Certainly, Kenneth Hince, whom Rose rightly praised, was neither ignorant nor philistine (for all that he was stoutly unimpressed by the music of his own time). Nor, emphatically, were the great critics in Nation: the Prerauers on music; Robert Hughes on art; Harry Kippax (later of the Sydney Morning Herald) on drama; and Sylvia Lawson (surely the greatest writer on film of her time, at least of those writing in English). On visual art, during my boyhood there was nobody in the country whose knowledge of twentieth-century art could match Gertrude Langer’s (in the Brisbane Courier-Mail). And what about Don Anderson, Gerard Windsor, and the estimable John McDonald in the Sydney Morning Herald? They all do rather well, especially as they are confronted by far tougher laws than were faced by Bernard Shaw, whose music reviews Rose rightly admires.

As a literary editor herself, Bennie would know that the real philistines are editors who enforce such truncated coverage of the arts, trifling in contrast with the great German papers. The increasingly typical length of a few hundred words (while admittedly better than none at all) is about as useful as a ‘text message’ to readers and subjects alike: it is difficult for such reviews to be more elegant than funeral notices or more informative than a sticker on an apple. The patient is unhealthy, but there is perplexingly little phlegm. And even less philistinism.

John Carmody, Roseville, NSW

A mere document?

Dear Editor,

It is surely an unexceptionable expectation that a reviewer describe adequately the book being reviewed, and also discuss objectively the issues raised in, or by, the book. Peter Mares’s review of David Corlett’s book on returned asylum seekers, Following Them Home (September 2005) did not touch upon a key issue: what are the policy and related financial implications of providing ‘complementary protection’ residence visas to failed asylum seekers, especially after they have exhausted the numerous legal appeals available, presumably at the Australian taxpayers’ expense? But then, Mares seemed to be on the same wavelength as Corlett.

In Mares’s latest review of two books on identity, citizenship and multiculturalism (September 2006), he takes up one-third of the space to giving us his views. He prefers multiple citizenship, yet is concerned that refugees may be denied citizenship were a rigorous English language test to be applied, and may thus be unable to enjoy overseas travel. The official justification for a citizenship test is ‘bunkum’, as such a test is ‘more likely to divide than to unite’. Really?

Readers will remember how both sides of government, not so long ago, sought to capture the ethnic vote by reducing the residency qualification for citizenship and by throwing millions of dollars at ethnic communities to enable them to establish a dual, i.e. parallel, welfare-delivery system. The former enabled any criminals and killers who had achieved permanent residency to lie low for only two years before they secured the protection of citizenship. The latter led to some ethnic empowerment and to the growth of multiculturalism policies that tended to perpetuate cultural differences, leading to some claims of cultural hegemony.

Against this background, a rational dialogue about national vs tribal identity, any attempted retention of ethnocultural differences for generations, the relevance of citizenship and the value of official multiculturalism policies might enable better policies and subsequently enhance community cohesion – through a better understanding of the relevant issues. Batrouney and Goldust, and Hodge and O’Carroll, have made a useful contribution to such a dialogue.

Just for the record, my team, the Citizenship Branch of the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, Canberra, carried out the first major review of the Citizenship Act in the early 1980s. What we hoped to see were: parity of treatment of British subjects (I was one) and non-British immigrants; equitable treatment of wives; the denial of discretion to the minister (and therefore to senior public servants) in approving the grant of citizenship (thus minimising opportunities for corruption); only citizens to be permitted to govern, administer or fight for the nation, and so on. The rationale for citizenship was a commitment to the nation-state in exchange for the benefits of identification and state protection. Prime Minister Bob Hawke stressed that citizenship meant commitment when the revised Act finally saw the light of day.

With globalisation, dual citizenship, the devaluation of national borders and sovereignty, citizenship has become almost meaningless, except as a document of identity. An Australian citizen fighting for a foreign nation is no longer a mercenary. Foreign persons and incorporations can control any Australian enterprise (even governments?) in the name of economic efficiency and, of course, the holy war against terrorism. Should we not simply open our borders (except to foreign terrorists) and be done with it? Consider how much heartburn and financial cost would be avoided – in politics and in the courts.

Raja Ratnam, Narooma, NSW