How is Australianness represented by prime ministers?: prime ministerial and party rhetoric of race, class, and gender on Australia Day and Anzac Day, 1990-2017. Nicholas Bromfielda* and Alexander Pageb aGovernment and International Relations, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia; bSociology and Social Policy, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia. *Corresponding author - Nicholas Bromfield; address 15 Centre Crescent, Blaxland, NSW, 2774; email nicholas.bromfield@sydney.edu.au; ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3075-1481. Alexander Page; ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5674-4517.  How is Australianness represented by prime ministers?: prime ministerial and party rhetoric of race, class, and gender on Australia Day and Anzac Day, 1990-2017. Australia Day and Anzac Day, held on January 26 and April 25 annually, are key moments used by Prime Ministers to share, shape, and reproduce their understanding of what and whom is considered to be representative of a unique Australian identity and nationalism. This paper uses both qualitative and quantitative methods via content analysis to evaluate and compare prime ministerial and party rhetoric of race and national identity, class and economic relations, and gender and sexuality in their Australia Day and Anzac Day speeches between 1990-2017. We ask: how have Prime Ministers as reflexive actors used their speeches on Australia Day and Anzac Day to represent what it means to be Australian? The study reveals that despite Prime Ministers sometimes using intentionally inclusive discourses, they simultaneously reproduce the hegemonic classless, hetero-masculine, and Anglospheric Australianness present at the apex of power in Australian society. Keywords: prime ministers; nationalism; identity; gender; race; class. Nicholas Bromfield is a recent graduate from the Department of Government and International Relations at the University of Sydney. His recent interests focus broadly upon issues of nationalism and identity in political science and international relations. Alexander Page is a PhD Candidate in the Department of Sociology and Social Policy at the University of Sydney. His research focuses on critical Indigenous policy analysis, race and racisms, and social movements. Word Count: 7761  Acknowledgements: Fadi Baghdadi, Mathew Toll Introduction Australia Day 2017 saw then Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull frame an expression of Australia’s purportedly unique nationalism as worthy of celebration. Replete with signifiers of Australianness, Turnbull (2017) wove together his sense of Australian identity, values, and history: …here under the Southern Cross we have forged our own nation with unique Australian values – democratic and egalitarian. Deep in our DNA we know that everyone is entitled to a fair go in the great race of life… This strong sense of justice springs from the solidarity, the mutual respect, the mateship that transcends and binds us together in our diversity. And that is always when we are at our best and most Australian: the selfless sacrifice of the diggers a century ago, the courage of their descendants in the Middle East today. Together, we have created a remarkable, extraordinary nation. Turnbull, and prime ministers before him, have used Australia Day and Anzac Day to shape conceptions of what makes Australian national identity unique, and who are considered to be representative of this distinctive ‘Australianness’. As this paper will show, this Australianness reflects a complex identity, but one strongly drawing upon traditional and hegemonic conceptions of Australianness based upon masculinity, Anglo-centrism, and classlessness. Australia Day and Anzac Day facilitate prime minister’s nationalist visions by providing a prominent and ritualised platform for the performance of national identity. But these occasions also frequently provoke public debate over what this ‘Australianness’ entails. In response, prime ministers take the opportunity to communicate their personal understandings of the imagined Australian community via the history of the nation, the politics of the moment, and the ideology of their party. This paper asks: how have Prime Ministers used their speeches on Australia Day and Anzac Day to represent what it means to be Australian and how might this representation vary across parties, prime ministers, and time? This paper builds on Bromfield’s (2017, 2018) previous methodology of longitudinal critical discourse analysis of Anzac Day speeches made by Prime Ministers since the 1970s. Employing a content analysis of speeches made on Australia Day and Anzac Day by prime ministers from 1990 to 2017, we find discursive signifiers of class and equality, gender and sexuality, and race and international relations are used by prime ministers and their respective parties on these days to reproduce their conceptions of Australianness. We will demonstrate how Prime Ministers of both the Liberal Party of Australia (LPA) and the Australian Labor Party (ALP) present the nation in particular and varying ways around class, gender, and race, even within the seemingly strict discursive structures of these national days. As a result, this paper makes a crucial empirical contribution to current debates about the politics and construction of Australian identity. Literature Review and Theoretical Foundations Dennis Grube (2013, 4) has noted that political rhetoric and leadership is a relatively understudied aspect of Westminster democracies compared to US presidential studies. This