Overland lecture | MARY KALANTZIS
AUSTRALIA FAIR Realities and Banalities of Nation in the Howard Era
TO TELL THE TRUTH, I was startled when I was But presumptuous I am going to be. And yes, invited by Nathan Hollier, the editor of Overland, indeed I carry baggage. I was born in rural Greece to present the end of 2004 lecture. He ran through at a time when it was torn apart by a civil war. The the list of luminaries who had this honour before resistance fighters who had helped expel the Nazis, me—Stuart Macintyre, Mark Davis, Amanda previously supported by the Western powers, were Lohrey, Marcia Langton, Bob Connell, Bob Ellis, now the enemy within, hunted down for fear a new Linda Jaivin and David Marr—all icons of the Aus- Greek Government might align with the Commun- tralian intelligentsia. ist East. Mainly, it was the British who intervened on I said, “about what?” and he suggested I talk on the side of the Right, so little wonder that, in Aus- “nationalism in Australia during the Howard era, tralia, I was shaped by a heritage of ambivalence perhaps with an eye on the future”. I hesitated, rat- towards all that was ‘English’, as well as a nostalgic tled by the expectation. He reassured me that I would sense of a distant homeland, a European sensibility not have to deliver the lecture until after the elec- about the ‘social’ and a fervent curiosity about the tion and things would be clearer then. The elec- country in which I grew up and to which I had been tion’s over now, and when it comes to the question introduced (literally) as an alien. There is no remov- of nation, I am not sure whether things are any clearer. ing the effects of experience and subjectivity from My mind instantly flashed back to an Australian our thinking. No amount of scholarship or expertise sage who had said, in a review of something I had can erase life’s agendas when it comes to history written many years ago, that my views on the nature and its telling, let alone imagining the future. of nation in Australia came from the “Donald Horne In my professional life, I have done three things, School of breathless optimism”. It just happens that and each of these things connects back powerfully this man’s wife had earlier examined my PhD the- to my life’s concerns. First, I have done history, in- sis in Australian history. It was improper of me to vestigating and telling the interrelated stories of centre tell grand narratives about Australia, she had said, and margin that shaped people and events. At the not only because grand narratives were themselves risk of looking as if I’m treading into the domain of improper, but because my expertise was in “eth- grand narrative, I have tried not to do a nicity”. I should really have stuck to doing a his- compartmentalised history, or even one with dis- tory of migration and settlement. Instead, I had crete chapters, neatly separating out the Indigenous, interrogated the ideas and realities of Australian na- immigrants and nation. Rather, I have tried to tell tionhood, assuming a role well beyond my station. the tangled story of the way we, as a nation, made Such are the inconsequential barbs that lurk in the each other, consciously and unconsciously.1 Only big depths of one’s consciousness. The request from picture history can do that. Overland made me anxious again. Here I am again, Second, in the spirit of our times, I have engaged the daughter of immigrants, presumptuously try- in critique. Those who don’t find this palatable call it ing to talk about Australian nation and national- ‘political correctness’. Over the course of the twen- ism—past, present and future. tieth century Australia became a very different place
OVERLAND 178 2005 5 to what it had been at its official birth at Federation alongside ‘God Save the Queen’. It was first used as in 1901. It has been a symbolic and practical meta- the National Anthem at the Los Angeles Olympics morphosis, and one that is still far from complete. in 1984. The nationalism of 1901 was not remarkable for its Australia’s sons, let us rejoice, times or unique in its character. As a British colony, For we are young and free;2 being white and British was its defining feature, and with this came economic and military ties to the These were the opening lines of the song, written by motherland. Indigenous peoples were located out- Glasgow-born Peter Dodds McCormick in 1878. side of the imagination of the ambitious newcomers, When it became the national anthem a century later, eager to take up the resources of the new land and the opening words of the first line were changed from make something of them in exchange for its much- ‘Australia’s sons . . .’, to ‘Australians all . . .’ Such vaunted hardships. This resulted in systematic forms political correctness is more than wanton moralis- of exclusion, of Indigenous peoples within and un- ing. Something profound had happened to gender acceptable aliens beyond the borders of the new na- relations in the intervening century: real and signifi- tion. As the century moved on, the antidotes to this cant even if that something remains incomplete. legacy were multiculturalism, Indigenous self-deter- The first public performance was at the St mination, reconciliation—all the stuff of ‘political Andrew’s Day concert of the Highland Society on correctness’ in the eyes of those whose sensibilities 30 November 1878. McCormick was a prominent are still rooted in an older version of nation. member of the Presbyterian Church in Australia, Third (and I daresay this is where I belong to and one of his better known musical works was ‘The what my critic called the ‘Donald Horne School’), I Bonnie Banks of Clyde’. Only a Scot would have have maintained an active appreciation of the strain granted the Celtic margins of England—and its first of inclusiveness that has, even in the darker mo- colonies—a part in the Australian story, as he did in ments, run alongside the tendencies to exclude. The the third stanza: other side of the Australian spirit has always imag- From English soil and Fatherland, ined that, in this Great South Land, an egalitarian Scotia and Erin fair, haven could be built, a place airier and lighter than Let all combine with heart and hand the stifling, class-rigid, uncaring kingdoms the mi- To advance Australia fair. grants had left behind. This was a place where, ahead of anywhere else in the world, a woman could vote He was, nevertheless, a Scot fully reconciled to and social security would underpin the basic wage. Empire. How else would the song have become such It was a place built on the ethos of the ‘fair go’. And, a huge success, even in McCormick’s own lifetime? extending these principles not too much further, When gallant Cook from Albion sail’d, couldn’t that also be the case for immigrants of non- To trace wide oceans o’er; Anglophone origins, non-white immigrants and the True British courage bore him on, Indigenous peoples of this continent? Despite our Till he landed on our shore; anxieties today, despite moments where ‘fairness’ is, Then here he raised Old England’s flag, once again, for them and not for us, there has been The standard of the brave; a shift in the big picture. The principles of “With all her faults we love her still inclusiveness that underpinned the Australian nation Britannia rules the wave.” at its foundation have been so extended as to under- In joyful strains then let us sing mine profoundly the exclusive tendencies upon which Advance Australia fair. it was also underwritten. I want to concentrate, however, on the word ‘fair’. MAKING A NATION If Australia at Federation was to be anything, it was Let me go back to the beginnings of nation. Then, to be ‘fair’, to be a place which aspired, if not to the national anthem was one-and-the-same as the equality, then a more limited promise of equity— Imperial Anthem, ‘God Save the Queen’. And so it equal chances for all to share in its material benefits. remained until 1976 when the Fraser Government This, surely, was the aspiration to which McCormick set ‘Advance Australia Fair’ as the national song was referring in the song, a promise that arose in the
