Hicks To Serve 9 Months In Australian Jail; Released After Election

David Hicks has been sentenced to seven years prison in addition to the five years he has already spent at Guantanamo Bay, but six years and three months have been suspended by the US military tribunal.

Hicks must be returned to Australia by May 29. He will likely serve out his sentence at Yatala Prison in Adelaide. He is gagged from speaking to the media for twelve months and from selling his story to the media. As part of the plea bargain, Hicks withdrew allegations of abuse by US military forces.

The sentence handed down today was reportedly agreed upon earlier this week. It follows a plea of guilty by Hicks to charges of supporting terrorism. Other charges were withdrawn. Hicks is the first person to be convicted by the Guantanamo military tribunals.

Politically, the decision represents a victory for the Prime Minister, John Howard. As concern about the delay in bringing Hicks to trial grew last year, Howard made representations to President George W Bush and expressed his “anger”. Backbench disquiet about the issue will now be allayed. Hicks’s return to Australia will similarly mute the criticisms of other groups. His 9-month incarceration will allow for his release in the new year and remove him from the election campaign prior to Christmas. The guilty plea, whilst seen by some as induced by captivity at Guantanamo Bay, has effectively killed off David Hicks as an election issue.

The Hicks deal has been attacked by the Greens leader, Senator Bob Brown:

“The 12 month gag on David Hicks when he returns to Australia is to save the Howard government from embarrassing truths in the run to this year’s election. Most people will be relieved he is coming home and that the ordeal for his family is nearing its end. The day David Hicks walks out of jail approaches and his father, mother and other family members now have a date to look forward to. But the shame of Prime Minister Howard’s failure to uphold Australian standards will go down in history.”

Senator Brown said he did not believe Hicks’ statement, including his reversal claim that he was not abused in Guantanamo Bay. “This is a plea bargain under coercion. If Hicks claimed abuse or refused the press gag he was staying in Gitmo. So he has agreed to this fabricated statement,” Senator Brown said. “This military commission farce shames Australia. The Howard government has been contemptuous of international and domestic law. But the truth will out,” Senator Brown said.


The President’s Prison: Scathing New York Times Editorial

The New York Times has published a scathing editorial attacking President George W. Bush over his attitude to Guantanamo Bay.

This is the editorial from the New York Times, March 25, 2007.

The President’s Prison

George Bush does not want to be rescued.

The president has been told countless times, by a secretary of state, by members of Congress, by heads of friendly governments — and by the American public — that the Guantánamo Bay detention camp has profoundly damaged this nation’s credibility as a champion of justice and human rights. But Mr. Bush ignored those voices — and now it seems he has done the same to his new defense secretary, Robert Gates, the man Mr. Bush brought in to clean up Donald Rumsfeld’s mess.

Thom Shanker and David Sanger reported in Friday’s Times that in his first weeks on the job, Mr. Gates told Mr. Bush that the world would never consider trials at Guantánamo to be legitimate. He said that the camp should be shut, and that inmates who should stand trial should be brought to the United States and taken to real military courts.

Mr. Bush rejected that sound advice, heeding instead the chief enablers of his worst instincts, Vice President Dick Cheney and Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. Their opposition was no surprise. The Guantánamo operation was central to Mr. Cheney’s drive to expand the powers of the presidency at the expense of Congress and the courts, and Mr. Gonzales was one of the chief architects of the policies underpinning the detainee system. Mr. Bush and his inner circle are clearly afraid that if Guantánamo detainees are tried under the actual rule of law, many of the cases will collapse because they are based on illegal detention, torture and abuse — or that American officials could someday be held criminally liable for their mistreatment of detainees.

It was distressing to see that the president has retreated so far into his alternative reality that he would not listen to Mr. Gates — even when he was backed by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, who, like her predecessor, Colin Powell, had urged Mr. Bush to close Guantánamo. It seems clear that when he brought in Mr. Gates, Mr. Bush didn’t want to fix Mr. Rumsfeld’s disaster; he just wanted everyone to stop talking about it.

If Mr. Bush would not listen to reason from inside his cabinet, he might at least listen to what Americans are telling him about the damage to this country’s credibility, and its cost. When Khalid Shaikh Mohammed — for all appearances a truly evil and dangerous man — confessed to a long list of heinous crimes, including planning the 9/11 attacks, many Americans reacted with skepticism and even derision. The confession became the butt of editorial cartoons, like one that showed the prisoner confessing to betting on the Cincinnati Reds, and fodder for the late-night comedians.

What stood out the most from the transcript of Mr. Mohammed’s hearing at Guantánamo Bay was how the military detention and court system has been debased for terrorist suspects. The hearing was a combatant status review tribunal — a process that is supposed to determine whether a prisoner is an illegal enemy combatant and thus not entitled in Mr. Bush’s world to rudimentary legal rights. But the tribunals are kangaroo courts, admitting evidence that was coerced or obtained through abuse or outright torture. They are intended to confirm a decision that was already made, and to feed detainees into the military commissions created by Congress last year.

The omissions from the record of Mr. Mohammed’s hearing were chilling. The United States government deleted his claims to have been tortured during years of illegal detention at camps run by the Central Intelligence Agency. Government officials who are opposed to the administration’s lawless policy on prisoners have said in numerous news reports that Mr. Mohammed was indeed tortured, including through waterboarding, which simulates drowning and violates every civilized standard of behavior toward a prisoner, even one as awful as this one. And he is hardly the only prisoner who has made claims of abuse and torture. Some were released after it was proved that they never had any connection at all to terrorism.

Still, the Bush administration says no prisoner should be allowed to take torture claims to court, including the innocents who were tortured and released. The administration’s argument is that how prisoners are treated is a state secret and cannot be discussed openly. If that sounds nonsensical, it is. It’s also not the real reason behind the administration’s denying these prisoners the most basic rights of due process.

The Bush administration has so badly subverted American norms of justice in handling these cases that they would not stand up to scrutiny in a real court of law. It is a clear case of justice denied.


