The Southern Cross Group [SCG] is an advocacy group for the Australian Diaspora. The Citizen Bill affects diasporans very closely, exposed as they are to the coal-face of nation-state visas, residency and citizenship demands. The Southern Cross Group recently sent out an email with information on the Citizen Bill and urging diasporans to make submissions to the Senate Inquiry.

The Southern Cross Group [SCG] is volunteer non-profit organisation for the purpose of advocacy and support of the Australian Diaspora. Since the Australian Diaspora is over 1 million people at any one time and increasing in number and wealth, it would be expected that the diaspora advocacy groups would be growing in political influence. This doesn't seem to be the case. Made more surprising by the turgid nature of the diaspora which constantly has Australians leaving and returning.

I am on the Southern Cross Group's unobtrusive and low volume mailing list. Recently there was an email sent out with information on the citizen bill, and the reminder that public submissions for the Senate Inquiry ended on January 16th, 2006.

The Southern Cross Group writes on the bill;

Along with the Australian Citizenship (Transitionals and Consequentials) Bill 2005, the Citizenship Bill will replace the Australian Citizenship Act 1948. It contains many of the citizenship reforms lobbied for by the SCG over several years on behalf of the Australian diaspora.

Key and very positive changes for those in the Australian community overseas include a simplified route to the resumption of citizenship lost on the acquisition of another citizenship before 4 April 2002 under the old Section 17. In addition, those who formally renounced under Section 18 of the Australian Citizenship Act 1948 in order to keep another citizenship in adulthood will be able to apply to resume their citizenship for the first time. The fundamental requirement for resumption will be that the person is of good character.

Further, certain people born overseas to Australian citizen parents who do not presently qualify to be Australian citizens by descent will be given access to Australian citizenship.

The first paragraph is interesting. It appears the SCG has had an influence on the bill. Despite their optimism, the Southern Cross Group identifies one area which they see remain an issue to diasporans;

Of greatest concern is the fact that children born overseas to Australian-born individuals after their formal renunciation of Australian citizenship under the current Section 18 are not being provided with access to Australian citizenship. In particular, this affects approximately 3000 children (average age of 10½) of some 2000 Australian-born people in Malta. If these children had had an Australian-citizen parent at the time of their birth, they would have been Australian citizens by descent.

More information on the Southern Cross Group's reaction and description of the Citizen bill is on their website .

Peter Costello makes a bid to claim the diaspora is still Australian ;

This song is something of an anthem for those Australians now recognized in Hollywood or on Broadway or Wall Street and other centres of the arts or business around the world. There are many Australians who live overseas because their talent or ability or drive has taken them on to the world stage. ... This does not mean they have turned their back on their country. For many of them the love of country grows stronger through this process. Apart from anything else, living overseas gives them a comparison to measure all the benefits that Australia brings.

OK Peter, you obviously think us diasporans are the ducks guts, so do us a favour; don't kick us off the electoral rolls because we are living outside of Australia, and don't make it hard for us to get back on them when we do get kicked off.

To keep us engaged with Australia also make it super-easy for our foreign spouses/partners/dependents to get work visas and permanent residency in Australia. Since so many of us diasporans are overseas, supposedly up to one million, give us direct representation in the Senate. At least the equal of the territories - who we outnumber.

It has been too much of a one way process for too long with the government. It maintains a nationalist siege mentality, where citizenship is myopically defined. The world has moved toward volatile capital, goods and labor flows. Where labor mobility was once limited to immigration, it is now far more transient. Citizenship laws, immigration laws, and numerous other aspects of national government are way behind, and are maintaining artificial barriers for people to move where their labor is most valued.

The federal government needs to smarten up if it wants to keep diasporans engaged.

Piers Ackerman called the Australian Diaspora "whinging whining double dippers", presumably deserving of scorn due to having dual-citizenship. Now Adele Horin is writing of the diaspora as an 'other' as well.

Get over it. Australia is a globalised economy, society and culture. Fortress Australia's geopolitical isolation doesn't hang anymore, and whether journalists like it or not, governments are often the most visibile international presence for a nation. So their bonehead decisions and political actions (especially for re-election) permeate into the international consciousness of what a country is.