is particularly the case when prime ministerial representations of Australian identity are surveyed; few political science works have attempted to examine the nationalist rhetoric of Australian prime ministers, especially on national days. Exceptions include the work of Johnson (see 1989; 2000; 2007; 2011), who has broadly analysed the economic and identity discourses of Australian prime ministers; Curran’s (2006) history of Australian prime ministerial speeches and nationalism; and Brett’s (2003) analysis of the ideological and identity language of Liberal prime ministers. What characterises this literature is its qualitative nature. While more recent quantitative work regarding the rhetoric of Australian political elites has been undertaken by Dowding et al (2012) regarding party ideology, Lukin (2015) regarding budget speeches, and Miller (2017) regarding One Nation social media posts, these analyses do not focus on the role of prime ministerial rhetoric and their reproduction of national identity. We argue that further insight into elite discourses of Australian identity can be gained by the application of quantitative measures to such rhetoric. As such, the paper utilises content analysis to accomplish the ‘…summarizing, quantitative analysis of messages’ (Neuendorf 2017, 17). The data for the content analysis consists of all prime ministerial speeches and messages on Anzac Day and Australia Day from 1990-2017, with the period being selected for its consistency of Anzac Day and Australian Day addresses. See Bromfield (2018) regarding the inconsistency of prime ministerial Anzac Day addresses prior to 1990. Further information regarding the corpus is contained in the appendix. This study is crucial as the construction of nationalism and identity on Australia’s national days has become a politically-charged topic. The traditionally conservative Anzac Day has seen the increasingly plural accommodation of identity, whilst Australia Day has been marked by contestation over the significance of colonialism and Indigenous dispossession and the ‘change the date’ debate (Bromfield 2018; Bongiorno 2014; Calma 2015; Phillips and Kerr 2017, 315). This study therefore provides an empirical contribution to the study of these phenomena through the lens of political elites. Theoretically, the paper argues that political elites need nationalism, even if they cannot crudely impose nationalist sentiment. Nationalism here serves as ‘…a strategy for enhancing stability and unity in states’ (see Norman 2004, 87; Whitmeyer 2002). Further, whilst there is a high degree of rhetorical path dependency and genre consistency to these speeches (Grube 2013), these conventions do not determine what is said by each prime minister. Prime ministers mobilise nationalism in an intersubjective manner, weaving together key narratives of Australian nationalism whilst drawing upon and responding to it at the same time (Crosley 1996, 173-174). However, prime ministers do have an outsized role in the amplification of national identity. The phenomena of presidentialisation gives them privileged access to the power resources of the state and encourages the media’s coverage of their activities and pronouncements (Poguntke and Webb 2005). Prime ministers therefore attempt to frame Australian identity whilst also acting within the parameters of their party’s ideology and traditions and reacting to events and processes evident in Australian political life. We argue that prime ministers play a central role in defining, sanctioning, and encouraging, the intersubjective discourses of national identity. We recognise that with a corpus of this size there is chance for detail to be lost in the description of the themes uncovered. This paper is therefore the first in a series of results from the project and aims to introduce the findings of the study through a primarily quantitative analysis that focuses on the similarities and differences in Australian nationalism between prime ministers, political parties, and the different national days. Other themes to be explored in future are identified in the discussion below. The overall project aims to fill a significant gap in the literature on Australian national days, which currently lacks a systematic comparative analysis of prime ministerial and party construction of Australian nationalism over time on Australia Day and Anzac Day.  The top 25 words of the corpus The data presented in this section outlines the top 25 words of each party’s corpus (table 1). The commonalties of this data provide an indication of shared ideas regarding Australianness and the rhetorical structures that prime ministers conform to when giving a national day address. Conversely, the differences of the data signal each party’s ideology and focus regarding Australia’s national days and identity. The most significant commonality between the parties is the invoking of the nation, indicated by the prevalence of terms such as Australia, nation, people, and country. The LPA invokes these four nationalistic terms more frequently than the ALP (LPA=2.88%; ALP=2.59%), though the difference is small. Regarding differences, the LPA top 25 words include terms such as Anzac, thank, honour, service, achieve, values, war, and celebrate. Whilst the ALP’s top 25 words did not include those terms, their corpus did include economy, government, challenge, future, work, build, investment, community, growth, and now, in contrast to the LPA. Empirical work regarding the ideologies of Australia’s political parties tend to agree that the ALP embraces ‘labourism’ (Simms 2009, 