barrier... of racism

The great Australian barrier... of racism

The usual political wisdom would suggest that a politician with just a few months in parliament, no political party to back her up and no possibility of controlling the balance of power would have little influence in the big debates of the nation. If she went on to use her maiden speech to call on the fed eral government to abolish its policy of multiculturalism, review its immigration policy because she feared Australia was “in dan ger of being swamped by Asians”, reduce payments to Aborigines because they are not the most disadvantaged group in Australia and “cease all foreign aid immediately”, it would be tempting to dismiss her as something of a loon.

But Pauline Hanson, a feisty fish and chip shop owner from the city of Ipswich, west of Brisbane, is a force to be reckoned with. She has given the racist undercurrent in Australia a strong and uncompromising voice and added a dangerous element to the immigration debate at a time when Australia’s immigration programme has been revealed as having a catastrophic lack of public confidence. In the month after Hanson’s speech, Prime Minister John Howard, whose ruling Liberal Party expelled Hanson just before the last election for her attacks on welfare payments to Aborigines, was notable for his failure to openly reject her views despite mounting pressure to do so. Howard argued that he was not going to define his views and values by reference to the speeches of others, claiming that to do so would be “devaluing the office of prime minister”.

He rightly supported Hanson’s right to express her view but showed no leadership on the race issue. Two weeks into the debate he used a speech to the Queensland Liberal Party to trum pet what he regards as the lifting of an atmosphere of “political correctness” imposed by the former Keating government.

“One of the great changes that has come over Australia in the last six months,” Howard told the Liberals in Brisbane, “is that people do feel able to speak out a little more freely and more openly about what they feel. In a sense, the pall of censorship on certain issues has been lifted.”

Polls in early October showed Hanson had become a rallying point for those with racist views. Liberal backbenchers were warning of a growing backlash against their constituents of Asian descent and complained that some had been spat on in the street and had their houses attacked. Opposition leader Kim Beazley called on Howard to “exercise leadership on this issue and state clearly and unequivocally that... (Hanson’s) views on racial issues are hurtful to a great many Australians”.

Only then did Howard respond. “I will always denounce racial intolerance. I will always defend the non-discriminatory character of Australia’s immigration policy,” he said, but again

failed to specifically reject Hanson’s views. Historian Henry Reynolds believes Howard’s delay in stating his views on race and immigration issues has brought the race into play as a polit ical issue for the first time in decades. In doing so, he has opened a Pandora’s box which Australians will have to live with for many years to come. In a piece in The Australian, Reynolds illu minated some of the background to Howard’s stand. He pointed out that polling in the leadup to the last election had made Liberal leaders aware of widespread dissatisfaction with the Keating government on issues such -as immigration, indigenous rights and engagement with Asia, all of which Labor had cham pioned, and that they had been spectacularly successful in com ing up with a message which appealed to this dissatisfaction.

Now in government, it is still unclear how far the Liberals will be prepared to go to maintain the support of those voters, espe cially when it appears they may be a majority in many marginal seats.

Australia

Jemima

Garrett

In her speech to parliament, Hanson ranged over wide areas of policy. Of Asians she said, “They have their own culture and religion, form ghettos and do not assimilate.” On Aborigines: “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 Aboriginals are the most disadvantaged people in Australia. I am fed up with being told ‘this is our land’.

Well where the hell do I go? I was bom here and so were my parents and chil dren. I draw the line when I am told I must pay and continue paying for some thing that happened 200 years ago.”

Hanson also called for a year’s com pulsory national service for men and women when they turn 18, for a review of Australia’s membership of the United Nations and demanded an end to foreign aid so the money saved could be spent at home on job creation.

While Hanson is stirring the political cauldron, Howard’s weaknesses are being revealed. One of those appears to be the fact that he seems not yet to have defined for himself the exact nature of modem Australian society or the manner in which we should be presenting our selves in the wider Asian region. In speeches in Jakarta in September, he sur prised his audiences with a rather defen sive sentiment (stressing that Australia does not “claim to be Asian” and that it would “yield to nobody” in asserting the strength of its distinctive history, culture and political traditions) while at the same time failing to go on and articulate a vision for Australia’s crucial bilateral alliance with its northern neighbour.

Despite the enormous economic and cul tural benefits from Australia’s immigra tion programme, a recent research sug gests public support is almost non-exis tent. A Newspoll showed 71 per cent believed the current intake - a compara tively small 74,000 - is too high and another survey by Monash University suggested nearly 90 per cent oppose fur ther Asian immigration. Another Herald AGB McNair Poll at the beginning of last month found 48 per cent of its just over 2000 respondents supported Hanson’s views. ■