THERE is no better country in which to live than Australia. Tony Abbott, our failed former leader, said so in a speech on Friday and declared it to be self-evident.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
He elevated Australian awesomeness to the pantheon of eternal truths, alongside the one in the Declaration of Independence that all men are equal, entitled to life, liberty, and happiness.
How do we check that Australia is the best country of all in which to live? Are we the richest people? The longest-lived? Do we suffer the least crime? Do we have the best climate? Can we buy wine at the supermarket? No, no, no, it depends, and not in NSW, unless you shop at Aldi.
Michelle Obama, for one, doesn't see it as self-evident. Last month, she declared the United States "the greatest country on earth". Her claim may cover slightly different ground to Abbott's, but I suspect Obama wouldn't give it to us on either score. Clearly, she hasn't spent enough time here.
Neither was it self-evident to David Cameron, who said Britain was "still the greatest" in 2012, despite Blighty losing almost all its empire. But he said that before he lost a referendum and his job; surely his opinion has changed.
More objective sources also question what Abbott says is obvious. At the top of the United Nations' human development index, which combines life expectancy with measures of income and education, is Norway, that oil-fuelled social democracy. Australia is second. On this measure, there is a better country in which to live - just one, but it's a long way from Warringah.
US News put Germany - Germany! - on top of its best-country index this year, assessed by 16,000 people on 75 criteria. There were another four before Australia: Canada, Britain, the US, and Sweden.
The point is that deciding such a question depends on the criteria chosen and the weight given to them. Even if it were possible to agree on those, whatever the supposedly objective answer will be overwhelmed by people's experiences: where they come from, what language they speak, whether it rained on their first visit.
The question is as pointless as those irritating liveability surveys of cities, which rank Melbourne against Munich as if it doesn't matter if you are Australian or German. They evaluate the same cities at the same time but get different answers depending on what they decide to measure. Even the same surveys tend to change each year, helping to win them attention.
The only real significant difference is having the good fortune to be born in any rich country with good health and education systems. Your chances of a decent life will be vastly better than if you don't.
Which rich country you choose doesn't matter all that much, be it Australia or Switzerland, Denmark or Ireland, Canada or New Zealand, unless one of your criteria is that your prime minister be handsome with an aversion to shirts.
Picking a rich country as the best is like picking between a Mazda and a Honda - they're much the same, objectively good cars, but some love one, and some adore the other.
I think Australia is a great country, but it is no insult to say it is far from perfect, to barrack for improvement than settle for what we have.
Admitting as much does not prevent the conclusion that Australia is a superb country in which to live, with enviable public services, and a generous, talented people. There's just no need to be arrogant about it.