190-191; Jaensch 1994a, 189), whilst similar works regarding the Liberal’s ideology generally conclude that they embrace liberal and conservative traditions in opposition to Labor (Brett 2003, 1-3; Simms 2009, 192-193; Jaensch 1994b, 157-158). Laborism is ‘firmly based on the trade union movement… Labourism seeks not to take over the state, but to redirect the actions and functions of the state in favour of the workers’ (Jaensch 1989, 16). This acceptance of capitalism and the state whilst simultaneously prioritising the wellbeing of working citizens can be seen in the ALP’s top 25 words, with economy (5), government (6) and work (15) all appearing in the corpus. The ALP also emphasises challenges (10), the future (13), and signifiers of wealth creation – build (18), investment (20) and growth (23). Also notable is the emphasis upon a kind of collectivism with community (22). The ALP’s top 25 words are full of signifiers of labourism – the state’s active maintenance of a more forgiving capitalism for the benefit of working citizens. In contrast to the ALP, the Liberals do not embrace the full dimension of their ideology in their top 25 words. Common identifiers of liberalism, such as freedom, rights, or individualism, are notably absent. Instead, the LPA’s conservative tradition is emphasised in their top 25 words. As such, we see frequent mentions of the Anzac (10) tradition, a noted conservative shibboleth in Australian life. See Seal (2004) for the distinction between the folk-orientated egalitarian and anti-authoritarian ‘digger tradition’ and state orientated and conservative ‘Anzac tradition’. Liberal prime ministers celebrate (24) Australia’s national days and emphasise giving thanks (11) for purported values (22) of honour (12), service (15), and achievement (16). This emphasis on conservatism is influenced by Howard’s outsized prevalence in the corpus and his noted right-leaning social conservatism (Dowding et al 2012; Brett 2003, 206). Also notable is the absence of signifiers of the economy, in contrast to the ALP’s corpus. The absence of economics in the top 25 words, a central pillar of neoliberalism, therefore points to the dominance of conservatism in Liberal prime minister’s rhetoric on national days, a significant finding regarding developments in the LPA’s ideology and traditions since Howard. Also significant is the ALP’s continuing invocation of its traditional labourist roots, despite policies of liberalisation since the Hawke/Keating years. In sum, whilst both parties invoke and reproduce the nation on national days, they also clearly reflect aspects of their respective party ideology as crucial to Australian identity. Class relations: egalitarianism, equality and fairness In this section, the data outlines party (table 2) and prime ministerial (table 3) representations of class, equity and fairness. The most notable feature of this data is the lack of explicit reference to ‘class’, or economic relations, hierarchy, and stratification in Australia (Connell & Irving, 1992, 10) despite its ongoing existence in Australian life (Paternoster, 2017, 3-4). Howard is the only prime minister who registers a mean greater than 0% for explicit mention of class on Australia Day. Howard is also the primary user of the term ‘egalitarian’ and ‘egalitarianism’ across the entire corpus (11). Surprisingly, the explicit mentioning of egalitarian or egalitarianism as a core Australian value only appears 19 times across the corpus, all of which appear on Australia Day: Howard (n=11), Turnbull (n=4), Rudd and Keating (n=2). However, Howard’s median of 0% for class on Australia Day reveals that even these mentions were infrequent, despite Howard’s claiming of the Australian Legend and significant transformations of class discourses since that time (Brett 2003, 202-206; Paternoster, Warr, & Jacobs, 2018, 439-440). Notably, class is not a feature of ALP party or prime ministerial representations of identity on either Anzac Day or Australia Day, nor does class register in Anzac Day speeches for any party or prime minister. Instead, discourses of equality and fairness feature as substitutions for class rhetoric, but even there are not dominant features of the corpus. On Anzac Day, equality and fairness are elements in the means of both parties, but so infrequently that they do not register in the median. Notably the LPA more frequently mentions equality on Australia Day, reflected in the both the mean and median. This pattern is reversed when examining mentions of fairness, with the ALP mentioning this value more frequently than the LPA on Australia Day for both the mean and median. In sum, there is a lack of explicit engagement with class and economic difference across prime ministers and party, beyond rare allusions to egalitarianism and Howard’s infrequent mentions of class. The tendency of prime ministers to avoid discussion of class can be explained by three factors. First, Australia’s sense of itself as a ‘working man’s paradise’ with egalitarianism and the ‘fair go’ as its defining ethos still holds sway in the polity (Connell & Irving, 1992, 11; Herscovitch, 2013; Pusey, 2003, 126) and class-neutral descriptors have been used by prime ministers to unite an unequal population (Elder, 2007, 40-41, 52). Second, challenges to market-based policy making are seen as divisive within neoliberal economic norms (Cahill & Ryan, 2018, 504; Elder, 2007, 60; Davies, 2014; 2018, 277-278); leading to a lack of prime ministerial discussion of class differences and economic positionality as a unifying aspect of Australianness (Brett, 2003, 