Howard Admits Mistakes But Defends Iraq Commitment

John Howard has defended his government’s commitment to the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

In a speech to the Australian Strategic Policy Institute tonight, the Prime Minister admitted mistakes had been made but said that Australia’s presence was essential to bringing stability to the region.

The speech was carefully calibrated to challenge the foreign policy stance of the Opposition Leader, Kevin Rudd. At one point, Howard said it was difficult to know whether Rudd was “auditioning for the editorial board of The Weekly Standard or as a successor to Michael Moore”. [Read more…]


Rudd Launches Broadband Policy; Abandons Opposition To Telstra Sale

The Opposition Leader, Kevin Rudd, has announced an election policy which commits the ALP to investing up to $4.7 billion in partnership with the private sector to build a broadband service which will cover 98 per cent of the population and deliver speeds forty times faster than currently available.

Describing the policy as a contribution to “nation building for the future”, Rudd said a commitment to broadband infrastructure was on a par with the commitment to railway construction in the nineteenth century.

Rudd said the policy would be funded with $2 billion from the existing communications fund with the remainder to be taken from the Future Fund’s 17 per cent share of Telstra. This proposal led to a savage response from the Treasurer, Peter Costello, in Question Time.

The Shadow Minister for Finance, Lindsay Tanner, said the ALP now accepted that it had lost the fight to retain Telstra in public ownership and is now “absolutely committed to building the broadband network of the future”. [Read more…]


Santoro Resigns From Ministry Over Share Dealings

Senator Santo Santoro, the Minister for Ageing, has resigned from the Howard ministry after a week of allegations and revelations over an undeclared share ownership.

Senator Santo Santoro, former Minister for AgeingHe is the second minister to resign in the past fortnight.

It was revealed earlier this week that Senator Santoro had failed to sell off shares in a biotechnology company, CBio, after he was appointed to the Ageing portfolio last year. This constituted a perceived conflict of interest with his health-related position.

Santoro sold the shares sometime last year and advised the Prime Minister, John Howard. He went public with details of the shareholdings at the beginning of this week to head off media disclosure. Santoro claimed he donated the profits from the shares to a charity but it was revealed yesterday that the money was given to the conservative lobby group, Family Council of Queensland, However, the organisation is not a charity. Moreover, its president, Alan Baxter, is the person who originally advised Senator Santoro to purchase the shares.

At a press conference today, Santoro described his behaviour this week as “further oversights”. However, it now appears that he has traded shares in around 50 companies during his time as a minister. He said he had now made additions to his parliamentary statement of interests.

A former Queensland state minister, Santoro lost his seat in the 2001 Queensland election but was appointed to the Senate to replace John Herron in 2002. He is regarded as an important factional powerbroker in the Queensland Liberal Party.

Santoro’s resignation follows Senator Ian Campbell’s resignation on March 3. Three other Queensland Liberal MPs (Andrew Laming, Gary Hardgrave and Ross Vasta) are currently under police investigation over alleged rorting of their electorate allowances. A week ago, an ALP shadow minister, Kelvin Thomson, resigned over revelations he wrote a reference for crime figure Tony Mokbel. This week, Prime Minister Howard came under attack over attending a function in 2004 which was also graced by a pornographer who is now in prison.

This is the text of a media release from the Prime Minister, John Howard.

Earlier today I accepted the resignation of Santo Santoro as Minister for Ageing.

After a detailed review of his financial records, required by me, he provided advice indicating a number of investments not hitherto disclosed to the Senate or to me.

He has written to the Registrar of Senators’ Interests today providing the relevant information.

While commonsense needs to be applied to issues of ministerial conduct including the capacity to accept inadvertent error, circumstances such as those now outlined by him are unacceptable.

Senator Santoro clearly has failed to comply with the rules of the Senate and has not made the disclosures to me required of him as a Minister.

He had no option but to resign.


Petro Georgiou Attacks Government Over Citizenship Test

The Liberal Party backbencher, Petro Georgiou, has attacked the government’s proposed citizenship test.

In an address to the Italian Assistance Association in Melbourne, Georgiou said it was not correct to describe the changes as just “commonsense”. He said: “What is involved – even if it is not intended – is a fundamental political and social regression that will erect unreasonable and unnecessary barriers to citizenship that are unprecedented in this country.”

This is the text of Petro Georgio’s speech to the CO.AS.IT Italian Assistance Association in Carlton, Melbourne.

Australian Citizenship in the 21st Century

Petro Georgiou, Liberal MHR for KooyongThe Australian Parliament passes a great deal of legislation. Much of it does not impact on the future of our nation. Our fundamental citizenship laws do. This year, the Parliament will be asked to reverse the longstanding thrust of our approach to citizenship.

Since Australian citizenship was created in 1949, and our country began its massive immigration programme, successive governments have chosen an inclusive approach to citizenship. Discrimination against non-English speaking migrants was ended; English-language requirements were eased; residency requirements were reduced and then made equal for all; discriminatory voting privileges were addressed; dual citizenship was allowed; and all were required to attend a citizenship ceremony. The belief was that if we encouraged and embraced migrants who wanted to become Australians, we would build a better and stronger nation.

The inclusiveness of our approach to citizenship has been sustained through massive changes in the racial and cultural composition of our migrant intake. We have sometimes felt anxious about the speed and magnitude of this change. But Australia has held fast and not compromised its belief in inclusiveness. And we have been vindicated by history. The society we have produced is not perfect. It is, however, a society which is arguably the most successful, unified and harmonious multicultural nation in the world.

Nonetheless, in 2007, the Parliament will be asked to reverse the historic direction of inclusiveness, and Government and Opposition seem inclined to do so. Our current system requires applicants to demonstrate a basic knowledge of English and an understanding of the responsibilities and privileges of Australian citizenship. These are assessed at a compulsory interview. What is proposed is that these are replaced by a more difficult and complex “formal citizenship test”. New requirements will include English-language comprehension and an understanding of Australian values, institutions, traditions and symbols. These would be assessed via a computer-based, 30-question, multiple-choice test.

