This Boeing 747-400, photographed at Sydney airport last Friday, belongs to Thai Airways International. If you happen to have decent eyesight, you can confirm this by the fact that it has “Thai” painted on the side. Ownership is not about paint, however.

If you paint “Thai” on my side, I do not then become the property of Thai Airways, not even if you’re employed by Thai Airways to do so. Paint is just paint, whereas ownership of property is an abstract concept. A concept which can be supported or asserted by paint or other physical signs, but still an abstract concept which can only be agreed upon by sentient beings.

But what about another concept: nationality?

Nationality is not about paint either. Paint “Thai” on my side if you like. If you use the right brush I might even enjoy it. But I won’t become even remotely Thai. However is nationality something which is just agreed upon? Or is there something essential — in the core meaning of the word, having to do with essence — which makes someone immutably Thai or Australian or Czech or Chinese?

And how does nationality relate to similar concepts, such as ethnicity or race or culture?

I usually don’t think about these categories. The variation within them outweighs the supposed differences. People of every nationality range from amiable to arsehole. However that aircraft — that specific aircraft — has brought it all into focus.

On Friday, ’Pong sat in that aircraft. It took off, climbed through that layer of brown shit on the horizon, and flew to Bangkok. It’s his first visit to his hometown in six years. That renewed perspective has already revealed previously-unnoticed bird sounds and a 3-litre iced beer dispenser.

’Pong is essentially Thai. He’ll tell you that he was always an outsider there, always a little bit different. Nevertheless, there are papers where next to the word “nationality” it says “Thai”. Paint, y’see.

On the other hand, we have a letter from a politician called Kevin Andrews which says ’Pong is Australian — or at least he will be once he recites a magic spell and shakes the hand of the mayor. And, due to the magic of dual citizenship, he will be both Thai and Australian at the same time.

But as I say, it isn’t the paint (or ink) which makes him Thai or Australian. ’Pong is certainly Thai because he can breathe pure chilli vapour with no ill effects. But he’s equally Australian because he understands the difference between Tooheys and Reschs and Coopers.

I’ve pondered Australian values before, but I mention all this today because in just under three weeks I’ll be sitting in that same aircraft (or one very like it) and also travelling to Thailand. As it happens, it’ll be my first trip outside Australia — and I reckon that’ll change my views about what it means to be Australian, and indeed what it means to be me.

People are usually surprised to discover that I haven’t travelled overseas before. I take that as a compliment, because I think it means they find me more worldly than the usual stay-at-home. I hope I won’t be like John Howard who, according to his historian brother Bob, was remarkably unchanged by his overseas travels.

Having read what you’ve read about me, how do you think I’ll change?

Another week, another big-spending government TV “information campaign”. This one’s for the new Citizenship Test — and gosh, that just happens to be a Coalition-specific policy and it just happens to be running when we’re not in an election campaign, honestly.

And last night immigration minister Kevin Andrews was seen on TV with a bunch of potential citizens — all of whom, by some happy coincidence, had reasonable English and were not particularly unphotogenic. But he was still defending the test.

This TV advert is little more than dog whistle political propaganda. That’s clear for two reasons. First, look closely at the script (below). And second, if you wanted to reach the people most directly affected, mass TV advertising is far from cost-effective.

I’ve written about the pointlessness of a multiple choice Citizenship Test before. But even if the alien implant in your back teeth tells you that a glorified pub trivia questionnaire will produce better-integrated citizens — as opposed to just creating a black market in the test answers — this TV advert is clearly about something other than bringing that test to the attention of the people who might be sitting it any time soon.

Here’s the script:

Australia’s introducing a Citizenship Test.

It’s a way of making sure that people becoming citizens know about Australia, and understand the responsibilities and privileges of committing to our way of life — things many of us take for granted like democracy, mutual respect, and equality of opportunity, and the values we share like free speech and a fair go.

Preparing for the test will also introduce people to our history, traditions and some of our national customs and symbols.

The test questions are based on this book, which also explains a citizen’s responsibilities and privileges.

Understanding our values will help people take part in Australian life, make a contribution, and become part of our diverse community.

You can find out more about the new Australian Citizenship Test at australia.gov.au.

Citizenship — your commitment to Australia.

Authorised by the Australian Government, Canberra.

Note how the emphasis is on “responsibilities” and “commitment”. Sure, it mentions “privileges” too, although by implication privileges still have to be earned. Those words are all about conforming to rules, written or unwritten.

Note, too, that it isn’t addressed to potential citizens. It’s talking about them, not to them. Not “Understanding our values will help you take part in Australian life,” but will help people. Some people other than you watching the TV. Them. The scary ones.

And that, of course, is the message the Coalition wants to send.

“We’re protecting you from the scary foreigners. They’ll have to change their evil ways now. They know that Federation started in 1914 and Phar Lap’s heart is in Bennelong. Our Way Of Life is safe.”

Yes, as Senator Lyn Allison point out, hard-working, good-hearted, committed people will be denied the right to vote because they don’t know that the golden wattle is our national floral emblem.

Now the ad spend…

Potential citizens are already Australian Permanent Residents, and have been for years. The Department of Immigration already knows where they live, their nationality and presumably what languages they speak. So if you wanted to tell them about the new test, just send them a letter. It’d be a lot, lot cheaper.

