Kevin Rudd taking a beating, and rightly so

The last couple of weeks have taken some shine off Kevin Rudd. Labor hasn't been affected in the polls, but Kevin Rudd's approval rating dropped to 56% in Newspoll. (I think that's what happened anyway.) He's been battered and fried by Brendan Nelson's populist stunt to cut petrol excise by 5c a litre. Nelson never has to deliver on that, because the election is so far away and he has next to no chance of winning it, but it puts the spotlight on Big Kev, as if to say: I'm committed to actually doing something about petrol prices, while you're just going to form another committee. In fact he did use words to that very effect in Parliament.

And when he did, I smiled. Not because I have any love for Brendan Nelson; in fact, I have only sympathy. Not because I support his policy to cut the cost of petrol; it's ridiculous. No, because although I voted for Big Kev with all the optimism in the world, I can't stand his Government By Committee. It's Inquiry This, and Working Party That; Commission This and Study That. Ridiculous! The man has been setting the impression that he will endeavour to tackle every issue, and it's now time to pay up and all he can find is loose change.

The excruciating fact is that he's trying to sell the following line to the Australian people: my government will get involved in all aspects of your life, and Do Something. Now I'm no opponent of government action, but two things I can't stand are government action for the sake of it, and the misleading appearance of government action for the sake of it. To wit, we have an atrocious "FuelWatch" idea, whereby all petrol vendors must register their prices on a website, and maintain that price for the next 24 hours. If I were a petrol vendor, I would be telling Mr Rudd to mind his own Bucking Fusiness. Unless petrol stations are significantly subsidised by federal funds, which I doubt, what right does the government have to tell them when they can and can't adjust their prices? Inform the consumer what the price is, sure, but regulate price movements to that extent? No way.

Government action for the sake of it is bad because of two perfectly good cliches: the law of unintended consequences (e.g. stabilising the fuel price thereby robbing consumers of occasional savings caused by competition); and the road to hell being paved with good intentions (e.g. meddling in people's business for the supposed but illusory good of consumers).

Why should I get upset on behalf of petrol vendors? Firstly, I know that they exist on slim margins. There's not much retail profit in petrol; they basically rely on people buying chocolates etc. to stay afloat. So I support the little guy against the do-gooder but really do-nothing government. And secondly, if the government can get away with this today, then maybe tomorrow they'll be interfering in my job and eroding freedom from my life.

Krudd and co promised a government based on sound policy that looked beyond the short term. Getting locked into a demeaning battle on petrol prices is the antithesis of that. Krudd needs to take some advice from Mr. T: stop yo' jibber-jabber and get some nuts! Say to the Australian people:

I understand the pressure that rising fuel prices puts on your personal and family budgets. However, there is nothing I can do to bring petrol prices down. The international price of oil is rising and will probably continue to do so because of its scarcity. As individuals and as a society we are going to need to adjust to that, and I will not be drawn into petty arguments. The solutions I have offered are to monitor fuel prices so you can shop around more easily, and to cut taxes so you have more money in your pocket. Thank you and goodnight.

Apology to Stolen Generations an eminently sensible idea

I've always supported an apology to the Stolen Generations (the large number of aboriginal Australians who were removed from their families in the 20th century because of racist, not welfare, policies), although it was hard to get enthusiastic about it under Howard: even if he did apologise, it would seem insincere after all his small-minded rhetoric about "practical reconciliation" (as if you can't aim for practical and symbolic reconciliation). Howard seemed sincere in his desire to lift the lot of aboriginal people, but narrow-minded in what that meant and what it would involve.

Kevin Rudd promised an apology if he won the election, although he didn't campaign hard on this point, as it was not popular with everyone. Hearteningly, support for the apology grew (to about 70%) after the fact. Rudd's speech was great enough that it was almost impossible not to see the need for it. My own feelings about the issue were moulded as he spoke. My understanding of the issue grew as he detailed the wrongs that were committed. Like the general population, I felt more sure of the need for the apology after the fact than before it.

As "the day" approached, I was lukewarm. It had become a political issue as politicians and others argued over the wording. I thought: how can something so planned come across as sincere? Thankfully it did. As Australians, we have a lot to be ashamed about regarding the way our indigenous peoples have been treated. Some argue that we personally didn't do it; how can we apologise on behalf of governments that are long out of power. I subscribe to the logic that we can't be proud of past achievements if we're not willing to wear past failures. It's part of the complex reality of life in a colonised land.

Personally, I don't feel terribly guilty that Aborigines were displaced when white man settled (not "invaded", as some would have it) this land. That sort of thing has happened all over the world throughout time. That doesn't make it right, but it's not worth feeling guilty about something that's universal. Besides, and this is the clincher, "we" only displaced the people who were there right there and then. Those people almost certainly displaced others, who displaces others, and so on back for 40000 years. I confess ignorance of Aboriginal history, but you can't convince me that all the indigenous tribes lived in peace and harmony with each other. The white settlers tried to get on well with the Aborigines, and did so for a while, but clashes were inevitable and unfortunately things have only gotten worse over time.