6 OVERLAND 178 2005 settlement of the great conflict of class and the emer- and then the man who has become our second long- gence of trade unions and the Labor Party in the est serving Prime Minister, John Howard. Both, at closing decades of the nineteenth century. But a first glance, seem men who are true to the exclusivist promise to whom? For whom? And at the expense rhetoric of Federation. Neither man, however, was of whom? true to his own times. In both cases their exclusivist Take, for instance, the Chinese, who had been rhetoric proved to be increasingly anachronistic. Both coming to Australia in large numbers since the gold men followed more than they led, and insofar as rushes in the mid nineteenth century. This is Edmund they led, changing realities proved both wrong. This Barton’s view of what was ‘fair’, our first Prime Min- is the enduring irony captured in Donald Horne’s ister, speaking here to the first Australian Parliament: notion of the ‘Lucky Country’:
The fear of Chinese immigration which the Austral- Australia is a country run mainly by second-rate peo- ian democracy cherishes . . . is, in fact, the instinct of ple who share its luck . . . Although its ordinary people self-preservation, quickened by experience. We know are adaptable, most of its leaders . . . so lack curiosity in that coloured and white labour cannot exist side by the events that surround them that they are often side . . . Transform the northern half of our continent taken by surprise. A nation more concerned with styles into a Natal, with thirteen out of fourteen belonging of life than with achievement has managed to achieve to an inferior race, and the southern half will speedily what may be the most evenly prosperous society in approximate to the condition of the Cape Colony, the world. It has done so in a social climate largely where the white are indeed a masterful minority, but inimical to originality and the desire for excellence still only as one in four. We are guarding the last part of (except in sport) . . . According to the rules Australia the world in which the higher races can live and in- has not deserved its good fortune.5 3 crease freely for the higher civilisation. Our good fortune, I will argue, has been not only to The doctrine of the equality of man was never in- have prospered, but also to have developed by world tended to apply to the equality of the Englishman standards a diverse, tolerant, outward looking, cos- and the Chinaman. There is a deep-set difference, mopolitan society. And this, despite our leaders. and we see no prospect and no promise of its ever Menzies had a clear view of nation, and who were being effaced. Nothing in this world can put these acceptable outsiders. Supporting appeasement, two races upon an equality. Nothing we can do by Menzies had visited that paragon of nationalism, Adolf cultivation, by refinement, or by anything else will Hitler, in August 1938, and praised the ‘spiritual make some races equal to others.4 quality’ and ‘national pride’ Hitler had invoked in the German people. When, in the lead-up to the The Immigration Restriction Act and the legislation war, he was asked mischievously by Winston Church- to repatriate the South Sea Islanders who had worked ill, “Hitler says that sixteen million Jews ought to go in the sugar industry in Northern Australia were two and live in Australia. What do you say to that?” we of the highest priorities of the first Parliament. are told by an observer that he “had no good quick McCormick’s ‘fair’ had a double meaning. The answer”.6 Half a century later, John Howard was to maiden of nation was clearly fair in complexion be- show a similar lack of sympathy towards refugees. fore she was fair by nature. And so, the settlement as Meanwhile, the Australian press of Menzies’ time to what was procedurally ‘fair’ (a living wage, social were supporting the notion that Australia should ac- security, national industries protected from foreign cept Jewish refugees. The usual labour complaints, competition) was to be limited to the fair-skinned the Sydney Morning Herald noted in December 1939, descendants of migrants from the British Isles. had been “removed by the approval given to the project by the Australasian Council of Trade Un- THE MENZIES YEARS ions” and this “would not only make a contribution I want to take this doubly fair Australia of Federa- to the solution of the refugee problem” but would tion as my counterpoint for considering contempo- “justify our right to” retain “this great continent” in rary Australian nationhood. To do this, I will focus the face of “a land-hungry world”.7 Menzies demurred. for a moment on the life and times of Australia’s After the war, Menzies led a country which longest serving Prime Minister, Sir Robert Menzies, seemed to define itself largely in terms of its English
OVERLAND 178 2005 7 connections. The British Commonwealth of Nations and Hubert Opperman, all presided over a program had replaced the Empire. “Elizabeth the Second, by which moved progressively further away from the the Grace of God of the United Kingdom, Australia old framework of White Australia and immigration and her other realms and territories Queen, Head of restriction. the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith, already The image of Anglo-Tory conservatism projected enshrined by ancient ritual in her noble heritage, is by the persona of Menzies is really quite deceptive. now enshrined in the hearts of the people of her During Downer’s ministry, the new 1958 Migration great southern Dominion.”8 So began the Official Act abolished the centrepiece of the old White Aus- Commemorative Volume created by Menzies’ Aus- tralia Policy, the dictation test. Downer was the fa- tralian News and Information Bureau to mark the ther of another Alexander, who would, decades later occasion of the Queen’s first visit to Australia in 1954. and by dint of political inheritance, become John The success of the visit was a measure of the consid- Howard’s Minister for Foreign Affairs. erable effort and expense that the Menzies Govern- If the Citizenship Convention of 1958 was any ment invested into it. Seventy-five per cent of Australia’s measure, the tenor of nation had unmistakeably nine million people saw the Queen at least once.9 shifted away from Anglophilia. At the back of the But by the time of her second visit, in 1963, the stage was a mural which incongruously juxtaposed crowds were much smaller. Only three thousand immigrants folk dancing with the iconography of people turned out to see the Queen when she ar- Australian development—its steel mills, its muscled rived in Canberra. And when, in a welcome speech, shirtless male workers, its scientists in lab coats. To Menzies quoted the Elizabethan poet Barnabe Googe this backdrop, Alexander Downer said “we have re- “I did but