UnAustralian Klaus Neumann

City Walk Mall, Canberra, 7 December 2006 1

Ladies and gentlemen, dear colleagues:

Thank you for inviting me to speak to you on this beautiful Canberra morning.

I will do my best to meet the organizers’ specifications, and address the theme of our conference: UNAUSTRALIA. For those of you just walking past and wondering what is going on: this is the opening event of Day Two of the Cultural Studies Association of Australasia Annual Conference. In accordance with the printed conference programme, I will also attempt to deliver not a public lecture, but a ‘public’ lecture.

What or who is unAustralian? Let’s find out from a native—let’s head to Warren in Tweed Heads:

Let’s head to Warren in Tweed Heads. Hi, Warren . Yeah, I reckon some of the unAustralian sort of people—I don’t want to be anti-intellectual here, but I was raised in the bush and you saw a lot of them there—and my dad’s generation, and it’s almost indefinable. The academics get up, the chattering classes, I think a lot of those are unAustralian. They’ve got no idea what an Australian is. I admit in some ways it’s an ethereal thing. But look at the strike tomorrow, there is a mateship, there is a togetherness, there is a community of blokes—men and women—getting together at the G in Melbourne. Now they would consider the entrepreneur, the capitalists, the bosses as sort of not really Australian: they are the selfish buggers out there rippin’ the system off. They are quite wrong, of course. Those people on the other side—the money-makers, the entrepreneurs, the industrialists, they can be just as Aussie. ( Talks Back, 2006)

I am not from Tweed Heads. I am not even an Australian. As somebody who grew up outside Australia, I am intrigued, if not perturbed, by the fact that many Australians revere attributes and things and people solely on account of their substantive or presumed Australianness—even if the thing

1 This is the annotated text of a public keynote address (or, as the published conference programme had it, a ‘“public” lecture’) delivered in the CityWalk mall, Canberra, on 7 December 2006 as part of the Cultural Studies Association of Australasia Annual Conference. I thank Paul Magee for inviting me to address the conference, and for agreeing to the format and venue.

1 in question is something as ordinary as a bread spread. I am equally intrigued by the fact that some Australians regularly denounce certain attributes and things and people as unAustralian.

But you know, have a look at some of the personalities. Because Chips Rafferty was a model. Paul Hogan was a model. And I’d include Sir , sort of. Even his accent had as Max Harris once described it, an Austerican sort of an accent. It was particularly Australian. Have a look at the urbane Steve Bracks and Ted Baillieu in Melbourne. How Aussie are they? Nicole Kidman—I reckon she’s a real Aussie sheila. She is open—she’s as open as the outback. And another definition for Aussie: we’re open, we’re a bit rebellious—we’ve always been had that rebellion in us—we are po’-faced with our humour, ironic, ironic sense of humour, that’s a defining character. (Australia Talks Back, 2006)

In the early 1980s, shortly before I left Germany for Australia, one could occasionally spot men wearing T-shirts or leather jackets emblazoned with the words ‘Ich bin stolz, ein Deutscher zu sein’— ‘I am proud to be a German’. At the time anybody making such a public confession could with some justification be suspected of belonging to the far right. Those using the term ‘undeutsch’ (unGerman), which had been part of the Nazis’ racist vocabulary, would certainly have been identified as right- wing extremists.

And I’ll just finish by saying: I met an old Aussie up in New Guinea who served there in the second war, arrived there in 1917. He spoke Aussie, he was a patriotic Aussie. I sometimes think a patriotic Aussie is a real Aussie. He sticks up for our flag, he sticks up for what Australia is . (Australia Talks Back, 2006)

Look Warren, I really enjoyed your thoughts there about Australians and unAustralians. Very interesting. Thanks for your contribution. Warren in Tweed Heads. This is Day Two of the 2006 Cultural Studies Association of Australasia conference, and I am Klaus Neumann from the .

Over the past few minutes I tried to set the scene—a scene featuring me, the speaker, and you, the audience. Those of you who are just wandering by may have been bemused by the spectacle of a man with a European accent failing to appreciate, and maybe taking issue with, the words of Warren from Tweed Heads. Those of you who are here as delegates to a cultural studies conference at the University of Canberra may want to reflect on the expectations I just raised. How much could I now take for granted when talking to you? How much do you now take for granted when listening to me? Think of all the reading and critiquing and theorizing I am now permitted—indeed, expected—to perform. Identifying an easy target and establishing my credentials as a cultural critic deeply suspicious of invocations of the nation, I tried to lure you into a comfort zone—as if this were not a public place, as if you and I were in a space quarantined from all those Warrens out there.

