Australian Identity

Aboriginal Rights

Australian Symbols

Cultural Cringe

Power and Inequality

Language and Identity

Australian Stereotypes

Racism and Egalitarianism

Email

Power, conflict and inequality in Australia

Australia is a society where a coal miner may sit down with a winemaker, billionaire, and civic leader to share a beer without any feeling that any of them are inferior to any other. The confidence to share the table can be partly attributed to Australia's egalitarian stereotype, which proposes that everyone should be treated as an equal. Because each individual is aware of the stereotype, they may conform to the moral code that the stereotype proposes.

Along with the egalitarian stereotype, the confidence to share the table can also be partly attributed to each person's realisation that they have power that they can use against those who would look down upon them. This may be legal power, economic power, cultural power or physical power. It may also be the power to subvert someone else's power. Each individual's realisation of their power is a reflection of the power struggles of various Australians since 1788, which have revealed that no one can ever have complete power and no one can ever be denied of it completely. As a result of this fact, Australia has a political system that gives everyone a vote, a value system that champions egalitarianism, a language which lacks a socio-economic accent, and a list of national icons that include “battlers” and “larrikins”. The situation in 1788 was very different. There was no democractic vote, no doctrine of equality, there were clear differences in accent and no celebration of the battler or larrikins. The change did not occur as a result of top-down goodwill. To the contrary, it came because those who had little power wanted some more.

The diversification of power by those who want some more

In Australia’s penal colonies, power was relatively concentrated. Within each colony, Governors had powers close to that of a dictator. The only person they were answerable to was the King or Queen of England, who was on the opposite side of the world. The Governor’s power was one of legitimised authority. They held the position of colonial ruler, which was acknowledged by soldiers and civilians alike. It was not; however, always acknowledged by the indigenous population or the Convict population. Despite the lack of acknowledgement, physical strength allowed soldiers to exert the authority of the Governor. In turn, everyone who followed the Governor attained power of their own through their position in the hierarchy or social relationships in the hierarchy.

Even though power is never given up voluntarily, the concentration of power was slowly eroded from the Governor and all those that supported them. This erosion came from a number of sources. In NSW, the Bidjigal justice man Pemulwuy either waged a guerrilla war of resistance of British authority, or asserted the laws of his people upon the newcomers. In the eyes of some Convicts, such actions of defiance eroded the legitimacy of British rule.

Lowly Convicts also exerted the limited power available to them. Stripped of their homeland and citizenship rights under the law, some Convicts banded together with the aim of killing the authorities, taking the ships and leaving Australia. The solidarity the Convicts had with each other was a form of social power and collectively it was a threat to British rule. Unfortunately for them, the authorities knew the danger of Convict solidarity and they did their best to weaken it. Friends were often ordered to flog friends in order to erode mateship. Furthermore, charismatic leaders were killed or transported to another part of Australia.

As a result of these policies, when a Convict rebellion eventually broke out in 1804, it lacked the solidarity necessary for its victory. Some Convict traitors gave information about the rebellion to the authorities, while others ran off into the bush when the fighting started. The rebellion failed and the surviving Convicts were severely punished.

Convict rebellion of 1804

With insufficient social power, no legal power and no physical power in the face of the authorities, many individual Convicts used the only power available to them, defiance. When tied up on triangles to be flogged, many Convicts refused to show any sign of pain or hurt. According to one commentator:

“The convict flagellator at this time felt a gratification in inflicting and witnessing human misery. There were many prisoners who would bear any punishment rather than complain; I am certain that they would have died at the triangle rather than utter a grown'

The defiance not only denied their tormentor’s satisfaction, but it also eroded the fear that they used to keep other Convicts in submission. In time, this defiance of the pain being inflicted upon them became a form of cultural power. As recorded in the memoirs of the Convict J.F Mortlock:

"In Australia, silent composure under suffering is strictly prescribed by convict etiquette."

