One Nation: Lecture The big question about One Nation is where did it come from? Did it simply descend unexpectedly from a clear blue political sky, or were there discernible forces at work that created it? I want to begin this discussion with a look at a recurring phenomenon of which One Nation is simply a recent manifestation – anti-political sentiment. And this is a malady against which democracies have to be on constant guard. A healthy liberal democracy depends upon the willingness of citizens to appreciate the value of the institutions and processes that are central to its operation – genuine elections, representative assemblies, political parties, politicians with human frailties, and the need for compromise and protection of the interests of minorities. There were clear signs even before the outbreak of the First World War almost a century ago that liberal democracy was under strain in a number of developed countries. This was not surprising given that liberal democracy had very fragile roots in all but a few nations such as Britain, the United States and Switzerland, and even in these nations stress was obvious. The historian Eric Hobsbawm is almost certainly correct in giving priority to an economic explanation. Except in America, national economies refused to revive to pre-war levels, so that in the 1920s high levels of unemployment and poverty had become the norm in most developed nations. The key European economy of Germany virtually collapsed under the weight of runaway inflation. Then at the end of the 1920s the Wall Street Crash in America set off the Great Depression of the 1930s. Not only were liberal regimes discredited because they could find no answer to the seemingly intractable economic problems – and changes of government seemed to have no effect at all – but there seemed to be some evidence that authoritarian regimes could be more successful. Hitler revived the Germany economy by pouring state capital into war preparations and Mussolini’s promise to make the trains run on time in Italy was a sneering reminded of the seeming inefficiency of liberal democratic governments. Faced with what appeared to be insurmountable economic problems many people found faith in simplistic economic theories that seemed to promise a quick fix.
One should not neglect the importance of the personality in explaining the attraction of authoritarian movements or regimes. A widespread belief developed that only a strong leader with vision could break the impasse. It was not just fascism but Mussolini himself who offered a vision of renewal in Italy. In Spain, it was not just the support of the Catholic Church, the army and the Falange that gave success to Franco, but his ruthless, personal political skills. In Germany, Hitler made sure the Nazi movement was his tool where his own personality was the main guiding force for Germany. It may be said that populism, always with us to some extent, came to the fore in the Depression. Even in firmly liberal Australia, the Anglican bishop of Goulburn, Bishop Radford, argued that perhaps what was needed was ‘a Cromwell or a Mussolini’. So what does the experience of the 1920s and 1930 have to do with Australia, One Nation and the 1990s? I am arguing here that the link between contemporary anti-politics and the state of the economy is not as simple and direct as for the 1930s, but is nevertheless a key factor. Most national economies over the past decade or two have grown steadily, but wealth has not been shared. While many salaries have skyrocketed, for most workers job security has declined, unemployment has become tightly segmented and social welfare programs have been cut. Whereas the discontent with politics in the period between the wars was most significant among the established middle class citizens whose savings were under threat, this has now shifted to the so-called ‘aspirational’ class – that is, those who desire to be prosperous and economically secure, but have not yet attained those aims. Another affected class comprises those locked into the old protectionist economy for whom globalisation is not an opportunity but a dire threat. One Nation During its short life One Nation and its founder Pauline Hanson attracted unprecedented media coverage, not to mention a degree of critical scrutiny that the major parties are mostly spared. Was it a threat to democracy or was it an organic outgrowth of the democratic process?
2
It demonstrated two things: that the main parties had lost sight of, or ignored, developments, especially in the bush, and One Nation was offering a political space that they did not provide. Secondly, the issue of race was always around, simmering away in the background, simply awaiting a spark to ignite. Pauline Hanson’s One Nation is a typical example of rural, conservative populism. It is critical of the powers wielded by the ruling classes, the intellectual elites, and other ‘special’ groups that are perceived to have an inordinate influence on government. It demands that democracy be restored to make government more fully representative of the interests of ‘ordinary’ members of ‘mainstream’ Australia. In other words, One Nation claimed to be standing up for democracy, not opposing it. Rural Australians have often felt forgotten. Australia began to urbanise rapidly from the 1890s and in the period 1890-1920 a certain “country-mindedness” began to make itself felt, largely as a result of increased international competition in markets for food and fibre. In the early 1920s this country-mindedness expressed itself in the formation and organisation of the Country Party - now the Nationals. Its high point of influence was in the period 1925-1960, and was predicated on a system of beliefs that included: • • • • • • Australia depends on its primary producers for its high standard of living Therefore all Australians should support policies aimed at improving the lot of the primary producer Farming and grazing are virtuous pursuits, as well as enobling and cooperative By contrast, city life is competitive and nasty (as well as parasitical) The typical Australian is a countryman But power resides in the city, and a separate political force is needed to articulate the true voice of the nation
Pauline Hanson’s One Nation was launched in April 1997. It deliberately eschewed the word party, and Hanson declared repeatedly she was not a politician so much as an anti-politician. This in itself had implications for Australian democracy. Democracy was not in doubt but the elected politicians were distrusted and so was the system.