2

In preparation for this lecture, I read as many scholarly essays about the theme of our conference as I could find. (By the way, this is Day Two of the Cultural Studies Association of Australasia Conference currently held at the University of Canberra.)

To provide a synthesis of the various arguments advanced in Australian cultural studies about the attributes ‘Australian’ and ‘unAustralian’ would be too big a task. It is nevertheless possible to identify common features—which have seemingly little to do with the authors’ respective arguments. Australian cultural studies scholars critique the use of the term ‘unAustralian’ and critically interrogate its presumed opposite, Australian. They assume that the frequent use of ‘unAustralian’ reveals a broader (nationalist or neoconservative) agenda—an agenda they usually abhor. Their papers are written for an audience that is equally opposed to this agenda. Implicitly or explicitly, these authors pride themselves on their dissidence and place themselves among those labelled unAustralian. Introducing a collection of articles on the theme ‘UnAustralian activities’, Paul Alberts and Jacqueline Millner (2002, p. 10) write:

The wide-ranging perspectives from various disciplines that inform this collection are underpinned by a certain critical commonality, a stance which given the current orthodoxies in Australian political and cultural life could be characterized as unAustralian; but that position can be understood in a most positive sense.

To be able to adopt this critical stance—to be able to deconstruct, critique and theorize current orthodoxies—it is not crucial to take note of what precisely Warren said. It is sufficient to register and react to key words and phrases: ‘chattering classes’, ‘real Aussie sheila’, ‘stick up for our flag’. Those of you who did listen closely to Warren’s words, however, would have realized that they made little sense. One couldn’t draw on Warren’s statement to define ‘unAustralian’.

My 2001 edition of the Macquarie Dictionary provides two definitions for unAustralian: the first, relating to ‘literature, language etc.’ says ‘not Australian in character’, the second, relating to what the dictionary calls ‘conduct, behaviour etc.’, offers: ‘not conforming to the perceived idea of traditional Australian morality and customs, such as fairness, honesty, hard work, etc.’ Unfortunately, the dictionary does not say what ‘Australian in character’ might be. Under ‘Australian’, it only lists ‘of or relating to Australia’—which in turn is either the geographical entity (the continent) or the political entity (a nation-state based on that continent plus Tasmania). Andeven though the 2001 edition of the Macquarie Dictionary has 2,205 pages, its editors did not see the need to spell out what the ‘etc.’—as in ‘traditional Australian morality and customs, such as fairness, honesty, hard work, etc .’—stands for.

3

Of course, the authors of dictionaries should not be expected to define words for us. Dictionaries are authoritative in that they tell us whether a term officially exists (and could be used in a game of scrabble), and what the users of a language believe a word means. In that sense, the lack of definitions provided by the Macquarie Dictionary may actually be illuminating. Could it be that the ramblings of Warren from Tweed Heads are symptomatic of the confusion surrounding the term unAustralian?

What is needed to be able to answer this question is some rigorous empirical research. Given that conservative politicians have been charged with popularizing the term ‘unAustralian’, and given the location of our conference, I checked Hansard, the transcripts of the proceedings of the House of Representatives and the Senate to establish how the term ‘unAustralian’ has been employed by one section of the Australian population, namely the country’s federal politicians. I searched these transcripts for the past 20 years and found about 600 instances in which the term ‘unAustralian’ has been used in parliament. There have been 38 instances so far this year. Over the past 10 years there were 338. Thus the word does not seem to have been bandied about excessively. There has been no dramatic increase in its use after the Tampa affair and 9/11 in 2001, and only a slight increase since the Liberal–National government took office in 1996.

The relevant coverage in the news media led me to believe that over the past 20 years some politicians have made far greater use of the term ‘unAustralian’ than others. They include Pauline Hanson and Mark Latham and, more recently, Bob Brown. But my research proves that, at least in parliament, the use of the term is evenly spread amongst members of all political parties and that no politician stands out as using the term particularly often.