190). Third, national days are a key opportunity for prime ministers to reproduce the narrative of egalitarianism through the broadest definition, allowing citizens to ‘fill in the gaps’ on how they understand this rhetoric (Elder, 2007, 61). In this context, any critique of class division or wealth disparity would negate the active myth-making of an egalitarian Australian society, regardless of real difference in class experiences in Australia (Elder, 2007, 49; Sheppard & Biddle, 2017, 513). Therefore. Howard’s outlier discussion of class is actually a denial of class that expressed his view of ‘the relative lack of class consciousness in this country’ (1999, no. 2) and Australia’s ‘scorn of class structures’ (1997). However, prime ministerial discourses of equality and fairness reveal that prime ministers recognise class hierarchy and economic distribution. As noted, notions of equality and fairness are distinguishable across party lines, with the LPA more frequently employing equality and the ALP more frequently employing fairness. Notably, most of these mentions occur on Australia Day, where prime ministers tend to explicitly state policy agendas that reflect these party differences. Equality is often presented as a norm of Australian society, with the role of government to then provide ‘the fair go, [or] the idea of equality of opportunity’ (Howard, 2007). Howard uses equality to articulate an Australian valuing of formal ‘equality of opportunity’, rather than an ‘unrealistic’ aspiration to achieve ‘equality of outcomes’ (Howard 2007). Social mobility for Howard was attainable via individual achievement: ‘We believe very deeply that a person's worth is determined by their character and by the effort they put in to being a good citizen, not according to their social class, or their background’ (Howard, 1999). In contrast, an interventionist state approach has underpinned Labor prime ministers’ discourses of equality. In the aftermath of the early 1990s recession, Keating (1995, 2) noted the role of the state and public policy played in the attainment of equality on Australia Day 1995: We must also remain true to those principles of fairness and equality which we have always held to be definitively Australian… The truth is Australians do hold to them and that fact continues to shape the way we are. It shapes policy… [measures] in last year's White Paper, Working Nation, were taken in response to that sentiment. However, LPA prime ministers have also noted the duty of the state to provide these conditions of equality for citizens, with Turnbull (2017) stating that Australia believes ‘in creating opportunities, but we also believe in that helping hand… A fair go and a hand up if you fall behind… We are a fairer, more equal society as a result.’ Turnbull’s and Keating’s language hints at how the creation of individual opportunity can only exist with government intervention to ensure fairness. Class inequality is then tacitly accepted as real by both parties, even if class is not emphatically mobilised. The discourse of fairness more explicitly presumes that class inequality exists in Australian society, requiring an interventionist state for the ‘fair go’ or ‘egalitarianism’ to be a lived reality. ALP prime ministers such as Hawke (1990) describe an Australian class structure where ‘the hard but rewarding work of creating prosperity’ continues and where the benefits of this work were ‘genuinely earned and fairly shared.’ Rudd (2010) continues this tradition by describing a ‘fair go’ as ‘when I see my brother or my sister in need, then they deserve a fair go and my job is to go out there and do what I can to give that to them.’ Fairness also appears across party lines, with Abbott advocating for the ‘sustaining [of] a country that is strong and prosperous, free and fair’ (Abbott, 2015a). This advocacy of fairness by Abbott appeared even before the widely condemned Budget 2014-15, with Abbott (2014) taking time to ‘honour those who have “had a go” so that others might have a “fair go”’ on Australia Day earlier that year. The discourse of fairness also overlaps with notions of equality, such as in the case of Turnbull above, suggesting the dominance of embedded Australian values regarding egalitarianism that demand acknowledgement and have the potential to override ideological differences between the parties and prime ministers. In sum, representations of class by both Labor and Liberal prime ministers highlights how active mythmaking of an ‘ill-defined’ egalitarianism (Elder, 2007, p. 61) is used as a nationalist rhetorical device. In masking class hierarchy and wealth disparity in Australian society, prime ministers maximise inclusion in their nation building. But in the process, tacit acknowledgement of class difference and stratification is present in discourses of equality and, especially, fairness. Whilst important quantitative differences between parties exist, prime ministers of both parties employ these discourses of equality and fairness, revealing this ongoing egalitarian myth in contemporary Australia. Gender and sexuality: masculine and heteronormative The data set forth in this section delineates party (table 4) and prime ministerial (table 5) representations of gender. On Anzac Day, there is a stark difference between mentions of masculinity and femininity by the parties, with masculinity being represented approximately ten times as often as femininity by mean for both the ALP and the LPA. The median figures of 0% for femininity on Anzac Day by party for both the ALP and the LPA also reflects the infrequency