Aussie reveals the TRUE meaning behind 'the lucky country' and why most are wrong to think it's a positive phrase
The term was coined by author Donald Horne in his 1964 book of the same name and has become associated with long term prosperity and the country's avoidance of economic and social downturn seen in other nations.
Australian commentator Topher Field told the Unemployable Media Podcast the phrase did not necessarily have the positive connotations most thought it did.
'It was actually telling us, you guys are lazy. You guys are riding off the back of good luck. Good luck of geography, weather and industry,' he said.
'You guys are the lucky country, and if you don't wise up real quick, your luck is going to run out.
'You're not going to know what hit you because you've never had to navigate anything bad.'
Horne's famous line appears at the beginning of his book's final chapter.
'Australia is a lucky country run mainly by second-rate people who share its luck. It lives on other people's ideas,' it reads.
'Although its ordinary people are adaptable, most of its leaders (in all fields) so lack curiosity about the events that surround them that they are often taken by surprise.'
The phrase wasn't a celebration of national success, but a critique of how little of it was earned through innovation or effort.
Horne argued that Australia's wealth was built not through ingenuity, but through good fortune, natural resources, climate, and a wave of immigration.
Speaking to Daily Mail Australia, Field expanded on Horne's meaning.
'[Horne] was being ironic. 'The Lucky Country' was an observation that so much of what we had in the '60s when his book was published was a result of geography and quirks of global timing and trade, rather than our own hard work.'
Field added the critique remains just as relevant today as it was decades ago.
'It was not earned prosperity, but just dumb luck. Sixty years later it's fair to say that our luck has held up remarkably well, thanks again to geography, timing, and trade.'
Field referred to the mining boom, and the strength of the industry which protected Australia from economic decline.
'Our resources sector is much-maligned, but it carried us through the dot com bubble, the Asian Financial Crisis, and the 2008 GFC, comparatively unscathed, tempting some people to say that Donald Horne was wrong and that we really are lucky.'
But Field warned that the very luck that once sustained Australia may be creating complacency.
'I wish that were true. All the economic indicators are telling us that our luck has very much run out,' he said.
'But we're so complacent, so lazy, so used to being 'lucky', that we've lost the will and the work ethic to get ourselves out of what's coming.
'We're no longer getting lucky, we're getting what we deserve.'
Field ended his statement by saying Australia's luck is finite, invoking a former British Prime Minister in his warning.
'With apologies to Margaret Thatcher who said that "The problem with Socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money",' he said.
'I will say that the problem with being lucky is that eventually your luck runs out.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
an hour ago
- The Guardian
‘Dump it, or we'll dump you': secretive consultancy group sends Liberal MPs barrage of emails over net zero policy
Liberal MPs have been sent a barrage of emails demanding they drop net zero targets or 'risk losing our support' by a group connected to conservative right-wing lobby group Advance. The mass emails, seen by Guardian Australia, have been sent to multiple Liberals by Whitestone Strategic, a secretive political consultancy group and come as the Coalition reviews its energy policy. Coalition MPs began receiving the emails – which one described as looking as if they were sent by AI bots – on Monday night. Some MPs received more than 100 within 48 hours from the same address. Sign up: AU Breaking News email One of the emails reads: 'A message to the Liberal Party and Nationals: Net Zero is causing irreversible damage to our nation. Our economic health is declining … immediate action is required. Dump Net Zero policies now, or we will stop supporting your agenda.' Another reads: 'Net Zero is a dangerous joke. It's time to dump it, or we'll dump you.' The email sender appears to be Whitestone Strategic but the email address is listed as CiviClick – a US-based platform that describes itself as AI-Powered grassroots advocacy software, that allows users to 'reach elected officials with powerful policy messages'. A Guardian Australia investigation in October revealed Whitestone Strategic's close ties to Advance, the rightwing advocacy group behind the main organisation promoting a no vote in the Indigenous voice referendum, Fair Australia. A separate investigation also found Whitestone Strategic billed taxpayers almost $135,000 over two years for work providing media messaging for conservative politicians during the voice to parliament campaign. Whitestone Strategic's work for Coalition members has extended beyond the voice campaign. None of the emails, sent since Monday, are addressed directly to the politician, or signed off by a member of the public. Many of the dozens of emails received by MPs contain the same message and some contain what appears to be coding left in unintentionally. Advance announced on 8 August it would launch a campaign targeting 'weakling' Liberals, by pressuring them to drop their support for net zero by 2050. On 15 August, it said its supporters had sent 19,897 emails to coalition MPs and senators. Several members who received the emails expressed frustration over the tactic. One Liberal, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said they received at least 50 emails in 24 hours, none directly addressed to them. 'The policy review process is important, we must take the time to do it right,' they said. Sign up to Breaking News Australia Get the most important news as it breaks after newsletter promotion 'We cannot be distracted by external groups with their own agendas.' Another Liberal, who asked not to be named, derided the emails and said they looked like they had been sent by 'AI bots', due to multiple of the same message being sent. This MP, who said they were previously supportive of Whitestone's work, said 'Why can't Whitestone get this stuff right?'. Liberal Senator for South Australia, Andrew McLachlan, a vocal supporter of net zero and climate action, confirmed he'd received dozens of emails from Whitestone Strategic over the last 48 hours. He said maintaining emissions reduction targets is critical and said he would continue to advocate for the target. 'It is not 'weakness' to support targets to reduce pollution. You are not a 'weakling' to be committed to exploring every possible solution to respond to our changing climate,' he said. The Liberal party is reviewing its energy policies, led by the shadow energy minister, Dan Tehan. The opposition leader, Sussan Ley, hasn't committed to keeping net zero, but some vocal members of the Coalition – including Barnaby Joyce, Michael McCormack, Matt Canavan and Tony Pasin – have been publicly and privately lobbying against the target. In response to questions from Guardian Australia, Advance said they wouldn't comment on individual emails from supporters, but that 'it is no secret that we are campaigning against net zero and have asked our supporters to contact MPs to voice their opposition'.