3
It was also a reflection on leadership as neither of the major parties, nor the Nationals for that matter, had been able carry a truculent electorate on the road to modernization. This is a vital factor, and it has much to do with competing images of national identity. What was Australia to many Australians was seen to be being not just dismantled but betrayed. Who were the traitors? They were the elites. Ordinary Australians do have a common enemy, but it is not Aborigines, Asians or people of any particular colour, race or creed. Our common oppressors are a class of raceless, placeless cosmopolitan elites who are exercising almost absolute power over us. (Pauline Hanson Support Group, 1997) The discontent that this tapped into was more than economic; it goes to the very heart of our identities. There was a feeling around, and Hanson saw this, that the old idea of Australia was being actively invalidated. `People out there feel as if they’re losing the Australia that they know. It was clearly a populist movement – and we can look at populism as an identity discourse that draws clear distinctions between ‘the people’ and others. Support for One Nation peaked in 1998, at the Queensland state election, its first electoral test. It fielded 79 candidates for the 79-member parliament, winning 11 seats. One in every four Queenslanders supported it. And in many cases, the decision by the National and Liberal parties to preference One Nation ahead of Labor was crucial in handing it seats. But by the time of the 1998 federal election, the bubble had burst. Despite fielding candidates in 139 of the 148 House of Representatives seats, One Nation failed to win any, and Hanson herself was defeated after a redistribution. The Liberals and Nationals reversed their early decision to preference One Nation, but it still managed 8.4 per cent of the primary vote and picked up a Senate seat in Queensland. Causes The rise of One Nation reflects a grassroots protest about the perceived failure of Australia's 'elites' in dealing with economic and social change. In some ways, Labor Prime Minister Paul Keating can be called a parent of One Nation: he failed to either explain or sell his policies to those who were being most hurt by them. It is not that his policies were inherently flawed; he simply failed to explain and justify them.
4
The Nationals, too, had failed to see developments in their own backyard – or, if they did see them, preferred to ignore them. This was, after all, their own constituency, but they were tied to the Liberals. And, as for the Liberals, they saw political opportunity begging. The context of One Nation’s rise is all important, and we really have to look beyond the cities to trace the social, political and economic origins. The point I am making here is that little if any attention was being paid to as whole series of developments that were impacting heavily on people. • • • • • In the 1980s and 1990s, the income gap between rural and city dwellers had grown; Rates of male suicide had jumped alarmingly The numbers of people farming was in free fall In 1998 alone, the weak Aussie dollar added 20 per cent to major farm input costs The Asian economic crisis threatened key markets with collapse
There was anger, and it came out in Hanson’s maiden speech which outlined the types of issues with which she was concerned. Hanson makes three core claims (and many people agreed with some of them). • • • The political system isn’t working The elites have betrayed the country and its values Australia has been on the wrong track for 25 years.
