How is forcing the citizenship ceremony issue not political?

In forcing local councils to hold citizenship ceremonies on Australia Day, the government has made it a political issue, writes Jane Fynes-Clinton.

Who is playing politics now?

On the issue of Australia Day citizenship ceremonies, it is not the local councils and not the people. It is the government, that’s who.

The Federal Government has long been building its argument on a manufactured premise.

It was the Federal Government that placed the issue in a political frame, starting a couple of years and a couple of ministers ago, when then-assistant immigration minister Alex Hawke issued a warning to councils that action would be taken if they did not toe the line on holding citizenship ceremonies on Australia Day.

They used the term politicise in the huffy missive sent to all 537 local councils. A couple were stripped of their right to hold ceremonies.

They made this about politics through oversensitivity and a bucketload of presumption. And now they are just layering on more of the same.

MORE FROM JANE FYNES-CLINTON: Being white shouldn’t cancel out my opinions

Stated in the Australian Citizenship Ceremonies Code is that formalities are non-commercial, apolitical, bipartisan and secular and as such, must not be used as a forum for religious expression, political grandstanding or commercial promotion.

Perhaps the government should give its own code a closer read.

Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison says he will strip councils of the ability to hold citizenship ceremonies if they refuse to hold them on Australia Day. Picture: AAP

It has been selective in its view of what constitutes politicisation, deeming not holding a ceremony on January 26 to be a political statement, but holding it then — a date everyone admits is somewhat contentious — as apolitical.

Forcing councils to hold the ceremonies on January 26 and, soon, on September 17 (apparently this is officially Australian Citizenship Day, but who had ever heard of it before the current stoush?) ignores a model that has worked for eons in many areas.

There is not a council that does not acknowledge and honour indigenous Australians in some way in their ceremonies and some have been open that the date is not palatable to their communities.

But that is not the reason some shirk January 26 as the yearly day to take pledges.

Many councils have not held the ceremonies on Australia Day so that their staff, energies and resources can be put into activities on the big day that include all, not just focus on new citizens.

And the other sticking point for why many councils held ceremonies on Australia Day eve or near our nation’s day was for that most parochial of reasons: the blistering heat.

Who wants to stand under a marquee in sweltering midsummer conditions when the same process could be savoured in the cool evening air? Why must there be a Federal Government-ordered side serve of sweat with the citizenship ceremonies?

If the feds had asked the councils, they would have learnt that decisions had little to do with offending indigenous Australians.

MORE FROM JANE FYNES-CLINTON: We need to let the law do its work

But the government holds all the legal cards on the ceremonies and they will have their way.

For those who want to be citizens of the best nation on earth, there is no way around it: attendance at a citizenship ceremony and making the pledge out loud is compulsory.

The public declaration is deemed imperative, much the same as you can’t get married by post or without witnesses.

The ceremonies fulfil a legal requirement under the Citizenship Act of 2007 and must be conducted under the authority of the minister for citizenship.

They are a big, formal deal and most often, local council mayors are roped in to act on behalf of the Federal Government and the minister.

Also a big deal is the pledge, which states that the new citizen will uphold and obey all laws, that they declare their loyalty to the country, its democracy and its people.

Wannabe Australians also can’t choose which ceremony or when they attend. If they don’t take up the government’s invitation to a citizenship ceremony, the citizenship approval may be cancelled, so it is less of an invitation and more of an order.

Also ordered is the dress code, with the current official guideline indicating it is a formal occasion and attendees’ attire should reflect that.

That is about to ramp up, with the newish minister kyboshing some attire that pledglings might think appropriate for the final step of belonging in this summery land: singlets, pluggers, boardies. So much for embracing diversity.

The government might be out of touch and ill informed. But on the citizenship ceremony issue, they have the councils and the people over a barrel.

Dr Jane Fynes-Clinton is a journalism lecturer at the University of the Sunshine Coast.

Twitter: @janefynes