Some have described these proposed changes as just “commonsense”. Unfortunately, this is not the case. What is involved – even if it is not intended – is a fundamental political and social regression that will erect unreasonable and unnecessary barriers to citizenship that are unprecedented in this country.

In the course of the debate, six core reasons have been advanced for changing our citizenship laws. I will examine these six rationales in turn. But let me first give you a preview of my conclusions. The reasons for change are not sustainable. Their premises are unsound, their evidence is deficient. Australia’s historic achievements are underestimated and we risk compromising our proven success.

Reason #1: Increased immigration of people from cultures vastly different from our own

We are told that we need a tougher citizenship test because, today, Australia faces the unprecedented challenge posed by migrants coming from cultures far removed from our own and from the cultures of earlier waves of European migrants.

The facts do not support this assertion.

There has been a fundamental change in the racial and cultural composition of our migrant intake. It occurred 30 years ago. In the 1960s, 86% of our migrants were European and less than 5% came from Asia. The demise of the White Australia Policy saw Asian immigration rise steadily throughout the 1970s to reach 30% of our total migrant intake in 1980. Asian immigration has exceeded European every year since 1984.

The magnitude of the change from Europe to Asia in the 1980s created a perception that there was an “Asian immigration crisis”. Some believed that the cultural difference between Asians and Australia’s traditional migrant source cultures posed fundamental problems for Australia. There were calls to reduce the intake from Asia. Australia held its nerve. There was no apocalypse. The contribution and commitment of Asian Australians were recognised. Many of the key proponents of restricting Asian immigration subsequently accepted they had been wrong. Even in the depths of those difficult days, however, no one advocated making our citizenship laws more exclusionary.

Apart from the shift from European to Asian sources of immigrants, there have been no other major changes in our migrant intake. The Middle Eastern component of our total migrant intake has remained a steady 5% for the last 30 years. Over that same period, the proportion of New Zealanders has increased by 6%. The proportion of migrants from Africa has also increased by 6%. This has primarily been due to increased numbers from South Africa and Zimbabwe and, over the last decade, 21,000 Sudanese refugees. In the decade following the fall of Saigon, we took in 100,000 Indochinese, constituting 12% of our total migrant intake. By contrast, the Sudanese comprised 2.1% of our intake over the last decade.

The statistics refute the claim that taking in migrants from cultures far removed from our own is a new challenge facing Australia. Australia met that challenge 30 years ago when the centre of gravity of our migrant intake swung from Europe to Asia and stayed there. There have been some difficult and ugly periods: the Asian debate in the 1980s, and the Hansonite outbreak in the following decade. But we have surmounted these challenges, prospered and grown stronger. We did so without resorting to new and higher barriers to citizenship. Quite the opposite, we did so because we maintained our commitment to inclusion.

Reason #2: The present test is too easy, resulting in citizenship not being valued

Under our present system, the granting of citizenship is likened to scattering confetti. The test is said to be too easy. “Many people” are described as taking out citizenship without commitment, just for the sake of a passport, and without understanding the pledge they are making.

These are significant charges. The only basis for them is a single, unsourced assertion that at one citizenship ceremony a number of people left before the national anthem was sung. It is difficult to imagine a flimsier basis on which to launch a major reversal of a policy direction that has stood the test of time for almost 60 years.

Is there any evidence from the hundreds of MPs of all political persuasions who attend citizenship ceremonies that they doubt the sincerity of the people who take the pledge? There is not. The testimony of MPs, consistently stated on the public record, is that people taking the citizenship pledge do so genuinely, enthusiastically, and after reflection. Why should this be outweighed by a single anecdote?

I think that we all recognise that no test can absolutely demonstrate a person’s motives and commitments. But if it is true that the present test allows people to take out citizenship because it is easy – just for an Australian passport – one would not expect large numbers of people not to take up the opportunity. In fact, that is precisely what happens. Almost a million permanent Australian residents choose not to become citizens, despite the fact that they are eligible to do so, and that they could readily pass the current test. Over half of them have English as their native language. Despite being bombarded by massive government multi-media advertising campaigns seeking to entice them to become citizens, they do not choose to do so. That is entirely their right. Their contribution to Australia is indisputable, and their reasons for not becoming citizens are no doubt complex. But they do disprove the assertion that people become citizens just for a passport.

If it is true that citizenship is scattered around like confetti, acceptance of those who apply should be a mere formality. It is not. Applicants have to be independently assessed to determine whether they are of good character, have basic English, and understand the responsibilities of citizenship. On average, over three and a half thousand applicants a year are refused citizenship because they do not meet the requirements.

These, however, are just fragments of evidence. A demonstration of what has been in the hearts and minds of the three and a half million people who have become citizens since 1949 can be found in our history. Many of them could not have passed the “formal citizenship test” that is being proposed. But it is unquestionable that they committed to Australia. They have enriched every facet of our nation’s life. They have worked hard and obeyed the law. They have defended Australia. They have been good parents and fine neighbours. Our present citizenship system has overwhelmingly given Australia good citizens. How can we say, against the weight of our history, that they took citizenship out just because it was easy?

Reason #3: A real incentive to learn English

It is said that imposing a tougher English-language test is necessary because it will provide a “real incentive” for migrants to learn English.

Before going further, one thing needs to be made crystal clear. There is already a requirement that applicants for citizenship must have a basic knowledge of English. This is enshrined in the Citizenship Act, and is tested at a compulsory interview. The so-called “formal citizenship test” does not establish a test where none existed before. What it does is significantly increase the barriers to becoming a citizen.

I absolutely believe that it is of the utmost importance that people are encouraged and supported to learn English: it benefits them, their families, and the community. English as the national language and the promotion of its acquisition have always been central tenets of Australian multiculturalism. The community consensus, shared by both migrants and native-born, is that English is important for citizenship. And the greater the proficiency in English, the greater one’s ability to take advantage of the opportunities that Australia has to offer.