And stop depicting the Diaspora as an 'other' - something of distrust that isn't really Australian as the diaspora can't understand. Like having Australian clay on your feet is the only way you can be 'Australian'.

Identity goes far beyond geographic restrictions such as the Australian coastline. Best to start recognizing that. The other aspect is that the Diaspora is huge: about one million in total, and if the Lowey Institute's report is to be believed has transformed from backpackers to white collar works and now to gold collar workers.

As a group the Australian Diaspora is wealthy, educated, numerous and well-travelled. It is time Australia started treating the diaspora with political and cultural respect - hell - maybe even as equals.

cam

Italy established electorates in their Senate for the Italian Diaspora in 2001. They divided the world outside of Italy into the districts of Europe, South America, Central/North America and the rest of the world which includes Australia. Consequently Italian citizens not currently residing in Italy have representation.

There is a discussion paper on this by Elisa Arcioni titled: Representation for the Italian diaspora [pdf]. Italy has fairly stringent citizenship requirements, demanding that a permanent resident be in Italy for ten years. Arcioni compares this to New Zealand where permanent residents can vote. Australia is somewhere in the middle with its citizenship requirements though recent bills and political discussion have been on making the requirements tighter and more stringent to Australian citizenship.

The legislative and constitutional reforms to pass diaspora electorates in the Senate were largely opposed by several Italian parties though their stance softened enough that there was near unanimous agreement on the issue. The political effect was almost immediate as the diaspora electorates ended up deciding the balance of power in the Senate. Arcioni writes:

It is uncertain whether this Italian experiment will survive a second testing. The practical result of external citizens effectively handing the coalition a majority in the Italian Senate has heightened queries as to the legitimacy of that vote. Essentially, that

is due to the unease regarding who is or should be a part of the relevant political

community with the power to control government.

There is a good reason to add representation for the diaspora in the Australian Senate, as they are a significant minority in Australia who have little political representation. Many Australian laws, such as the Electoral Act, Migration Act, and other dealings with the bureaucracy such as getting work visas for spouses etc would be better handled if the Australian diaspora had direct representation.

Though this could be handled just as effectively by having a minister for the Australian Diaspora, something no major party has bothered to even cogitate on.

Then again if all nation's adopted electoral laws such as New Zealand's, or if electoral roll eligibility was decided by permanent residency or work visas then political representation would not be an issue for many diasporans who are in a kind of enfranchised statelessness. Paying taxes and under duty to follow laws which they have no say in, and without representation.

cam

The modern Australian Diaspora is exceptionally different to the ghost of the diaspora past. It is one grounded in globalisation, economic rationalism/liberalism and the economic flows between nations. It isn't backpacker based or cultural flight; in fact you would be hard pressed to find any modern Australian Diasporan who considers Australia a cultural backwater. However, the modern diaspora is internationally focused in economics and politics, in these areas the cringe of geopolitical isolation still exists.

As Gary Sauer-Thompson pointed out :

My quick response to [Patrick] West is that Australia's diaspora is composed of professionals working in a global marketplace in jobs that are unavailable in their homeland, rather than elite intellectuals such as the old English standbys of Clive James and Germaine Greer.

That style of cultural cringe is gone; long gone. There is still a cringe though but it is political and economic. In the political sphere Australian politicians still enjoy the appearance of geopolitical isolation and attempt to deny both our geography as well as the increasing claustrophobia of globalisation and telecommunications. Too often politics and economics is grounded in the big state-nationalist policies of the nation-state rather than the modern market-state.

The modern Australian Diaspora, on the other hand, is part of the market-state view of the globe. Most modern diasporans are part of the international labor workforce which flows readily from location to location. Adam is a good example of this effect; in the time that SSR has been up and running he has worked in the UK, China, Australia and Singapore.

The biggest inhibitor for diasporans is big-state nationalism which restricts global labor markets and makes it difficult for diasporans to move from economy to economy in order to gain the greatest remuneration for their skills - not to mention adventure along the way.

