 5 3 2 3 Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 Total N 1200 1200
Source:
People and Place, vol. 15, no. 1, 2007, page 53 longer be seen as just a fancy certificate, individuals have not been made public, anxiously pressed onto any chance comer though DIAC has provided a summary of who deigned to accept it. It would be a their positions. But those from 116 symbol of a significant step that the migrant organisations, where confidentiality had not was taking in the process of becoming an been requested, have been made available Australian. The four-year waiting period on the web.65 (From these it can be deduced could also show that both sides were serious that submissions labeled ‘unclear’ in Table about their new relationship. 2 were not confused in their answers. Rather they did not answer the question on the SUBMISSIONS TO THE proposed test directly but talked about a AUSTRALIAN GOVERNMENT range of related matters.) DEPARTMENT OF IMMIGRATION The submissions from individuals are AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS not as overwhelmingly positive about the CITIZENSHIP TASK FORCE test as are the poll responses shown in Table The forthcoming debate about the Coali- 1, but they are very different from those tion Government’s proposal for a citizenship written by organisations. To gain a better test is sure to be intense given the depth of understanding of the ideas expressed by division between proceduralists and patri- organised groups we downloaded the 116 ots. Just how deep can be seen from the available submissions for further analysis. following analysis of opinion on the test. As indicated in Table 3, the organisations In September 2006 the Government put could be divided into seven main categories, out its discussion paper on the test,63 inviting ranging from university-based and civil submissions from interested members of the rights groups, ethnic groups, and public. As we have seen, the paper is governments, to a final catch-all category. suffused with the language of patriotism. It (The catch-all category includes two listed five main questions: submissions from branches of political 1. Should Australia introduce a formal parties, 14 from non-ethnically based citizenship test? community groups, and three that were 2. How important is knowledge of unclassifiable.) Australia for Australian citizenship? Table 3 shows that the university-based 3. What level of English is required to and civil rights organisations were the most participate as an Australia citizen? opposed to the test. Qualitative analysis of 4. How important is a commitment to the reasons that organisations gave for their Australia’s way of life and values for positions show that most were a long way prospective Australian citizens? from the support for committed, patriotic 5. What form should a commitment to citizenship which the Prime Minister and Australian values take?64 his Government appear to support. In all 1,644 submissions were received, Why were the authors of these 1,486 from individuals and 158 from submissions so opposed to the introduction organisations. Table 2 shows the pattern of of a formal test? A recurring theme was responses to the first question: Should that a test would promote social Australia introduce a formal citizenship exclusion,66 and also that it would invite test? There is a clear split between the discrimination.67 Submissions that took up submissions made by individuals, where the question of Australian values drew on almost two thirds support the test, and those the initial listing of such values in the by organisations, where more than two discussion paper. These include ‘respect thirds oppose it. The submissions from for the freedom and dignity of the
People and Place, vol. 15, no. 1, 2007, page 54 individual, support for democracy, our [T]esting English for citizenship is seen commitment to the rule of law, the equality as veering dangerously close to the of men and women, the spirit of the fair White Australia policy whereby go, of mutual respect and compassion for bureaucratic mechanisms can be those in need’.68 Many argued that these constructed to block certain profiles of values were not uniquely Australian and non-English-speaking people.70 often claimed that either the present Table 2: Should Australia introduce a formal citizenship test? All Government or the submissions by origin, organisation or individual (per cent) Australian people failed to uphold YesNoUnclear Total Total N 69 them. Organisations 18 68 14 100 158 Not only would the test be exclusionary and Individuals 64 21 15 100 1486 discriminatory, many thought it reminiscent of the Total 60 25 15 100 1644 White Australia Source: Derived from ‘Summary report on the outcomes of the public consultation policy. They worried on the merits of introducing a formal citizenship test’, Department of that it would pander Immigration and Multicultural Affair (DIMA) 2006. Downloaded from to what they saw as
Table 3: Should Australia introduce a formal citizenship test? Submissions from organisations by organisational type (per cent)
YesNoUnclear Total Total N
University-based and civil liberties groups 0 91 9 100 11 Refugee advocacy groups 11 89 0 100 9 Ethnic groups 21 79 0 100 24 State, territory and local governments 9 77 14 100 22 Religious groups 18 64 18 100 11 Migrant advocacy groups, migration lawyers and migrant educators 25 60 15 100 20 Political parties, community groups (non-ethnic) and other 32 37 32 100 19 Total 18 69 13 100 116
Total N 21 80 15 116
Note: Forty two submissions from the 158 organisations shown in Table 2 are missing. Presumably these organisations had requested their submissions remain confidential. But the overall pattern for the subset analysed here is the same as for the total. The submissions shown here have been recoded by the authors.
