
Australia doesn't need to be 'great', and that's good
When Jacinta Price said recently "Make Australia great again", everybody asked whether she was imitating Trump. It may have been more sensible to ask her to explain the differences, beginning with the obvious: when, exactly, was Australia supposed to have been great in the first place?
I mean, an American can at least point to a time in the forties and fifties of the last century when their nation did dominate the world, effortlessly holding up or overthrowing, as the mood took them, other people's governments. Australia has throughout its history adopted the deliberate policy of hiding under the aprons of bigger and more imperial states, only showing off our undoubted martial valour under the proud banner of "Us too!" The only wars we've fought entirely on our own have been those against Price's Indigenous ancestors.
This isn't just a quibble or a gotcha. The thing we're being asked to identify with is domination, and the attraction of that as a concept does rather depend on whether you're a hammer or a nail.
Or a blade: Alexander the Great, faced with a complicated Gordian knot, cut through it with his sword, showing the decisive clarity of a man of destiny, and went on to conquer lots of other kings' territory. The lesson is that if you want to be great, as a leader or as a nation, you must strike aside all obstacles - customs, rules, habits of mind - and take what you want.
If you're going to terminate at one blow the premier tourist attraction of a provincial city it does, of course, help to be a king with a large army lined up outside. Alexander was used to thinking that the entire country and all it contained belonged to him, to do with as he would.
That's why modernity is so inextricably knotted into getting away from exactly that - setting up parliaments to pass laws that limited a king's power, restricted his claims, occasionally cut his head off, and gave ordinary citizens some room to flourish. One of Australia's primal advantages is that nobody in our entire recorded history has ever been called 'the Great' (the Great Australian Bight doesn't count).
Laws, though, generate lawyers. Lawyers befuddle honest citizens with jargon and irritating prohibitions and make it difficult to do things, creating a demand for a strong leader who can sweep aside all these cobwebs and do what needs to be done, Trumpily. Trying to please everybody pleases nobody except Anthony Albanese.
All of us can imagine how greatly the world would be improved if we personally were granted the status of benevolent autocrat, and our natural attraction to that personal vision tends to attach itself to autocracy in general. We tend, in fact, to imagine that if we raise an autocrat then they will agree with us, and will work in our interests, because surely the rightness of our own strongly held opinions will be instinctively obvious to anybody not already corrupt or malign.
In the USA Trump is pressing closer and closer to declaring that if he is to truly make America great, the president cannot be bound by Congress's pettifogging laws. We're once again having that debate that playwright and screenwriter Robert Bolt put into the mouth of Tudor statesman Thomas More in A Man for All Seasons:
"This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if
you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand
upright in the winds that would blow then?"
Could that happen here?
MORE OPINION:
One of the things about Australia that we massively undervalue is that we don't have the degree of judicial partisanship that the USA regards as normal. With remarkably few exceptions, our judges are appointed from the ranks of successful advocates, familiar with the intricacies of black-letter law and committed to following in the ruts left by their predecessors.
We simply don't have the American nervous tic of reporting every judgement as coming from "Smith (appointed by Morrison)" or "Jones (appointed by Gillard)". Here, being a lawyer (or a judge) is seen as more like being a high-status plumber than a charismatic thought leader.
Whether that juridical anonymity will in the long run protect us against (a) the rising cult of the strong leader, and (b) our invariable media panic over any court judgements in favour of refugees, remains to be seen.
When Jacinta Price said recently "Make Australia great again", everybody asked whether she was imitating Trump. It may have been more sensible to ask her to explain the differences, beginning with the obvious: when, exactly, was Australia supposed to have been great in the first place?
I mean, an American can at least point to a time in the forties and fifties of the last century when their nation did dominate the world, effortlessly holding up or overthrowing, as the mood took them, other people's governments. Australia has throughout its history adopted the deliberate policy of hiding under the aprons of bigger and more imperial states, only showing off our undoubted martial valour under the proud banner of "Us too!" The only wars we've fought entirely on our own have been those against Price's Indigenous ancestors.
This isn't just a quibble or a gotcha. The thing we're being asked to identify with is domination, and the attraction of that as a concept does rather depend on whether you're a hammer or a nail.
Or a blade: Alexander the Great, faced with a complicated Gordian knot, cut through it with his sword, showing the decisive clarity of a man of destiny, and went on to conquer lots of other kings' territory. The lesson is that if you want to be great, as a leader or as a nation, you must strike aside all obstacles - customs, rules, habits of mind - and take what you want.
