Speech given at an Australia Day Luncheon, 2008
by local Member of Parliament (Labor)
Good afternoon Ladies and Gentlemen,
Upon being asked to deliver this speech, I must say that I had a few reservations - for originally I felt that I wasn't fit to comment on the nature of our national identity not being too sure of it myself.
As we've all been told, Australia Day is a day to celebrate what we have achieved and what we can be proud of in our nation. By all accounts, it is a day to fete and pay tribute to this place we call home.
However, upon further reflection, I asked myself; what actually does make this country, undoubtedly a good place to be, so 'great' in our own eyes? What is it about this land that entices more than 300,000 people from across the globe to each year make the long journey to call this place home?
At long last, I came to the realisation that on this occasion, we are not just presented with an opportunity to rejoice, but also given a context to reflect upon and question what it means to be an Australian, not only at the present, but also as we move towards the future.
Australia Day is, as well, a time where we must consider if the perceptions that we hold of ourselves are universally accepted, and question if everyone who comes to the sunburnt country is able to take advantage of the opportunities that we so loudly extol.
In a rather contrary fashion, I believe that we must first look at the past in order to chart the course of our future.
Over this country's relatively short history, any conception that we have had of a national identity has been ambiguous and open to much question. Unlike many other Western nations, the process of developing a sense of who we are has been complicated by the need to include a minority indigenous population, 80 years of convict transportation, and massive migration eroding traditional European links.
In short, our nation is some sort of global bastard child, few Australians have any idea what Australia is truly about, despite attempts by many of our politicians to propagate a singular idea of what it means to be a member of this society.
Not too long ago, we saw the usurping of perhaps the greatest conservative force ever seen in Australian politics. The election of Kevin Rudd as Prime Minister and the removal of John Howard signalled not only a change in leaders but hopefully a radical new direction for the debate over our identity.
Howard, upon his 1996 election win saw a chance to redefine how we as a nation saw ourselves. Rallying against the "conformists of the left" who held a "black-armband" view of history, he portrayed himself as a social-conservative on a mission to "rekindle pride in the old Australia".
According to political commentator Paul Kelly, Howard saw traditional notions of history, family, values and patriotism coming under attack from a "new progressivism" that deemed them as anachronistic and irrelevant. Dismissing calls for the establishment of a 'post-national' identity that recognised diversity and multiculturalism, the former PM advocated the affirmation of the "one people, one destiny" sentiment that Federation was grounded in.
Pitted against many centres of cultural and intellectual life guided by various ideologies, Howard fought valiantly in what were deemed the 'culture wars', influencing national discourse and presiding over a failed attempt to insert "mateship" into the constitution as well an attempt to solidify 'Australian values' into a standardised test for all who wished to become citizens.
Despite some considerable wins, Howard was still fighting a losing battle against changing demographics. The country romanticised by his version of conservative politics no longer existed, and as time went the on ability to dispute that grew even more dim. According to the 2006 census more than one half of the population were born overseas or had one parent born overseas. We are now, arguably, the most culturally diverse nation on earth, with people from more than 200 countries living here. Howard's championing of the values of the monocultural "old Australia", although evoking some patriotic sentiments, was in hindsight damaging to the success and cohesion of this nation.
By attempting to press certain values on all Australians, Howard was dividing those who could and could not accept his version of "Anzac Bradman Australia", and thus fostering a great intolerance towards diversity. On one hand, there was an upsurge of patriotism among Howard's battlers, the predominantly white working classes. Never before had attendances at Anzac parades or pride in the Aussie Olympic team been so high. But this came at a cost; those who struggled to identify with the masculine and conservative values that Howard put forward were left out. Immigrants and refugees who struggled with English, or foolishly couldn't identify whom our greatest ever sportsperson was, (if you didn't know, it's Donald Bradman) were not able to gain citizenship and as a result were locked out of participating in our political system.