of representations of femininity by the parties. In contrast, mean and median mentions of gender by the parties was more evenly distributed on Australia Day. Notably, mean and median conjoined mentions of gender by parties occurred more frequently on Anzac Day than they did on Australia Day. This can be explained by the tendency for prime ministers to represent people on Anzac Day in a non-specific and unnamed collective fashion, whereas Australia Day sees more frequent recognition of individual achievement with explicit naming of Australian people and use of gendered nouns. Notably, a comparison of the party’s representations of gender reveals a largely similar pattern across both days and both parties. Prime ministers since Rudd have increasingly mentioned feminine agents of Anzac compared with Hawke, Keating, and Howard, when the mean and median of prime ministerial representations of gender is examined; however, mean and median references to masculine agents of Anzac have also increased after Howard. The lead-up to the Centenary of Anzac has coincided with prime ministers telling more personalised stories of Anzac that name individuals, rather than the collective honouring of ex-service people that tended to previously characterise prime ministerial speeches. Like parties, individual prime ministerial mentions of gender on Australia Day are more evenly distributed between genders, and across time. Notable exceptions include Abbott, who mentioned masculine agents of Australianness on Australia Day three times as often as feminine agents, and Turnbull, who was the only prime minister to have more frequent mean and median mentions of feminine agents. The small number of years in the sampled corpus for both Abbott and Turnbull (n=2) means caution should be exercised when interpreting these results, as they may well have settled into similar patterns to the previous prime ministers with time. The Australian state, and political elites such as prime ministers, dynamically reflect, reinforce and reproduce situated gendered regimes (Connell 1990). These regimes are ‘sticky’, but changeable, and in the Australian circumstance, reflect its settler colonial foundations where white women were marginalised participants in the founding of the modern Australian state, and Indigenous and migrant women were excluded in the construction of Australian nationalism (Elder 2007; Vickers 2006). This is especially reflected in prime ministerial representations of gender on Anzac Day, where women are marginalised, if not absent, from Australianness. It is men who predominantly represent Anzac and Australianness, and the very language that represents this aspect of the nation is hard to distinguish from masculinity itself – honour, bravery, and duty are themes that reflect manliness as well as the values of Anzac (see Nagel 1998, 251-252). This pattern of masculine domination as a norm of Australianness is repeated across party lines. Women are not totally absent from prime ministerial representations of Anzac, but their roles fit gendered caring stereotypes: nurses if they are active participants in Anzac, or as passive mothers, wives, or widows on the home-front. Turnbull’s (2016a) Anzac Day address is typical of the passive model: ‘Those back home who waited for news of their boys fighting in the war in France were overwhelmed by the loss of life. Mothers lost sons – sometimes all of them. It must have seemed a generation was widowed and fatherless.’ Here men are the agents; women dutifully wait at home. Nursing is rarely acknowledged as being central to the story of Anzac, and not at all before 2011. It was Gillard (2011) who was the first prime minister in the corpus to equate nursing with soldiering amongst the pantheon of Anzac heroes on Anzac Day: I'm proud to be here with some of the authors of that freedom. And I'm prouder still to lead a nation capable of producing such individuals. Those of us who inherit your legacy can only imagine what it means to have served in war. To be one of those ordinary Australians called upon to do extraordinary things. Australians like Ray Parry, who along with three mates defended an outpost against a major attack… Or the nurses who put their hand up to go to war zones, like Nell Espie who was one of the first women to become a career military nurse and who not only served in Korea, but Malaya and Vietnam as well. Abbott also acknowledged nursing in his Anzac Day addresses (see Bromfield 2018, 94-97). Women therefore have a role in reproducing the nation’s gendered regime in a fashion that reinscribes women’s national roles as biological reproducers of men for service (Anthias and Yuval-Davis 1989, 8-10; Lake 1992), or as supportive and caring participants in the nation’s military endeavours. In addition, the image of women fashioned in this process tacitly reproduces the ethnic boundaries of Australian nationalism. The feminine Anzac here is invariably identified through her Anglo-Celtic name, rather than signifiers of Indigenous or migrant identities. Gendered representations of Australianness on Anzac Day are far more structured and conservative than the more plural picture on Australia Day. On Australia Day, prime ministers are liberated from the historical and normative path dependent structures of Anzac Day and are able to represent gender in more plural terms. The nature of events on Australia Day – the honouring of individual achievement and the setting of political and policy agendas for the year – allows this greater variability and women are roughly equally treated on Australia Day by both