The concern I have about this aspect of the proposal is that it assumes – without evidence – that many migrants are unmotivated or resistant to learning English and that the threat of denial of citizenship is an appropriate and effective spur to get them to study harder.

This profoundly misunderstands the migrant experience. Migrants do recognise the centrality of English in Australian society. Migrants of a non-English speaking background do grasp that limited English proficiency blocks many paths in our society.

Before using the stick of the denial of citizenship to penalise people, it is incumbent upon us to establish the nature and extent of limits on English-language fluency. Do certain immigrants not want to learn, or are they stymied by the lack of availability of classes? Are they fully occupied in meeting other demands, such as employment and family responsibilities? Are there simply limits on how much English some people can learn?

Beyond this, however, the assumption that the new test will provide a real incentive to learn English founders on the facts of illiteracy in Australia. Under the new, proposed, “formal” citizenship requirements, applicants will “first need to have successfully completed a test, designed to demonstrate their knowledge of the English language”. This will be assessed via a 30-question, multiple-choice, computer-based test. To answer the questions, applicants will need to study a detailed handbook.

This test represents a fundamental shift away from our current focus on basic English speaking ability to a test of literacy: the ability to read, comprehend and respond to written English.

The clear fact is that thousands of people would fail such a test, even when English is their native language. Scientific studies conducted by the Australian Bureau of Statistics show that two and a half million Australians have very poor literacy skills. They have great difficulties in using many of the printed materials that are encountered in everyday life. One and a half million people who have English as their native language fall into this low skill category. These people for instance cannot “locate information on a medicine label giving the maximum number of days the medicine should be taken”. They cannot “enter the number of theatre tickets required on an order form”. Recently it has been indicated that alternative testing arrangements will be made for people with low literacy skills and that this would involve only a few people. The ABS data show that this is optimistic in the extreme.

The native-born do not have to pass any tests to be citizens. That is as it should be. But for a test of citizenship to be a real incentive for migrants to learn English, it cannot demand a level of proficiency that is beyond the reach of a significant number of Australians who have English as their mother tongue. Rather than an incentive to learn English, the new test will be a punishment for those with low literacy who happen to be born overseas. It will fail to achieve its ostensible objectives and it is totally inconsistent with Australia’s commitment to equal treatment and a fair go.

Reason #4: We should follow other countries

Proponents of the test argue that we should follow the UK, Canada, the US and the Netherlands – countries that are “well ahead” in introducing a “formal” citizenship test.

But no evidence has been provided that the tests in these countries have been effective. The British test, which is the preferred model, was introduced just over one year ago. It is certainly too soon to assess its long-term impact.

Moreover, why do we feel that we have to follow other countries? Australia has an unsurpassed record of multicultural harmony and integration. Why should we abandon our history and experience and seek to mimic countries with less distinguished achievements? There is no reason to be culturally submissive to other nations. We long ago got over our cultural cringe. We should not revert to it in an area where our achievements make Australia worthy of emulation by others.

Reason #5: There is overwhelming public support for the proposed test

Proponents of the new test claim that opinion polls and responses to a government discussion paper show overwhelming support for the test.

The evidence does not bear this out.

Two opinion polls are cited to demonstrate public support for the new test.

The first is a Newspoll survey which asked, ‘Are you in favour or against knowledge of English being a requirement for becoming an Australian citizen?’ A great majority were in favour. Knowledge of English, however, is currently a requirement for becoming a citizen. Why this should not be seen as an endorsement of the current arrangements is beyond me. The second is a Daily Telegraph telephone poll. There was strong support for the proposition that migrants should have a good understanding of English before becoming citizens. However only 395 people phoned in.

There was a third poll of 3,196 respondents that was somehow overlooked. That was an internet poll conducted by The Age asking whether people supported the introduction of a citizenship test – 65% did not.

Regarding the responses to the Discussion Paper, these have been described as demonstrating strong, overwhelming community support for a “formal” citizenship test of English and an understanding of national “values, institutions and traditions”. This is not borne out by an examination of the responses.

There were over 1,600 responses to the Discussion Paper. Only 116 were made publicly available. Of these, 75% opposed the new test. Those in opposition included all the state and territory governments that made a submission, 13 of 15 local governments, and the majority of church groups, ethnic organisations, legal bodies and civil liberties associations. The key reasons advanced for this opposition included: a lack of evidence to justify the change, that current processes worked well, that new migrants already have a strong desire to learn English and integrate, that they would suffer from a more punitive approach, and that further marginalisation and discrimination would occur.

None of the almost 1500 individual submissions were published on the grounds of “protecting people’s privacy” but a statistical summary was provided by DIMA. The results are as follows.

The only question on which a majority agreed was whether Australia should introduce a formal citizenship test. As there is already a test in place, the conclusions one draws from this are quite unclear.

When we turn to the other elements of the test there was absolutely no agreement at all. Of the remaining 15 questions, five were grouped under the heading “the content of the test”. They covered issues including the need for a formal test of the level of English competence, and extending the current requirements to a broad knowledge of Australia including history and symbols. The summary reported that none of the responses to these questions could be analysed in a statistically significant way.

An examination of the responses to the other ten questions, covering such issues as the importance of knowledge of Australia and the level of English required, shows a staggering average non-response rate of 77%.

With respect to the outcomes of the face-to-face consultations attended by 129 invitees, DIMA noted that there was both support and opposition to the test. It did not feel that this should be reported “simply in raw numbers for or against the test”, and did not provide any numbers at all.

One could think of a number of ways to describe the results of the responses to the Discussion Paper. Overwhelming community support is certainly not one of them.

Reason #6: It will reassure the Australian people

The final rationale advanced for the new test is that Australians feel insecure and that their identity is threatened. A tougher citizenship test that requires affirmation of a shared Australian identity and values will apparently reassure them. As with the other rationales examined above, this one is similarly unsubstantiated.

Australians are undoubtedly disturbed by the threat of terrorism and by the pace of global change. It is, however, a gargantuan leap from these concerns to the assertion that there is a widespread belief in the community that our identity is under threat and that the proposed new test would be a reasonable and effective way to allay community concerns.

