New politics point to climate of change

[ The University of Melbourne Voice Vol. 3, No. 1  14 April - 12 May 2008 ]

By Martin Ball

This April 25 Australia will commemorate the 93rd anniversary of the landing at Gallipoli in 1915. As anniversaries go, this year is not remarkable – except in one matter: it will be the first ANZAC Day under the new prime minister, Kevin Rudd. What Rudd says about ANZAC on April 25 will be an important signpost to how the new PM sees this part of the nation’s heritage fitting into the contemporary social, cultural and political fabric. And the signs are that he will make ANZAC in a very different image from that of his predecessor.

For eleven years John Howard was a strong advocate of situating ANZAC as a keystone of Australian cultural heritage. In numerous speeches throughout his term Howard repeated his theme that “the ANZAC tradition” was the tradition dearest to Australians, and that “the spirit of ANZAC” drew Australians together in time of need.

These messages were delivered on ANZAC Day and Remembrance Day, but also on Australia Day and literally dozens of other occasions both within Australia and overseas.

A glance at the new PM’s public rhetoric shows already how stark the difference is. In his 2008 Australia Day address Kevin Rudd made no mention of ANZAC or Gallipoli. Likewise when he was in Papua New Guinea in March, Rudd gave two speeches where he commented on the ongoing significance of Kokoda to contemporary Australian generations, but chose not to link this with any “ANZAC tradition”.

Indeed, five months into his term in office it is revealing that according to the PM’s own website, Kevin Rudd has so far mentioned ANZAC just once in public life – at an address at the Australian War Memorial honouring veterans of post–1945 conflicts. Even here it was only a passing reference to “the grandsons and great-grandsons of ANZAC”, in a speech that argued that while some nations were forged in war, “Ours was not”.

This is a direct contrast to Howard, who claimed that Australian nationhood was “forged that April morning on the battleground of a foreign shore”, and sets up an explicit challenge to Howard’s version of cultural history.

Throughout Howard’s term, commentators on all sides of politics observed how successfully he used ANZAC as a medium to talk to the electorate. Rather than trying to historicise and re-interpret ANZAC as Paul Keating had done, Howard’s approach was to generalise the ANZAC tradition and make it open and current to all Australians.

Mostly this was effective policy, though a feeling developed that he tended to overstep the mark when usurping the governor-general’s traditional role of welcoming and farewelling troops serving overseas. As historian Mark McKenna has commented, more than any other prime minister in the post-war era, Howard sought to gain political advantage by ‘wrapping himself in khaki’.

At this early point in Kevin Rudd’s incumbency, it seems that he is choosing a less prominent role for the ANZAC tradition and the crucible of war in his vision of the nation and its cultural heritage.

In many ways Rudd’s language on these issues most reflects that of Paul Keating. Like Keating, Rudd has spoken of how our soldiers have “defended this democracy”, rather than preserved the ANZAC tradition. And like Keating, Rudd has given specific attention to Kokoda, rather than Gallipoli.

The issue of Kokoda is worth exploring here. Kevin Rudd’s much-publicised trek on the Kokoda Track as part of Channel Seven’s Sunrise program was a highly successful ploy in broadening Rudd’s identity and appeal to the wider electorate. As such, it was a very astute move politically. But Rudd’s involvement in another Sunrise enterprise – to alter the timing of the Dawn Service at Long Tan to accommodate Channel Seven’s preferred scheduling – turned out to be politically naïve and potentially damaging.

Beyond Rudd’s slip of inexperience, however, the Long Tan incident points to another difference between Howard and Rudd over ANZAC. Both men clearly identify ANZAC as a media opportunity, but for Howard ANZAC was something immutable. His deep conservatism located ANZAC as forever 1915, just as his cultural vision for the country was forever 1950s.

Rudd is clearly a progressive, and for him ANZAC is more adaptable. Rudd is also an internationalist, which puts him closer to the ideals of Malcolm Fraser. For Fraser, patriotism smacked of jingoism, and ANZAC commemoration remained a peripheral part in cultural life.

Will this be the fate of ANZAC under Kevin Rudd? And if so, given that Rudd looks likely to be in charge for some time, what will be the implications heading towards the centenary of ANZAC in 2015? The inevitable battle over ANZAC and national identity will be fascinating to watch.

In the final days of last year’s election campaign, John Howard frequently took to quoting Paul Keating’s line that, “If you change the government, you change the country”. Rudd’s apology to the Stolen Generations was the first real indicator of the depth of this change. Rolling back Work Choices is a further decisive break. Perhaps his speech on ANZAC Day will mark another change in direction.

Dr Martin Ball is a Fellow of the Australian Centre, University of Melbourne. He teaches English at Melbourne Grammar School.