parties and prime ministers when the quantitative data is examined. Prominent women in the fields of the arts, science, sports, and government are portrayed by prime ministers and Indigenous and non-Anglo feminine identities are also represented on Australia Day, instead of being exclusively Anglo-Celtic like Anzac Day. Men do sometimes still predominate though. Howard dedicated large sections of speeches, or even whole addresses, to the achievements of Australian male cricketers around Australia Day such as Don Bradman in 1997, Mark Taylor in 1999, and Steve Waugh in 2004 but could only manage a few sentences for Cathy Freeman when she won Australian of Year in 1998. But overall, the gendered stereotypes of feminine passivity and caring are overall far fewer than on Anzac Day. Finally, the issue of sexuality should also be acknowledged. Sexuality in Australia is understood to be “…private, intimate, and personal” (Elder, 2007, 93-94), but nonetheless, is regulated much like gender. The authors searched for signifiers of sexuality in the corpus, and whilst heterosexual signifiers like wives and husbands appeared frequently, the search for the stemmed terms ‘gay’, ‘lesbian’, ‘homosexuality’, ‘bisexual’, ‘transgender’ and ‘queer’ revealed their entire absence from the corpus for Anzac Day and Australia Day. The corpus does not capture the period after the achievement of marriage equality in Australia, so it has been assumed that wives and husbands refer exclusively to heterosexual relationships. The absence and ‘subordination’ (Connell 2005, 78) of queer identities reflects the privileging of heterosexual masculinity and it is this particular masculine individual who predominates in prime ministerial national addresses. As such, prime ministers from both the ALP and the LPA continue to emphasise a heteronormative masculine gender regime as key to their descriptions of Australianness. Australianness and the world: the Anglosphere and Europe, Asia, and the Middle East This section outlines party (table 6) and prime ministerial (table 7) conceptions of Australia’s place in the world, its key relationships, and how conceptions of identity feed into these factors. The most notable general difference between the two days is the more frequent mention of the sum total of place on Anzac Day than on Australia Day, as measured by party and prime minister. This is due to the invoking of Australia’s war history and contemporary deployments on Anzac Day, a past and present mostly characterised by battles and wars that have occurred far from Australia’s shores in places like Gallipoli or Afghanistan. Regarding parties, the ALP more frequently mentioned the sum total of place than the LPA on Anzac Day and Australia Day, both measured as a mean and median. Examining individual prime ministers reveals Keating’s prominence as the most frequent sum total mentions of place on Australia Day on mean and median measures, as he frequently invoked place as he pitched his agenda of reconceptualising Australian identity in line with Asian engagement. On Anzac Day, Turnbull, Abbott and Keating all mention place at a frequency of greater than 2% on both mean and median measures of the sum total. The trend towards the more frequent mention of place on Anzac Day in recent years reflects the increasing invocation of the detail of Anzac’s history by prime ministers that was discussed in the gender section. Examination of the geo-cultural spheres evoked by parties on Australia Day demonstrates that the Anglosphere and Europe is the category that is most frequently mentioned by median and mean for both parties, followed by the Asia Pacific, then the Middle East. Anzac Day by party is different, with named mentions of the categories being more mixed when the mean and median measures are examined. The difference between the two days reveals the structuring tendencies of rhetorical path dependence (Grube 2013). The varied geography of Australia’s war history demands that mentions of place are more balanced on Anzac Day. The tendency to preference Australia’s Anglospheric and European historical connections and cultural attachments on Australia Day can be explained by the privileging of the history of white settlement and contemporary honouring of achievement by Australians of these backgrounds. These patterns are largely similar across parties. A clearer pattern regarding the geo-cultural categories can be revealed by looking at individual prime ministers. Turnbull and Abbott both mention the Anglosphere and Europe category on Anzac Day almost twice as frequently as the next prime minister, Keating, reflecting the conservatism of the LPA and Keating’s own tendency to mention the Anglosphere whilst simultaneously distinguishing Australia from it. Further reinforcing this is Keating’s clear domination of mentions of the Asia Pacific on Anzac Day by both mean and median measures – all part of his agenda to shift Australian conceptions of identity away from Europe to the Asia-Pacific region (Capling 2008, 602). The Middle East on Anzac Day is again dominated by Turnbull and Abbott, though other prime ministers more consistently include this category, too, as this is the location of Gallipoli. On Australia Day, Keating mentions the Anglosphere and Europe most frequently on mean and median measures, though at a lower frequency than Anzac Day, again, as an antonym for an independent Australianness. Abbott and Keating share the most frequent mentions of the Asia Pacific on Australia Day on mean and median measures, but at a lower frequency than the Anglosphere and