If you're going to terminate at one blow the premier tourist attraction of a provincial city it does, of course, help to be a king with a large army lined up outside. Alexander was used to thinking that the entire country and all it contained belonged to him, to do with as he would.
That's why modernity is so inextricably knotted into getting away from exactly that - setting up parliaments to pass laws that limited a king's power, restricted his claims, occasionally cut his head off, and gave ordinary citizens some room to flourish. One of Australia's primal advantages is that nobody in our entire recorded history has ever been called 'the Great' (the Great Australian Bight doesn't count).
Laws, though, generate lawyers. Lawyers befuddle honest citizens with jargon and irritating prohibitions and make it difficult to do things, creating a demand for a strong leader who can sweep aside all these cobwebs and do what needs to be done, Trumpily. Trying to please everybody pleases nobody except Anthony Albanese.
All of us can imagine how greatly the world would be improved if we personally were granted the status of benevolent autocrat, and our natural attraction to that personal vision tends to attach itself to autocracy in general. We tend, in fact, to imagine that if we raise an autocrat then they will agree with us, and will work in our interests, because surely the rightness of our own strongly held opinions will be instinctively obvious to anybody not already corrupt or malign.
In the USA Trump is pressing closer and closer to declaring that if he is to truly make America great, the president cannot be bound by Congress's pettifogging laws. We're once again having that debate that playwright and screenwriter Robert Bolt put into the mouth of Tudor statesman Thomas More in A Man for All Seasons:
"This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if
you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand
upright in the winds that would blow then?"
Could that happen here?
MORE OPINION:
One of the things about Australia that we massively undervalue is that we don't have the degree of judicial partisanship that the USA regards as normal. With remarkably few exceptions, our judges are appointed from the ranks of successful advocates, familiar with the intricacies of black-letter law and committed to following in the ruts left by their predecessors.
We simply don't have the American nervous tic of reporting every judgement as coming from "Smith (appointed by Morrison)" or "Jones (appointed by Gillard)". Here, being a lawyer (or a judge) is seen as more like being a high-status plumber than a charismatic thought leader.
Whether that juridical anonymity will in the long run protect us against (a) the rising cult of the strong leader, and (b) our invariable media panic over any court judgements in favour of refugees, remains to be seen.
When Jacinta Price said recently "Make Australia great again", everybody asked whether she was imitating Trump. It may have been more sensible to ask her to explain the differences, beginning with the obvious: when, exactly, was Australia supposed to have been great in the first place?
I mean, an American can at least point to a time in the forties and fifties of the last century when their nation did dominate the world, effortlessly holding up or overthrowing, as the mood took them, other people's governments. Australia has throughout its history adopted the deliberate policy of hiding under the aprons of bigger and more imperial states, only showing off our undoubted martial valour under the proud banner of "Us too!" The only wars we've fought entirely on our own have been those against Price's Indigenous ancestors.
This isn't just a quibble or a gotcha. The thing we're being asked to identify with is domination, and the attraction of that as a concept does rather depend on whether you're a hammer or a nail.
Or a blade: Alexander the Great, faced with a complicated Gordian knot, cut through it with his sword, showing the decisive clarity of a man of destiny, and went on to conquer lots of other kings' territory. The lesson is that if you want to be great, as a leader or as a nation, you must strike aside all obstacles - customs, rules, habits of mind - and take what you want.
If you're going to terminate at one blow the premier tourist attraction of a provincial city it does, of course, help to be a king with a large army lined up outside. Alexander was used to thinking that the entire country and all it contained belonged to him, to do with as he would.
That's why modernity is so inextricably knotted into getting away from exactly that - setting up parliaments to pass laws that limited a king's power, restricted his claims, occasionally cut his head off, and gave ordinary citizens some room to flourish. One of Australia's primal advantages is that nobody in our entire recorded history has ever been called 'the Great' (the Great Australian Bight doesn't count).
Laws, though, generate lawyers. Lawyers befuddle honest citizens with jargon and irritating prohibitions and make it difficult to do things, creating a demand for a strong leader who can sweep aside all these cobwebs and do what needs to be done, Trumpily. Trying to please everybody pleases nobody except Anthony Albanese.
All of us can imagine how greatly the world would be improved if we personally were granted the status of benevolent autocrat, and our natural attraction to that personal vision tends to attach itself to autocracy in general. We tend, in fact, to imagine that if we raise an autocrat then they will agree with us, and will work in our interests, because surely the rightness of our own strongly held opinions will be instinctively obvious to anybody not already corrupt or malign.