Can we reassure Australians by imposing a uniform identity on people who want to become citizens? Many of us have a notion of what an Australian identity is. The problem is that our concepts are not necessarily the same. The specifics of any elaborated Australian identity have been endlessly contested.

A number of my colleagues have chanced their arms on what it means to be an Australian. One has signalled that knowledge of cricket might be an important element. A second has indicated that strong, physical infrastructure is a fundamental value. A third has put forward Simpson (and his donkey) as “everything that is at the heart of what it means to be Australian”.

I have to say that Simpson was one of my childhood heroes. He was lauded in the Readers imposed on primary school pupils by the Victorian State Education system. He was, however, an Englishman who arrived in Australia as an illegal boatperson, having jumped ship in 1910. He was a republican at the apogee of the British Empire. He was a staunch trade unionist and an advocate for an English workers’ revolution.

Such are the pitfalls of defining what it means to be an Australian. We cannot wish these complexities away. We need to recognise that definitions of national identity and national values are not fixed but are constantly in flux. Indeed, they can sometimes change at breakneck speed.

Let me exemplify. The questions for the proposed new citizenship test would be drawn from “Let’s Participate: A Course in Australian Citizenship”. “Let’s Participate” enshrines multiculturalism, encouraging the use of community languages, expressing diverse cultural beliefs, and rejecting discrimination on the basis of culture. It emphasises that the acceptance of diversity is a vital part of what being an Australian means. I personally endorse all of this wholeheartedly and have always done so.

The problem is that just a few weeks ago multiculturalism was banished from the national political lexicon because it means different things to different people. Okay, some people don’t like the term multiculturalism. But what about the basic theme of diversity? The Preamble to the Australian Citizenship Act 1948 has this as one of its tenets: “Australian citizenship is a common bond, involving reciprocal rights and obligations, uniting all Australians while respecting their diversity”. Unfortunately, the new values to which applicants for citizenship will have to subscribe pointedly omit any reference to the value of diversity that was, just a few short months ago, a pillar of our citizenship.

I do not believe we can reassure people about Australia’s identity by turning our back on our historic achievements. One of these is an inclusive citizenship policy. Another is a belief that we need to respect our cultural diversity and recognise that it has enriched and strengthened our nation. The fact is that, whatever politicians say, Australians overwhelmingly support multiculturalism – even if they might interpret it differently. In any event, more Australians put tolerance of different religions and cultures at the top of their list of the most important Australian values, well ahead of mateship.

Toughening the laws on citizenship and excluding migrants who want to commit to Australia but who cannot jump the higher hurdle of a literacy test may reassure some people, projecting images of unity and conformity. I do not believe we should make it harder for people to become citizens in order to project an illusory reassurance. Moreover, to do so would flagrantly contradict the spirit of fair play, one of the values the new test is supposed to engender in new citizens.

The anxieties caused by the pace of change, the impact of globalization, and the threat of terrorism are real and substantial. The way to reassure people is not to inflate their anxiety with flawed evidence and defective public policy. The way to reassure people is to reflect accurately what we have achieved through our inclusive citizenship policies and our embrace of cultural diversity. Our nation has a greater proportion of overseas born than any of the countries that the proponents of the new test want us to emulate. And, we have made an enormous success out of this. We have created an admirable, decent and harmonious country. Our success is demonstrable. Our success has been based on the embrace of new citizens, not their exclusion. On respect for cultural diversity, not its dismissal.

Conclusion

Let there be no misapprehension about the impact of the proposed new test: it will stop many immigrants who are committed to Australia as their home from becoming citizens and thereby full members of our community.

The plain fact is that hundreds of thousands of native-born and immigrant Australians would not be able to pass the test.

Low literacy skills should not make a new migrant unworthy of citizenship, just as it does not and should not debar the native-born from the right to fully participate in the life of the nation.

Applying a harsh new test for citizenship would diminish Australia’s real strength and cohesion.

A letter published in The Age reflects the experience and the sentiment of hundreds of thousands of migrants to this country. The author wrote:

Older migrants were not subjected to an English-language test and, in many instances, they never did master the language of their new country. Finding work, establishing a home and family and ensuring a secure future for their children took all their energy and resolve. They did not underestimate the importance of developing knowledge of English and there was a sense of regret and sometimes despair that they needed to rely on others to ease their way in an English-speaking environment….they were, however, model Australian citizens and their loyalty to this country was rock solid [Nina Mills, Blairgowrie].

Since Australian citizenship was created, many hundreds of thousands have been accepted as citizens, despite having only basic English proficiency. They have made enormous and universally acknowledged contributions to their new nation. How can it be in the interest of cohesion and integration to impose new barriers to citizenship, barriers that would have prevented its acquisition by so many Australians who have proven to be model citizens?

Would being refused access to citizenship have increased their commitment and identification with Australia? Would it have accelerated their integration in our society? Would it have built their confidence in interaction with others? Would governments have responded to their needs despite the fact that they were denied the vote? Would they have won the respect of other Australians if they had been permanently relegated to the position of guest workers? The only rational answer is no.

Ladies and gentlemen, I believe that we need to constantly seek to improve the English-language skills of our immigrants and to maximise their opportunities in our society. But in order to do this we need a robust analysis of the nature and extent of English-language difficulties and how these can be overcome. Similarly, where there are barriers to migrants being able to participate effectively in Australian society we need to define them and establish how they can best be dismantled.

The usual processes of departmental advice have not served us well in this regard, perhaps understandably given the Department of Immigration’s preoccupations in other areas. There is, however, a model that has proven its worth in the past. That is the Galbally Review of Post-arrival Programs and Services for Migrants established by Malcolm Fraser, which reported three decades ago. This review had a seminal impact on our society and its ability to respond effectively to Australia’s cultural and ethnic diversity.

I believe that there would be strong support for the Government to establish a small group of knowledgeable and experienced people who command the confidence of the general community to investigate the impediments to English-language acquisition and to effective integration and make recommendations on the measures and resources necessary to address them. I would commend this course of action.

