We can handle six weeks of World Cup rugby but can we survive six weeks of Australia? Here’s a country just a little over 100 years old, and with only 20 million people, that is a world leader in so many fields, and not afraid to boast about it. Six weeks of seeing and hearing confident, optimistic Australians enjoying their life in their Spring sunshine as our winter closes in may be too much even for Rugby fans.
What is it about Australia? It dominates just about every sport it chooses to play. It seems to have succeeded in creating a recession proof economy. The New York Times, no less, says three Australian novelists are “indisputably world class”. Its actors, musicians, singers and film-makers are known around the world. Its wine is sensational and many of its chefs original and brilliant. Its restaurants are stunning yet cheap. Its scenery is spectacular and its youthful citizens have made the pursuit of pleasure not only respectable but obligatory.
When Brian MacArthur, an associate editor of The Times, a quintessential Englishman, can begin a travel article on Australia by begging God to bring him back next time as an Aussie, we have to ask: “What’s the secret?” How could a country with such an unpromising beginning--its first citizens were criminals and their gaolers--turn out so well? Are there any lessons for Britain? There were indications early on that something different was going on Down Under. “Sail up Sydney Harbour, ride over a Queensland plain, watch the gathering of an Adelaide harvest, or mingle with the orderly crowd which throngs to a Melbourne Cup race,” wrote the English-born novelist Marcus Clarke 130 YEARS AGO, “And deny, if you can, that there is here the makings of a great nation.”
Clarke was writing at the time of the gold rushes when the population was only about half a million spread over six colonies governed from London. There was little national feeling. Not only did different states have different rail gauges but every town had its own time--when it was noon in Sydney it was five past noon in a town only a hundred or so miles away.
The standard of living then was arguably the highest in the world. Visitors from London were amazed at how well ordinary people ate. Large portions of meat three times a day was common. Settlers from Ireland and the industrial cities of Britain wrote home praising Australia and more and more immigrants poured in. In many ways they were some of the best of British--adventurous and hard-working and they helped make Australia the country it is today.
But they could so easily have turned it into a nation of Poms Down Under, suppressing their longings for England’s green and shaded lanes, miserable that “Home” was so far away. Australia could have become, as one Prime Minister, Billy Hughes, himself born in London, hoped “as much a part of England as Middlesex”. Instead something different happened, almost as if the land made the people.
The new arrivals in Australia soon tackled the age-old question--how should we order our affairs so as to get the best out of our brief life on this planet? Their reasoning was simple. Australia is a new country of limitless potential. If we want to create a new society, to leave behind the class divisions of the Old World, to avoid servility and poverty, then we should divide everything in a fair and reasonable manner. So “fair and reasonable" became the touchstone of the Australian way of life.
As a result, in a manner unprecedented anywhere in the world, the Australians passed law after law to improve the welfare of its citizens. Votes for women (18 years ahead of the United States, 16 years ahead of Britain, and 70 years ahead of Switzerland); the secret ballot, free and compulsory education for all children; old age an invalid pensions; safety at work; fixed working hours and minimum wages. A country often criticised for its lack of culture passed a law in 1908 providing a pension of £1 a week for distressed authors.
The journey was not always smooth. The debate over whether the country should become a republic revived some of the sectarian enmity between Irish Catholics (republicans) and Anglo-Australian loyalists that disfigured Australian life for so many years. And the recent harsh treatment of asylum seekers showed that the racist sentiments that everyone hoped had died when Australia abandoned the White Australia policy, still linger.
And yes, there are classes in Australia but they are not defined by what school you went to, what accent you have, or what work you do, but by how much you earn. And even this is not that important because on Bondi beach, free and open to all, there is no way of distinguishing the merchant banker earning $300,000 a year from the labourer earning $30,000--they are both there for a swim.
A few days after Tony Blair had become Prime Minister in 1997, an Australian rang a British political commentator offfering advice on what made Blair tick. “You’ve got to realise that Tony’s not British at all,” he said. “He’s Australian.” Ponmdering what this meant, the commentator eventually got it “Blair is not in awe of the past. He is not intimidated by class. He is a meritocrat, a doer and a practical, problem-solving politician. He is not particular about where he gets his ideas from. He is not inhibited by history or deference from changing what needs to be changed. If this makes him an Australian, then it sounds like a pretty good compliment.”
Collectivism, team spirit, one for all and all for one--call it what you will--defines Australians. Mark Taylor, the former Australian cricket captain puts it best. “One season I hadn’t played any worse throughout my career, yet I was still a winner. I was a loser personally, but the team was winning. What better lesson can you get for living than that? That although you’re not doing well yourself, if you can just hang in and play your part, you can still be a winner.”
|
