By Tony smith
Paul Keating has developed three methods of dealing with criticism.
First, he argues that all criticism of him comes from stooges of the Liberal Party. This is one of his great achievements: the ability to persuade the media that every issue is about a choice between Labor and Liberal.
Secondly, he questions the credentials of his critics. "Who is this something or other? What has he ever done? How many clocks does the whatsit own?"
Thirdly, he lampoons and attacks the person making the criticism. In particular, his latest term of abuse is "un-Australian". The media report Keating's use of this term of abuse uncritically, as though it were an accurate assessment rather than another example of Keating hyperbole.
But the resort to the term by a person so prominent in image creation produces some very ominous undercurrents.
In recent months, Keating has applied the term to John Howard and other members of the Coalition, people who fire-bombed the French consulate in Perth and those who desecrated the graves of Eddie Mabo in Townsville and of Jewish people in Adelaide. Members of his government, and even the Liberal premier of South Australia, have jumped on this bandwagon. The latter gentleman extended the concept to deplore the vandals' behaviour as "un-South Australian".
One can imagine Keating gathering his 36 minders about him every morning for a recitation of the "un-Australian" litany. The leader intones statements such as "senators amending budgets" while the staff respond, "It's un-Australian!". The litany would include such actions and things as "questioning our land rights legislation", "opposing my republic", "John Howard" and "criticising me".
Perhaps Keating merely means that the desecration of graves should be condemned by all Australians. Unfortunately, if that is the case, he obviously debases the term by attempting to apply it in policy debates with the Opposition. And not everyone will interpret him this way.
Indeed, many people will hear Keating condemning "un-Australian" behaviour and wonder about the content of his message. "Un-Australian" might carry the implication of "non-Australian". Now if something is not Australian, then it is possibly French, German, English, Indian, Thai, South African, Cuban or Polish. This would create great uncertainty in the minds of those Australians whose ethnic origins lie in those lands. Of course, Keating would not consider that actions such as vandalism were more likely to occur in certain ethnic groups than among "real" Australians, would he?
The surname of a person held for the fire-bombing of the French consulate does not have a typically Anglo-Saxon ring to it. Keating has already announced his opinion that the action was "un-Australian". Is it possible that he might be prosecuted under his government's racial vilification legislation? And what if people accused of the grave desecrations should have names which sound German or Chinese?
For the term "un-Australian" to have any proper meaning beyond Keating's litany, it seems necessary that the term "Australian" have a settled meaning as well. And while Keating has not specified what construction he places on the idea of Australian-ness, his continual use of the negative suggests that he holds, privately, some considered definition.
As a result, it would hardly be surprising if people attempt to intuit what he regards as the notion of Australian-ness. Such a search, however, would be based on the fear of exclusion. It would lead to a closed debate about "What is an Australian?". It would also tempt us to the opinion that a settled definition is possible. It would, most unfortunately, lend itself to the conclusion that once the argument of identity is settled, non-conformity is unacceptable.
There are people in Australia who do regard some ethnic groups as un-Australian. Surely, Keating did not mean to give them succour, but it would hardly surprise if his roaring nationalism made him something of a hero in their eyes.
Tolerance and multiculturalism are fragile and extremely valuable assets, and need to be handled carefully for long-term preservation. Their friends should not welcome any developments which drag them into the arena of short-term political gain — the one area in which Keating has any expertise.