Major themes in that speech to Parliament were that:
• •
• •
• •
•
her views are based on commonsense a reverse racism applies in Australia - involving those who control the taxpayer funded 'industries' that exist to service multiculturalism, aborigines and other minority groups government policies encourage separatism - by providing supports available only to aborigines skin colour does not make people disadvantaged. Such problems should be dealt with as social policies, which should not be based on race $40m has been spent on native title claims, which has gone to lawyers with no title yet granted aborigines do not want handouts, as welfare is killing them. It is better to 'teach a person to fish' than 'give them fish'. Reconciliation involves treating everyone as equals. ATSIC should be abolished, as it has failed the people it was meant to serve unemployment is a major problem, and Australian's living standards have dropped. 5
•
• •
• • • • • • •
the Family Law Act should be repealed, as it has brought misery to thousands, and treats children like pawns in a game of chess. The child support scheme can be manipulated. Australia has lost its big industries government deals with immigration and multiculturalism and excludes the people. We are in danger of being swamped by Asians who don't assimilate. A multicultural nation can't be strong government must stop kowtowing to international / financial interests, and act on a vision Australia's United Nations support should be reviewed - as this often only feeds a bureaucracy abolishing multiculturalism would save money and promote unity government must become involved in job creation projects in the short term. National service should also be re-introduced interest rates for business need to be reduced there is only a short time to turn things around, before risks from other populous nations could emerge, due to our position and resources Australian must be strong and independent. People must treat each other as equals
Public Reaction Public reaction to such ideas (and similar ideas expressed elsewhere) has been deeply divided, ranging from endorsement to vigorous criticism. The speech is best remembered for her declaration that Australia was in danger of being swamped by Asians. But a few sentences further on, after complaining that Asians formed ghettoes and did not assimilate, she expressed a view that acquired a certain resonance. “Of course I will be called a racist, but if I can invite whom I want into my home, then I should have the right to have a say in who comes into my country,” she said. Five years later, after he had stopped the Tampa with its cargo of boatpeople from landing in Australia, Howard raised the rafters at his election campaign launch by declaring: “We will decide who comes to this country and the circumstances in which they come.” Coincidence? Perhaps. But it represented a certain meeting of minds. There was no issue that cut as much ground from underneath Hanson as Howard’s tough stand on asylum-seekers. In 1998, Hanson announced One Nation’s policy of “temporary refuge for those who meet the UN definition of a refugee, with repatriation when the situation resolves”. Philip Ruddock, who was immigration minister at the time, condemned One Nation’s approach as being “highly unconscionable in a way that most thinking people would clearly reject”. Temporary entry would mean “that people would never know whether they would be able to remain here. There would be uncertainty, particularly in terms of attention given to learning
6
English, (and) in addressing the torture and trauma so they healed from some of the tremendous physical and psychological wounds they have suffered.” By the following year Ruddock had changed his mind, introducing three-year temporary protection visas for refugees coming by boat. Not only did they create the uncertainty he complained about but they imposed harsh conditions, preventing spouses and children from joining refugees in Australia and denying access to English language programs. The issue on which Hanson spent most time in her maiden speech was the one she said had largely won her the election: her claim of privileged treatment of Aborigines. It was this criticism in the heat of the election campaign that provoked the Liberal Party to disendorse Hanson, giving her a great deal of free publicity. “Along with millions of Australians, I am fed up to the back teeth with the inequalities that are being promoted by the Government and paid for by the taxpayer under the assumption that Aborigines are the most disadvantaged people in Australia.” She called for equality for all Australians, including through the abolition of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission, an elected indigenous body. Howard challenged Hanson on her view, saying Aborigines were indeed the most disadvantaged group. But he acted on Hanson’s specific complaints. One of them, made before her maiden speech, was that Aboriginal students whose parents had income above $25,000 a year received more in Abstudy payments than other students in the same situation received from Austudy. The 1997 federal budget applied an income test to Abstudy, largely eliminating these differences. This was the main component of $39million in savings over four years on Abstudy. At the same time the Government doubled the Austudy payment for families who sent two or more children away for tertiary study. It took longer to abolish ATSIC, and it may have survived had its leaders not done so much to bring about their own undoing. But Howard grabbed the opportunity when it arose. He never liked the idea of a separate elected indigenous body: it offended his idea of “one nation”, a phrase he used to use before it was appropriated by Hanson. Hanson did not get her way on everything. She argued foreign aid should be abolished. Instead, the Government cut it heavily in its first two budgets and its spending still ranks well down the list of developed countries. Hanson called for a complete halt to immigration in the short term. The Howard Government did cut the intake significantly in the early years, but with economic prosperity reducing concerns about immigrants taking jobs, it has since been increasing.