This blatant promotion of Australian-ness has deeper repercussions. The inevitable creation of a mentality consisting of 'us'; the dinky-di Aussies, and 'them'; the immigrants who "swamp" our shores and repudiate our culture, led to acts of racial violence such as the Cronulla Beach riots. The division of ordinary people along racial and ethnic lines, encouraged by the celebration of the 'Australian way of life' exemplified by Howard, eventually led 5000 mostly young people, draped in Australian flags to indiscriminately assault anyone of Middle Eastern appearance on a Sydney beach. In the aftermath of the riots, Howard immediately sided with its instigators. Refusing to brand the attacks as racist, the prime minister said that he "would never condemn people for being proud of the Australian flag". It is obvious that such an approach to defining who we are has not worked; if we want every person who comes to this country to feel welcome and at ease, it is imperative we envisage a more pluralistic and tolerant society.
Although seen by Howard as a dead concept, our nation must become a more multicultural society as we go towards the future. I'm not only talking about an abundance of foreign takeaway stores, in going beyond the buttered chicken I believe that no specific ethnic, religious or cultural beliefs should be promoted as central to our nation by our government.
Such as system of multiculturalism is a fairer system, perhaps more in line with the 'fair go' spoken of ad nauseam by the former P.M, as it allows people to truly express who they are within a more tolerant society. Taking this strategic direction would be in the national interest, as the social and cultural barriers that have been seen to divide Australians would be broken down. Rather than weakening national character, such policy would strengthen national identity by binding citizens to a single moral community.
Of course there are some limits to multiculturalism. To live and participate in Australian society, one must accept the basic structures and principles of it- the Constitution and the rule of law, tolerance and equality, democracy and freedom of speech and religion. However, attempts to assimilate new arrivals with supposed 'Australian values' is farcical. Identity is not one definable thing based of singular cultural values, but the result of multiple factors that change as the world changes. It is not the role of the government to impose a top-down model of national identity for the rest of us. Instead, its role should be to foster a society that allows Australian people the security, freedom and opportunity to define what they believe it means to be Australian. Any attempts to condition certain cultural characteristics can only result in division and the loss of cohesion that is essential to any functioning democracy.
So on this day, when we rejoice in all things Australian, I call upon you to truly reflect upon what it means to be a member of this society. Going beyond conventional representations of the digger and the bronzed Aussie, I ask you to question the nature of our identity as a nation. And finally, I appeal to you to consider what you can do to ensure that all who come here have cause to celebrate this nation as well.
by local Member of Parliament (Labor)
Good afternoon Ladies and Gentlemen,
Upon being asked to deliver this speech, I must say that I had a few reservations - for originally I felt that I wasn't fit to comment on the nature of our national identity not being too sure of it myself.
As we've all been told, Australia Day is a day to celebrate what we have achieved and what we can be proud of in our nation. By all accounts, it is a day to fete and pay tribute to this place we call home.
However, upon further reflection, I asked myself; what actually does make this country, undoubtedly a good place to be, so 'great' in our own eyes? What is it about this land that entices more than 300,000 people from across the globe to each year make the long journey to call this place home?
At long last, I came to the realisation that on this occasion, we are not just presented with an opportunity to rejoice, but also given a context to reflect upon and question what it means to be an Australian, not only at the present, but also as we move towards the future.
Australia Day is, as well, a time where we must consider if the perceptions that we hold of ourselves are universally accepted, and question if everyone who comes to the sunburnt country is able to take advantage of the opportunities that we so loudly extol.
In a rather contrary fashion, I believe that we must first look at the past in order to chart the course of our future.
Over this country's relatively short history, any conception that we have had of a national identity has been ambiguous and open to much question. Unlike many other Western nations, the process of developing a sense of who we are has been complicated by the need to include a minority indigenous population, 80 years of convict transportation, and massive migration eroding traditional European links.
In short, our nation is some sort of global bastard child, few Australians have any idea what Australia is truly about, despite attempts by many of our politicians to propagate a singular idea of what it means to be a member of this society.
Not too long ago, we saw the usurping of perhaps the greatest conservative force ever seen in Australian politics. The election of Kevin Rudd as Prime Minister and the removal of John Howard signalled not only a change in leaders but hopefully a radical new direction for the debate over our identity.
Howard, upon his 1996 election win saw a chance to redefine how we as a nation saw ourselves. Rallying against the "conformists of the left" who held a "black-armband" view of history, he portrayed himself as a social-conservative on a mission to "rekindle pride in the old Australia".
