Citizenship is the gift that seems to keep on giving as far as Australia and New Zealand are concerned. The Prime Ministers of both countries are adept at using citizenship issues to their mutual advantage, to score political points with their domestic audiences. For Australia, deporting New Zealand citizens who may have lived most of their lives in Australia but have been in prison in Australia plays well with its voters, as does depriving dual citizens of their Australian citizenship if their primary citizenship is New Zealand. Or elsewhere. For their part, New Zealanders love nothing more than evincing moral outrage at heavy-handed and insensitive decisions affecting us, made by Australian politicians. 

It is a win-win for both countries, and both the current Prime Ministers are particularly skilled at playing the roles their respective countries expect of them. Scott Morrison is effective at the “Australia first, keeping Australia safe for Australians” game, which Australians like, while Jacinda Ardern is equally effective at the outraged humanitarian response which resonates with New Zealanders. It is great theatre – and both know it – which is why, with the frequency of cracked records, they will continue to play it, whenever they can. 

This week’s incident over the “terrorist” woman and her two children detained in Turkey is but the latest in a long line of examples. Knowing she was a New Zealand citizen, with dual Australian citizenship, Australia had no hesitation in earlier revoking her Australian citizenship. Because she was already a New Zealand citizen by birth, she would become our problem, but also would not be left stateless in the process. In that regard, she was in no different a situation than the large number of New Zealand citizens deported from Australia in recent years at the completion of sentences. 

The complication in this case, which sparked the New Zealand Prime Minister’s concern, was that the woman has two young children. Removal of her Australian citizenship has deprived them of the immediate right to claim Australian citizenship by descent (because they were not born in Australia) thus raising questions about their status in terms of the Vienna Convention on the Rights of Children. (Because they were born overseas to a New Zealand citizen by birth they face a similar situation with regard to New Zealand. They do not have New Zealand citizenship as of right, but can apply for citizenship by descent at a later stage.) Their position in the meantime is unclear – on both sides of the Tasman. 

The long-standing international principle which no Western nation seriously challenges is that those who become citizens of a country by virtue of being born in that country cannot be deprived of that citizenship, no matter their conduct. To that extent, Australia is right when it says it will deport those it regards as undesirable to the country of their birth, because they are that country’s problem, no matter how long they have been away from it.

However, it is at the extreme edge of moral acceptability when it applies the policy with the rigidity it does, often deporting at short notice people who may have not lived in their home country since they were very young children, and who may no longer have familial links that country. At the other end of the spectrum, New Zealand is on shaky ground when it objects to these returnees, who are legally our problem, being “dumped” here, but is on far stronger ground when it takes issue with the uncaring and callous way in which Australia applies its domestic policy, and calls out Australia for doing so. It is probably in the domestic political interests of both countries for there to be no immediate solution to this. 

The ritual we are seeing being played out right now regarding the current case is typically bizarre. Australia and New Zealand are taking pot shots at each other over the case, pointlessly each saying that the responsibility rests with the other, while the woman and her children languish in Turkish detention. And, as they snipe, the respective Prime Ministers score political points with their respective national audiences. 

That is where the current case will most likely rest, like those before it, were it not for the children. New Zealand’s Prime Minister has already expressed concern about their situation – about which very little has been said publically so far – and it would not be beyond the realms of possibility in this instance for New Zealand to be involved in mediating some form of solution which protects, while leaving their mother at arms’ length to fend for herself. 

The only certainty about this case is that the next time a similar case arises, like two seasoned performers, Scott Morrison and Jacinda Ardern will drag themselves once more onto the dual stage of high dudgeon and moral outrage to reprise the parts they have played so predictably over recent years, for yet one more curtain call. Until next time.