Ladies and gentlemen, the fact that Australia’s citizenship laws have been made progressively more inclusive has provided a basis of trust, confidence and achievement. The fact that we accepted people with modest English as citizens has broken down barriers, not maintained them. The establishment of a new test that would exclude people who are committed to Australia and could pass the present test will create barriers, restrict opportunities, and impede participation. It would not be apparent immediately but it would happen, and it would diminish Australia.


Ken Henry Speech To Treasury Staff

This is the text of a speech by Ken Henry, Secretary to the Treasury, to Treasury staff.

The speech is titled, “Treasury’s Effectiveness in the Current Environment”.

The speech was reported in the media in the context of the forthcoming 2007 federal election and suggestions that Henry criticised government policy. [Read more…]


Downer And Costello Maintain Personal Attacks On Rudd

In separate interviews today, the two most senior ministers in the Howard Government have maintained the personal attacks on Kevin Rudd which began a week ago.

In an extraordinary outburst on the ABC’s Insiders, the Foreign Minister, Alexander Downer, described Kelvin Thomson as a “pretty grubby sort of character”. Thomson resigned from the shadow ministry two days ago, following revelations that he had once written a reference for the fugitive Melbourne crime figure, Tony Mokbel.

Downer attacked Rudd for throwing political mud, saying: “… Mr Rudd accused us I mean, in effect, accused us of corruption, he accused us of perjuring ourselves before a Royal Commission. I mean, here is somebody who has dished it out and dished out an awful lot of dirt over a long period of time, and when he gets attacked himself he says, ‘Oh, well, that’s an abuse of the Prime Minister’s Office.’ It’s again a character issue.”

Downer also bought into a developing story about a dispute concerning the Rudd family’s eviction from their rented farm following the death of Rudd’s father in 1969. Downer said: “I – remember – don’t have any idea what the truth of this is, I just make the point that it’s very interesting that he seems to be getting into conflict with people about what the truth of different stories is. Well, there you are. This is somebody who’s said terrible things about us over the last few years, has been happy to say so, has thought he was all terribly clever going out and abusing and denigrating the Government and now wants to change his personality somehow into something completely different. I don’t think, as time goes on, that’s going to be terribly convincing.”

In an interview on Channel 9’s Sunday, the Treasurer, Peter Costello, also attacked Rudd over his meetings with the Western Australian lobbyist and former Premier, Brian Burke. Costello said: “Now, I think, as Alexander Downer said this morning, nobody’s hurled more mud in the Parliament than Kevin Rudd. The public may not have been switched on to it, but you go back and you see what he said about Downer and Howard? He’s regularly called them liars, a pretty strong allegation to make. Now, it’s unbelievable to me that a bloke who’s hurled so much abuse, the moment he had the first whiff of scrutiny, wants to say ‘oh, it’s all terribly unfair’. Now, Mr Rudd’s got to make up his mind if he’s going to run around the place hurling character assessments at Howard and Downer and the rest of us. He can’t actually turn around and say ‘nobody can give a character assessment’, of him, he’s going for the top job after all.”

Costello also engaged in innuendo about Kelvin Thomson: “Well, it’s an interesting reference, isn’t it, Laurie, because Kelvin Thomson said his last eight years of unblemished record, in the interview, clearly Kelvin or his office knew there were blemishes. They didn’t say he had an unblemished character, they said his ‘recent’ unblemished record. They knew there was something up there Laurie, the interesting thing to know would be who brought Tony Mokbel to Kelvin Thomson, and why was Tony Mokbel brought to Kelvin Thomson.”

  • Listen to Foreign Minister Alexander Downer sledge Thomson and Rudd.

    Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

  • Listen to Treasurer Peter Costello sledge Rudd and Thomson.

    Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

This is the partial transcript of Alexander Downer’s interview with Barry Cassidy on Insiders.

Alexander Downer, Minister for Foreign AffairsCassidy:

Does it come as some relief to you that your chief tormenter, Kelvin Thompson, is no longer a shadow minister?

Downer:

I don’t know about my chief tormenter, but I’ve always thought Kelvin Thompson was a pretty grubby sort of character, if I could say so and be, for a foreign minister, rather undiplomatic about him, and look what he’s been up to. I think it gets to the whole sort of question …

Cassidy:

Why do you describe him as grubby? What has he done to warrant that?

Downer:

I think he’s one of those people who was quite happy to make all sorts of pretty base allegations against people in the government.

But can I just say, I mean, here we have it again, a whole question of judgment about the Australian Labor Party. From Kevin Rudd to Kelvin Thompson, there are questions here about their judgment, about their wisdom, about whether these are really people who would be fit to be a government and to all the things, not just play politics but do all the very serious things that governments have to do. I think this debate is a very important debate in terms of that context. The public may be not interested in all the minute details of these issues, of the Burke affair and Mr Rudd, or this particular question of Kelvin Thompson, but they are interested in the leaders of their country being people of sound judgment, because that’s important to the stability of our country.

Cassidy:

Well, then wouldn’t they make the same allegation against you – sound judgment when it comes to going to war with Iraq, sound judgment about $300 million bribes going to Saddam Hussein?

Downer:

Yeah, of course, and that’s my point. Last week when Mr Rudd was attacked, you know he has a glass jaw, Mr Rudd. Last week when he was attacked he said it was an abuse of the Prime Minister’s office to attack the Leader of the Opposition. Excuse me if – you’ve mentioned those two things, excuse me if I draw your attention to the fact that Mr Rudd continually says we went to war in Iraq on a lie, i.e. that we claimed there were weapons of mass destruction when we knew all the time there weren’t. He knows that’s not true. He himself said Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. He said it was beyond any doubt. He knows only too well every country, every intelligence agency and the United Nations all thought Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.

Cassidy:

He believed that but he didn’t use that belief as a reason for going to war. He opposed the war.