What or whom do politicians deem to be unAustralian? Members of the opposition often label individual pieces of legislation unAustralian. Sometimes politicians call each other, or each other’s conduct, unAustralian. But other than that, the range of practices and things that have been labelled unAustralian in the past 20 years is very broad. They include, among others:

• the banning of Christmas carols in Western Australia (Donald Randall MP, Liberal Party, 16 February 2004); • criticism levelled at Australia by Australians abroad (Sen. Julian McGauran, National Party, 6 June 2000); • the imposition of import duties on spare parts for tractors (David Hawker MP, Liberal Party, 13 April 1988);

4 • tax fraud (Warren Truss MP, National Party, 24 September 1997); • the investigation of suspected war criminals (Sen. Noel Crichton-Browne, Liberal Party, 19 December 1988); • the firebombing of Chinese restaurants (Sen. Susan Knowles, Liberal Party, 24 August 1995); • the use of gender-neutral language (John Howard MP, Liberal Party, 14 December 1993); • the charges imposed on Tasmanian car rental companies (Sen. Robert Bell, Australian Democrats, 6 May 1993); • the abolition of compulsory voting (Michael Danby MP, ALP, 24 November 1998); • the failure to answer mail (Steve Gibbons MP, ALP, 23 May 2001); • socialism (Maxwell Burr MP, Liberal Party, 1 December 1988); and • Parliament House (Graeme Campbell MP, ALP, 20 September 1990).

In 1987, Donald Jessop, Liberal Senator for , when speaking against the National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Amendment Bill, said: ‘I regard that prohibitionist activity as unAustralian because it is hindering the development and productivity of our country’ (30 April 1987). But instances in which a politician says why something is unAustralian are extremely rare.

Since references to unAustralian are almost always devoid of any qualification or definition, I tried to get a better sense of what the term is intended to convey by having a closer look at instances in which ‘unAustralian’ appears in the company of other adjectives. I was hoping to be able to identify cognate terms, and did indeed find some, such as:

• ‘unAustralian, self-centred and selfish’ (Sen. Brian Harradine, Independent, 20 August 1996); and • ‘very unAustralian and certainly very unfair’ (Ricky Johnston MP, Liberal Party, 27 October 1997).

But I couldn’t make out clear patterns—‘unAustralian’ seems to go with just about any term that has unequivocally negative connotations, for example:

• ‘disgraceful and uncaring, unAustralian and elitist’ (Archibald Bevis MP, ALP, 10 September 1992); • ‘crude, unAustralian and unacceptable’ (Sen. Sandy Macdonald, Liberal Party, 2 February 1995; and Martin Ferguson MP, ALP, 19 June 2006); • ‘unAustralian, insidious and bad’ (Sen. John Watson, ALP, 21 September 1987);

5 • ‘messy’, ‘unfair’, ‘unAustralian’, ‘unwise’ (Sen. Andrew Murray, Australian Democrats, 28 November 2005); and • ‘most inappropriate, most unAustralian, most undesirable and most unsatisfactory’ (Sen. Noel Crichton-Browne, Liberal Party, 16 December 1988).

In parliamentary speeches the term ‘unAustralian’ is often employed in conclusion, as if to emphasize a point. Similarly, more often than not the term appears as the last in a string of two or more adjectives. In the case of ‘unjust and unAustralian’ (Wayne Swan MP, ALP, 8 December 1998) or ‘antisocial’ and ‘totally unAustralian’ (Sen. Susan Knowles, Liberal Party, 24 August 1995), the second adjective raises the pitch, as it were. Something is not simply unjust; rather, it is unjust to the extent that it warrants the label ‘unAustralian’. But again, I couldn’t make sense of the overall picture. There just seemed to be too much variety. I found, for example:

• ‘unbecoming’ and ‘unAustralian’ (Ricky Johnston MP, 27 October 1997); • ‘bizarre’ and ‘unAustralian’ (Donald Randall MP, Liberal Party, 16 February 2004; and Sen. Brenda Gibbs, ALP, 22 October 1997); • ‘tragic’ and ‘unAustralian’ (Sen. M. C. Tate, 27 November 1990); • ‘quite abhorrent and quite un-Australian’ (Sen. JohnWatson, 5 September 2006); and • ‘very short-sighted and very un-Australian’ (Michael Danby MP, 15 February 2006).

One could argue that two adjectives used in conjunction do not necessarily have to belong to the same semantic field. But such an argument cannot easily be sustained when there are more than two adjectives, with the first two or three clearly being closely related. Here are some examples:

• ‘disgraceful, shameful and unAustralian’ (Sen. Sandy Macdonald, National Party, 2 February 1995); • ‘sad, sorry and unAustralian’ (Sen. Robert Bell, Australian Democrats, 6 May 1993); • ‘totally illogical, quite unreasonable and . . . rather unAustralian’ (David Hawker MP, Liberal Party, 13 April 1998); and • ‘convoluted, inelegant, ungracious and all the other adjectives one could muster….unAustralian’ (John Howard MP, Liberal Party, 14 December 1993).