People and Place, vol. 15, no. 1, 2007, page 55 [S]uch a change [introducing the test] divisive and more acceptable to the would take Australia many steps backward Muslim countries to our North if we chose into the era of the White Australia Policy more inclusive values such as those where assimilation was the end goal.71 enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.75 We would like to think we are not racist but there appears to be a frightening Others, echoing our first explanation for degree of xenophobia obvious in the the Government’s policy, were openly behaviour of many of our citizens. One cynical about the Government’s motives. need only study the graffiti, letters to the Because the agenda behind the press, the reports of arson and stone- introduction of a formal citizenship test is throwing and worse, directed against dubious, it should be opposed.76 ethnic communities. And it would be difficult to cover up our record with Writers deplored what they saw as a respect to our own indigenous people.72 turning away from multiculturalism and doubted that Australian values could or These opinions follow the common should be offered as an alternative. proceduralist view that, if Australia asks Multiculturalism is one of Australia’s more of applicants who want to join the greatest achievements. Our diversity should community, this can only be a cover for be celebrated and our difference valued.77 racially-based exclusion.73 Authors of some submissions feared that the test would not [T]o speak in terms of national, or just discriminate against foreigners in Australian, ‘values’ may actually operate general but against Muslims in particular. to reassert the dominance and hegemony They said, or implied, that such a tactic was of Anglo-Australian culture over and designed to win votes by appealing to the above others.78 worst in Australian voters. [This is] appealing to xenophobia and Indeed the Equal Opportunity racism in the electorate. It is dog-whistle Commission of Victorian (EOCV) politics designed to win votes for an considered that it was dangerous to even increasing nationalistic government … talk about a test. Though no individual group is singled out The EOCV considers that the current for attention in the Discussion paper, it policy discourse in relation to citizenship must be read in its social and political and ‘Australian values’ has the potential of context, a context in which Muslim itself having a seriously negative impact Australians are vilified and cast as a threat on community cohesion.79 to Australia’s national security …74 And the Victorian Government was The possibility of discrimination deeply concerned that such a test would against Muslims had foreign policy deter immigrants and undermine the state’s implications as well. population growth strategy.80 We are concerned by the very real danger Proceduralists often argue that, in a that the Australian Government or political globalising world, the nation state is parties could use the concept of Australian becoming an anachronism. A number of Values in a divisive way and this could submissions took up this theme, arguing that lead to exclusivity … the test was inappropriate in such an era, We believe therefore that it would be less either from a practical point of view, or from
People and Place, vol. 15, no. 1, 2007, page 56 the standpoint of universalistic morality. Overall most submissions by organisations Globalisation, trans-national corporations took a jaundiced view of any policy that and the interconnectivity that is a by- was congruent with a sense of national peo- product of the recent technological plehood. Where their position on the kind explosion are all relatively recent changes of polity they preferred was made clear, which have contributed to the need to most supported proceduralism. redefine the concept of ‘citizenship’. The Discussion Paper’s policy impetus National borders are becoming blurred, unreasonably and inappropriately and the notion of an individual having conflates the concepts of citizenship and only one homeland is fast becoming community, and assigns certain aspects of outdated.81 community to the legal concept of citizenship. ... Organisations that argued in favour of Australian citizenship does not in and of the test made diverse points. In keeping with itself unite Australian people, except as it the patriotic view that national belonging is defines Australians in opposition to those meaningful and valuable, some argued that who do not possess Australian citizenship. increasing the cost of citizenship would While citizenship confers certain benefits increase its value. and duties, it does not in itself constitute a Human nature dictates that if we have to force that binds individuals and unifies the try hard for something, we usually value it