In the USA Trump is pressing closer and closer to declaring that if he is to truly make America great, the president cannot be bound by Congress's pettifogging laws. We're once again having that debate that playwright and screenwriter Robert Bolt put into the mouth of Tudor statesman Thomas More in A Man for All Seasons:
"This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if
you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand
upright in the winds that would blow then?"
Could that happen here?
MORE OPINION:
One of the things about Australia that we massively undervalue is that we don't have the degree of judicial partisanship that the USA regards as normal. With remarkably few exceptions, our judges are appointed from the ranks of successful advocates, familiar with the intricacies of black-letter law and committed to following in the ruts left by their predecessors.
We simply don't have the American nervous tic of reporting every judgement as coming from "Smith (appointed by Morrison)" or "Jones (appointed by Gillard)". Here, being a lawyer (or a judge) is seen as more like being a high-status plumber than a charismatic thought leader.
Whether that juridical anonymity will in the long run protect us against (a) the rising cult of the strong leader, and (b) our invariable media panic over any court judgements in favour of refugees, remains to be seen.
When Jacinta Price said recently "Make Australia great again", everybody asked whether she was imitating Trump. It may have been more sensible to ask her to explain the differences, beginning with the obvious: when, exactly, was Australia supposed to have been great in the first place?
I mean, an American can at least point to a time in the forties and fifties of the last century when their nation did dominate the world, effortlessly holding up or overthrowing, as the mood took them, other people's governments. Australia has throughout its history adopted the deliberate policy of hiding under the aprons of bigger and more imperial states, only showing off our undoubted martial valour under the proud banner of "Us too!" The only wars we've fought entirely on our own have been those against Price's Indigenous ancestors.
This isn't just a quibble or a gotcha. The thing we're being asked to identify with is domination, and the attraction of that as a concept does rather depend on whether you're a hammer or a nail.
Or a blade: Alexander the Great, faced with a complicated Gordian knot, cut through it with his sword, showing the decisive clarity of a man of destiny, and went on to conquer lots of other kings' territory. The lesson is that if you want to be great, as a leader or as a nation, you must strike aside all obstacles - customs, rules, habits of mind - and take what you want.
If you're going to terminate at one blow the premier tourist attraction of a provincial city it does, of course, help to be a king with a large army lined up outside. Alexander was used to thinking that the entire country and all it contained belonged to him, to do with as he would.
That's why modernity is so inextricably knotted into getting away from exactly that - setting up parliaments to pass laws that limited a king's power, restricted his claims, occasionally cut his head off, and gave ordinary citizens some room to flourish. One of Australia's primal advantages is that nobody in our entire recorded history has ever been called 'the Great' (the Great Australian Bight doesn't count).
Laws, though, generate lawyers. Lawyers befuddle honest citizens with jargon and irritating prohibitions and make it difficult to do things, creating a demand for a strong leader who can sweep aside all these cobwebs and do what needs to be done, Trumpily. Trying to please everybody pleases nobody except Anthony Albanese.
All of us can imagine how greatly the world would be improved if we personally were granted the status of benevolent autocrat, and our natural attraction to that personal vision tends to attach itself to autocracy in general. We tend, in fact, to imagine that if we raise an autocrat then they will agree with us, and will work in our interests, because surely the rightness of our own strongly held opinions will be instinctively obvious to anybody not already corrupt or malign.
In the USA Trump is pressing closer and closer to declaring that if he is to truly make America great, the president cannot be bound by Congress's pettifogging laws. We're once again having that debate that playwright and screenwriter Robert Bolt put into the mouth of Tudor statesman Thomas More in A Man for All Seasons:
"This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if
you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand
upright in the winds that would blow then?"
Could that happen here?
MORE OPINION:
One of the things about Australia that we massively undervalue is that we don't have the degree of judicial partisanship that the USA regards as normal. With remarkably few exceptions, our judges are appointed from the ranks of successful advocates, familiar with the intricacies of black-letter law and committed to following in the ruts left by their predecessors.
We simply don't have the American nervous tic of reporting every judgement as coming from "Smith (appointed by Morrison)" or "Jones (appointed by Gillard)". Here, being a lawyer (or a judge) is seen as more like being a high-status plumber than a charismatic thought leader.
Whether that juridical anonymity will in the long run protect us against (a) the rising cult of the strong leader, and (b) our invariable media panic over any court judgements in favour of refugees, remains to be seen.

