January 26 … the waft of burning onions on barbeques, the slaps of thongs and cricket bats in backyards, the hoisting of beer cans, flags and sails and the murmurs of citizenship ceremonies across the country, celebrating Australia Day, the blessed anniversary of the settlement of a British penal colony.
As Rick Farley pointed out in his 2003 Australia Day Address, the date creates a bitter sweet divide: “For Aboriginal Australians and many others, the 26th of January is not a day for celebration. To them the date signifies invasion and dispossession.”
Unless there’s tantalising footage for the cameras, the annual protests and those who dare to call this “invasion day” will be forgotten on the night’s television news, but they’ll get their turn. The talkback brigade will no doubt brand them “unAustralian” in the coming days. For many, the date debate will also seem irrelevant in the face of the latest decision to pack the troops off in preparation for an attack on Iraq.
But debates and dialogue, particularly those concerning national identity, are always important, and Farley also addressed this in his speech:
“I believe there is responsibility for community leaders and the media to ensure an informed and inclusive debate occurs about the big issues that shape our nation. I don’t think that responsibility is being fully discharged now. I also place enormous value on the freedoms and tolerance of our civil and democratic society. However, I fear they will be tested as Australia prepares for a new war and as national security fears grow. To be true to ourselves as a civil society, we must guard against racial stereotypes, racism and xenophobia. Our Muslim citizens must be afforded the same respect as all other Australians, irrespective of what events are occurring elsewhere in the world.”
Perhaps Gary Hardgrave will stumble across Farley’s wise words. On January 9 Hardgrave, the Federal Minister for Multicultural Affairs, cautioned some in the media about the importance of influence, warning:“Freedom of speech is a powerful right and an integral part of Australian democracy. However, there is a corresponding responsibility, especially for the media, not to abuse this power by inciting hatred or violence.”
Were Howard Sattler, Jeremy Cordeaux, Alan Jones, Stan Zemanek or the amazingly syndicated John Laws warned of the danger of such unfettered power? Nope … Hardgrave, whose website biog says he was the first MP to walk out on Pauline Hanson’s maiden speech, only sent such cautionary letters to ethnic community broadcasters, because “this responsibility is perhaps even greater for ethnic and community media organisations”.
When Melbourne 3AK’s John Jost asked Hardgrave whether he believed in multiculturalism, the Member for Moreton said, “Well, I do because essentially your culture is what’s in your heart … your culture evolves over time and in Australia we don’t have one culture that’s operating, although we have a dominant culture. But we have a range of cultures and each are worthy of respect.” (www.radioinfo.com.au)
What is this dominant culture? Perhaps national treasure Steve Liebmann knows. The breakfast host, who has spookily transcended television networks’ inspiring remote control checks, tells us in the Federal Government’s incredibly informative anti-terrorism commercials, “Australians are friendly, decent, democratic people”.
Perhaps the matching shots help provide more insight into this dominant culture, with viewers provided with images of a supposed family cricket game, a kickarse surfer on the goldie, some people with backpacks loitering outside a building marked ‘Education’, your average supposed multi-age multicultural family barbeque complete with non-descript meat, a deli owner slapping a slab of cheese with yet more meat adorning the screen, some wigs and the High Court building (no clear sign of Justice Michael Kirby), some older men carrying around large works of art, and your average multicultural class of school kiddies laughing so hard you’d be mistaken for thinking Liebmann accidentally let one rip.
Liebmann’s timing of the next line, “And we’re going to stay that way”, coincides with images of smiling women wearing veils (no, not the Tash), Aboriginal kiddies laughing (no, not with Philip Noyce), people cycling, some sort of outdoor concert (no sign of Rhonda Burchmore), and stockyards containing a coupla blokes in akubras that any city politician should try to emulate when touring the bush.
After talk about our security being beefed up, Liebmann advises “All of us can play our part, by keeping an eye out for anything suspicious”, with corresponding shots of a cute dog sniffing bags and a crowded street scene.
