Australian myth: egalitarianism and chancers

Towards the end of the year’s first episode of Q&A a few weeks back, some time was set aside for some statutory patriotic bonhomie. Perhaps it was a nod and a wink to the extraordinary recent suggestion by the Prime Minister on 2GB that the ABC sometimes “appears to take everyone’s side but our own”. Perhaps it was a hat tip to Australia Day, that fleeting carnival of barbecued meat, flags-as-capes and culture war that briefly flickered in and out of reality again at the end of January, thankfully just in time (as always) to avoid any serious national debate. In any case, after almost an hour, with Barnaby Joyce’s fluster beginning to dissipate, the fluffy topic at the program’s close provided the evening’s most evocative comments.

Nick Chapman asked:

…is being a great Australian any different to being a great citizen of any other country in the world?

The question of course turned instantly into a bar room discussion about Australian values, skewed by recent news. Comedian Akmal, alluding to our continuing toxic debate on immigration and asylum seekers, questioned whether the Aussie notion of the “fair go” only applied to some people:

Is it a fair go for Australian citizens or is it a fair go for Anglo Australians? Because unless these values extend to all of humanity, then they are not really values at all, they just – it’s a form of tribalism and I think what’s happening to the asylum seekers at the moment and the fact that most of us are not outraged by what’s going on is really sad.

Nick Cater dug out a couple of cliches (“lucky country”, “we make our own luck”) before suggesting that the values that Australia holds dear are basically the same as the values that other countries hold dear. I think this underestimates the uniqueness of the Australian “fair go” ethos, or at least the popular perception of that ethos. Barnaby waxed lyrical about flying into Sydney (strewth, would you look at that!) and the joys of going for a Malaysian curry and a few “sherbets”, as perhaps only Barnaby can do. Ray Martin offered up an anecdote about a skateboarding kid and some surfers that fell flat, but also let his unhinged lefty paternalist streak out of the closet:

That’s what being an Australian is and I don’t know whether we – often we bicker over these little things. We shouldn’t even argue about this Barnaby. We should be sorting out the farm problem because we are very rich and we are very generous and we are capable to look after these people. That’s what being Australian is.

Rich, generous and capable of looking after people. I don’t remember much about Martin-era A Current Affair, but you will not observe that sort of generosity of sentiment on commercial current affairs programs these days.

Tanya Plibersek, characteristically, provided the most moving and incisive anecdote:

My friend Tom Uren, who was a prisoner of war, talks about the different survival rates between the Australian prisoners of war and the British prisoners of war and one of the reasons he gives is that the Australians shared what they had and looked after each other. They didn’t revert to the hierarchical structures that the British officers and enlisted men stuck to in the prisoners of war camp. And I always think – and he talks about Weary Dunlop’s influence on Australians working in that way, cooperatively, together, looking after each other, the strong looking after the weak, the healthy looking after the sick and if I wanted to point to one value that I think of as not uniquely Australian but intrinsically Australian and so precious, it is that attachment to egalitarianism.

Cassandra Goldie from ACOSS followed Tanya, making a slightly rambling case for the least likely welfare reform imaginable under an Abbott Government, an increase to unemployment benefits. Its a tough gig right now, at ACOSS. She also questioned the idea that Australia really is the egalitarian sort of place we like to think it is:

Yeah. I mean, look, I think that’s how we would like to see ourselves but I think we are at a bit of a crossroads, may I say, in whether or not we are prepared to practise what we espouse we have.

The popular view that we Australians have of ourselves and our values is all wrapped up in mateship, toughness and the so-called “fair go”: the idea that all Australians get an opportunity to make something of themselves. Plibersek’s suggestion that egalitarianism lies at the core of these values warmed the cockles of my heart, but it is utterly fanciful. It is a romanticised view of how the left and sympathisers with Labor and the Greens would like Australia to be. Do the strong look after the weak in Australia? Largely only to the extent that the ATO forces them to, through much-maligned (by hard-working Australians who have made their own luck, of course…) progressive taxation. The strong in our country are mostly strong because they have ridden their luck, focusing their energies on looking after themselves first and foremost, and with some worthy exceptions, they generally do not concern themselves with the travails of “the weak”. Do the healthy look after the sick? Medicare has played a critical role in this over decades, and on balance Australia is surely one of the best places on Earth to get sick in. That’s not to say that – family and friends excepted – if and when you get sick and old the generosity of everyday Australians all around you is going to buffet your journey. Ross Gittins hit the nail on the head in a column last year: individually and collectively, Australians today are more overtly materialistic than perhaps was the case in decades past, and as a result our much lauded egalitarian credentials are in truth, little more than a façade.