7
Multiculturalism should be abolished as well, said Hanson. Howard is no fan of the policy and avoided using the word for years. The Government’s response to Hanson was not simply a case of dancing to her tune. Her views, though sometimes crudely expressed, were often not far from Howard’s thinking. LaTrobe University political scientist Judith Brett says Hanson’s legacy may be that she created space for Howard to reposition himself politically: “Howard likes the image of balance and taking the middle path. By her taking an extreme position, that legitimates him shifting the middle to the right.” In one sense, Howard’s response seemed like an overreaction. Although One Nation gained almost 937,000 votes, or 8.4 per cent of the total, in the 1998 federal election, it never looked like becoming a mainstream party. Not only was its organisation a shambles but it attracted fringe dwellers from the loony Right. Queensland University of Technology political scientist Clive Bean says the Howard Government’s response to Hanson was in the tradition of major parties adapting to changing circumstances and “mopping up” support leaking to minor parties. He sees this as a significant factor in the demise of One Nation. Economic factors and Queensland factors Queensland is different. It is the only state whose majority population is located outside the metropolis. It is also a state where there is a long history of populism, both left and right. In comparison with other states, its levels of education are lower, there are relatively few migrants from non-Anglo areas and media diversity is lacking: all characteristics which are associated with support form populism. Overwhelmingly the source of support for One Nation appears to be concern about the economic outlook. Dissatisfaction about this seems justified for several reasons: the impact of economic change is very great, because, an attempt was made in the 1980s to diversify Australia's traditionally resource oriented economic base. Diversification was sought because of the slow growth rates of commodities relative to manufactures and services, and the inability of producers in sectors which rely on comparative advantages (ie the given economic advantages of a region) to capture significant value added - because they tend to lack market power and find prices bid down to near costs.
8
In addition:
•
•
globalisation both creates new opportunities and introduces foreign competition in traditionally localised business and economic functions but requires a higher level of business capability and supporting commercial and technological infrastructure. current global economic changes (eg those associated with the Asian financial crisis) could impact particularly on commodity markets and regional Queensland
B. Queensland's community had little information about its economic challenges, and the consequent need to develop the economy because only economic strengths were publicised eg government's strong financial position, and rapid overall economic growth. However Australia's distorted federal fiscal system means that economic activity which increases state revenue (economic turnover) may not be that needed to increase community wealth (economic value added). And rapid growth of low value added sectors (partly driven by population growth) does not lead to real prosperity. The community wide deficit in understanding of the immensity of the economic challenge led to an inability in government (with some exceptions) to foresee or understand the community's problems Queensland's economy and community has been highly dependent on resource based industries. Diversification was thus a major issue, and particularly difficult because, for such sectors, the knowledge required to take economic initiative has largely resided outside the community (eg in major national or multinational firms). Achieving economic 'success' in Queensland often only required following orders, and this provided few insights into developing the high level capabilities required to meet current competitive challenges in high value added sectors. The methods used for the four strategies for developing Queensland's economy produced over the past decade (ie internal drafting in secret by bureaucrats or consultants after consultation with particular interest groups) did not involve enterprise oriented community participation. There was a DEMOCRATIC DEFICIT. As a result:
•
• •
those strategies were relatively ineffective (because they did not mobilise the necessary practical information or commitment from the community); and so little 'energy', apart from government resources, was available to support strategies; those who were expected to operate in the new economic environment, gained little understanding of that economic environment, or of their constraints and options, or of what they needed to do to succeed (so that too many did not succeed);
9
•
•
'strategists' were never exposed to the difference between the economic system they were proposing and Queensland's traditional political economy (see (f) below) many in the community could not see why change was needed at all
Except in limited areas, the Queensland community was not well equipped (in its economic institutions and knowledge, administrative arrangements and social relationships), to cope with a market based economy which the various economic strategies over the past decade have sought to create. This fact was concealed by an emphasis on 'free enterprise', and little attempt was made to ensure that communities understood and supported what was proposed. The impact of change has been far greater in rural and regional areas than in metropolitan areas, because: resource based sectors have been particularly important, and there was initially even less basis for success in a globalised, post industrial economy. This has been compounded by: droughts; distorted international agricultural markets; weak commodity prices; the complexity created by native title arrangements; the ending of regional development programs; population drift; and the withdrawal of services partly as a result of rationalizations to boost economic efficiency. Some Conclusions The emergence of One Nation reflects a grassroots protest, and a desire for better future prospects. In terms of economic considerations, such dissatisfaction seems justified. However there has been little consideration of what could be done about this, because of the distraction of: the 'racism debate'; and criticism of the protestors' policy proposals.
10