Europe. Finally, prime ministers rarely mention the Middle East on Australia Day, with Hawke’s most frequent mentions of this category explained by the events of the Gulf War coinciding with Australia Day in 1991. Whilst there are some differences between the parties regarding the preferencing of geo-cultural spheres, these differences are also influenced by the rhetorical structure of the day and the individual ideological preferences of individual prime ministers, as Keating demonstrates. An interesting process of inclusion and othering is occurring in prime ministerial conceptions of Australia’s key relations and place in the world. This process is informed by what Higgott and Nossal have called liminality: ‘Australia… is a liminal state, one that is on a threshold, experiencing two worlds, `old’ [Anglocentric] and `new’ [Asian], at the same time’ (Higgott and Nossal 1997, 182). This liminality is prominent in prime ministers’ Australia Day references to place, with their emphasis upon the Anglosphere and Europe and the subordinate, but still present, references to Asia. Such a liminal, or ambivalent, relationship has been explored regarding Hawke, Keating, Howard and Rudd (see: Higgott and Nossal 1997; Higgott and Nossal 2008; Capling 2008; Johnson, Ahluwalia and McCarthy 2010), but can also be seen in the rhetoric of the prime ministers that followed. For example, Gillard spoke of her Welsh parents in one speech on Australia Day 2011, whilst also giving another speech to the Australian Council of Chinese Organisations in the same year (Gillard 2011b; Gillard 2011c). Abbott infamously reintroduced and awarded knighthoods on Australia Day 2015, but also met with Papua New Guinean Prime Minister Peter O’Neill the same day (Abbott 2015b; Abbott 2015c). Turnbull (2016b) also spoke of a cosmopolitan, multicultural and advantageously positioned Australia: And in this era of transformation, Australia is so well positioned. In a global economy where technology has triumphed over geography, Australians are naturally global citizens. As the world tries to overcome religious and ethnic hatreds, we are a harmonious, multicultural society. Once isolated from the economic powers in Europe and North America, we now share the same hemisphere as the Asian economic giants. The Middle East, on the other hand, is an uncommon sphere of geo-cultural reference on Australia Day. Prime ministers almost exclusively refer to the Middle East in two ways: firstly, as a place of Australia’s war history (Gallipoli), It is notable that acknowledgement of Gallipoli as a crucial signifier of Australianness occurs outside of Anzac Day, a feature not replicated in acknowledgement of Australia Day on Anzac Day by prime ministers. This reflects the significance given to Anzac in the corpus and the ambivalence regarding Australia Day that is reflected more widely in the ‘change the date’ debate. and secondly, as a place of threat where Australian service people are deployed to protect the nation (Iraq, Afghanistan, and the generalised signifier Middle East). Liminality may therefore extend beyond Australia’s traditional Anglo and European identity to Asia but excludes the ‘foreign’ Middle East. Place and identity on Anzac Day follow similar patterns regarding Anglo/Asian liminality and Middle Eastern threat. Labor and Liberal prime ministers both talk fondly of the relationships forged or renewed in battle with Anglospheric allies such as Great Britain, the US, New Zealand, and Canada, and of the emergence of a liberal peace in Asia. Gillard’s address to the Battle of Kapyong Memorial Service in 2011 is demonstrative. Here, Gillard (2011d) aligns Australia with its Anglospheric allies, whilst simultaneously identifying Australia as a liberal defender of the freedom now present within Asia: Our commitment to Korea was a sign of the future of Australia's security in the new post-war world. We proved ourselves a reliable and courageous ally. Among the United Nations with the United States in Asia. Pillars of Australia's security still. Australians made great sacrifices in Korea… I honour 3 RAR and your Canadian, New Zealand, British and US allies and I honour the part you played so South Korea could embrace the democratic freedoms it enjoys today. But, the Middle East on Anzac Day is presented in a different manner – as a crucible for Australian identity at Gallipoli, or as a contemporary threat to the liberal freedoms underpinning Australianness. Abbott’s Centenary of Anzac Day speeches reflects these conceptions of the Middle East. In his Lone Pine speech, Abbott (2015d) noted the continuing significance of Gallipoli: ‘Here at Lone Pine, the pact between the past and the present is renewed for the future; for all who seek to understand what it means to be Australian’. But in his dawn service address, the contemporary Middle East is a threat to be defended against: ‘Even now, our armed forces are serving in the Middle East and elsewhere, defending the values that we hold dear’ (Abbott 2015e) – a phrase that tacitly accepted that Middle Eastern values were not Australian values. In sum, the Anglosphere is a geo-cultural dimension still dominant in prime minister’s conception of Australianness; Asia is partially incorporated into discourses of liberalism, multiculturalism, and economic opportunity; and the Middle East is presented as a region of historical and contemporary threat to Australia and its values. With the outlier exception of Keating, these relationships represent a prime ministerial hierarchy of relations with the world that is present across party lines: the