But that’s OK, because a multiple-choice “Citizenship Test” is meaningless. Let’s remind ourselves what happened when Apu went for US citizenship in The Simpsons. “Being American” was reduced to a cliché.

And the booklet itself is a gorgeous piece of political propaganda that’ll achieve the following:

• The bitter old Alan Jones listeners Howard thinks he needs to placate will be relieved to see an emphasis on the UK as the biggest source of migrants and Christianity as the biggest religion. They’ll think this will stop the “wrong” people becoming citizens. Once more, Howard is Big Tough Daddy protecting them from the woggy bogeymen.
• It’ll cause Howard’s much-hated “elites” — that is, anyone capable of using logic, analysis, multi-syllable words or joined-up thinking generally — to run around in circles for a week or two, losing focus on real election issues.
• Howard gets another chance to moisten over all those “achievements” he personally considers important but which he could never achieve himself — being a soldier (because of his hearing problem) and playing cricket (because he’s completely bloody hopeless).
• It’ll create a minor black market in the answers to the test, which will appear approximately a week after the first potential citizens are processed.

What’s remarkable is how backward-looking the booklet is… and how biased to Howard’s personal interests.

The words “science”, “physics”, “medicine”, “genetics”, “aviation”, “satellite”, “solar” and “film” don’t appear at all, despite Australia’s renown contributions in those fields. “Beer”, “ale” and “lager” are completely absent. “Literature” appears just once. “Computer” only once too — in the context of the test being computer-based.

Who was the first Prime Minister of Australia? Who cares? “George Washington,” suggested our Korean cleaner this morning with a laugh — but of course most Australians would indeed know more about the US system than our own. Do we really need to know where Phar Lap’s heart is? Will the Opening Ceremony of the 2000 Olympics really be of any relevance in 5 years time?

Are we choosing Australian citizens for the 21st Century, or putting together a geriatric pub trivia team?

One question really makes me laugh, though. Who do members of Parliament represent? This is a trick question, right?

AFP Professional Standards has investigated suspected leaks to the media and is satisfied that there has been no unlawful disclosure of information by AFP members. The matters identified as possible inappropriate conduct by officials of other agencies will be referred to the appropriate authorities.

The AFP has acted appropriately throughout the investigation.

Well that’s good then. Some “other agencies” are to blame.

However the statement also says:

The continuing attempts by Dr Haneef’s defence team to use the media to run their case is both unprofessional and inappropriate and the AFP has raised this aspect with the Queensland Legal Services Commission.

Uhuh. And how about an equivalent sentence complaining about the government’s attempts to use the media to run their case? Yes, Ruddock and Andrews, I’m looking at you. Is your behaviour not also “both unprofessional and inappropriate”? No, no equivalent set of words? Oh.

I was under the impression that in Western democracies the police (as well as the “other agencies”) were there to independently uphold the rule of law, not act as the minions of the government of the day. Silly me.

Kevin Andrews, in my estimate (and yours) the head which should roll first, is staying schtumm.

Mr Andrews said he would be happy to release the information but was not about to act improperly. Asked if he ever expected to be able to release the information Mr Andrews said: “I don’t know. I take advice… I will continue to do that because I think it’s important that I act on advice when I make decisions.”

Good thinking, Kevin. Listen to your advice, yes.

So, with Haneef out of the country and everyone saying nothing, we’ll soon forget. My guess is that sooner or later — but certainly before the election — we’ll find some other nearly-terrorist to arrest. This time the charges will stick. And buried down in the bottom of the story will be the news that Haneef’s been given his visa back.

Mind you, I could still be wrong. The day is but young…

Mr Andrews — who cancelled Dr Haneef’s visa soon after he was bailed — said the doctor’s swift departure after his release from detention only made him look more suspicious. “If anything, that actually heightens rather than lessens my suspicion,” he told commercial television.

Kevin Andrews, has your brain been turned on at any point during this debacle?

Dr Haneef was held in custody for what? 3 weeks call it. He’s heard how the evidence against him is a scrambled mess. He’s seen how his detention has become less and less about catching real terrorists and more and more about politicians and politicised public officials scrambling to protect their jobs. He’s had to experience the feral media pack. His reputation is now shit.

He has just been through what was probably the most frightening time of his life, and he wants to see his wife and newborn daughter.

If you were in Dr Haneef’s shoes, wouldn’t you be on the very first flight out of the country that put you through this nightmare?

No? You think this is suspicious? Exactly which parallel universe do you live in, Kevin?

OK, you have “secret information” that will justify your actions — but you have “one arm tied behind your back.” Exactly who tied it there, Kevin? Because everyone else involved in this case is leaking like a sieve. You’re not leaking — but you are sinking.

The new poll on my website asks a simple question: Who should be sacked?

• Federal police commissioner Mick Keelty? News today is that he’s blaming everyone else — but his organisation was in charge of the investigation, wasn’t it?
• Damian Bugg QC, Director of Public Prosecutions. While he did step in eventually, you’d have thought that in such a politically-sensitive case he’d have been involved from the start.
• Kevin Andrews, Minister for Immigration. Dear dear dear, Kevin, first WorkChoices and now this. Last week’s poll suggested you’d be first voted off the island, and it’s looking even more likely now.
• Attorney-General Phillip Ruddock, for sticking his oar into the mess.
• and I’ve made some other suggestions too.

If you vote, also feel free to post some comments here explaining your choice.