see her passing by and yet I love her till I ceived that indefinably precious infusion of ideas from die”, even the Queen is reported to have looked the Continent: new ways of living, looking at life, of embarrassed.10 An Anglophile to the end, Menzies painting, architecture and other emanations of the did have to relent when his suggestion that the new mind. These are attributes which our rather stodgy Australian currency be called the Royal, rather than Anglo-Saxon communities are much in need of”.12 the dollar, was overruled by his cabinet colleagues. He spoke of an historical mission that would shift When Winston Churchill died in 1965, the Queen Australia away from a predominantly British self- appointed Menzies to succeed him as Lord Warden image, “so that we can mould Australia into an Anglo- of the Cinque Ports, an arcane English honour. European community”.13 In fact, in the light of this Meanwhile, the real business of transforming new conception of Australia, the story of its past Australia was being undertaken by Menzies’ minis- itself needed to be rewritten. Take Arthur Phillip, ters, business which would, in the passage of time, that old hero of the moment when imperial Britain turn Menzies’ Anglophilia into an anachronism. consummated its claim to sovereignty over New Harold Holt, destined to be Menzies’ successor as Holland: Prime Minister, was installed as the Minister for Apart from his fine personal qualities, there is one Immigration when the Liberals came to power in aspect of Phillip which is not widely recognised. 1949. Not only did Holt continue the immigration Wrapped up in his genealogy was a portent of the program begun by Labor’s Arthur Calwell at the Australia he was destined to found: for whilst his end of the Second World War; he worked vigorously mother was English, his father was a German, from to expand it well beyond his predecessor’s expecta- Frankfurt, who in his youth had settled in London. tions. He set a target of two hundred thousand im- Thus, right from the start the signpost pointed to the migrants annually from 1950—a far cry from creation of an Anglo-European community.14 Calwell’s target of seventy thousand or 1 per cent annual population increase through immigration. A similar transformation was underway in Austral- With a target of this size, together with the failure to ia’s sense of its place in the region. Here is Downer attract sufficient numbers of British immigrants, it again, this time speaking to the Australian Institute became “clear, therefore that new sources of for- of International Affairs in 1960, and referring to the eign migration must be tapped”.11 The three Immi- Colombo Plan which was by then bringing thou- gration Ministers that followed Harold Holt during sands of Asian students to study in Australia, the the Menzies years, Athol Townley, Alexander Downer new Australian diplomatic and trade missions in Asia,
8 OVERLAND 178 2005 and the South-East Asian Treaty Organisation. These . . . Part of our destiny may well be with Asia; if so, we were evidence that Australia was creating a more must fulfil it spiritually, unselfishly, with shining en- positive sense of its place in Asia: lightenment.15 What we are doing is only a beginning; the pro-Asian This destiny was to be realised sooner than Downer momentum in knowledge, understanding and out- might have expected. The Australian Labor Party look must gather speed in the mutual interests of deleted White Australia from its policies in 1965, the ourselves and our neighbours . . . Does the wisdom last party to do so. Downer’s successor as Immigra- of attuning our minds to Asian ideas and require- tion Minister, Hubert Opperman, announced lim- ments imply that our future lies with Asia, that in fact ited Asian Immigration in 1966, and the first Australia is an Asian country, that sooner or later to large-scale Asian immigration to Australia for more the unbroken stream of peoples pouring in from Eu- than a century recommenced under the Fraser Gov- rope there must be added a confluent flow from Asia? ernment in 1976.
OVERLAND 178 2005 9 Menzies left office in 1966. By then, his vision gising too much for our current identity”.17 had well and truly become something of the past. Bob Hawke was Prime Minister at the time, and Australia had changed, and a lucky thing too. To seized on the opportunity to condemn Howard. On return to Donald Horne, the luck was undeserved 25 August 1988, he moved a motion in the Federal given the country’s second-rate leadership. But the Parliament: fact is that we didn’t end up trading in ‘Royals’, and That this house, (1) acknowledges the historic action we got a society that was diverse, cosmopolitan and of the Holt Government, with bipartisan support from outward looking, less and less like Menzies’ national the ALP, in initiating the dismantling of the White vision, which amounted to the creation of a ‘new Australia policy; (2) recognises that, since 1973, suc- Britannia in another world’, to reuse an expression cessive Labor and Coalition governments have, with of the prominent nineteenth-century New South bipartisan support, pursued a racially non-discrimina- Wales colonist William Charles Wentworth. tory immigration policy to the overwhelming national THE WHITE PICKET FENCE and international benefit of Australia; and (3) gives its unambiguous and unqualified commitment to the John Howard became Leader of the Opposition in principle that, whatever criteria are applied by Austral- 1985. In 1988, he released the Liberal Party’s ‘Fu- ian governments in exercising their sovereign right to ture Directions’ policy. On the cover was the image determine the composition of the immigration in- of a family behind a white picket fence. On the inside take, race or ethnic origin shall never, explicitly or was all the rhetoric of Anglophone conservatism— implicitly, be among them.18 Thatcher was Prime Minister of the United Kingdom at the time and Reagan the US President—small gov- Four Liberals crossed the floor to vote against ernment, labour-market deregulation and support- Howard, including the future Immigration Minister, ing individual initiative and enterprise. Howard’s extra Philip Ruddock—a source of the deep antipathy be- touches to economic neo-liberalism were drawn from tween the two men that was to last for many years. his personal repertoire of cultural conservatism, par- It was one of the things that spelt the end of Howard’s ticularly the traditional family and the dangers of iden- leadership. Andrew Peacock replaced him as leader tifying with groups—one of the key failings, in his in May 1989. view, of the multicultural and indigenous policies of For the moment at least, Howard remained un- the time. These views Howard rolled into a policy he repentant. He replied to one of his constituents in called ‘One Australia’. In the sharp light of retro- his electorate of Bennelong, a Mr C. Dawson, as spect, the name and the rhetoric eerily foreshadow follows: the One Nation Party that emerged after Howard’s 22 May 1991 election as Prime Minister eight years later. Dear Mr Dawson, His starting point was what was then publicly termed the ‘Asianisation’ of Australia. In an August Thank you for sending me a copy of your letter of 1988 radio interview, he said, “I believe that Asian 23 April 1991 addressed to the Prime Minister. migration is in the eyes of some of the community You have raised a large number of issues too great; it would be in our immediate term inter- concerning immigration and multiculturalism. I ests in terms of social cohesion if we could slow down share some of the concerns you have expressed, but a little so that the capacity of the community to ab- not others. sorb this would become greater”.16 “I do . . . think My own view on this issue is that Australia made that the pace of change brought about by the mi- an error in abandoning its former policy of encour- grant intake is an issue that any government has to aging assimilation and integration in favour of keep in mind.” This was why he was going to run multiculturalism. “very strongly on the concept of One Australia” at I do not mind where immigrants come from. the next election. More broadly he claimed that However, once in Australia the goal must surely be multiculturalism had left the country facing a “cul- to establish a completely cohesive integrated society tural identity crisis”. “At the end of the day, we all and not encourage separatism. have to be Australians above anything else. We have Yours Sincerely apologised too much for our past, and we are apolo- (John Howard)19
