Page 107 - On Not Speaking Chinese Living Between Asia and the West

NEGOTIATING MULTICULTURALISM

denounced multiculturalism. A fish-and-chip shop owner-turned-politician, Pauline
Hanson, gained a seat in Parliament as an Independent, on an election campaign
which attacked the core of Keating’s political agenda on the grounds that it did not
represent the interests of ordinary, white Australians like herself. She slammed the
special treatment of Aboriginal people (whom she considered were getting
privileges not accessible to people like herself) and condemned Asian immigration
because, as she put it, ‘they don’t assimilate and form ghettos’. On top of this, she
wanted the policy of multiculturalism ‘abolished’ (Hanson 1997a). 2
Hanson struck a chord, especially among white Australians living outside the big
3
metropolitan centres, where she quickly gained a considerable following. Not
surprisingly, political criticism against her was loud and clear, reflecting a general
tendency in Western liberal-democratic societies to position right-wing populist
voices such as Hanson’s outside the domain of political respectability (although
what she is saying would have been perfectly respectable even in the 1950s).
Analysts and activists have repeatedly compared Hanson with right-wing radicals
such as David Duke in the United States and Jean-Marie le Pen in France in order
to discredit her. However, while such international comparisons may be useful
(enlightening the transnational dimensions of ‘white panic’ in the post-Cold War
4
world), it is important also to understand the specificity of the so-called Hanson
phenomenon in the historical context of contemporary Australia, and the particular
effectivity of her rhetorical strategy in that context. An important aspect of that
strategy has been her self-representation as an ordinary Australian, and on her
tireless claim that she speaks on behalf on ‘the Australian people’. In her own words,
she speaks ‘not as a polished politician but as a woman who has had her fair share
of life’s knocks’ (Hanson 1997a). Again and again she criticizes government policies
which, in her view, promote ‘a type of reverse racism applied to mainstream
Australians’ by supporting ‘various taxpayer funded “industries” that flourish in our
society servicing Aboriginals, multiculturalists and a host of other minority groups’
(ibid.). Aware of the controversial nature of her views, she vigorously denies that
she is a ‘racist’, claiming instead that she is only anxious to see Australia preserved
as a strong and united country. The name of her political party, One Nation, is an
indication of her bottom-line concern: ‘To survive in peace and harmony, united
and strong, we must have one people, one nation, one flag’ (ibid.). This emphasis
on ‘oneness’ reflects Hanson’s nostalgic desire for national homogeneity (be it social,
cultural or racial) – a desire which is clearly antagonistic to the pluralist celebration
of diversity in multiculturalism.
Pauline Hanson has been a sensational phenomenon in fin-de-siècle Australian
politics but, while her views do certainly reflect a significant strand in contemporary
popular consciousness, her political power will arguably remain limited to that of
an extreme, radical fringe. More important and more disturbing than the rise
of Pauline Hanson is the stance taken by Keating’s successor as Prime Minister,
John Howard. Howard won the 1996 elections for the conservative Liberal Party
on a campaign bearing the slogan ‘For All of Us’, a motto with a clear subtext that
Keating’s policies were not for ‘all of us’ but privileged special, minority interests.

96