According to political commentator Paul Kelly, Howard saw traditional notions of history, family, values and patriotism coming under attack from a "new progressivism" that deemed them as anachronistic and irrelevant. Dismissing calls for the establishment of a 'post-national' identity that recognised diversity and multiculturalism, the former PM advocated the affirmation of the "one people, one destiny" sentiment that Federation was grounded in.
Pitted against many centres of cultural and intellectual life guided by various ideologies, Howard fought valiantly in what were deemed the 'culture wars', influencing national discourse and presiding over a failed attempt to insert "mateship" into the constitution as well an attempt to solidify 'Australian values' into a standardised test for all who wished to become citizens.
Despite some considerable wins, Howard was still fighting a losing battle against changing demographics. The country romanticised by his version of conservative politics no longer existed, and as time went the on ability to dispute that grew even more dim. According to the 2006 census more than one half of the population were born overseas or had one parent born overseas. We are now, arguably, the most culturally diverse nation on earth, with people from more than 200 countries living here. Howard's championing of the values of the monocultural "old Australia", although evoking some patriotic sentiments, was in hindsight damaging to the success and cohesion of this nation.
By attempting to press certain values on all Australians, Howard was dividing those who could and could not accept his version of "Anzac Bradman Australia", and thus fostering a great intolerance towards diversity. On one hand, there was an upsurge of patriotism among Howard's battlers, the predominantly white working classes. Never before had attendances at Anzac parades or pride in the Aussie Olympic team been so high. But this came at a cost; those who struggled to identify with the masculine and conservative values that Howard put forward were left out. Immigrants and refugees who struggled with English, or foolishly couldn't identify whom our greatest ever sportsperson was, (if you didn't know, it's Donald Bradman) were not able to gain citizenship and as a result were locked out of participating in our political system.
This blatant promotion of Australian-ness has deeper repercussions. The inevitable creation of a mentality consisting of 'us'; the dinky-di Aussies, and 'them'; the immigrants who "swamp" our shores and repudiate our culture, led to acts of racial violence such as the Cronulla Beach riots. The division of ordinary people along racial and ethnic lines, encouraged by the celebration of the 'Australian way of life' exemplified by Howard, eventually led 5000 mostly young people, draped in Australian flags to indiscriminately assault anyone of Middle Eastern appearance on a Sydney beach. In the aftermath of the riots, Howard immediately sided with its instigators. Refusing to brand the attacks as racist, the prime minister said that he "would never condemn people for being proud of the Australian flag". It is obvious that such an approach to defining who we are has not worked; if we want every person who comes to this country to feel welcome and at ease, it is imperative we envisage a more pluralistic and tolerant society.
Although seen by Howard as a dead concept, our nation must become a more multicultural society as we go towards the future. I'm not only talking about an abundance of foreign takeaway stores, in going beyond the buttered chicken I believe that no specific ethnic, religious or cultural beliefs should be promoted as central to our nation by our government.
Such as system of multiculturalism is a fairer system, perhaps more in line with the 'fair go' spoken of ad nauseam by the former P.M, as it allows people to truly express who they are within a more tolerant society. Taking this strategic direction would be in the national interest, as the social and cultural barriers that have been seen to divide Australians would be broken down. Rather than weakening national character, such policy would strengthen national identity by binding citizens to a single moral community.
Of course there are some limits to multiculturalism. To live and participate in Australian society, one must accept the basic structures and principles of it- the Constitution and the rule of law, tolerance and equality, democracy and freedom of speech and religion. However, attempts to assimilate new arrivals with supposed 'Australian values' is farcical. Identity is not one definable thing based of singular cultural values, but the result of multiple factors that change as the world changes. It is not the role of the government to impose a top-down model of national identity for the rest of us. Instead, its role should be to foster a society that allows Australian people the security, freedom and opportunity to define what they believe it means to be Australian. Any attempts to condition certain cultural characteristics can only result in division and the loss of cohesion that is essential to any functioning democracy.
So on this day, when we rejoice in all things Australian, I call upon you to truly reflect upon what it means to be a member of this society. Going beyond conventional representations of the digger and the bronzed Aussie, I ask you to question the nature of our identity as a nation. And finally, I appeal to you to consider what you can do to ensure that all who come here have cause to celebrate this nation as well.