10 OVERLAND 178 2005 After Howard, the Liberals aborted the ‘One Aus- he also had a cultural project. As he reminded a gath- tralia’ policy and desisted from attacking ering of Liberal Party faithful in Sydney, “govern- multiculturalism. In fact, rubbing salt into the wound, ment is not only about dollars and cents and Howard’s enemy and supporter of multiculturalism, economic goals and economic objectives but gov- Philip Ruddock, was elevated to shadow Immigra- ernment is also about values, and government is also tion Minister. However, the Liberals continued to about the way we think about ourselves”.23 flounder under Andrew Peacock, then John Hewson, So what were Howard’s values? One of his per- then Alexander Downer the younger. sistent early themes as Prime Minister was ‘Political In desperation, the Liberals turned back to their Correctness’, a code for the panoply of cultural evils old warhorse, John Howard, in January 1995. It is perpetrated by the former Labor Government and, no small irony that his first public event after being indirectly, a statement of Howard’s contrasting val- re-installed as leader was a citizenship ceremony at ues and cultural priorities. When he became Prime Ryde Civic Centre in Sydney. As he entered the hall, Minister, he said: the Ryde District Band played the theme to The one of the goals I set myself, was quite simply to bring Mouseketeers, ‘Who’s the leader of the band? . . . about a restoration where people felt a little more Mickey Mouse’.20 freely, if the mood struck them, to talk about contro- One of the first things Howard needed to do was versial issues without fear of being branded as a racist make a public confession of past error. Within a few or some other kind of bigot for daring to bring up days of being elevated to the leadership, he was to those subjects. I think one of the many criticisms I reflect on what he had said back in 1988 in the fol- had of the former Government was the way in which lowing terms: it used a form of social censorship to intimidate peo- I obviously used clumsy language. I obviously didn’t ple out of debating difficult, sensitive and controver- handle that thing with the right degree of sensitivity sial issues. I think we had become almost too politically and I’ve dealt with that. I don’t intend to go on correct to a fault before the [election on the] second repeating what I’ve said previously.21 of March.24 In the lead-up to the March 1996 elections, the Lib- Another theme was the so-called ‘black armband’ erals’ policies on immigration, multiculturalism and view of history. He laid down the challenge: Indigenous affairs were virtually indistinguishable from . . . to ensure that our history as a nation is not written Labor’s. Howard’s Liberal-National Party Coalition definitively by those who take the view that Austral- won a convincing victory. ians should apologise for most of it. This ‘black arm- Despite his apparent backtracking, Howard still band’ view of our past reflects a belief that most had a distinctive nation-building agenda. In an Au- Australian history since 1788 has been little more than gust 1996 interview, of the likely length of his term a disgraceful story of imperialism, exploitation, racism, given a hostile Senate in which the Coalition did not sexism and other forms of discrimination. I take a very have a majority, he said: different view. I believe that the balance sheet of our There are a whole lot of reasons why it’s far better to history is one of heroic achievement and that we have have our three years and then go to the people in achieved much more as a nation of which we can be ’99 in the lead-up to the centenary of Federation proud than of which we should be ashamed and the Olympic Games. It’s much better we have . . . The debate over Australian history, however, risks our three years. You’ve got an opportunity to change being distorted if its focus is confined only to the short- the culture, you’ve got an opportunity for there to comings of previous generations. It risks being further be a flow-through benefit and you’ve got an oppor- distorted if highly selective views of Australian history tunity for the Government to really take root in the are used as the basis for endless and agonised navel- community.22 gazing about who we are or, as seems to have hap- pened over recent years, as part of a ‘perpetual seminar’ Politics for Howard was to be a lot more that a man- for elite opinion about our national identity.25 agement exercise—the job of balancing the nation’s books and creating an environment that was good And still another was developing Australia’s relation- for business. More than mere looking after business, ships with Asia, one of the ‘big picture’ themes of
OVERLAND 178 2005 11 the former Labor Prime Minister, Paul Keating, and words: refusal to condemn maverick MP Pauline his Foreign Minister, Gareth Evans. Howard said he Hanson and founder of the One Nation Party; abo- was not going to trade ‘our history’ (British, Chris- lition of the Office of Multicultural Affairs; cutbacks tian, European) against our geography (Asian, West- in the immigration program that were unprecedented ern Pacific, Indian Ocean): in a time of prosperity; refusal to apologise to the Stolen Generation; closing the Council for Aborigi- [The Coalition Parties] do not believe that Australia nal Reconciliation; the ‘Ten Point Plan’ to restrict faces some kind of exclusive choice between our past the impact of the High Court’s Wik decision on and our future, between our history and our geogra- Native Title—these are just a few examples of phy. Such a choice is a phoney and irrelevant one Howard’s cultural activism in his first term.28 Then, proposed by those with ulterior motives. We do not in the second and third terms of office, there was the have to abandon or apologise for our heritage to con- refugee crisis, the abolition of ATSIC, signing Aus- tribute to Asia.26 tralia up to the Axis of Anglos for the war against So, what, in Howard’s view, was Australian national Iraq without UN or even broad-based international identity? The answer was to be found in the ‘great support for the invasion. mainstream’ of Australian life, the people who do not benefit from being a member of a special inter- MR HOWARD BECOMES A NEW AUSTRALIAN est group. Here, Howard harked back to what he As the Howard years have passed, the