The tyranny of distance is largely gone, and is only felt when the body is lugged across oceans; for instance I dread the cross-pacific flight - fourteen hours in the air is hard on the body. However I can stay in quick contact with my family and friends through telecommunications. I have what are effectively conference calls with a mate, his family and kids via google talk.

The modern diaspora, globalisation and telecommunications combine to make the old mercartor projection of a map obsolete. Australia has lost its tyranny of distance and the good old standby excuse of geopolitical isolation. The market-state and its engaged political and economic citizens - no matter where they happen to be living and working - warp the map into a political and economic cartogram .

What this does is relocate Australia - politically and economically. Our policies should reflect that cartogramic view of Australia. This means dumping the big-state nationalist policies of the GAPF and protecting QANTAS 's routes as well as making citizenship and enfranchisement more liberal and republican by changing the relationship between individual and government such that any individual with a political relationship to the state - ie under its jurisidiction - has full political and enfranchisement rights. A market-state is dominated by fluid labor and capital, it cannot afford the inefficiencies of the nation-state which is dominated by accidents of birth.

The Southern Cross Group emailed out a reminder to diasporans to make sure they are on the electoral roll early this year due to the changes in the Electoral Act last year which closes the rolls immediately after an election writ is issued.

From the email:

If you are not on the electoral roll, and need to enrol afresh, the rolls will close at 8 pm on the day on which the writ is issued for the election. The writ is usually issued the day the Prime Minister calls the election or the very next day.

If you are currently enrolled, but need to change your details with the Australian Electoral Commission, the rolls will close at 8 pm Australian time on the third working day after the writ is issued.

In the last election, 83,000 first-time voters enrolled in the first week after the election was called. Hundreds of thousands more registered at their new address, including many overseas Australians. But this time they won't get that chance.

Their email has a link to getup.org.au to gather signatures to have this law repealed. I do not think this is a good law, every opportunity should be given to anyone above the age of reason and under the jurisdiction of the government to be on the electoral roll. I think this law is needlessly discriminative and does not have suitable justification.

The diaspora have a tough time of it anyway, getting kicked off the rolls after three years if they skip a re-enrollment. Though this seems to be an archaic law that has never been updated to meet the changing nature of the modern diaspora.

cam

One of the issues nation-states are going to have to face is an increasing number of the active global labor market who are disenfranchised. The nation-state view of citizenship is pretty myopic and Australia just had another round of legislation where more were prohibited from democratic involvement such that the AEC is better at purging the rolls than adding voters. But what to do about diasporans of all nations that full economic actors including taxpayers in the countries they work in but have no democratic expression there or at home?

Firstly, I am one of those who are completely disenfranchised. I cannot vote in Australia or America. I have no democratic expression whatsoever at the ballot box. I am a peculiar and very modern form of statelessness.

I am a citizen of Australia and travel on an Australian passport. I am not an American citizen despite having a greencard for many years. In most cases for permanent residents in Australia and American the only value of citizenship is the ability to vote.

I am not politically active in Australian politics, Vosper's motto rings in my ears, besides no 'side' matches my politics. However I am quite knowledgeable on Australian politics and make sure I stay abreast of what is going on politically in the media and parliament. It is the same with American politics, I know what is going on nationally and locally. If I did vote in either country my vote would be an informed one.

Australia is a leader in globalisation and the freeing up of the movement of labor. The Australian diaspora is approximately one million people. This is about 5% of the nation and 10% of the current Australian workforce. Australia is also an immigrant nation and approximately 26% of the current Australian workforce is foreign born.

The Australian electoral act requires Australians overseas to reaffirm their presence on the electoral roll each year. So forgetting one year, a bureaucratic mistake, or a personal decision not to vote means disenfranchisement.

But is it fair for Australians overseas to vote in Australian elections? Diasporans have no direct representative and vote in their previous electorate. By being diasporans their views and interests are probably much different than if they are in the electorate of Bennelong or Stirling for instance.