Downer:

That’s his well, he – he didn’t exactly. He had, as Mr Rudd always does, he had two positions on that. He said he’d support the war if all the members of the Security Council supported the war and that’s, of course, if France and Russia were prepared to support it as well as the other permanent members and when they didn’t he wouldn’t go along with it. That’s a different thing from saying he opposed the war, opposed it completely and outright.

Secondly, on the AWB issue, obviously we’ve had a Royal Commission into this and this Royal Commission has shown absolutely what we have always claimed we have always claimed that we didn’t know about this and we certainly didn’t want to see any bribes paid to Saddam Hussein’s regime. It’s an absurd proposition that we would want to when we wanted to get rid of them.

But Mr Rudd accused us I mean, in effect, accused us of corruption, he accused us of perjuring ourselves before a Royal Commission. I mean, here is somebody who has dished it out and dished out an awful lot of dirt over a long period of time, and when he gets attacked himself he says, “Oh, well, that’s an abuse of the Prime Minister’s Office.” It’s again a character issue.

Cassidy:

That’s almost arguing there’s some sort of moral equivalence between Kevin Rudd meeting with – having dinner with Brian Burke and something like AWB that dragged on for years and there were documentation flying around that should’ve been seen and acted upon. It’s hardly a comparison between the two events.

Downer:

Excuse me if I point out to you that in the first place the Government never endorsed or supported this particular activity by AWB. There’s been a Royal Commission, which if anybody bothered to read the report of the Royal Commission, demonstrates that in black and white.

I think the issue is this the issue is that for the last few years Mr Rudd has made the most appalling allegations against people in the Government. He’s said simply appalling things about people. I mean outrageous suggestions of corruption and so on. And then look what we have going on within the Labor Party. We have his very odd meetings with Mr Burke. I mean, and where does that leave him now? His story about what happened at this dinner, his fanciful claim that he just turned up because he went there with a mate, Graham Edwards, when in fact invitations were put out pointing out that he was the guest speaker. I mean, what are we supposed to believe? He’s hostage, of course, now to Mr Burke because if Mr Burke were ever to speak and to contradict the story of Mr Rudd of course that would be the end of the Rudd leadership. So the fact is that whether Mr Burke were telling the truth or whether he wasn’t he would certainly he certainly holds Mr Rudd hostage, if you like, because of Mr Rudd’s behaviour during the end of 2005.

Cassidy:

You’re clearly not going to back off the character issue?

Downer:

Well, I think character is character. I mean, here is somebody who has made egregious allegations, I think, against people, including on AWB which were proven to be completely false by a Royal Commission. Who would you believe? A Royal Commission or an opposition politician?

These allegations were proved to be completely false that Mr Rudd had been making throughout 2006. He continually goes back and claims we went to war with Iraq on a lie when he himself believed that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and said so very passionately.

I mean, Mr Rudd is one of those people who will say absolutely anything to advance his own personal interests. He believes in nothing, he stands for nothing except for Kevin Rudd.

Look, we’re only in March, I think as this year wears on people will become a bit more familiar with this.

Cassidy:

And I think, as you suggested when you called Kelvin Thompson a grub, it’s not particularly dignified for a foreign minister, but obviously you think this is personal?

Downer:

Well, I think they’ve been you see, whenever we criticise the Labor Party it’s all, “You shouldn’t speak of us like that,” but you go back over the transcripts and the press releases and things and see the things that have been said about us. Just shocking things are said about us. I mean, they have attacked the Prime Minister in particular, the Treasurer, me, the Health Minister, the Attorney-General and so on and accused us of all sorts of things this which are essentially not true.

I mean, I think actually, funnily enough the Prime Minister is a very good and a very decent man who stands up for Australia. You can disagree with his policies but people like Mr Rudd continually calling Mr Howard a liar. Of course, since he’s been the Leader of the Opposition he’s changed his persona as much as he possibly can, as you would if you weren’t a sincere and genuine person but just acting out a role.

I mean, there’s a story in one of the Sunday newspaper’s today where the Lowe family which Mr Rudd says – or Mr Lowe evicted his, Mr Rudd’s family, contradicting the Rudd story. Now I have, of course, absolutely no idea what the truth of this is, I know nothing about it, I just note that this family is out there saying that they have been grievously hurt by the claims that Mr Rudd has made. Now, Mr Rudd stands by his story, a familiar loan, by the way – Mr Rudd stands by his story.

Cassidy:

By the way, that goes back to when he was 11 years old. Does this suggest that you’ll be trawling back through his past to see whether everything else he said about his previous life were true?

Downer:

Of course, this is the argument that the Liberal Party can’t attack the Labor Party, only the Labor Party can attack the Liberal Party. Excuse me.

Cassidy:

I’m wondering whether it’s legitimate to go and examine it, that’s all.

Downer:

I didn’t examine it. It’s there in a newspaper today. Somebody the family, the Lowe family, has gone out and talked about this. It’s not a question of Mr Rudd when he was 11 years old, it’s a question, according to the Lowe family, of what Mr Rudd has been saying since he became a politician. What he did between the year age of 11 and when he became an MP isn’t the issue. The issue is the conflict between the Lowe family’s story and Mr Rudd’s story.

I – remember – don’t have any idea what the truth of this is, I just make the point that it’s very interesting that he seems to be getting into conflict with people about what the truth of different stories is. Well, there you are. This is somebody who’s said terrible things about us over the last few years, has been happy to say so, has thought he was all terribly clever going out and abusing and denigrating the Government and now wants to change his personality somehow into something completely different. I don’t think, as time goes on, that’s going to be terribly convincing.

Cassidy:

We’d certainly plan to discuss that issue with the panel a little later on. Minister, thank you for your time this morning.

*

This is the partial transcript of Peter Costello’s interview with Laurie Oakes on Sunday.

Peter Costello, TreasurerOakes:

All right, on to the events of the last week or so, because of your parliamentary skills you become the government’s chief hitman, the bloke who goes out and tries to demolish Kevin Rudd on things like the Brian Burke dinner. Now, you do it brilliantly, everyone agrees with that but are you concerned that, because you have to do this job it affects the way voters see you?

