The power of definition

When asked on a recent Insight forum, the Parliamentary Secretary charged with promoting the government's half-baked citizenship test, Teresa Gamboro remarked that Australia is one of the last countries in the world to introduce a citizenship test. This begs the question, why this test and why now?

The easy answer is that the Libs odious policy unit thought it would create yet another wedge to foment chaos within the hapless federal ALP. There is a faint echo of the White Australia dictation test in the policy, but there does seem to be more to this than pandering to the cult of Pauline. Whereas the aim of the post-Tampa policy was exclusion, the aim of the citizenship test is to set the parameters for inclusion within Australian society. Why is the government suddenly concerned about inclusion - is it because it is itself seen by many as on the outer?

The test becomes an exercise in defining Australian values - including equality before the law, free speech, equality of opportunity ('a fair go')and tolerance. What is important here is not just the nature of these values is the fact that they are to be defined on the instructions of Mr Howard. The citizenship test acts as a vehicle whereby the government can take ownership of these values and set itself up as their guardian, a self-appointed defender of democracy. The suggestion is that the violators of such values are 'the other', the barbarians from other cultures. Hence we have statements such as 'Australian citizens are entitled to full consular assistance' (unless of course your name is David Hicks). The converse is that the government has full respect for democratic and Australian traditions and is beyond reproach in its adherence to democratic principle.

Not only is the government attempting to defend the quality of our democracy, it is also laying claim to its quantity. The reason the Electoral Commission is running entertaining ads imploring us to update our enrolment is that in 2006 the government changed the law to close the electoral rolls at 8pm on the days the writs were issued (an event which almost no one would know had happened until it was almost too late). In effect, this gives new voters one day to get on the roll after an election is called, which would have prevented 400,000 people from voting in 2004. The law also restricted voting rights to prisoners. Formerly able to vote if in jail less than 3 years, now any full-time prisoner will be barred. Making amendments such as these is seen as politically expedient. However, it also gives the air that the government is legitimate and the fault lies with those outriders who had not followed the rules.

The Liberal government has sought to reduce democracy to a set of government platitudes and a concern with process. This form over substance distinction allows it to claim its opponents who fulminate over Tampa, AWB and other issues are basically whinging about 'doctor's wives' issues not of concern to the mainstream. Any attempt to connect these abuses to the label 'threats to democracy' become tarred with the charge of hyperbole. We can turn up and vote, Mr Howard must call an election eventually and there is debate on the floor of parliament, so it's all OK.