nation …85 more.82 (And in answer to a further question in Others who also held this view said that the discussion paper: What form should a the advent of Islamist terrorism had changed commitment to Australian values take?) the context in which governments acted. There should not be one beyond respect Since the benefits conferred on Australian for law and the rights of others.86 citizens are substantial, it is appropriate for Many of the proceduralists’ themes are Australia to introduce a formal citizenship echoed in media commentary by prominent test. figures identified with the left,87 though Recent developments in world events, Kevin Rudd, leader of the Labor opposition, including the current phase of Islamist has been careful not to oppose the expansion through terror, invite reflection citizenship test.88 on the basic requirements for citizenship in Australia.83 CONCLUSION We have a Government determined to em- But this opinion was far from universal. brace the global economy yet at the same The proposition that fear of terrorism was time turning inwards towards a patriotic unjustified and divisive was more common. stance on citizenship. In doing so it is scan- [We are] also concerned that the rhetoric dalising left-leaning elites who endorse a surrounding the ‘values debate’ in normative commitment to international Australia is a knee-jerk reaction to the human rights and are suspicious of a stance political climate in the ‘war on terror’. emphasising the exclusive rights of citizens. Attempts to make Australian citizenship The submission that argued there should harder to attain and the political rhetoric be no commitment to Australia values characterising what is ‘Australian’ and ‘beyond respect for law and the rights of ‘un-Australian’ will divide, rather than others’ puts the procedural position in its unite, the community.84 clearest form.
People and Place, vol. 15, no. 1, 2007, page 57 Most of the submissions from reveal the depth of division on the issue. organisations support the old citizenship Most academic analysts see the drift trajectory, where access was continually towards proceduralism as an inevitable made easier, and are opposed to the new. consequence of globalisation, with a decline They believe in the benign effects of a in the autonomy of the nation state as a relaxed attitude to communal boundaries logical corollary. This view is under and, in some cases, are hostile to the idea challenge. The paradox is that a government of there being a nation of Australian people with a radical commitment to economic with their own history, communal ties and globalisation is leading the charge. Whether sense of responsibility for a shared future. the Howard Government can win on this is Combined with the other evidence another matter. It has the support of most analysed here, these submissions reveal a ordinary people. But its position is minority climate of opinion. As with the compromised. On its watch it was case of the 2000 report, Australian responsible for giving way on a crucial Citizenship for a New Century, their views indicator of patriotic citizenship, that is, the are in conflict with the way most Australians right of Australians to take out another feel about their country. The forthcoming country’s citizenship without loss of their debate about the citizenship test and Australian citizenship. commitment to Australia will, no doubt,
References 1 ‘The [new Australian] Commonwealth extinguished all colonial legislation dealing with naturalisation and established its own procedures with the Naturalization Act 1903 which came into effect on 1 January 1904. That statute was replaced by the Nationality Act 1920, which was amended six times, before it was replaced with the Nationality and Citizenship Act 1948’. D. Dutton, ‘Citizenship in Australia: a guide to Commonwealth Government records’, National Archives, Canberra, section on ‘naturalisation’
People and Place, vol. 15, no. 1, 2007, page 58 immigration to create and reinforce an ethnically diverse society, quoted in ibid., p. 246. 13 Quoted in Rubenstein, 2002, op. cit., p. 13 14 Quoted in Australian Citizenship Council, 2000, op. cit., p. 11. See also Palmer et al., 2005, op. cit., p. 3. People may choose whether or not to use the phrase ‘under God’. The pledge was written by the poet Les Murray, though redrafted by officials. See Murray at
People and Place, vol. 15, no. 1, 2007, page 59 Australian Citizenship Act 1948, June 2001
People and Place, vol. 15, no. 1, 2007, page 60 62 Howard’s announcement in 2005 that his Government would work on ‘visa and citizenship security and character checking processes and move immediately to extend the residency requirement’ was made in the context of his announcement of stronger anti-terrorism laws. See
People and Place, vol. 15, no. 1, 2007, page 61