Prime Minis- perceived to be Menzies’ success as a politician, and ter’s rhetoric and his practice seem to have changed a Prime Minister: in some of the defining borderlands of nation and identity. This is not so much the case for Indigenous Menzies’ political success lay in building an enduring Affairs, where the abolition of ATSIC, the return of and broadly-based constituency that supported Lib- programs to the Federal bureaucracy and the project eralism’s values and priorities. At the heart of that of ‘practical reconciliation’ amount to a de facto re- constituency were ‘the forgotten people’ of that era— turn to the assimilation policies of the forties and the men and women of the great Australian main- fifties. However, since the late nineties, Howard’s stream who felt excluded from the special interest political stance has changed in the areas of immigra- elitism of the Liberal Party’s immediate predecessors tion, multiculturalism and Australia’s relations with and from the trade union dominance of the Labor Asia, although this should not necessarily be taken Party . . . Liberalism faces the ongoing challenge of to reflect a parallel change in his private views. It is building an enduring and broadly-based constituency certainly not the result of some kind of epiphany in across the great mainstream of our rapidly changing which the character of Australia was somehow re- society. Over recent times, a new constituency has vealed to the Prime Minister, and this in turn, has galvanised around new issues and in support of Lib- mutated into ‘leadership’—there is little evidence of eral priorities. It includes many of the ‘battlers’ and that. It is more a reflection of the strange life of a families who are struggling to get ahead . . . It includes man whose primary virtues are pragmatism and re- all those who do not want their national government silience, a great stayer who has had to make himself, to respond to the loudest clamour of the noisiest or at least his public persona, into a new Australian, minority . . . Liberalism now has an opportunity, un- if only to keep the job in which he evidently revels. paralleled for almost fifty years, to consolidate a new To take the issue of immigration and border con- coalition of support among the broad cross-section of trol, Howard’s hard line on refugees has been in the the Australian people. It will only prove enduring if headlines for years on end, the high point of which Liberalism continues to relate its fundamental values was the Tampa incident of 2001. A Norwegian ship, and principles to the concerns and aspirations of the the Tampa, picked up asylum seekers heading to Australian mainstream, rather than the narrower agen- Australia and whose boat was sinking. The Govern- das of elites and special interests. This means building ment subsequently refused the ship entry to Aus- a genuinely shared sense of national purpose rather tralia, and then concocted the ‘Pacific Solution’ in than an amalgamation of special interests.27 which the asylum seekers were detained at the Aus- These were Howard’s words about the Australian tralian Government’s expense in various locations in nation. His actions, however, spoke larger then neighbouring countries, mainly Nauru.29 The story
12 OVERLAND 178 2005 If you were appalled by the Howard Government’s stand on asylum seekers, there were no political alternatives. One thing for certain, though, with Latham as Leader and Ferguson as Shadow Immigration Minister—both opponents of immigration and less than enthusiastic about refugees—Labor would reduce immigration if elected. doesn’t bear telling again. Suffice it to say, the Op- The irony was that, although Ruddock’s and position equivocated and the Government won a Howard’s underlying agendas were fundamentally convincing third-term election some months later. different, they converged at the flashpoint of The less known story is that, however reprehen- Howard’s political pragmatism. Ruddock was elevated sible the posturing and the now well-documented to the Cabinet in 1998 when Howard came close to politics of deceit, the refugee program remained sub- losing the election in the wake of the meteoric rise of stantial and immigration was significantly growing. Pauline Hanson’s One Nation Party. He became a The story unfolds as a personal drama fought out hero of the Liberal Party and John Howard’s sav- between the two longest serving members of the iour at the 2001 ‘Tampa Election’. Federal Parliament, John Howard and Philip In Howard’s first term, Ruddock had not been a Ruddock. Both were elected in 1974, midway through happy man. His submissions to Cabinet on the im- the years of the Whitlam Government. Howard’s migration program (on the few occasions when he, dislike of Ruddock was intense. Giving Ruddock what as a Junior Minister, was invited in), were all cut was then the outer Ministry of Immigration and back. He nearly resigned from the Government when Multicultural Affairs—Howard stripped the Office Howard wanted to allow Holocaust-denying histo- of Multicultural Affairs out of the Prime Minister’s rian, David Irving, to be given a visitor’s visa to speak Department within days of taking office and threw in Australia. Howard relented. However, the more Immigration out of Cabinet—was little more than a Ruddock made himself indispensable to Howard’s sign of his contempt for the person who had con- survival, the more wins he started having against tributed to his demise as Opposition Leader in 1988. Howard on the key issues upon which they had al- Ruddock set about running the Immigration Port- ways disagreed. This was a peculiar victory, because folio in his characteristically plodding, methodical Ruddock’s public rhetoric and the way it had been way.30 He knew the area well from his earlier stint as used by Howard, was at the expense of his own in- Shadow Minister. One of his prime objectives, he tegrity and the respect he had garnered in his coura- said, was to “restore public confidence in the immi- geous stand against Howard in 1988. gration program”. He was a high immigration man, Take immigration: The program had been set at and believed the program should be rigorously non- 82,000 in 1995–96, the last year of the Keating discriminatory—quite the reverse of Howard in these Government. Despite Ruddock’s protestations, respects. However, as a devout Sydney Anglican, Howard reduced the program to 67,000 in 1997– teetotaler and a man who never swears (and unlike 98 and 68,000 in 1998–99—the lowest immigration Howard in these respects, too), he considered ‘queue- levels ever for a period of economic prosperity. By jumping’ by asylum seekers to be an affront to Anglo 2002–03, this number had jumped to 108,000, with rectitude, and one of the things that eroded public 116,500 projected in 2003–04.32 These were the confidence in the program.31 Australia had an obli- program settings; the actual outcomes were even gation to resettle refugees, and it would continue to higher. In the year after the Tampa incident, net do this at a per capita rate higher than almost every overseas migration reached its highest level since the other country in the world, but Ruddock was deter- 1980s, 126,000. Of these, only 22.2 per cent were mined that priority and need should be determined European. It was the least white immigration pro- by the United Nations’ refugee agency, UNHCR, gram ever. At the same time, the pace of human and not by whichever ‘queue-jumpers’ happened to movement has been quickening. Leaving aside tour- present themselves on Australia’s shores. ism, there were 280,000 long-term arrivals (includ-