So what do I feel guilty about? That successive Federal governments maintained the policy of forced removal of half-caste children in order to assimilate them into white society so that the Aboriginal race and culture would not expand; indeed (it was hoped and thought) would become extinct. I do not feel guilty about children of any race being removed from their families because they are in danger or malnourished or whatever. And there probably were, and are, many children who were justifiably removed for these reasons, blacks more so than whites. But it is unspeakably disgusting to effect such removals for the purpose of passive genocide. That wrong can never be righted, but so much stood to be gained from an apology in Parliament that it beggars belief that anyone could oppose it except through incredible ignorance or an utter lack of sympathy.

The apology took place a while ago, but I've not commented until now because I wanted to let life go on for a while and look back at it. The event itself was soured somewhat by the opposition leader's response. He supported the apology but wasn't convincing, and clouded it with reference to modern aboriginal problems. This was insensitive, irrelevant and inappropriate. Would he make a speech including references to Japanese war crimes (or even whaling) when welcoming a Japanese dignitary to Australia? Anyway, with the passage of time, that blight has faded, and I think the main thing is that the Prime Minister's apology was eloquent, sincere, unequivocal, and endorsed by nearly everyone in the house.

The apology has long ceased to be a news item. In truth, it was only really the big deal that it was because it took so long. It was recommended in 1996 by the Bringing Them Home report, which detailed for the first time the reality of the Stolen Generations, but this was just a bit too late for Keating, who would have made an excellent speech. Howard had replaced him as PM, and the rest is history.

What is Australian culture these days?

Here's a comment an American put on a blog about Australian culture. It's excellent.

As an American living in Sydney, I take offense to the comparison between Australia and the US. I had never been here before visiting here but it's surely made me appreciate my own country. We have our faults and they don't need reiterating, but at least we recognize them as such. I have never been to a place more obsessed than Australia about framing its culture and hanging it up on a wall.. America is a dynamic culture that is not afraid of change - it's what makes us who we are. America accepts its immigrants and we certainly don't call third generation Americans 'Greek' or 'Lebanese' or 'Indian'.. they're American - period. Individually we're free to hyphenate our own identities as we please. About 30% of us are non-caucasian and we don't dread losing our identity - I grew up in New York where caucasians are now a minority and it doesn't bother me.. I was lucky to have friends from several different backgrounds and it taught me to never presume anything about anyone. Pat Buchanan (a lunatic right wing idiot) once said that America was in danger of becoming a 'polyglot boarding house'. Sadly, when I look around Australia I see nothing more than that and its because Australians are afraid to embrace change and instead choose to hang on to a racially pure concept of nationhood that the rest of the world dropped about 40 years ago. People like John Howard don't see the difference between doing what it takes to win an election and building a nation and Australia as a relatively young nation needs a lot of that. I think Australians individually are the same as anywhere else, basically good and just trying to get by. By trying to label and brand yourselves you are crippling your own intellectual diversity and consequently your ability to adapt and innovate.

I've always been proud to identify with certain Australian values: self-deprecating humour, laid-back approach to most things, live-and-let-live attitude, etc. However, it's a useless exercise to try to "frame our culture and put it up on a wall", not to mention incredibly vain. There are plenty of Australians (i.e. those who've lived almost exclusively in Australia) who don't exhibit any of the aforementioned characteristics. Any analysis of the national character is fine so long as it's a discussion, not a conclusion.

Australia's history has never been stable for long. For the first century of white settlement Australia was a collection of British colonies, not a nation. As for nationhood: what timing! "Australia" was born in a drought. In its teenage years, it forged its identity in World War 1. This was followed by the Great Depression and World War 2. Relaxed and comfortable, anyone? Culturally, modern Australia (well, urban Australia, anyway) was born in the post-WW2 waves of migration, which have never stopped. In that sense, we're only 60 years old! That's very young for a culture.

It's a natural part of life to reflect on the ties that bind you to your compatriots. It's also natural and enjoyable to engage with the myths that evolve in any culture. There's a genuine identity crisis in Australia at the moment because two decades or more of aggressive multiculturalism have rendered those ties and myths extremely tenuous. The massive diversity of people means that if you pick two Sydneysiders at random, there's a good chance they will have a different first language, and very different knowledge of or perspectives on Australia's history and character. This is not a good basis on which to measure the national character.

People in general can cope with a national character - whatever they think it is - changing, but it's difficult to deal with it changing, or deteriorating, so fast. Because people like to engage with national myths, it can be disconcerting to be confronted with the young and fragile nature of Australian culture. To counter that instability, some people are obviously going to over-compensate by trying to frame the national culture and put it on a wall, as the anonymous American contributor wrote. Complicating matters is the fact that Australia is, objectively speaking, one of the best places in the world to live. It's not wrong to be proud of this, but it's wrong to credit Aussie values for this achivement, when the real drivers are stable government, natural resources and physical isolation (from wars, for example).

Thus the prevalence in the national debate these days about Australian values. We've suffered the embarassment of our dear leader John Howard trying to have "mateship" enshrined in the preamble to the constitution. Even though that referendum was soundly defeated, he continues to exhalt it as an Australian value/virtue. Owing to growing tension in multicultural Australia, there's now a proposal to institute a citizenship test (which I don't oppose). I see these things as inevitable growing pains of a nation. All the debate about values means people have too much time on their hands, which is a good thing: it's a sign of prosperity.

Viva la difference! And may people increasingly seek and find differences between people based on who they are, not where they were born.