Diasporans also have an interest in having a representative to represent their views in parliament as the diaspora is very turgid and people are coming and leaving constantly. So a diaspora would be an advocate in areas of self-interest such as getting a foreign spouse a work visa or citizenship for a child born overseas and other complexities that are required to navigate the byzantine laws of the nation-state.

The obvious location for such a representative is in the Senate. I have argued for this in the past. The Imagining Australia folks have also argued for direct representation for the diaspora in the Senate as well.

Another solution, and a more obvious one, is to allow the diasporan to vote locally where they pay taxes, own property and have a dog in there being good governance. In my case that would mean enfranchising me in the US. For those working in Australia that are not Australian citizens it would mean placing them on the Australian electoral roll and allowing them to vote in the local electorates.

A pure republican approach would be for an individual above the age of reason regardless of nationality or citizenship to be able to vote. But that is probably too much for most people, let alone nativists and nationalists. A compromise approach can be that any individual on a work visa or with permanent residency can vote. This enfranchisement can be extended to their spouse and children above the age of reason too.

This would make politics local and solve the problem of disenfranchisement that a nation-state's restrictive citizenship laws create.

Update - Oz writes on direct representation for the Australian Diaspora: "It's more feasible that Senate representation could be created for this specific purpose, having two Senators to represent external citizens." However Oz notes that there may be constitutional issues involved with this policy.

I received a media release from the Southern Cross Group in my inbox this evening. The media release is titled: Overseas Australians Should Enrol to Vote Now [pdf]. It is a reminder for diasporans that the Electoral Act has changed and the diasporans need to enrol each year to remain on the electoral roll. The AEC can strike a diasporan off if they miss voting in an election.

From the media release:

Jacqui Mowbray, spokeswoman for the SCG in Sydney, said that 2006 changes to the closing date for the electoral roll, coupled with limitations in the law on enrolling from abroad, meant that many Australian expats who had left Australia in recent years faced a very real prospect that inaction on their part would lead to them becoming disenfranchised for their entire sojourn abroad.

"Australians overseas must organise their electoral enrolment now, and not wait until the Prime Minister calls the election", she said. "The old seven day window between the calling of the election and the closing of the electoral roll is gone. Once the election is announced, the roll will close almost immediately."

The release contains some interesting statistics too. The SCG estimates that nearly five hundred thousand, or half, of the Australian diaspora are disenfranchised because the electoral act prevents them from re-enrolling. In addition there are low levels of voting by diasporans:

In the 2004 election, only 68,544 votes were issued by overseas posts. In 2001, the figure was 63,016, and in 1998, 65,086. In 1999, only 57,955 votes were issued overseas for the referendum on the Republic.

It is not compulsory for diasporans to vote. I can understand a level of apathy from diasporans as the House of Representatives doesn't have the national focus that diasporans would have. Local issues in the electorate would hardly be something a diasporan would gun for. However I can imagine a large level of interest in the Senate. If there was an elected President - a national position - then there may be more interest from the diaspora.

While the Australia diaspora is high in per capita number the American diaspora is high in raw numbers. For the first time ever a US Presidential candidate is in the UK doing a fund raiser. Apparently there are large numbers of US diasporans working in the London finance sector and Rudi Guliani has decided to do a fund raiser there while cloaking himself in the ghost of Ronald Reagan by meeting with Margaret Thatcher.

Money is important in US politics and apparently the Presidential candidates are consuming their hard earned fund raising dollars faster than ever. So Guliani is leaving no market untapped.

The other issue is that much of modern politics is trans-national. One of the issues for the modern nation-state is that many things are too large for it; such as Iraq, Global Warming etc. The luck of the nation-state is that much of the politics for those trans-national issues is easily phrased in co-operative national terms. So diasporans remain engage in the trans-national politics which gives an in for domestic candidates to raise money.

This is not much different from the findings in the Lowey Institute report on the Australian Diaspora.

The most popular locations for the Australian Diaspora are Western Europe, Britain, North America and Northern Asia.

Larger version of graph. The diaspora is largely an economic one following a mix of economic wealth and low barriers of entry to the international labor market - ie New Zealand being popular. Nationalism is a restriction on the fluidity of the diaspora and global labor market.