OVERLAND 178 2005 13 ing temporary workers, business people and students) As if the Government had some kind of personal- to Australia in 2002–03, nearly double the figure for ity disorder, it expressed two kinds of vision, perhaps the last year of the Keating Government. Twenty- cynically designed to be regarded positively by two seven thousand of these were from China alone. New kinds of person. Some people were happy because visa categories were even introduced, such as nine the Government had got tough on border control. It thousand onshore permanent residence visas for in- had taken a ‘tough stand’, but perhaps they hadn’t ternational students. Family migration grew, even for noticed the substantial rise in levels of immigration? aged parents.33 These results, paradoxically given his Interestingly, high immigration had been a constant developing public persona, were a testimony to anxiety, constantly in the news, during the Hawke Ruddock’s persistence, and then that of his factional period, but this issue seemed to have been completely friend, Amanda Vanstone, who took over the Immi- displaced in the Howard era by the fracas about a few gration portfolio in October 2003. Finally, Ruddock thousand people in a few dozen boats. Whereas the had won the practical battle against John Howard’s Hawke and Keating Governments had tried to as- anti-immigration sentiments. suage people’s fears with multiculturalism, the Meanwhile, the refugee program, large by world Howard Government used unfounded fear as a ruse. standards, remained steady, even through the most This was one kind of person. Another kind of negative moments in the public storm: 13,700 in person whose attention was elsewhere would have 2001–02 and 12,500 in 2002–03. It has been esti- noticed, however, a reassuring rhetoric of nation mated that, on average, it costs $100,000 to settle around immigration and multiculturalism. As it turns each refugee. This contrasts with other areas of gov- out, this rhetoric was substantially the same as Hawke ernment, such as foreign aid, which has significantly and Keating’s. This is typical of the way in which the dropped during the Howard years. Moreover, there Howard Government has catered for multiple con- has been a progressive shift of refugee intake in re- stituencies, even if this meant they had to feed them cent years, away from Eastern Europe, towards Af- conflicting and mutually contradictory messages. The rica (now 47 per cent of refugees) and the Middle political impact was immediate. In the wake of East (37 per cent). In just a few years, the program Howard’s refusal to speak out against Pauline had changed in such a way that it now consists al- Hanson, there was a substantial swing within the most exclusively of non-whites or non-Christians.34 nearly half a million Chinese community behind And the Labor Opposition’s view? After its fourth Labor; by the 2004 election, many had swung back consecutive election loss in October 2004, Shadow to the Liberals, a natural choice given their back- Immigration Minister Laurie Ferguson questioned ground as migrants and their economic aspirations the very nature of the refugee program. Refugee in Australia. Howard had made himself over suffi- advocates would have a more realistic view if they ciently to win their support. The Labor Party seemed lived in areas where most refugees resided, he said, to have forgotten that these were issues which had as the Member for Reid in Sydney’s west, where some influence on election results. many refugees settled. As for asylum seekers, “I get While the Labor Opposition backed away from a bit sick of being lectured to by people,” he said. multiculturalism, even removing the word from the “What I do question is that people who don’t want name of its shadow ministry, John Howard, of all peo- any rules, don’t want any controls, don’t want any ple, could be talking the talk. In 2003, the Prime checking (of refugee claims) are usually people whose Minister wrote the foreword to its renewed policy, contact is limited to a few niche cases that they get Multicultural Australia: United in Diversity, launched very emotionally involved in. These people lack to mark the twenty-fifth anniversary year of Malcolm knowledge, quite frankly, of the broader issues.”35 If Fraser’s first national multicultural policy. “The Gov- you were appalled by the Howard Government’s ernment remains committed to nurturing our inclu- stand on asylum seekers, there were no political al- sive society with its proud record of community ternatives. One thing for certain, though, with harmony,” Howard said. The policy reaffirms “the Latham as Leader and Ferguson as Shadow Immi- Government’s commitment to promoting diversity” gration Minister—both opponents of immigration and represents a “renewed statement of our and less than enthusiastic about refugees—Labor multicultural policy”.36 Even to get Howard to say would have reduced immigration if elected. the ‘m’ word had been a huge achievement. And the
14 OVERLAND 178 2005 basic ideas behind multiculturalism and the programs Three per cent of the Australian population—no fewer enunciated in the document remained unchanged than 550,000—claim Chinese ancestry. Speaking per- from the Hawke–Keating era—the Access and Eq- sonally, 13.3 per cent of my own electorate of uity Program, the Productive Diversity Program and Bennelong in Sydney claims Chinese ancestry. There the Living in Harmony community relations pro- are 34,000 students from China studying in Australia. gram. The engineer of these ideas back in the 1980s Mr Speaker, China is now Australia’s third largest trad- had been the former head of the Office of ing partner. Last year, the signing of the natural gas Multicultural Affairs, Peter Shergold, new head of contract for the supply over twenty-five years of natu- Howard’s Department of Prime Minister and Cabi- ral gas to the Guangdong province was a veritable net. The Government even changed the Citizenship landmark in the evolution of the economic relation- Act in 2003 to allow Australians to take up a second ship between our two nations. Two-way trade be- citizenship—something that had been tried during tween Australia and China has trebled since 1996.39 the Labor years, but which had never won sufficient Nor has the Howard Government toed the US line support.37 on Taiwan, something that is noted with apprecia- All this because the realities of nation were such tion by the Chinese leadership.40 that there was no other reasonable way to put it. Howard is now sounding more and more like the Some six million people have migrated to Australia man he scorned as trading our history for our geog- since 1945, including 650,000 refugees. Forty-three raphy, former Prime Minister Keating. In fact, per cent of the population is either born overseas or Howard has made twenty-three visits to countries in had one parent born overseas. Overseas-born com- the region during his eight years as Prime Minister, prise 23.4 per cent of the population, more than compared to Hawke’s nine and Keating’s thirteen.41 double that of the other great country of immigra- After his fourth consecutive election win, he said it tion, the United States. The consequence was a na- was time for a “rebalancing” back to the region and tion which, in Ruddock’s words, had “brought people the “great