More cultural power came with songs that celebrated bushrangers as heroes of Australia. The more that the songs of defiance were sung, the more that the authority’s legitimacy was undermined and the weaker its power became. In the words of music historian J.S Manifold (1962):

"The Irish seem to have taken the lead. United by more than their chains, they sang in a whisper the old songs of Ireland. At the risk of flogging or hanging they sang the rebel songs too. The authorities called any criticism of the system 'treason', and punished it as such. But this never quite stopped the Irish from singing, and it never stopped them from making up new, local verses to old tunes. From mouth to ear and from ear to mouth, not always of the same nationality, both kinds of song spread through the convict settlements; and no amount of floggings could stop them. "

It was not only Convicts that challenged the legitimacy of the authorities. As free enterprise expanded in the colony, private entrepreneurs gained monetary power and wanted to use it. This put them in competition with the power hierarchies of the military under the rule of the Governor. In the Rum Rebellion of 1808, private entrepreneurs used their reverent power with members of the military to undermine the authority of the Governor. The result was a military coup that removed Governor Bligh from power and allowed the entrepreneurs to take control of the colony. The rebels; however, did not go as far as declaring independence from Britain. As a result, a replacement Governor, Lachlan Macquarie, was sent to Australia with his own private army.

Rum rebellion of 1808

As well as needing to deal with entrepreneurs wanting to increase their power, Macquarie also had to deal with a civilian population that was in competition over rights that would give different citizens unequal status under the law. Free settlers believed that they should have more rights than anyone who came to the colony in penal servitude, or the descendants of anyone who came to the colony in penal servitude. More rights meant more power. The emancipists believed that they should have the rights of British citizens once their sentence had expired. At the time, one commentator wrote:

“Historically, the greatest rift has been between the "exclusives" and the "emancipists". The first group believe that anyone who has come to the colony in penal servitude is never capable of complete redemption. These people, who tend to be among the wealthy landowners, thus see themselves as a superior class. For their part, the emancipists, who are all ex-convicts, are concerned with equality of human rights.
Governor Macquarie, much to his peril, supported the emancipist cause, despite opposition from the forces which believed it would end respect for the law by allowing ex-convicts the normal rights of British citizens.
Since the Bigge inquiry, though, the colony has been re-established much more firmly as a prison rather than for reform, which has only worsened the tension.”

The discovery of gold in 1851 was another decisive event in the diversification of Australian power. Free immigrants flowed into Australia and found themselves subjected to the same abuses of power that the Convicts had been subjected to. This led to the Eureka uprising in 1854. Unfortunately, the military power of the rebels was no match for that of the British rulers, and their stockade was smashed in 15 minutes.

Eureka rebellion of 1854

Despite the Eureka rebels having less physical power than British soldiers, they had more reverent power with the general population. Consequently, every rebel brought to trial was found not guilty by a jury of their peers. Realising their lack of reverent power, the authorities caved in to the rebels’ demands for democracy.  Had they not, the colonies would have become ungovernable as more and more civilians would have stopped recognising the legitimacy of the government.

The growth of democracy and the proliferation of individuals selling their labour  presented new forms of competition based on power. Workers wanted more safety in their jobs, and higher wages. Business owners, accustomed to the slave labour of Convicts, wanted to maximise their profits and had little regard for the needs of common people. The workers reacted by forming unions. Their solidarity with each other gave them immense power to force change. In reaction to the worker power, many mining and agricultural companies started importing contract Chinese and Pacific Islander labour. Cultural, language or legal issues prevented the Chinese or Islanders defecting to the unions as readily as did migrants from European nations. In reaction to the threat, unions exerted their power through the democratic process to have non-whites, or anyone on a labour contract, excluded from Australian colonies. This culminated in the Federation of Australia and the implementation of the Immigration Restriction Act (White Australia Policy).

