Angus Taylor’s plan to tie citizenship to “Australian values” rely on vague definitions and risk embedding double standards, exclusion and anti-foreign sentiment.

Opposition leader Angus Taylor proposes to legislate the right to Australian citizenship based on subscription to “our values”. I have two problems with such talk of values. First, the promotion of national values usually hides anti-foreign feeling and even racism. Second, the very term “value” is so woolly and imprecise that it can be generally sprayed around to avoid being pinned down as to its actual meaning.

Talk of values has a long history. The Romans upheld Mos maiorum, usually translated as “the ancestral code”, referring to conservative morals and practices, famously speared by Prudentius in the fourth century as “the superstition of old grandpas”.

In contemporary times, I remember the superstition of Grandpa Lee Kuan Yew, which he called “Asian values”. Like the Romans, Lee preached the importance of respect for elders and authorities and decried young people’s desire for greater personal freedom, which he said reflected undue influence from the west. His ultimate aim was for the People’s Action Party to remain in power.

In the West, no country discusses values more than the United States. American values derive from the history and culture of the nation, notably the American Revolution and the American Enlightenment. Although not formally defined, these values generally comprise liberty, individualism and limited government, with an emphasis on the Bill of Rights and various amendments to that bill. The present Trump administration has demonstrated a great lack of respect for such values.

John Howard, the ultimate Australian conservative, not surprisingly, was a strong believer in values. Speaking to the Melbourne Press Club in 2000, he defined these as four qualities: self-reliance, “a fair go”, pulling together, and “having a go”. This was an early attempt by the conservatives to specify the unique and essential values of Australia.

It was clearly based on what Howard saw as the failings of citizens of other countries – lazy, expecting to enjoy privileges without accepting responsibilities, and fundamentally not being team players. Without the comparison with others, the values themselves were just high-sounding platitudes.

Some of the Howard values remain in the list that is now mandated for use in Australia by the Department of Home Affairs, but the set is still far from precise. Values in the current list include: respect for individual rights, freedom of religion, the rule of law and democracy, and a belief in Howard’s “fair go”. All applicants for permanent or temporary visas must read and sign a document to indicate that they accept these values. Those born here or whose arrival in the country predated the introduction of this requirement might benefit from referring to the list. It is usefully available on the departmental website in 40 languages.

Angus Taylor says that a Liberal Coalition government would introduce three pillars to lift future immigration standards, “First, putting Australian values first. Second, shutting the door to people who abuse our immigration system. And third, showing a red light to radicals.”

As Michelle Grattan reports in The Conversation, he told the Menzies Research Centre this week that if elected, his government would legislate to make compliance with the Values Statement grounds for deportation. There would be a rule book containing a “prescribed set of behaviours”. He instanced such behaviour as not believing in equal rights for men and women or entertaining a wish to establish “parallel legal systems”.

Taylor’s values are ridiculously woolly and imprecise. To believe in something or to wish to set up something is not the same as taking action in accord with a belief or a desire to initiate something. Lawyers will have a field day. My real issue with Taylorism however is its unspoken underlying anti-foreignism and racism.

The sad fact is that not all Australians would pass a test based on the Australian Values Statement. The Sovereign Citizens movement in Australia has been gathering strength in recent years, as evidenced by the recent death of police killer Dezi Freeman in Victoria, an Australian citizen. Brenton Tarrant, who pleaded guilty to 51 murders and 40 attempted murders of worshippers at two mosques in Christchurch in 2019 is also a homegrown Australian. Both clearly contravened the spirit and the letter of the Values Statement, but they seem to enjoy a sacrosanct status by virtue of their nationality at birth.

If they were migrants, according to Taylor, they would be deported. Why does he propose a double standard?

There are many reasons why migrants come to Australia. It is not the case, as Taylor suggests, that those who come from democratic countries are more likely to uphold Australian values. On the contrary, those who come from places where they have experienced discrimination, persecution or the deprivation of democratic rights, are likely to place a higher value on these things than those people who have grown up in relative safety and security. They will almost certainly work to uphold these values.

Give us all a fair go, Angus!