opportunities” that lay there: from across the globe and with them their diverse cultural heritages”. Central to this ongoing nation- There’s the building on what we’ve achieved in building exercise was “a migration program that does China, the election of a new president in Indonesia not discriminate on the basis of ethnic origin, gen- . . . a new Prime Minister in Malaysia, the good state der, race or religion”. “Together, we have built a of our relations with Thailand, the fact that we’ve country that is vibrant, successful and outward look- kept our relations with Korea and Japan (in good ing, a country that provides safe haven for the dis- shape) . . . I see myself focusing, spending quite a bit possessed, and a bright future for us all.” 38 The of time dealing with the region, countries in the re- realities of nation were so incontrovertible as to be gion, over the next year or two.42 on the verge of sounding like banalities. This was The Howard Government, needless to say, rushed not a country where the older John Howard could to join the Axis of Anglos in its crusade against the have found a viable role. The pragmatist had at last Taliban in Afghanistan and Saddam Hussein in Iraq, caught up with the realities. even though the latter was largely unsupported out- Much the same can be said of Australia’s rela- side the Anglophone world. And Howard the man tions in Asia. Here is John Howard speaking, the still showed traces of his old Anglophilia in his visits same man who in 1988 had expressed his serious to the Queen and attendance at cricket matches at reservations about the pace of ‘Asianisation’. The Lords. He also managed to derail the shift towards a occasion was the address of China’s President Hu republic, despite polls showing majority support, by Jintao to a joint sitting of both houses of the Austral- craftily splitting the ‘yes’ vote. His message to the ian Parliament, and Howard was speaking of the Constitutional Convention of 1998, held in Canber- state of Australia–China relations: ra’s Old Parliament House, was nevertheless ‘politi- cally correct’ to a word, albeit disingenuously so: It is a very mature and practical relationship. The peo- ple-to-people links are immensely important. If I can Never before has this historic chamber received such describe it this way: the most widely spoken foreign a wonderfully diverse gathering of Australians . . . It is language in Australia today is a dialect of Chinese. a vastly different assembly from that which met in
OVERLAND 178 2005 15 Melbourne a century ago: there were no Indigenous again, the glue that supposedly holds the ‘main- Australians present at the 1898 Convention; it was an stream’ together, or its boys at least. But set against all male gathering; the names of the delegates were this is the image of an immigrant nation and a di- overwhelming Anglo Celtic, and I doubt that any verse nation. delegate was aged under 25-years-old.43 By the beginning of his fourth term, Howard had also proved himself to be a middle-of-the-road poli- Even his defence of the case to retain the monarchy tician in the areas of social and economic policy. He was close to apologetic: had initiated less privatisation than the Hawke and Paradoxically, the developments of the past forty years Keating Governments. Even economic hawks, like are both the main reason why this issue is now under the Economist, admitted that the real structural ‘re- debate yet not necessarily a conclusive argument for forms’ preceded Howard.47 Indeed, Howard deci- change. In my view, the only argument of substance sively turned his back on the rigours of ‘economic in favour of an Australian republic is that the symbol- rationalism’ as espoused by former Liberal leader ism of Australia sharing its legal head of state with a John Hewson and practiced by Victorian Premier number of other nations is no longer appropriate. As Kennett. He was to increase Federal taxation and a matter of law, Elizabeth II is Queen of Australia. As government spending as a percentage of GDP. Bi- a matter of indisputable constitutional convention, zarrely, one of the planks of the Labor Party’s losing the Governor-General has become Australia’s effec- platform in the 2004 election was to shrink the size tive head of state.44 of government. Meanwhile the Government was spending big on iconic infrastructure projects, such The republic was unnecessary, Howard seemed to be as the Alice Springs–Darwin railway, a decision hardly saying, because Australia was already a virtual repub- motivated by immediate business opportunity. lic, and ultimately the question was not one of “re- “There is a desire on the part of the community”, moving the symbolism which many see as inappropriate Howard said, “for an investment in infrastructure in our present arrangements”; rather it was whether and human resources and I think there has been a “the alternatives so far canvassed will deliver a better shift in attitude in the community on this, even among system of government than the one we currently the most ardent economic rationalists.”48 Howard 45 have”. If it ain’t broke, don’t try to fix it, and the also gave cash bribes to ‘mainstream Australia’ for question of whether the symbols are appropriate or buying a new house and having babies. And, remi- not is the last thing we should be worrying about. niscent of the Whitlam years, Howard was to pull So, what is Howard’s nation at the beginning of the centre of gravity of government programs and the twenty-first century? Here he is trying to explain activities away from the states and back towards things to that paragon of New World nations, the Canberra. National accreditation of teachers, the United States, at a joint sitting of both houses of the establishment of Vocational Education Colleges and Congress in 2002: the abolition of the Australian National Training Our pioneer past, so similar to your own, has pro- Authority, are just a few examples of this in one port- duced a spirit that can overcome adversity and pursue folio area. Being a centralist on economic policy was great dreams. We’ve pursued a society of opportunity, an easy row to hoe given that Australia had one of fairness and hope, leaving—as you did—the divisions the most buoyant economies in the developed world. and prejudices of the Old World far behind. Like Interest rates were low, and steady. Per capita GDP your own, our culture continues to be immeasurably was growing to such an extent that Australia’s rank enriched by immigration from the four corners of the in the league table of the world’s richest countries 49 world. We believe as you do that nations are strength- rose from 10 in 1990 to 7 in 2000. This is the stuff ened not weakened, broadened and not diminished, that election victories are made of. Plus the cunning by a variety of views and an atmosphere of open de- of out-Laboring Labor. bate. Most of all, we value loyalty given and loyalty WE, THE PEOPLE gained. The concept of mateship runs deeply through the Australian character.46 So, here is one version of Australia halfway into the first decade of the twenty-first century. We have That old chestnut, ‘mateship’ still pops up now and showed ourselves to be heartless by denying refuge
16 OVERLAND 178 2005 The realities of nation were so incontrovertible as to be on the verge of sounding like banalities. This was not a country where the older John Howard could have found a viable role. The pragmatist had at last caught up with the realities.
