australian values
So does anyone else think that it is illogical that that migrants wishing to become Australian citizens should have to be able to speak English and answer questions on Australian values, history, culture etc while those of us that are born here become Australian citizens without applying, comprehending or even forming a wish to do so, at a time when we cannot speak any language and have no knowledge of Australian values, history and culture?
Talk about inconsistent!! It is just inviting people to devalue citizenship by foisting it on them unawares at the moment of their first breath, when frankly, they have more important things on their minds than the date that the First Fleet arrived.
September 18th, 2006 at 4:31 pm
Does anyone else find it ridiculous that they way the Government is trying to INCREASE ‘intergration’ is to make it HARDER to become an Aussie citizen….????
What the Focault?
September 18th, 2006 at 4:31 pm
I see no problem.
you can legislate anything for people born here. they are Australians.
However for people who wish to come here and work or live they should speak the mother tongue and understand what the country is about.
September 18th, 2006 at 4:38 pm
make that you can’t legislate anything for people born here
September 18th, 2006 at 4:45 pm
this is about birthright. if you are born with the right it is yours. otherwise you have to earn it.
fair enough. test them. if they don’t earn it, they don’t get it.
September 18th, 2006 at 4:47 pm
This is one of the governments policies that I don’t actualy mind. I know that it will be horrid in implimentation and not actually do anything, but I at least agree with their intended goal.
The aspects I don’t agree with are:
* That there is a significant problem in the first place (their may be, but I doubt it, a large number of the people you see on the street that can’t speak english aren’t australian citizens anyway I suspect)
* this doesn’t seam like a good way to solve the problem. Sticks and hurdles never seam like a good idea in isolation, always need to offer a carrot at the same time.
* as sticks go this has to be about the least useful. It won’t stop the intended audience from coming and living in the country just stop them being citizens.
September 18th, 2006 at 5:14 pm
“this is about birthright. if you are born with the right it is yours. otherwise you have to earn it.
fair enough. test them. if they don’t earn it, they don’t get it. ”
Bill, some questions: what is the birthright you speak of, and who confers it? And why should those not born in Australia be treated differently to those elsewhere? Further, since the current government has repeatedly stated that this is a “Christian nation” founded on “Christian values”, how is this stance “Christian”?
I think it’s a totally silly policy that won’t fix the perceived problems. You can’t legislate for values. It’s also completely silly because it’s driven by a perception that it’s presently “too easy” to get citizenship…which is just ridiculous, since you have to have a visa to get citizenship, and it’s nigh on impossible to get a visa these days unless you have the money and qualifications to get you in as a skilled migrant etc…and pardon me for gross generalisations, but I would assume that most people that have such funds and education are not thoses which this policy is targeted at…so not only is it a silly policy, but it won’t achieve what it’s intended to.
Gareth, the ends does not justify the means, *especially* in public policy - how can one support a policy that will not only fail to achieve what it is intended to achieve, but will actually compound the marginalisation of those who are already vulnerable?
Homer - why is it so important that people speak English?
September 18th, 2006 at 5:34 pm
I think requiring people to speak the official language of the country is perfectly reasonable and logical.
September 18th, 2006 at 5:44 pm
Why Craig? Simply stating that it’s reasonable and logical doesn’t make it so.
I think it’s a silly, illogical and discriminatory policy because:
- it excludes people, and I’m never in favour of that, unless there’s good reason for it (ie they pose a threat to society)
- speaking a language is a choice. If people want to speak only Chinese, and exist in cultural enclave, and struggle to find work - as many of my friends’ parents do - then I see that as their choice. If people want to contribute to their own exclusion/marginalisation…then that’s a different issue
- the hardest hit by this policy are those who are already most vulnerable. ie. a wealthy UK or US citizen can already speak English. A wealthy Francophone from African can go to adult English classes, which are difficult to access for a poor Francophone from Africa (who arguably has a greater need of Australian citizenship)
- I’m not convinced it achieves anything positive
But then again, I’m not one of those people that’s ever offended by people speaking another language on public transport, and I’m completely bewildered as to why someone would be offended by it…
September 18th, 2006 at 5:50 pm
I think that sovereign nations have the right to implement fair and just standards for who can or can’t immigrate. But there’s a fine line with language expectations.
In the Australian context this reminds me of the dictation test that was the foundation of the White Australian Policy, which was clearly discriminatory against people from particular countries.
September 18th, 2006 at 6:08 pm
I agree with Bec that the main thing this will achieve is fewer permanent residents bothering to take up citizenship.
It smacks to me of something to offer the zenophobes who have been key to the success of the Howard government in marginal seats… it might not be good policy, but it’s good politics.
September 18th, 2006 at 6:09 pm
Or is that xenophobes? Whatever.
Hope I’d pass the English language test… oh, it doesn’t matter, I was born here. I can spell it anyway I like!!!!
September 18th, 2006 at 6:09 pm
because that is the language we speak and if one wants to integrate then one has to understand it.