I saw many of you smiling when I read out what I had found in Hansard. Some of you, I believe, were chuckling. I was not trying to poke fun at Australia’s politicians. Rather, I would like you to think about the assumptions that you make while laughing at the language used by politicians. Do your

6 smiles suggest that you can laugh at the improper use of the term ‘unAustralian’ because you know something John Howard and Company don’t know?

What I find most striking about the references to ‘unAustralian’ that are made in parliament is their incoherence. My research suggests that, at best, ‘unAustralian’ is used as a synonym for ‘bloody awful’. But Australian politicians are not any more incoherent than the rest of the community. Most of them, in fact, make more sense than Warren from Tweed Heads. There are reasons for this incoherence. Claims of Australianness often have a tangible basis. Vegemite is supposedly Australian because it was produced by an Australian-owned company and has been consumed by generations of Australians. The inversion of the term rarely comes with such tangible connections.

The reference point of the term ‘Australian’ is the Australian past. Australians are reportedly traditionally generous, loyal to their mates, champions of the fair go, barracking for the underdog, resilient, inventive, irreverent and tolerant. (Of course, these attributes need not be taken for granted— some of my own work in recent years (e.g. Neumann, 2004) has been about how both the government and refugee advocates have reproduced a myth about Australia’s ‘traditionally generous’ response to refugees and asylum seekers.) The term ‘unAustralian’ has barely any historical reference points: whereas the past is supposedly replete with instances of Australian behaviour, there are evidently no precedents for unAustralian conduct. In away, there can’t be—unless one were to question the Australianness of Australia’s past. An unAustralian thing or person is an exception—it can never be more than that unless it were to undermine the idea that Australia is inhabited by Australian people doing Australian things the Australian way. UnAustralia—the place where unAustralian people do unAustralian things—is threatening; while Australians can reminisce about their shared past, they are less secure when it comes to their future.

While the Macquarie Dictionary is vague about the meaning of ‘unAustralian’, it has nothing to say about ‘Australian’. Maybe that, too, is an accurate reflection of the word’s usage. ‘UnAustralia’ does not exist except as a spectre. ‘Australia’ is so overloaded with meaning, so weighed down by history, that the term ‘Australian’ is over determined.

Why does all this matter? It would be a mistake to read too much into the words of Warren from Tweed Heads. It would be a mistake to assume that incoherent usage could be put down either to dumbness or to a conspiracy. It would be a mistake to be overawed by concepts that are by no means set in concrete. It would be a mistake to tilt at the windmills of neoconservative rhetoric. It would be a mistake to validate all that chatter about Australian values by embracing the U-topia, the non-place of

7 UNAUSTRALIA, as a dream to come true. (But that’s not to say that scholars working in universities should not work hard at developing visions—after all, in this country, the spectre of UNAUSTRALIA is one of the most elaborate ideas of the future that politicians of any colour come up with.)

Behind closed doors, such mistakes could be easily made. According to the programme of this conference, this is meant to be a ‘public’ lecture—that is, one that pretends to be a public lecture, a performance of a public lecture. I apologize to those of you who are not delegates to the Cultural Studies Association of Australasia Annual Conference—this lecture has actually not been primarily for your ears. I also apologize to the conference organizers in case you expected me to publicly lambaste John Howard, call for the release of David Hicks, and demand the immediate closure of all immigration detention centres. Rather than conforming to such expectations, I have invited you to think about whether, how and why papers about the present government, Guantanamo Bay and Villawood are predictable.

The format and venue of this talk, and the rigorous research and robust data that I pretended to draw on, were meant to provoke reflections on what is involved when scholars talk to each other, create their own cosy spaces where it’s easy t otake on the mantle of the sage who is vilified or that of the dissident who has been silenced, where it feels good to slip into the role of Warren’s and John Howard’s victim, where the outside world is one of conspiracies and evil empires, and where one talks only to those in the know.

Scholars working in universities need to engage in public conversations. Rather than making their interventions from within—by lobbing a ball over the walls of the academy, as it were—they ought to step outside those walls. I hope that public lectures (where the public is not enclosed by inverted commas) in public places become fixtures of future conferences of your Association.

References

Alberts, P. & Millner, J. (2002) ‘Introduction: unAustralian activities’, Continuum , vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 7–11. Australia Talks Back (2006) ‘Being unAustralian’, Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) Radio National, 29 Nov. Commonwealth of Australia. Parliamentary Debates (Hansard): House of Representatives. Commonwealth of Australia. Parliamentary Debates (Hansard): Senate. Neumann, K. (2004) Refuge Australia: Australia’s Humanitarian Record , UNSW Press, Sydney.

8