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles

News.com.au
25 minutes ago
- News.com.au
US reviewing AUKUS as Trump pursues ‘America first agenda'
The US is reviewing the AUKUS defence pact with Australia and the UK to ensure it aligns with Donald Trump's 'America First' agenda. Australia has already spent billions on laying the groundwork to acquire and build nuclear-powered submarines and train personnel to crew them as part of the partnership. US defence officials said overnight the move was about 'ensuring the highest readiness of our servicemembers'. 'The Department is reviewing AUKUS as part of ensuring that this initiative of the previous Administration is aligned with the President's America First agenda,' they told media. 'As Secretary Hegseth has made clear, this means ensuring the highest readiness of our servicemembers, that allies step up fully to do their part for collective defence, and that the defence industrial base is meeting our needs. 'This review will ensure the initiative meets these common sense, America First criteria.'


West Australian
26 minutes ago
- West Australian
Donald Trump says United States-China deal is ‘done', People's Republic to supply rare earths
US President Donald Trump says a deal with China is 'done', adding the People's Republic will supply 'magnets and any necessary rare earths' and the Chinese students can access US colleges. 'Our deal with China is done, subject to final approval with President Xi and me,' Mr Trump announced on Truth Social. 'Full magners, and any nexessary rare earths, will be supplied, up front, by China. 'Likewise, we will provide China what was ageed to, including Chineses students using our colleges and universities (which has always been good with me!). MR Trump said the US would get 55 per cent tariffs, with China getting 10 per cent. 'Relationship is excellent.' In a follow up post, Mr Trump added: 'President Xi and I are going to work closely together to open up China to American trade.' 'This would be a great WIN for both countries!' After high-level talks between the two powerhouse countries in London, US Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick told reporters the deal was almost set. 'We have reached a framework to implement the Geneva consensus and the call between the two presidents,' he said. Mr Lutnick told CNBC that a one-on-one call between Mr Trump and China's President Xi Jinping had 'changed everything'. 'They are going to approve all applications for magnets from United States companies right away,' he said.


West Australian
26 minutes ago
- West Australian
Deal gets US-China trade truce back on track: Trump
A deal getting the fragile truce in the US-China trade war back on track is done, US President Donald Trump says after negotiators from the United States and China agreed on a framework covering tariff rates. The deal also removes Chinese export restrictions on rare earth minerals and allows Chinese students access to US universities. Trump took to his social media platform to offer some of the first details to emerge from two days of marathon talks held in London that had, in the words of US Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick, put "meat on the bones" of an agreement reached last month in Geneva to ease bilateral retaliatory tariffs that had reached crushing triple-digit levels. "Our deal with China is done, subject to final approval with President Xi (Jinping) and me," Trump said on the Truth Social platform. "Full magnets, and any necessary rare earths, will be supplied, up front, by China. Likewise, we will provide to China what was agreed to, including Chinese students using our colleges and universities (which has always been good with me!). We are getting a total of 55 per cent tariffs, China is getting 10 per cent." A White House official said the 55 per cent represents the sum of a baseline 10 per cent "reciprocal" tariff Trump has imposed on goods imported from nearly all US trading partners; 20 per cent on all Chinese imports because of punitive measures Trump has imposed on China, Mexico and Canada associated with his accusation that the three facilitate the flow of the opioid fentanyl into the US; and finally pre-existing 25 per cent levies on imports from China that were put in place during Trump's first term in the White House. Lutnick said the 55 per cent rate for Chinese imports is now fixed and unalterable. Asked on Wednesday on CNBC if the tariff levels on China would not change, he said: "You can definitely say that." Still, many specifics of the deal and details for how it would be implemented remain unclear. Officials from the two superpowers had gathered at a rushed meeting in London starting on Monday following a call last week between Trump and Chinese leader Xi that broke a stand-off that had developed just weeks after a preliminary deal reached in Geneva that had defused their trade row. The Geneva deal had faltered over China's continued curbs on critical minerals exports, prompting the Trump administration to respond with export controls preventing shipments of semiconductor design software, aircraft and other goods to China. Lutnick said the agreement reached in London would remove restrictions on Chinese exports of rare earth minerals and magnets and some of the recent US export restrictions "in a balanced way" but did not provide details after the talks concluded around midnight London time. "We have reached a framework to implement the Geneva consensus and the call between the two presidents," Lutnick said, adding that both sides will now return to present the framework to their respective presidents for approvals. "And if that is approved, we will then implement the framework," he said. In a separate briefing, China's Vice Commerce Minister Li Chenggang also said a trade framework had been reached in principle that would be taken back to US and Chinese leaders.