A bit like understanding french in France!
September 18th, 2006 at 6:29 pm
Hmmm….how many Aboriginal languages do you speak, Homer?
This is classic Howard Government policy. Nothing overly pernicious in tha strict interpretation of the ‘policy’, but….
1. Will there be added funds to support extra ESL classes?
2. What are ‘Aussie values’?
3. Do the 50,000 or so illegal immigrants currently living and working in Australia get called out for treatment too, or are they exempt because they’re from the British Isles?
And most importantly,
4. Words and actions like this set up an ‘us against them’ mentality, that is then used to exploit division and fear. The policy itself is not racist, oh no….the plausible deniability of it gives it its genius. But does it create the impression of division, separatism, fear…sure it does.
September 18th, 2006 at 8:44 pm
From an episode of The Simpsons, when Apu is doing a test to qualify for US citizenship.
Test guy: And your final question: What was the purpose of the civil war?
Apu: Actually, there were many causes. the first is because of-
Test Guy: Hey, Hey. Just say slavery.
Apu: (Annoyed) Slavery it is sir.
September 19th, 2006 at 8:41 am
we speak English in Australia Luke.
There is no us and them. If one doesn’t speak English it is very hard to integrate. pretty simple really.
September 19th, 2006 at 8:52 am
I’m guessing we’re in the typical Howard Government long, long lead up to an election… lots of talk of “Australian values”, lots of warnings about National security (put a few hapless Muslims under restraining orders if you can’t get terrorism convictions), lots of photo shoots of John Howard looking stern and protective, and a river of cash flowing to young families in the mortgage belt in the May budget, along with rhetoric about responsible economic management by this government… well, the opposition would waste money if in power! Possibly send a few 21 year old counsellors and social workers to remote aboriginal communities if violence is still making the news to placate any bleeding hearts out there. As for the mentally ill: It’s a state government responsibility!!!!!!! There’s nothing we can do!!!!
Let the fun begin.
September 19th, 2006 at 10:39 am
This is a cartoon that appeared in this mornings Newcastle Herald. There has been some discussion lately around the blogosphere about the justice of expecting immigrants to take tests in order to satisfy some imaginary standard of what it means to be Australian.
John Howard has famoulsy been saying thast Australia is a Christian Nation built upon Christian standards…well John (and you too Homer Craig, Bill and Gareth), if you’re reading this, here are some ways in which the bible enjoins us to treat the alien among us:
Exodus 22:21
21 “Do not mistreat an alien or oppress him, for you were aliens in Egypt.
Exodus 23:9
9 “Do not oppress an alien; you yourselves know how it feels to be aliens,
because you were aliens in Egypt.
Leviticus 19:33
33 ” ‘When an alien lives with you in your land, do not mistreat him.
Leviticus 19:34
34 The alien living with you must be treated as one of your native-born.
Love him as yourself, for you were aliens in Egypt. I am the LORD your God.
Deuteronomy 1:16
16 And I charged your judges at that time: Hear the disputes between
your brothersand judge fairly, whether the case is between brother
Israelites or between one of them and an alien.
Deuteronomy 10:19
19 And you are to love those who are aliens, for you yourselves
were aliens in Egypt.
What has been talked about lately is mere pandering to the xenophobic mob and is as far divorced from Christian ideals as is the notion of a fair go from test setting for immigrants!
Exodus 12:49 and Leviticus 24:22 told the Jews that they were to have the same law for strangers in the land as for themsleves - does this fit with what John Howard wants to do? I don’t think so. Christianity is a faith of justice, love, compassion, reconciliation and inclusion - not of separtism and double standards.
Exodus 12:49
49 The same law applies to the native-born and to the alien living among you.”
Leviticus 24:22
22 You are to have the same law for the alien and the native-born. I am the LORD your God.’ ”
Of course our soldiers over in Iraq (and I will be posting more about this soon) are obviously showing the world what it means to be Australian and what our Austrlian values are - I hope this question is included in the test for immigrants: “How are we as Aussies meant to mock people who are different from us?” Answer - mercilessly…or so it would seem.
Tests for immigrants - who’s testing the rednecks who already live here?
September 19th, 2006 at 11:14 am
Homer you dill, my point is that the original ‘Aussies’ have been here for 100,000 years, and still can’t get a fair deal. Did the first European settlers here bother with such niceties? Just playing with your Euro-centric view, don’t worry….
….see, we seem to have managed to intergrate Chinese, Irish Catholics, post-WWII Europeans and Vietnamese immigrants without too much palaver. Each wave of immigration validates the last. My bold and sad prediction is that in 20 years no-one will give a toss abotu Lebanese or Muslim immigrants. Rather, it’ll be the second-generation Sudanese and other African refugees that’ll cop it.
What an ordinary bunch we truly are.
