Thoughts on Freedom

My parents only bothered to take out citizenship a few years ago. They have lived here so long that they are part of the funiture. However they never applied to be citizens before that because as permanent residents they had all the civil liberties you would expect from a nice place such as Australia without the hassle of having to vote or do jury duty. Plus they were busy. In the end long after the kids had all moved on it was the desire for an aussie passport and the removal of the pledge of allegiance to the Queen which swung the deal and they did the deed.

Some immigrants are much more keen to tie the knot and become aussie citizens. However since July last year there is now a quiz and a longer waiting period of four years. I think that everybody should enjoy basic civil rights as soon as they arrive here, however the political rights associated with citizenship are a separate matter.

Is a four year wait before you can become a citizen too long, not long enough or just right?

I found this reference with some details about waiting periods in other countries. Read more »

In the first edition of Quadrant under the stewardship of new editor Keith Windschuttle, John Stone puts forward the case that John Howard is Australia’s greatest Prime Minister. His arguments are as follows, beginning with Howard’s failings. 

A Bad Prime Minister

i) ‘If you believe that a PM requires an outstanding intellect, then John Howard is not your man.’ Stone begins by bizarrely citing his poor academic grades at school.

ii) Howard was not a principled decision maker. (yes, he’s a politician). Stone cites his abandonment of the privatisation of the Snowy Mountains Hydro-Electric Authority but does concede that ‘his capacity to depart from his principles was one factor that enabled the Coalition to hold office for so long’.

iii) He was a poor judge of character. Namely Senator Fred Chaney.

iv) His decision to ban handguns following the Port Arthur massacre in 1996.

v) His decision to introduce GST in 1997 (though Stone appears to be arguing that this was a poor policy judgement rather than a poor outcome)

vi) His ‘debauching’ of the Commonwealth Public Service.

vii) His federalist attitude to the Constitution and his ‘intrusions by an empire-building Canberra’. In particular Work Choices legislation and its ‘gross exploitation‘ of the corporations power.

viii) His ineffectiveness in countering the ‘flagrant bias of the ABC and the SBS’. (though isn’t KW now on the ABC’s Board?)

Read more »