The Guardian
an hour ago
- The Guardian
As the economy slows and productivity flatlines, is Australia having another banana republic moment?
When Paul Keating stepped into a noisy kitchen in a Melbourne function centre for an interview with John Laws, he didn't mince his words. It was 14 May 1986 when the then Labor treasurer told Laws that without some serious changes, a collapse in export prices meant our trade-dependent country was living beyond its means and fast on its way to becoming 'a banana republic'. 'If this government cannot get the adjustment, get manufacturing going again and keep moderate wage outcomes and a sensible economic policy, then Australia is basically done for,' Keating told Laws. Sign up: AU Breaking News email It was that sense of urgency – the threat of a 'banana republic' – that helped blow away the cobwebs of complacency and drive the massive reforms of the 1980s and 1990s. Australia in the decades since has prospered. Yet once again we are having similar conversations. The economy doesn't seem to be functioning as it should, and may only be capable of growing at a fraction of the rate it used to. The budget is in structural deficit. The population is ageing, and our demand for government services grows and grows, even as our capacity to fund that extra spending goes the other way. Younger Australians are increasingly resentful about their lot, homes are too expensive and the world outside our shores looks more dangerous than it has in decades. Used to being a standout on the global stage, we are being relegated to the back of the pack. Living standards across the rich world climbed by an average of 22% over the past decade. In comparison, our living standards are up just 1.5%, according to analysis by Chris Richardson, an independent economist. Analysts place a lot of the blame for this on a slowdown on one thing: productivity growth. They point to the fact that our economy is no more productive now than it was in 2016. Over the longer term, productivity growth is the ingredient that delivers higher real wages, generates better-quality goods and helps pay for government services. Technological change can explain a lot of productivity growth over the decades. The promise of artificial intelligence is that it ignites an explosion of new growth as AI embeds itself deeper into the economy and our lives. With so much apparently at stake, Chalmers in a recent interview was asked if flatlining national productivity was a 'crisis'. 'No,' the treasurer said, 'but it's a big challenge'. Australia and Australians have a lot of 'big challenges', and some are regularly referred to as 'crises'. Yet not all are worthy of a three-day economic reform roundtable with 900 submissions and 40 ministerial mini-roundtables leading up to it. At the National Press Club on 18 June, Chalmers declared that the government has 'a responsibility to rebuild confidence in liberal democratic politics and economic institutions – by lifting living standards for working people in particular'. Days out from the start of the roundtable, Chalmers has been at pains to play down the very reform fervour that he fanned. Anthony Albanese appears to have little appetite for spending political capital in pushing through tough economic reforms. The PM has made it clear that there will be – read his lips – no new taxes this term. The treasurer has obediently narrowed the scope of the potential 'deliverables' to regulatory reform to get more homes built, with a side promise of some progress on longstanding policy ideas, like a road user charge. Sign up to Breaking News Australia Get the most important news as it breaks after newsletter promotion The lack of a 'crisis' in productivity may make it hard to understand why we have spent nearly six weeks leading up to this talkfest in Canberra. But it does help explain the apparent lack of urgency to solve the issue. So what do economists reckon: do we have a productivity crisis? The answer, Richardson quips, 'depends whether you like rising living standards or not'. Are we a commodity price collapse away from becoming a 21st-century version of Keating's 'banana republic'? Saul Eslake, another independent economist, says no – the economy now is totally transformed. Rather than crisis, Eslake volunteers the word 'malaise'. 'I don't think it would help the debate to call it a productivity crisis,' he adds – that could lead to rushed and short-term measures that might just goose the economy for a year or two. 'There are no magic bullets, no short-term solutions. Nothing that can be done, even with the greatest amount of political will, to lift productivity growth in 12 months' time,' Eslake says. John Hawkins, an economics professor at the University of Canberra, says productivity is not a crisis because it's 'not something that is making people worse off'. Instead: 'It's a lost opportunity to make us better off'. 'We got used to the idea that incomes go up over time. Over the long run most of that increase has come from productivity,' Hawkins says. 'More recently we got away with low productivity growth because commodities were strong, but we need to do something if we want real income growth going forward.' Shadows of the 1980s, then, from which we can expect echoes of that era's reforms.
