What factors determined the Australian character of 2025 and what are the influences that will shape it for the future
Last month we discussed “What does it mean to be Australian in 2025” and the group were keen to pursue this further with a consideration of what has shaped the current character of our people. Emeritus Professor Roland (Roly) Sussex (OAM, FQA, Chevalier des Palmes Académiques) will lead the discussion aided by Dr Simon Bowler who, as well as being the President of the Brisbane Dialogues and the coordinator of the First Tuesday Club, is an Associate Professor with a distinguished career as a respiratory and sleep physician. The achievements of Dr. Roly Sussex are lengthy and impressive. With a PhD in Russian and general linguistics, he has held Professorships at the Universities of Melbourne and Queensland and has major ongoing research projects in language and related fields. He was a member and chair in the Australian Research Grants Committee and has been presenting weekly language broadcasts with ABC radio since 1997. We would like to thank Simon and Roly for leading us in this interesting discussion.
Overview
Roly initially questioned the floor on who they regarded as a quintessential Australian and why this was so. The discussion then touched on certain characteristics regarded as being typically Australian and finally referred to some historical events which were important in shaping our character and some changes to our society that may impact on our character.
Key points from Roly and from the floor
Who is regarded as quintessentially Australian and why
The initial point was made that in some other countries people look to their leaders to define their nation’s characteristics but Australia does not do this. It is not the leaders who are important in Australia it is its people.
Neville Bonner was first Indigenous person to be elected to the Australian Parliament (in 1972). Though a Liberal Senator he regularly crossed the floor on bills following his own principles though this did not endear him to the party.
Uppermost in the minds of the floor came sports professionals. Identifying the characteristics of these people that made them quintessentially Australian, Ash Barty, Cathy Freeman, Evonne Goolagong were named as people who did not push themselves to the fore, who did not blow their own trumpet or talk about themselves. But then Shane Warne and Dawn Fraser who were not exactly shy were named as quintessentially Australian because they were larrikins. We tend to like larrikins and define them as someone who is indifferent to or who has no respect for authority. The larrikin is not self-conscious, bends rules, and avoids though does not evade responsibility, “born Wednesday, looking both ways for Sunday”. This love of larrikins seems anomalous however as an Australian survey has clearly indicated that we respect our institutions. What however is the difference between a ratbag and a larrikin. A ratbag takes himself seriously, not a larrikin.
Simpson on the Donkey (a WWI hero) was mentioned as someone with qualities of self-sacrifice and leading by example.
Reference was made to Barry Humphries as an indication that we generally don’t take ourselves too seriously and know how to make fun of ourselves. The point was made that disparagement was acceptable because no offence was intended. The intent of a comment was said to be very important. In contrast to this view of ourselves we have laws where the intent is not important, it is whether offence was taken. The Australian tendency to self-deprecation is in contrast to the situation in the US where making fun of the Stars and Stripes would not be acceptable.
Peter Norman, an outstanding athlete who supported two black American athletes who gave what was said to be a black power salute in the 1968 Mexican Olympics was not above himself, he stood up for his beliefs and was victimised by authorities in the Olympic administration.
Julia Gillard stood up for her principles, the evidence being given of her misogyny speech.
Bob Hawke with his knockabout larrikin image and with the stereotype of a drunken politician (he was the yard glass drinking champion at Oxford) was regarded as a man of the people. At the MCG on one occasion it was noted people could be heard saying “There’s our Bob.”
Comment was made that it was reported the most trusted government agency used to be CSIRO. Yet our scientists are not well known. We do not have any larrikin scientists. We have great scientific achievements, as examples, Florey with the development of penicillin, Lawrence and Henry Bragg a father and son team who won the Nobel Prize for work on crystal structure, Elizabeth Blackburn who won the Nobel Prize for her work on telomeres. We also have the Nobel laureate Barry Marshall who discovered that helicobacter has a major role in causing peptic ulcers and Ian Frazer who developed the first vaccine against HPV.
Edith Cowan was mentioned – a social reformer
Artistic achievers were mentioned – Patrick White, Richard Flanagan, Banjo Paterson, Sigrid Thornton.
Rupert Murdoch was mentioned. Comment was made that The Australian has run at a loss since day one yet it is continued as a national newspaper, talking about the contest of ideas. Murdoch was credited with getting Trump elected the first time and with getting Blair elected.
Australian characteristics
It was suggested that we are the most compliant nation on earth. Against this is the reputation of Australian soldiers as being undisciplined, don’t always salute authority. Comment was made that the soldiers were great scroungers/improvisers in the war. Made do with what they could get hold of.
It was suggested that Australians (as well as the Scots) are thought of as inventors, eg the black box, wifi.
We don’t normally accept egos ( the tall poppy syndrome). The question was raised is there any activity in which we do?
In Australia we get to first name basis more quickly than anywhere else. We sideline the title. We use the word “mate”. A lot of other countries are more standoffish and don’t make small talk with people who come to do work for them. In the UK for example you would be ignored until you were introduced. Comment was also made that if you get in the front seat in a cab in New York they know you are from Australia -added to this was the sobering comment that you may also be shot!
Points were also made however around hierarchy. Reference was made to the “British pause” they stop to work out which class position you are. You don’t find this in Australia. The authority of trade unions has undermined hierarchy. However the comment was made that hierarchy does exist in Australia. In Melbourne a prime question is where do you live? A suggestion was made that education creates social strata but others did not agree. Tradies have status. A comparison was made with the UK where it was suggested that people from trade are looked down on, whereas in Australia people are very welcoming. (It was wryly commented that we are so pleased to get one…) A tongue in cheek comment with an element of truth was made that different cities in Australia differentiate people in different ways, in Perth people say to someone new, “come have a drink”, In Adelaide people say ‘what church do you go to”, in Melbourne people say “what school did you go to”, in Sydney people say “how much money do you have”, in Brisbane people say “come have a drink”.
