Pauline Hanson puts light on Australia's dark conscience

By Arief Budiman

MELBOURNE (JP): When I went to Australia I was struck by the increase in the number of Asians, mostly Chinese.

In the University of Melbourne, for instance, it is easy to see that the number of Asian students has increased. You can bump into an Asian almost anywhere on campus. This was not the case when I came here about 10 years ago.

The University of Melbourne, however, may not be a good example because its new vice chancellor has been aggressively internationalizing the campus. Multiculturalism has emerged as the catch word for this university.

If we step outside the campus, the situation remains almost the same. In the popular Victoria Market there are many Asian vendors promoting their merchandise with an Australian English accent. Unless you see their faces you may not know that the person speaking is an Asian-Australian. Many Asians also converge on Melbourne shopping centers.

Australia is being Asianized, no doubt about it. Not only through the influx of Asian migrants but also through inter- marriage. There are more Australians with Asian spouses and having Asian in-laws is not unusual. Many more children are half- Asians and half-Caucasians. It is difficult to deny that a new race, a mestizo race of Asian-Caucasian, has been born into this continent.

So, when I heard about Pauline Hanson, the "notorious" member of parliament who keeps preaching about the influx of Asian migrants to Australia, I could understand her sentience. Basically, she opposes the multiculturalization of Australia.

In her first speech as a member of parliament on Sept. 10, 1996, she said: "I and most Australians want our immigration policy radically reviewed and multiculturalism abolished. I believe we are in danger of being swamped by Asians. Between 1984 and 1995, 40 percent of all migrants coming into this country were of Asian origin. They have their own culture and religion, form ghettos and do not assimilate." She also opposed the affirmative-action policy to help the Aboriginal people.

Not only does Hanson link the influx of Asian migrants with unemployment and the growing dole queues -- which cost the Australian government billions of dollars -- but she is against multiculturalism for other reasons.

"A truly multicultural country can never be strong or united," she said. "The world is full of failed and tragic examples, ranging from Ireland to Bosnia to Africa and, closer to home, Papua New Guinea."

The Hanson phenomenon reflects many interesting issues. Some of them are:

a. first, if I were a Caucasian, I might have the same feeling that Australia is being invaded by Asians. But then these question arise: Who owns Australia? Who are the real Australians? The Caucasian people are also migrants. The real Australians are the Aborigines, who are now a marginalized minority. It would make more sense if Hanson was an Aborigine. Since she is not, than it is much more appropriate for her to support Australia as a migrant country with multiculturalism as it basic ideology.

b. Second, Hanson's assertion that a multicultural society can never be strong and united is quite problematic. By having many cultures interact with each other, a society can emerge even stronger than if it was based on one race and one culture. The birth of jazz and blues music was influenced by African American music. Painters Pablo Picasso and Paul Gaugin were very much influenced by the African and Asian fine arts.

Japan has become one of the strongest countries in the world by combining Eastern values and Western scientific tradition. The US is also a multicultural society, although it is dominated by Europeans, and it has emerged as one of the strongest countries in the world.

So, maybe there are good reasons for people to speculate that Australia may emerge as a key player in the future because of the multicultural nature of its society. Australia is in a good position to develop its diverse cultural sources into something powerful.

Another worthy observation about the Hanson phenomenon is the strength of democratic tradition in the Australian society. Many people may not like Hanson, not only Asians but also Caucasian Australians. Every time she holds a meeting there are huge demonstrations with some activists even attacking Hanson's supporters.

However, the police keep protecting these meetings in order to defend the country's principle of free speech. For an Indonesian, like myself, this is quite remarkable because such a occurrence is unimaginable in my country.

There are some people now asking whether Hanson can be given the privilege of free speech when she uses this privilege to make race-based attacks on other people? What is the limit to free speech? Can free speech be used to promote an anti-free speech movement? In the case of Hanson, is she using free speech to propagate racism? This is of course a dilemma, although I believe that free speech must not be limited by anything. So, let Hanson talk.

Who supports Pauline Hanson? First, of course, there are the older generations who still believe that Australia has to stay a white continent. When there was a public opinion poll run by a newspaper, The Australian, Hanson's One Nation Party got 9 percent of the vote in May 1997. This is remarkably high if we compare it to the Green Party (2 percent) and the Democratic Party (4 percent).

Hanson's assertion that Asian migrants have cost Australia a lot of public money has been supported by quite a number of people in this country. However, when this anti-Asian attitude took hold there was a growing apprehension that it would damage income from tourists. There is a fear that Japanese and other Asian tourists, who constitute a big part of Australia's tourist industry, would stop coming if this campaign continued.

Furthermore, there was the additional fear that Hanson's remarks would also damage Australia's economic investments in Asian countries and Asian investments in Australia. During a radio program I heard an economist say: "Every time Pauline Hanson opens her mouth, it costs us ...".

The popularity of the One Nation Party, however, has been declining. In another poll by The Australian, on July 1997, support for the party had fallen from 9 percent to 6 percent.

So, even though Hanson has been given a free forum to promote her racist attitude, the Australian public has critically digested what she said. And rather than produce only bad things, Hanson, in my opinion, has produced some good things.

Hanson has rekindled the debate on Australian identity although the anti-Asian sentiment still exists, albeit suppressed.

The perception that Australia belongs to white people is still quite strong. It is better to bring the issue out in the open rather than allow it to prevail unquestioned in people's minds. Some people, who do not like the open discussion of these issues, have compared Hanson to a leaking ship which pollutes the water in which it is sailing.

However, I would compare Hanson to a submarine that has emerged from the depths. Fighting a visible submarine is much better than fighting a submerged one.

A positive aspect of Hanson's public rise is that she has succeeded in exposing the dark conscience of some Australians to sunlight.

After so many years Australia still seems to be struggling with its future identity and a long, soul-searching journey lays ahead.

The writer is a professor at the Center for Indonesian Studies at Melbourne University.