Costello:

Well I think it’s important that we keep the scrutiny on Mr Rudd, and I think all of the members of the government will do that because we’ve now moved through a different phase. The phase, at the beginning of this year, was, you know, nice Mr Rudd, you know, wants to be Prime Minister, and he got a good run from the media, you know. The phase we’ve moved into now is, nice Mr Rudd, may in fact be put in control of the Australian nation, and the economy and who’s behind Mr, Nice Mr Rudd and what’s his judgment like? And that’s where you’ve got to have the scrutiny come on him, you know, this is a big job that he’s going for now, he’s not just running around as a Shadow Foreign Affairs spokesman, it’s a big job he’s going for, and if he wants to be Prime Minister the people of Australia have to know what his judgment is like and, I think, the most important thing that comes out of all his dealings with Brian Burke and it wasn’t just one dinner by the way, it was a lot more than that.

Oakes:

The luncheon as well.

Costello:

He has ? there’s a lunch, there’s a breakfast, there’s a dinner, there’s another event being organised when he begins to pull out and what this tells you is that Mr Rudd’s judgment failed him. Now his judgment can fail him when he’s running for Leader of the Opposition, it doesn’t matter much but if he became Prime Minister, and his judgment fails, the country suffers. That’s why you need to know about these things.

Oakes:

Well I’ve had leaked to me some Labor Party research, they did some focus group work in Queensland and South Australia last week in the wake of the Burke affair, and they found looking at you, that your likeability is down quite a lot as the pollsters say, and your negatives are up. Now, are you worried that you could come to be regarded the way Paul Keating is, is that something you …?

Costello:

Well, I think it’s very unfair to compare me to Paul Keating.

Oakes:

Unfair to who?

Costello:

Well, I’m very glad that he came out again last week. It was very interesting wasn’t it, Rudd’s in trouble, so who does the Labor Party trot out, Paul Keating. Now, you know, really, you’ve got to ask yourself this question, Laurie, if he got into trouble as Prime Minister, who would they be trotting out from behind the screen? You know, talk about a blast from the past. Mr Keating was out there trying to help Mr Rudd last week, couldn’t happen if Mr Rudd became Prime Minister, he wouldn’t want it to happen, and I thought it was an early foretaste of what we might see if Mr Rudd ever achieved his life ambition.

Oakes:

But don’t the punters hate this kind of personal stuff, wouldn’t they prefer it if the government was ? got back to running the country instead of hurling mud at Kevin Rudd and others? For example, Alexander Downer this morning has described Kelvin Thomson as a grub. People don’t like that, do they?

Costello:

Well you know, you talk about hurling mud at Mr Rudd, right. Now, I think, as Alexander Downer said this morning, nobody’s hurled more mud in the Parliament than Kevin Rudd. The public may not have been switched on to it, but you go back and you see what he said about Downer and Howard? He’s regularly called them liars, a pretty strong allegation to make. Now, it’s unbelievable to me that a bloke who’s hurled so much abuse, the moment he had the first whiff of scrutiny, wants to say ‘oh, it’s all terribly unfair’. Now, Mr Rudd’s got to make up his mind if he’s going to run around the place hurling character assessments at Howard and Downer and the rest of us. He can’t actually turn around and say ‘nobody can give a character assessment’, of him, he’s going for the top job after all.

Oakes:

Final question, Kelvin Thomson’s resigned from the frontbench, is that enough, and do you accept what he did was just a stupid mistake?

Costello:

Well, you know, again this comes back to Kevin Rudd’s judgment, doesn’t it? Of all the people that he could have made first law officer of the Crown, he chose a bloke who’d given a reference to drug fugitive Tony Mokbel.

Oakes:

He didn’t know that …

Costello:

Well, it’s an interesting reference, isn’t it, Laurie, because Kelvin Thomson said his last eight years of unblemished record, in the interview, clearly Kelvin or his office knew there were blemishes. They didn’t say he had an unblemished character, they said his ‘recent’ unblemished record. They knew there was something up there Laurie, the interesting thing to know would be who brought Tony Mokbel to Kelvin Thomson, and why was Tony Mokbel brought to Kelvin Thomson.

Oakes:

Mr Costello, we thank you.

Costello:

Thank you very much.


Kelvin Thomson Resigns From Shadow Ministry Over Mokbel Reference

The ALP’s Shadow Attorney-General, Kelvin Thomson, has resigned after admitting he wrote a reference in 2000 for the fugitive crime figure, Tony Mokbel.

Kelvin Thomson, ALP Member for WillsAt a press conference today, the Leader of the Opposition, Kevin Rudd, said: “On Tuesday my office received anonymous information that the Member for Wills and Shadow Attorney–General, Mr Kelvin Thomson, had provided a letter of support of some sort to Tony Mokbel. On Wednesday after my office spoke with Mr Thomson, I was briefed that the matter concerned a letter of support for a Victorian liquor licence application in 2000 for Mr Mokbel. Mr Thomson has since stated that a request was made for a letter of support for Mr Mokbel from Mr Thomson, as Mokbel’s local Member of Parliament in 2000 in support of a liquor licence application. Mr Thomson subsequently provided that letter of support.” [Read more…]


Kevin Rudd Commits To Emissions Trading Regime

The Leader of the Opposition, Kevin Rudd, has delivered a keynote speech on foreign policy to The Global Foundation, in Melbourne.

This is the text of Kevin Rudd’s speech to The Global Foundation in Melbourne.

Thank you, David Hawes. My good friend, Steve Howard, Councillor John So, the Lord Mayor of the City of Melbourne – our host, distinguished guests and Roundtable participants.

Socrates once said, ‘I am not Athenian or Greek, but a citizen of the world.’

This is also true for Australia. By virtue of our size, our economic clout and our geography, our destiny is – and has always been – to be a citizen of the world. Like all of us who share this planet, we are stakeholders in a global community. We have rights and responsibilities to each other and to the world we all populate. [Read more…]