People help one another in a crisis. Example given of the Brisbane flood where a single home had 40 people come to help. Even Penny Wensley a former governor of Queensland came to help flooded homes. The roads were choked with people trying to get in to help.
It was suggested that Australian culture is very porous, for example the coffee culture has permeated throughout the country, rather than just staying in the more prosperous areas, eg the Eastern Suburbs of Sydney. There is no barrier to good ideas. Ideas do not get quarantined, they are dealt with on their merits.
It was said that Australia is like a puppy waiting to have its tummy tickled, presumably indicating willingness to trust people. (This aligns with the statement that Australia has been regarded as a primary target for “scammers” as we are too trusting.)
We are disinclined to go for extreme positions so perhaps we are disinclined to risky ideas. However we do allow crazy people in the Senate with our system of proportional representation. People then realise how crazy they are and disregard them. Reference was made to the House Committee for un-American activities (investigating disloyalty and subversive activities and those suspected of having communist tendencies). In Australia the communist party was never banned. A referendum to amend the Constitution to allow the government to make laws regarding communists failed. The people of Australia took a more tolerant view than their Prime Minister, Menzies.
Comment was made that it is notable that this is a place where a picture stops a nation. It is unusual that so many people in a country are anxious to see who has won the Archibald Prize and whose portrait was the winner. This is not high culture, it has become the demotic property of everyone.
We have a commitment to decency, to a fair go. We have a healthy middle class, working class people have nice holidays, it was suggested this does not happen in the US, where the country has let those people down. Is this the democratising effect of the beach. We are paid a bit extra when on holiday.
What about the notion of truth. Australians love to spin a yarn, but what is the attitude to “bullshit”. It is part of the performance in pubs but is not accepted in our politicians. Bush poetry is storytelling. Aborigines loved stories and stories that could be funny.
We are the most metropolitan country in the world but we think we are bushies underneath.
What has formed us and what is changing
Reference was made to Justice Higgins dictum on the living wage in the Harvester Case early in the Federation as being an indicator of how Australian society wanted to develop. The standard was that an employer must pay what is fair and reasonable and this is to be judged such that an employee could have his normal needs met and live a life of frugal comfort.
Changes in our character were noted. Living in the country is still refreshing as people make jokes, rib one another. Local people in the country “take the piss” you are expected to give it back. It used to be the case that we were all like this and more relaxed about what we said. For example, after a complaint by the English cricket team the Australians enquired “who is the bastard who called the bastard a bastard.” However in modern corporates, for example in Brisbane, conversation has become stilted, you are careful what you say, how you express opinions. This whole movement is going against the Australian character. Fortunately the movement has not yet made it to the country.
Other changes are for the better. In the past we had, for example, Italians being called “wogs” and similarly awful names - that would not happen now. A Geordie who lived in rural NSW could not watch a show about the ten pound poms as it brought back the horrors he had experienced when living in the countryside. We are more tolerant now.
It was suggested we should think about accommodation instead of integration. When you talk of integration which bits get integrated? When you talk about accommodation, you are talking of two people making adjustments to one another.
There was historically a Catholic/Protestant divide, a membrane between the two. David Malouf referred to two very important changes in Australia, the dissolution of the Catholic/ Protestant divide and the acceptance of homosexuals. There are tremendous changes now, the cultural changes are quite dramatic, the country is quite young and is very adaptive. The remarkable thing is that the changes have occurred without violence.
Misogyny has been challenged because it is not fair and decent, and so should not happen.
Other
The question was raised, what is our core, what do we want to hold on to?
Australia is very contradictory, is it pluralistic?
In Parramatta, the geographic centre of Sydney, would this discussion mean anything, what do the people in Parramatta think is good. Some people have anglicised their names so they can fit in. What about the silos of people who can’t even speak English. It was suggested that it is important that people from other countries hold on to their culture but if they don’t engage then Australian values don’t get embraced, so the “fair go” will not be embraced. There is still a major problem in Western Sydney. Reference was made to Bernard Levin, writing in England, referring to parts of Birmingham which do not speak English, the people there live happily with their local dialect and retain the ethnicity of their groups. The comment was made that these people need to be part of the general community. There needs to be common language and common ethos. For example in Malaysia there are a large number of social problems with their different ethnicities. In Singapore they have legislated integration and the integration of Chinese and Malays has been enforced through housing and language. Trump has just signed an order making English the official language of the US. Bernard Levin made the point that a lot of politicians are not afraid to play the race card, eg Enoch Powell and the rivers of blood speech in Birmingham in 1968.
Are there countries/individuals who have qualities we do not have? To this question the following comments were made:
Most of the breakthroughs are in the US and the suggestion was made that this may be due to their cult of the individual, the attitude that they must work hard to succeed and the attitude that it is OK to fail. It was noted though that there is a difference between the West Coast where they share ideas and work hard with an OK to fail attitude and the East Coast where they are more guarded and in fact do not spend 100 hours a week working. Examples were given to refute this reputation of US success – Berners-Lee in the UK with the world wide web, the chips for the apple devices were designed in Cambridge, google maps came from Germany, Finland developed Nokia. However it did seem to be accepted that most of the modern technology came out of the US.
It was noted that in Finland teachers are well paid as it is considered teachers are the best people to give the younger generation their best start. They do not go to school till 7 years of age and they learn Finnish, Swedish and English. It was suggested Denmark has a higher premium on education and it was noted Novo Nordisk, a Danish multinational pharmaceutical company, is the biggest corporation in Europe.
A final comment was made, can Australians hope to be contradictory in a constructive way.