September 19th, 2006 at 11:17 am
Exactly! this is the core issue. I don’t know of anything in the Bible that enjoins us to protect our national identity (aren’t we first and foremost citizens of heaven?) or our privileges, or our wealth. These are given to us to be stewards, to share our abundance with the needy and oppressed. We must be merciful to the stranger and the alien, for aren’t we all, as christians, strangers and aliens in this present world?
September 19th, 2006 at 11:24 am
Greg,
not for the last time you are confusing what law you are talking about.
I would be quite happy for ALL Australians to live under God’s law but given few Australians are Christians I doubt whether this will be agreed to.
Another example of the need for expositional preaching in churches.
Luke,
We aren’t talking about 100,000 years ago nor even 1770 we are talking about the here and now.
Nor is the talk about this being compulsory for refugees merely for immigrants and business visa holders.
September 19th, 2006 at 11:32 am
Homer,
that whole “God’s law versus state law” thing is a complete farce, and I get tired of people trotting it out. If we are to be God’s people in the world, we must live according to what you call “God’s law” - and those principles apply to everyone, irrespective of whether they are Christian or not. Nowhere in the verses Greg refers to does it say “respect the alien…unless of course they’re not Jewish”. Given that the oldest verses requiring respect for the stranger come from a time when “the strangers” would have been of other faiths, your argument is entirely inconsistent.
Similarly, nobody said this would only be compulsory for refugees. But I suspect that business visa holders will find it far easier to sit an English test than many refugees will!! (oh, and yeah, they already find it far easier to get over the first hurdle - getting the visa - as well)
September 19th, 2006 at 11:32 am
Homer…WTF?…what has law got to do with anything I wrote about at 17? I’m talking about principles that should be guiding us as Christians when considering how we treat “others”. Explain to me how the enjoinder “The alien living with you must be treated as one of your native-born.
Love him as yourself, for you were aliens in Egypt. I am the LORD your God.” doesn’t guide your thinking or rather why you think it shouldn’t?
September 19th, 2006 at 11:47 am
Greg and Bec,
Israel at this stage had God as its King and had to obey God’s laws. The major reason.
Go back to Genesis 12:3
It is simply very bad exegesis to conflate that with secular laws at present.
The Government is not bringing people to Australia with the aim of bringing them to God.
September 19th, 2006 at 11:50 am
Just bringin’ some perspective, Homer old son.
September 19th, 2006 at 11:51 am
oh.
wow.
Homer - that’s seriously messed up theology you’ve got there.
September 19th, 2006 at 11:54 am
sorry Homer, I’m still reeling from your post…
where do you draw the line with that theology? are you seriously saying that the injunctions throughout the Old Testament to care for the stranger are irrelevant because israel had God as its King?? How far do you take that?
Personally, I think that Exodus, Leviticus and Deuteronomy reveal something of the nature of God. And as Christians, we are to seek to be like God.
Am I missing something here?
September 19th, 2006 at 12:02 pm
Homer, this isn’t about the laws of Israel, or confusing Old and New covenant requirements, this is about what it looks like, in principle and practice, to love your neighbour as yourself. This is about offering the needy grace, not rules and hoops to jump through. We are not talking about legislating a theocracy, but about what attitudes we, as a christian minority in a democracy, ought to have towards these proposals, and we are saying that we can’t agree with them, and wouldn’t vote for them, because they violate the principles of love and mercy which God has called us to live by.
September 19th, 2006 at 12:30 pm
bestpickle I am not the person conflating O/T law with present day circumstances.
Moreover we are not talking about the poor or oppressed here but in the main skilled migrants.
It is easier if not essential to talk the mother tongue if you are going to assimilate into a country.
It is also a good idea to know something about what makes that country tick.
Of course the Law reveals something about God’s nature.
September 19th, 2006 at 12:37 pm
Homer what is it about Gods nature that is revealed in the scriptures posted at number 17 and how should that knowledge guide us in our thinking?
September 19th, 2006 at 12:51 pm
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2006/04/19/1145344141128.html
We had Donna Mullhearn speak at our Cafe Conversation on Sunday night. I was moved to the point of tears at some fo the things she told us about. CAn I urge each of you to visit this site http://www.pinegap6.org/ and pray for the pine gap 4 who face charges that could conceivably see them gain custodial sentences.
We should not belive everything we hear about how happy the Iraqi people are to avhe gotten rid of Saddam - despite the military spin. Donna suggests and I agree that the violence in Iraq would just about cease if the invading forces were to leave.
We don’t need to keep holding on to their country in order to help them build it the way they want. They don’t want or need democracy. They were a people of culture and education and a people who enjoyed economic plenty and now - they are lucky to get electricity to their homes a couple of hours per day.
Pine Gap is an arm of the CIA; officials say it isn;t - however John Negroponte was there inspecting the facliity 3 days prior to the citizens inspection conducted by Donna Mulhearn, , Jim Dowling, , Adele Goldie, , and Bryan Law. John Negroponte is the head of the CIA - why would he be inspecting it if it wasn’t a CIA faclity?
How much longer will the Australian people allow our country to be used as a base for terrorism?