The desire to keep out non-whites placed Australia’s new government in conflict with the British government. Because Britain ruled over many non-white nations, such as India, and was trying to form strong relationships with others, such as Japan, it was fearful that by allowing Australia to implement a racist migration Act, it would weaken its reverent power with the non-white nations. To compromise, Britain allowed Australia to have its Act, but denied Australia permission to define it as an Act designed to keep out non-whites. As a result, the Immigration Restriction Act used a dictation test that could be manipulated to ensure all non-whites would fail while whites would pass. Furthermore, it was never given the legal title of White Australia Policy as it was used in conversation.

In the 20th century, culture remained a chief battleground for those wanting power. In 1906, private entrepreneurs produced The Story of the Kelly Gang, the world's first feature-length film. The film was extraordinary popular; running for five weeks to full houses. It only cost 1,000 pounds to make but returned 26,000 pounds. Over the next five years Australia produced more successful films such as the Eureka Stockade, The Assigned Servant, The Squatters Daughter, Attack on the Gold Escort, Sentenced for Life and The Mark of the Lash. Because the films championed ideals of rebellion, they undermined the legitimacy of British rule as well as the cultural capital of the ruling class that identified itself as British. As a consequence, NSW banned all films dealing with bushrangers. Additionally, supporting Britain in foreign wars gave an opportunity for politicians to assert patriotic sentiments in favour of Britain, which countered the films' patriotic sentiments in favour of Australia. This had a useful effect of making patriotism a confusing issue. In the words of Henry Lawson, a patriotic poet of the era:

"This was the loyalty which sent several hundred jingoes and several thousand pounds to assist England in crushing a brave nation of savages who were fighting for a country of no earthly use to anyone but themselves...Why on earth do we want closer connection with England? We have little in common with English people except our language. We are fast becoming an entirely different people. We are more liberal, and, considering our age, more progressive than England is. The majority of English people know nothing of Australia, and even the higher classes understand neither us nor our country. The latter entertain a sort of good-natured contempt for us which is only the outcome of their contact with our own shoddy aristocracy, which is several degrees more contemptible than that of England.

The loyal talk of Patriotism, Old England, Mother Land, etc. Patriotism? after Egypt, Burmah, Soudan, etc. Bah! it sickens one. Go and read His Natural Life, and other natural lives, by Marcus Clarke, and then talk of the dear old Mother Land that gave us birth. "

The years after World War 2 saw significant competition for power based around Marxist ideology. Communists tried to use their reverent power with workers to ultimately take government. The Liberal government of Robert Menzies reacted by banning the Communist Party. The Communist Party then exerted some power of its own by going to the High Court, which found that the bill was unlawful. Not to be dissuaded, in 1951, the Menzies government held a referendum to ban Communism. The referendum was defeated because the government lacked sufficient reverent power with the population.

Although they survived the referendum, the Communists realised they needed more reverent power with the population to eventually take Government. As a consequence, the Communists tried to seize control of art organisations with the aim of using them to control the hearts and minds of Australians. Anyone who stood in their way was subjected to veiled threats of eventual elimination, as acclaimed artist Albert Tucker recalled:

"We'd been in direct conflict, pretty well all our lives and I was the biggest scoundrel unhung because I stopped the Communist Party getting hold of the Contemporary Arts Society ... in those early days, when the conflicts were on, I was given the tip off by one in the know there, that when the war was over and they had their revolution and set up their communist paradise that I'd be one of the first to go, which does not warm you to people ... does not warm you to people."

Tucker survived the threat because of the power of his talent, which in turn gave him reverent power with the population. Through history the view of one became more powerful than the views of many (Communists.)

The Liberal Party was also set on hearts and minds in its battle with Communism. Rather than target arts organisations, it conscripted Australians and sent them to fight Communism in Korea and Vietnam. The aim was to build a patriotic narrative based around the fight against Communism. Ironically, the war sparked protests that eroded the government's affinity with the people.

