As we approach Australia Day, we know the country will be engulfed in controversy about whether we should use January 26 to celebrate our country’s achievements.
It’s unfortunate this debate cannot be put to bed.
There’s a tendency for political debates to descend into those who think that justice can be achieved by deconstructing parts, if not all, of society, and those who want to build on our foundations. These are two very different approaches to objectives that are often shared across the political spectrum. Just about everyone wants a society they perceive to be fair; everyone wants equal rights for all people regardless of their gender, race or religion; and everybody wants Australia’s Indigenous cultures to be admired and respected as the oldest living cultures on Earth.
So how do we achieve those things in the most harmonious way possible?
For the deconstructionists, society needs to become financially more equal and that will happen if some of the wealth of high-income earners is destroyed.
The idea is simple. By imposing confiscatory levels of taxation on high-income earners, the wealthy will be levelled down and some of their prosperity redistributed to others. The idea is that no one will become really wealthy, no matter how hard they work or how inspirationally entrepreneurial they may be.
Experience shows this deconstructionist plan has two downsides. One is it discourages entrepreneurship and wealth creation, encouraging those people to seek greener pastures in other countries. As a result, some of the wealth-creating drivers of the economy are simply taken away, leaving the rest with less ability to support people in need.
What is more, there isn’t a finite quantity of wealth in society. If somebody is entrepreneurial and creative, they have the capacity to create wealth not just for themselves but for the whole community. The point is they create wealth rather than have wealth redistributed to themselves. So the deconstructionist approach will ultimately fail because it will destroy the wealth-creating capacity of society.
Then there are the gender issues. The rights of women can be advanced by destroying some of the rights of men and by discriminating against them in the workplace. That too has a downside. It doesn’t meet the traditional liberal virtue of judging all people on the basis of their merits, not their innate and unchangeable characteristics.
What is more, those who are discriminated against – males – will gradually grow to resent the discrimination. In the end, the deconstructionist approach will fail because there will be a revolt against it. So that brings us to reconciliation with Indigenous peoples. The deconstructionists argue that can be achieved by destroying some of the symbols and conventions of the nation. They assume the nation is inherently racist and much of it needs to be torn down. In particular, they regard the celebration of European settlement in Australia as immoral and inappropriate.
That point of view makes several assumptions. First, that Australia as a continent would have made a greater contribution to human welfare if no one other than the original human settlers had ever come to live. Secondly, it assumes European and subsequent development of Australia has been at best unsuccessful. That assumption is deeply flawed.
I have visited more than 100 countries around the world and I know of none that combines as well as Australia does a high standard of living for most people, extensive individual freedom of choice and expression, and almost unequalled multiracial harmony. To suggest this isn’t something to celebrate is just ignorance.
Thirdly, it assumes that Indigenous societies structured as they were in 1788 would have been sustainable until 2025. That was never going to happen. One of the nations with advanced technology – be it European or Asian – would eventually have taken control of the Australian continent.
Indeed, in all probability more than one nation would have done so, and that could have led to very real tensions between different parts of Australia.
The fact that the British settled Australia with their emerging commitments to human rights and economic progress, as well as democratic institutions accountable to the public and a rule of law under which all citizens would be equal, was, to say the least, a blessing for this continent.
But trying to destroy our national symbols and institutions has another downside. It is deeply offensive to the vast majority of Australians. To achieve what is called reconciliation may require tolerance, patience and the creation of new mechanisms. It might even require the creation of some new institutions, particularly educational institutions. But it won’t be achieved by destroying what is important to many people.
Mocking Australia Day, calling it invasion day and demonstrating only offends people. Councils that have cancelled Australia Day ceremonies irritate the majority of people.
Sure, these demonstrations please some Indigenous activists, particularly the more radical ones, as well as others in society who want to deconstruct our whole way of life. That isn’t most people.
Trying to cancel our national day of celebration is not a contribution to reconciliation. It’s one of many divisive symbolic mistakes made by Indigenous activists. The other is using excessively the imported practice of acknowledging traditional owners. There’s a time and a place to do something like that, and all Australians certainly agree the whole nation, including Indigenous Australians, deserves respect. But inserting an acknowledgment at the beginning of every speech, every public event and even at private events is pretentious, patronising and insincere. More importantly, it is starting to irritate people, thereby becoming counter-productive.
The hard-left political activists who have campaigned for Indigenous rights over the past two or three decades have often embraced the deconstructionist political philosophy. It has achieved nothing. And it’s legacy is one of polite irritation throughout the mainstream of Australian society. They’re quiet about it but look how they voted on the voice.
So as we approach Australia Day, it would make more sense if we found ways of building on our strengths as a society rather than looking for ways to deconstruct. Building is likely to win the support of the public whereas deconstruction is only going to alienate vast swathes of our society.
Alexander Downer is a former foreign minister and high commissioner
More Coverage
Nurses’ anti-Jewish hatred antithesis of medical ethics
The concerns of Australian Jews will be heightened by the fact that the video of two nurses threatening to kill Israeli patients is part of a despicable, long-running pattern of anti-Semitism.
Curb command/control economy
it never appears to occur to Anthony Albanese and his ministers that government is not an integral part of the market economy. Albanese should learn from it and not buy Rex.