Here’s hoping for more information in the accompanying booklet. I’m guessing the hotline operators probably don’t need to be alerted to those cute “suspicious” dogs seen in airports and those crowds forever milling around shopping malls across the country.
John Howard has defended the decision to not specify what constitutes suspicious activity, and in many ways he’s got a point. It’s a hard task. But surely we can do better than Customs dogs and crowds. At a press conference launching the ads at the end of last month, Howard was asked to explain whether they depicted what people should be looking out for. Providing an insightful example of what is deemed suspicious, but not quite terrorism related, Howard said:
“It is very much a question of the application of one’s commonsense. I mean, self-evidently, if you see somebody climbing into a window at the house next door and you don’t recognise him, well, I mean, we all know that is suspicious. Now, I’m not saying that that’s in anyway a stereotype for a terrorist act but I use it as a metaphor, as an illustration of the point I’m making, it depends upon the circumstances.”
Mental note, man climbing in a neighbour’s house window, call hotline.
Still, nothing like a $15 million ad campaign to beat the drum of nationalistic bullshit. But fear not the cost, we’ve been told by Joe Hockey. Defending the ads, the Minister for Big Macs assured us the campaign’s expenditure is well short of the $60 million a year in advertising McDonald’s spends on hamburgers. McPhew.
Come to think of it, there’s been a nationalistic bent emerging through a couple of ads of late, playing up the Australian identity. When Pauline Hanson wanted the “I am Australian” song tagged to the Party, the Seeker and 1967 Australian of the Year recipient who penned the tune quickly issued a “please explain” and it was dropped.
The song, which was sung to the troops heading off to the middle east yesterday, has also recently been seen on our telly sets advertising our partially owned telecommunications company. The ditty, being used in this way for more nationalistic bullshit, should actually be sung, “We are one. We all pay high bills. I am, you are, we are Telstraaaaaaaa”. In conjunction with the ads, Telstra has released a CD of the song, with all sale proceeds of course going to Farmhand. With this help, who knows how long it will be able to hold the “I am Australian” tune.
Still, the nationalistic bent to the ads doesn’t seem nearly as finger down the throat material as an initiative Victoria’s Australia Day Committee recently launched. This Australia Day, us Suthna’s are being asked to recite an oath because “people wished to express their national pride and needed a way of expressing it”, according to Committee chairman Tony Beddison. For those finding it difficult to articulate their chest beating feelings, it reads:
We are Australian
We stand here proudly
Brave, strong, open and tolerant
We stand here equal, fair, true and free
Together we will build the future
But we will not forget the past
We will stand together
We are Australian
Again, the oath inspires flashbacks to something wacky the ONP would adopt, and is equally deserving of a Pauline Pantsdown “I don’t like it” response.
Leunig to the rescue (The Age, Jan 17):
The FULL unedited AUSTRALIA day OATH
WE ARE AUSTRALIAN
WE don’t quite underSTAND what’s going on HERE
consequently some blokes have resorted to doing browneyes in public, quite
PROUDLY. now that’s pretty BRAVE. STRONG
language is used. A situation of OPEN slather prevails AND
being alcohol TOLERANT helps enormously. So WE
STAND HERE, and all things being EQUAL, where
else can we stand? That’s FAIR enough, surely. Standing here is a tried and
TRUE activity; AND its FREE. Stringing words TOGETHER is
more difficult so WE WILL probably have to BUILD some more schools
at some stage in THE FUTURE, but chances are WE WILL NOT.
So forget the future, FORGET THE PAST, WE WILL just STAND
TOGETHER. WE ARE AUSTRALIAN.”
The good news is soon we all might be able to find words to express our national pride, with Vic’s Oz Day Committee hoping to extend their f’oath nationally. If anyone’s keen to adopt the motto (the khaki pompom version, or the Leunig version) when charcoaling the meat on Sundy, could it also be requested they be alarmed, not alert, and stand shoulder to shoulder?