The Guardian
an hour ago
- The Guardian
Yes, men still read books, but reading rates for Australian women and children are declining too
The demise of men reading books has, once again, been greatly exaggerated. A recent ABC article about Australians' reading habits claimed 'Australians, especially men, are reading less than ever before' and 'the data showed females, on average, were reading more than males across all age groups'. This coverage was picked up by an opinion piece in the Age, with the headline 'Young men have stopped reading books – and these are the reasons why', which also said 'the percentage of men who would pick up any book at all is very small'. So have men actually stopped reading? Has there been a decline in reading overall? And how do reading rates compare between males and females? Both the ABC and the Age articles were largely based on figures from the ABS Time Use Survey – the proportion of people, by age group, who participated in reading in a two-day period in 2020-21: The key issue is the little black lines – the 'confidence interval' – a statistical measure of uncertainty that can be used when showing the average value of data from a survey (or other type of research). And what this means, which I have confirmed with the ABS, is that the reading rates are statistically the same for males and females within all generations with the exception of gen X. Equally fraught is claiming that reading has declined from this data as reading habits may differ by stage of life – perhaps people read more as they get older. The higher reading rates for older cohorts are likely affected by the survey methods, too – counting reading of a physical newspaper, but not reading of news online ('general internet and device use'). All of that said, we do know from other research that there has been a decline in reading rates, and that females do read more than males generally – though the difference is usually only somewhere about 7% to 11%. However, different surveys measure different things, in different ways, which makes it tricky to compare them. For example, the National Arts Participation Survey (Naps) measures any reading at all in the past 12 months and only counts reading as including 'novels, poetry, creative nonfiction and short stories'. In this data, younger people surveyed had a higher reading participation rate than several of the older demographics – the opposite of what we see in the ABS Time Use Survey. So what can we say about declining reading rates? Figures on this were surprisingly hard to find, however, thanks to the researchers at the University of Melbourne, I can share figures from the Hilda survey (which to the best of my knowledge haven't been published until now!). In 2012, 2016 and 2020 peoplewere asked how frequently they read either books or magazines and newspapers in the past 12 months. The gist is that they're reading books less frequently, and increasingly not at all: Splitting the data by gender shows the decline has been consistent for both males and females surveyed, and the gap in reading rates for males and females is consistent with other surveys: Males are, however, more likely than females to be frequent readers of news and magazines: The difference in reading rates by formats is something we see in other data, too. In the Naps data females read more in every category except for graphic novels and comics: Sign up to The Crunch Our data journalists showcase the most important charts and dataviz from the Guardian and around the web, free every fortnight after newsletter promotion And other reports cite higher audiobook usage in certain demographics. Finally, on age groups, we can see that reading has declined across the board, but it has declined the least in the oldest age group: So what are we to make of all this sometimes seemingly contradictory data? It looks like reading statistics vary greatly depending on how the question is asked. Multiple surveys show that a significant proportion of males are still reading books, though they're doing so less frequently than they used to. And it's clear that if there is a crisis of declining reading rates, it is affecting both men and women, boys and girls. Anna Burkey, the head of the reading research and advocacy group Australia Reads, agrees that focusing on men is something of a red herring. 'The problem to me is the downward trend across the population,' she says. 'And I think that when we get into conversations about [gender] we get into really unhelpful discussions about boy books and girl books – which don't exist. 'It's about finding material that is delivered in a format that is suitable for that person, and are we doing that well. And if we get too hung up on the gender divide we get really gendered in our responses, and that's not going to necessarily solve the core problems [with declining reading rates].' So, what can we do to boost reading rates? Burkey says there are two aspects to this – the personal response and the response from government. At the government level, Burkey says the lack of consistent, detailed and reliable data about reading behaviour is a real issue, and could be addressed by a government-led national reading strategy. 'We want a national reading strategy where we've got funds to do proper annual tracking around behaviour, and to see if what we're doing, all these things we're all trying to boost reading rates, is working,' she says. 'We need the funded national strategy and the campaigns that come with that, in a way like we do health advertising. This is a public good.' And at the personal level, Burkey wants everyone, from normal people to politicians and celebrities, to be talking more about reading and books. 'It's about taking the literature out of the book space and just say, what do you love at the moment? And make it as visible as we can. Read, ask people about reading, and try to make it visible.' Nick Evershed is the data and interactives editor for Guardian Australia