If there is a national personae that Australia truly embraces, it is something more like that of the “chancer”: we celebrate the underdogs who work hard, take a few risks and somehow manage to “strike it rich” or do well for themselves as a result. We like a knockabout who climbs or lucks their way above “their station”. Culturally, we have a strong Darwinist streak. Australians are reluctant to begrudge the success of those who have gambled in life and won, but happy to drop the would-be “chancers” who fail like a ton of bricks. They are just failures: they should have done better somehow. We have a tendency not to understand the difficulties of those who won’t or can’t work as effectively as the best of us; perhaps it is easier to just blame the individual. Don’t have a good enough job? Work hard and get a better one. Don’t have enough money to feed the family? You should have worked harder or smarter, you should have made better choices, like I did. Are you on welfare? You must be a bludger.

This sort of mindset wilfully ignores the myriad of uncontrollable human factors that can shape the direction of a person’s life, from your genetic predisposition, through to where you grow up, who your parents are, what sort of relatives you have, what sort of friends you make, and so on. Many in Aboriginal Australia and in the sprawling suburbs of our metropolitan areas suffer from this form of rank stigmatisation. It is not just that we are all starting the race at different times: we are all running completely different races. The “level playing field” of opportunity in Australia that we pat ourselves on the back about annually may be more level than that offered by almost all other countries, but let’s not forget that it still slopes at least as viciously as that suburban street you hurtled down on your bike, back when you were growing up.

The “chancers” who play and win in life live large as heroes in our national consciousness; unfortunately for progressives, we don’t spend much time as a nation thinking about just how stacked the odds are in favour of some of them. In Australia, we are more than happy to let the victors get their spoils and to whine about subsidising those who are struggling to do so.

Barnaby Joyce, policy whacko esquire

Despite the resumption of parliament, political debate has been muted this week; with the news dominated by a few unfortunate seconds of video footage of a Macquarie Bank worker and a legal case featuring one (or is that two?) of Australia’s favourite national songs. Such is the flippant, transitory and ultimately tabloid nature of modern news.

One intervention into the headlines worthy of debate was made by Shadow Finance Minister Barnaby Joyce. Appearing at the National Press Club for the first time as a seriously senior member of the Opposition, Joyce delivered a performance that undoubtedly left Liberal Party members across the country scratching their heads and squirming in their seats. Michelle Grattan reports on Joyce’s most questionable comments in The Age:

”We are giving $150 million to the World Bank. Fair enough. $50 million of that is to deal with the food inflationary aspects in the Third World. Well, why doesn’t Kevin Rudd deal with the food inflationary aspects in this world, you know? That would be handy,” he said.


Senator Joyce said: ”We’ve got to be cautious when we’re borrowing money from overseas to send back to overseas … because we’ve got to pay the money back.”

Putting our Macquarie Bank staffer to shame, in a matter of seconds, Tony Abbott’s right-hand man dropped a whole swag full of clunkers right there. For starters – Joyce’s rant rode roughshod over official Coalition policy on foreign aid, forcing the Opposition Leader and his Deputy to issue terse “corrections” on his behalf. It also raised serious questions about his ability to be the senior spokesperson for such a broad, sensitive policy portfolio. To compare the problems that Australia has with access to food to the problems that countries in the Third World have with access to food is quite simply, outrageous. That Joyce saw fit to raise the prospect of abandoning or reducing Australia’s small obligations to the international needy smacks of narrow, parochial self-interest, reflecting quite poorly indeed upon his character.

The Shadow Finance Minister’s financial credentials also warrant some serious questioning. Particularly in the wake of the financial crisis experienced over the last couple of years, national governments across the world have surged into debt. Some national governments are worse off than others, but what is readily apparent is that Australia’s net financial position, considering our projected ability to repay outstanding debt, is superior to just about any other nation out there. It is not strange, wrong or inadvisable for Australia to be in debt; certainly not any more the case than it is for Harvey Norman or Woolworths to borrow money, or for you or I to take out a mortgage to purchase property, at home or abroad.

Joyce seems to be suggesting that it may be inadvisable to borrow money “overseas” if the money is to be spent “overseas”, ostensibly on people who are not Australians. What sort of short-sighted, hermit kingdom mentality does that betray? What miniscule price does Joyce put on the lives of people that Australia’s aid assists, let alone Australia’s international reputation and renown as the land of the “fair go”?

Frankly, it was a Sarah Palin-esque moment, with a dash of Pauline on the side. As this year’s federal election looms large, Tony Abbott is likely going to come to rue the day that he decided that he wanted Barnaby Joyce to serve as one of his right-hand men. If, as Palin famously suggested, she can see Russia from Alaska, then this week’s events have proven (for any still in doubt) that Barnaby Joyce can really, truly, indubitably see the Third World from rural Queensland.

Evidently, if Australia is in debt, it can all rot.

ELSEWHERE: It’s hard to go past Damien Kingsbury’s surgical dissection of Joyce’s folly folly, also in The Age. To summarise:

Without any prompting, Joyce appears to have wandered off into policy whacko-land.