J-scribe

Do you know when gold was first discovered in Australia? Do you know (or care) who Donald Bradman was? And can you answer this question correctly: “Which one of these is a responsibility of every Australian citizen? 1) Renounce their citizenship of any other country 2) Serve in Australian diplomatic missions overseas 3) Join with Australians and defend Australia and its way of life if the need arises?" These are supposedly questions of Australian values offered as a sample of the new citizenship quiz that came into effect this week. This test is designed to weed out those would-be citizens who fail to appreciate ‘traditional Australian values’ as defined by the most conservative federal government we’ve endured in a century.

This is a test I may well fail if I sat it today – despite being an intelligent, educated, born-and-bred Australian with history qualifications! I can’t remember the date gold was first ‘discovered’ by white men on Australian soil, although I could contribute a more meaningful analysis of the causes and consequences of the ‘Gold Rush’. I’ve been unable to escape the knowledge that Donald Bradman was a celebrated cricketer (thanks to constant reminders from our cricket-obsessed PM) but I couldn’t be less enthusiastic about his contribution to Australian ‘values’. And as for the question of responsibility posed above – it’s misleading, confusing and pointless. Answer one would be a fair guess if you’re familiar with other countries’ immigration laws, two is a prospect, but three seems improbable because – if you were a student of Australian history and politics as I have been – you’d be well aware that conscription isn’t current policy. But, according to the government’s Citizenship Test handbook, three is the correct answer. Dun dunnnn...goes my buzzer.

In her Youtube rant about the test, Australian Democrats leader Lynn Allison asked whether this question hinted at the government’s intention to reintroduce conscription or just reflected Howard’s skill at capitalising politically on fear. On the brink of political annihilation her party may be, but she has a point.

This controversial new test claimed its first victim this week – a publicly humiliated Philippines-born candidate for Australian Citizenship. 25 others beat the test which requires only 60% for a pass mark but demands 100% accuracy in the three so-called ‘Australian values’ questions. The test is supposed to draw randomly on a database of 200 questions pertaining to Australian history, culture, government and values. But the government has admitted the database is currently much limited because many of the questions weren’t ‘ready’ yet. I guess that’s one way to avoid them being scrutinized by critics in parliament and the media!

The ‘retro-form’ evidenced by this citizenship test reflects the cultural cringe regenerated by the Howard Government. For a start, it’s administered by the recently re-named Department of Immigration and Citizenship…DIC for short. But it was only ‘DIC’ for a day because the government, realising the faux pas, decided (unconventionally) to include the ‘and’ so the acronym became DIaC. The department was previously known as the Department of Immigration, Multiculturalism and Indigenous Affairs and the name change reflects the official replacement of the long standing policy of ‘Multiculturalism’ with the contentious idea of ‘Integration’ with its attendant ‘White Australia’ policy overtones.

The bland, retrogressive, stultifyingly dull cultural identity this government is trying to manufacture for Australia was on display for me today at the National Museum in Canberra. I took my seven year old niece to visit this landmark institution, curious about how it may have changed since Howard stacked the board with revisionist historians and took the curators to task for their ignorance of our sporting achievements and a so-called ‘black armband’ view of history (read for: accurately reflecting the impact of white invasion on Indigenous Australia).

The Aboriginal galleries remain the Museum's largest but they are relegated to disunified and less than prominent locations. Australia’s proud history of political activism has been brushed over and the language is sanitized and politically-correct in the Howard sense. In between the fun techno-displays that engage children like my niece, I was assaulted by exhibits including a 1950’s kitchen replete with frocked, iron-wielding housewife; an old FJ Holden – the same model Howard is often pictured driving by cartoonists; a large display celebrating our sporting achievements (a guide told me this was curated at the special request of our sports-loving PM); and a giant display commemorating a royal visit (yawn). The big themes were the ‘Aussie backyard’ (complete with Hills Hoist and BBQ), mateship (in its masculine form) and paternalism.

My niece had loads of fun – it’s undeniably a great tourist attraction – but I came away feeling diminished as an Australian. And that’s the sort of Australia the new Citizenship test is aiming to produce – shallow, mono-cultural, one-dimensional, masculinist, patriotic and bordering on the dangerously nationalistic…diminished and devalued.

There was,however, one exhibition space that reminded me of what Australian identity once aspired to be. It's called 'Eternity' and reflects our emotional heart. It celebrates passion, joy, hope, devotion, chance, thrill, fear, loneliness, separation and mystery. That's the stuff of my Australian identity.

Postscript: This resonant quote from Canberra writer and my UC colleague, Francesca Rendle-Short, is featured in the exhibition "Passion, like love, attracts and is attractive. Full of longing and desire, a passion for someone or something - an intense love or an outburst of anger - can become so strong it's barely controllable... Once aroused in its fervent keenness, passion can be something to relish". Now, that's the stuff of being alive and belongong - forget cricket and fossicking, test my passion!    [read more]