Red Gum - I was only 19

Since colonial settlement, Aborigines had been trying to assert their power but it was not until the 1960s that they started gaining the support of a sufficient number of non-Aborigines to exert a true influence. In 1962, they were given the right to vote in Federal elections by the Liberal Menzies Government. Five years later, Australia held a referendum, which, depending on perspectives, either reduced or increased Aboriginal power. The referendum gave the Federal government the power to make laws specifically for Aborigines. It was sold as a way of giving the Federal government the power to discriminate in favour of Aborigines in ways that would allow the government to improve their position in life. Previously, only states had been allowed to make laws for Aborigines. Although the provision of the vote increased the awareness of the Aboriginal voice in Australia, the 1967 referendum ensured that the power to exert that voice could still be influenced by the Federal government.

Today, most conflicts for power revolve around Aborigines. Both major parties see Aborigines as a way to build their reverent power with voters. For this reason, annual expenditure on Aboriginal programs is in excess of $3.5 billion, and all Australian prime ministers since Gough Whitlam have tried to portray themselves as the Aborigines champion.

As well as trying to portray themselves as the Aboriginal champion, prime ministers have tried to portray the opposition leaders as the enemy of Aborigines. In 2012, the office of the prime minister spread a false rumour amongst Aborigines protesting in Canberra that the opposition leader wanted to tear down the Aboriginal tent embassy. Accompanying the rumour was information about where the opposition leader could be found.

Just as politicians are trying to use Aborigines to further their own power, so are academics. Of the Sydney Morning Herald's top 20 intellectuals in 2005, at least seven were strongly associated with debate perceived to be in favour of indigenous Australians. Sporting organisations have also used an association with Aborigines to heighten their promotional appeal. Major football codes have special rounds and teams to honour Aborigines and cricket has desperately tried to promote Aboriginal talent.  

Getting Aborigines on board has been easier said than done.  The most difficult problem to overcome is that Aborigines themselves are in competition for power and influence. Specifically, there is competition over who is a true Aborigine and who is just a whitefella using a bit of Aboriginal ancestry for career advantage. There is competition between those who control land councils and those who don’t have land but do have close relationships with environmental organisations that want to stop economic development on Aboriginal land. There is competition between those who are popular in Aboriginal communities and those who are popular in parliament.

There are some very powerful people in Australia. Ultimately though, no one individual, or one institution, controls the strings of Australians. For example, the people who control the arts organisations have power, but their power is limited by the desire of Australians to consume what they create and their willingness to believe it is genuinely represents who they are. The wholesale rejection of the Australian film industry by Australians indicates that top down attempts at control are not as easy in practice as they are in theory. Furthermore, a new government can simply stop their funding. Likewise, the people who write the National Curriculum documents have power, but they are still dependent upon the willingness of teachers to implement their ideologies and that of the students to study them. The people who run privately and publicly controlled media have power, but their power is limited by the willingness of consumers to change the channel if they don’t like what they are told. Finally, the political party that runs government has power, but it is limited by the reverent power they have with voters. This can be undermined through various forms of protest or support for the competitor.

The biggest mistake most of the people running the institutions make is that they fail to realise the limitations of their power. Just as a teacher that threatens an unruly student may soon find themselves dealing with a student that undermines their authority, an institution that abuses its power will likewise find people rebelling against it.

Australia is a society characterised by inequality; however, it is not a society in which power is concentrated. Every individual in Australia has power. Whether they use that power to the full extent of its potential largely depends on how aware they are of the power they have at their disposal. Those who tell them that they have no power merely seek to deny them of it.

This situation in Australia is a marked difference from that in Communist and former Communist societies, which likewise promoted an ideology of equality yet developed rigid social hierarchies. The difference is that Communist countries concentrate institutions of power and use that concentration to stifle the various forms of power available to the individual. For example, a Chinese coal miner could never share a table with the leader of a Chinese city, a Chinese entrepreneur, and a Chinese wine maker with all subscribing to a doctrine of equality. Without empowering every individual with some form of legal, cultural, expert, legitimate or physical power, there can never truly be the freedom to see oneself as equal.