to people fleeing regimes which are undeniably ugly. formation. This trajectory takes us still further away We have shown ourselves capable of passing laws from the foundational premises of nation at the time that flaunt international human rights protocols to of Federation. Mr Howard has been forced, reluc- which we are signatory. We have proven ourselves tantly perhaps, to reinvent himself, to become a new to be slippery characters by consorting with the bank- Australian. rupt and corrupt state of Nauru, and for no better Just as Howard cannot claim the prosperous Aus- reason than to buy political advantage during an elec- tralian economy as his own doing, nor can he claim tion campaign. We have taken back the reigns of a role of any significance in the shaping of national Indigenous development and cast Indigenous Peo- identity. His principles may have sometimes acted as ple as irresponsible abusers of each other. We have a brake, but not for too long, as pragmatism kicks turned narrowly to the USA, not expansively to our in. Howard is a man being dragged into the future, neighbours, particularly the communities to our im- more than he has managed to shape the future. We mediate North. We have made ourselves vulnerable are a nation whose changing shape is being chiselled and even possible targets by highlighting to the world by underlying historical trajectories rather than lead- our xenophobia in recent years. Worst of all, we have ership and vision. We are ‘lucky’ (Donald Horne’s shown ourselves to be willing to betray our historical ironical ‘lucky’ again) despite the lack of national trajectory as an inclusive nation. leadership. There’s plenty of historical precedent for In these respects, Mr Howard has managed to this in Australia. As a country, we seem to have thrived change our sense of ourselves. He has made us be- on weak leaders and in spite of their anachronistic lieve ourselves to be smaller and meaner than we are. understandings of nation. Menzies and Howard have His continuing success in the polls reflects his narrow now been Prime Minister for twenty-five of the post- vision of Australia, manipulated by five years of wedge war years, and we’ve still managed to come a long politics and disingenuous talkback radio gigs. We ap- way towards creating an open, cosmopolitan, out- pear under Howard’s leadership to have turned our ward looking country. backs on the necessary, difficult dialogues that had It is easy from a conservative perspective to be led us on the path to reconciliation, multiculturalism triumphalist and from a progressive perspective to and openness to our region. This, incidentally, would feel cast into the wilderness by the events of the be the stuff of a serious and effective ‘war against Howard years. Neither view is accurate. In fact, terror’, one which tackles its root causes. speaking for the moment as a strategic optimist, not But there’s another version of the Australian na- even the most atavistic leader has been able to define tion, to which even Mr Howard has been forced to Australia in old-fashioned ethnic terms, aligned only adjust. Our curious good luck has been the ambiva- to an imagined Western, or even more narrowly, lence about who we are and our diversity as a nation Anglo kith and kin. This is ineluctably a nation where of immigrants, as a nation in Asia and as a nation you can have multiple loyalties to other places and facing the moral inevitably of having to address the communities in the world, where you can speak any question of original Indigenous ownership of this language and practice a wide range of acceptably continent. The last of these questions, Howard does different lifestyles, and still be a good citizen. This is seem to have successfully swept under the carpet for a lesson that still has to be learnt in many of the the moment at least. But on the former two ques- world’s trouble spots. It has been something that tions, the reality of the Howard Government, al- was possible for us to achieve in Australia. This is a though not its fear-inducing border control talk, has nation that could show moral, cultural and political been to continue the trajectory of national self-trans- leadership in a world pulled apart by conflicts over
OVERLAND 178 2005 17 borders and belonging. And when our leaders won’t 28. Mary Kalantzis and Bill Cope, An Opportunity to Change the Culture, The Retreat from Tolerance: A Snapshot of or can’t articulate our achievement, we, the people, Australian Society, Phillip Adams (ed.), ABC Books, Sydney, will have to do it for ourselves. 1997, pp.5785. 29. David Marr and Marian Wilkinson, Dark Victory, Allen & Unwin, 1. See for example Bill Cope and Mary Kalantzis, A Place in the Sydney, 2003. Sun: Re-creating the Australian Way of Life, HarperCollins, 30. For a profile of Ruddock see Cope and Kalantzis, A Place in Sydney, 2000; Mary Kalantzis, Multicultural Citizenship, the Sun. Wayne Hudson and John Kane (eds), Rethinking Australian 31. The Making of Mr Methodical, Sydney Morning Herald Good Citizenship, CUP, Melbourne, 2000, pp.99110; Mary Weekend, 27 April 2002. Kalantzis, Recognising Diversity, Helen Irving (ed.), Unity and 32. Department of Immigration Multicultural and Indigenous Diversity: A National Conversation (The Barton Lectures), ABC Affairs, Population Flows: Immigration Aspects, DIMIA, Books, Sydney 2001, pp.130148. Canberra, 2004, p.21. Department of Immigration 2. National Library of Australia Music Archive,
18 OVERLAND 178 2005