friendly Anglosphere and Europe, the liminal and exploitable Asia, and the threatening Middle East. Conclusion: representing a classless, masculine, and Anglospheric Australianness on Anzac Day and Australia Day This paper has employed quantitative measures of prime ministerial rhetoric on Anzac Day and Australia Day, from 1990 to 2017, to demonstrate the similarities and differences between prime ministers and parties regarding representation of national identity. We have found that whilst prime ministers do somewhat negotiate representations of diversity and plurality, they also strongly reinforce hegemonic understandings of Australian identity – classless, masculine, and Anglospheric and European. First, in our analysis of the top 25 words, we demonstrated that the parties tend to similarly reproduce the nation on national days. Clear ideological differences emerge between both parties though. The ALP plainly reproduced its labourist tradition, while the LPA strongly emphasised its conservative, but not its liberal, traditions. Second, we found that discussion of Australian class relations by prime ministers is infrequent, but mythically egalitarian. This tended to rhetorically flatten class stratification and deny class inequality. Prime ministers did vary in their discourses of equality (LPA) and fairness (ALP) when describing social and economic relations, tacitly suggesting the existence of class difference without mentioning economic inequality as its underlying cause. However, we did also note the significant overlap in these discourses by the parties. Third, our analysis demonstrated that while the gendered narratives of Australianness on both Anzac Day and Australia Days varied significantly, each demonstrated regimes of hegemonic masculinity reflected across both parties. Anzac Day is a starkly gendered national day, where masculinity is valorised and celebrated, and where women are fitted into mostly caring roles that largely make passive contributions to the Australian nation. Representations on Australia Day are roughly equitable and more plural in their representations of women, but masculine domination was demonstrated to still exist. The absence of discussion of sexuality and sexual orientation also privileged a heterosexual masculinity as a norm of prime ministerial Australianness. Finally, we established that prime ministerial representations of Australia’s place in the world continues to be liminal, with Australian caught between ‘old’ and ‘new’ worlds. Prime ministers of both parties tend to privilege the values and shared identity of Anglospheric connections, while Asia is a source of Australian diversity, multiculturalism and economic opportunity. Notably, Australia’s relationship with the Middle East is framed in terms of historical and contemporary threat, permeated with values antithetical to Australian national identity. Whilst Keating was a notable outlier, these patterns are largely similar across party lines. These findings suggest the following conclusions. Firstly, they demonstrate that representations of Australian identity remain predominantly classless, masculine and Anglospheric. Prime ministers have occasionally broken out from these patterns but have largely remained consistent with them across party lines and time. This finding suggests a second conclusion. We have found considerable support for Grube’s (2013) concept of rhetorical path dependency. The historical events and contemporary patterns of Australia’s national days provide a structure that prime ministers follow and tend not to challenge. Leading from this, we suggest a third conclusion that prime ministers of both parties will continue to follow these hegemonic identity patterns on Australia’s national days. We have empirically demonstrated that even entrepreneurial leaders like Keating have failed to make inroads into reconceptualising patterns of Australian identity and conclude that it is hard to imagine a situation that would see a more plural and diverse representation of Australian identity without a radical restructuring of the values, traditions and practices of Australia’s national days. These conclusions will be of importance to researchers in the fields of identity politics, nationalism and political rhetoric as they reveal the patterned responses of Australian prime ministers regardless of party affiliation or the agendas of particular moments in which the speeches are given. They will also be of interest to citizens active in issues surrounding Australian identity and national days – such as Australia Day and ‘Change the Date’ campaign, the remembrance of war, and constitutional recognition of Indigenous Australians – in revealing the rhetorical rules largely adhered to by prime ministers as perpetuating this particular version of Australianness in the years to come in order for it to be challenged. Future research resulting from this project will analyse how versions of Australian national identity have been put on and off the agenda over time by prime ministers and citizens, with a particular focus on hegemonic Australian masculinity and whiteness, versus signifiers and discourses of femininity, ethnicity, multiculturalism, and Indigeneity (Bromfield & Page in process).  References Abbott, Tony. 2014. “Remarks at the Australian of the Year Awards.” PM Transcripts - Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet. https://pmtranscripts.pmc.gov.au/release/transcript-23211. Abbott, Tony. 2015a. “Prime Minister’s Australia Day Message.” PM Transcripts - Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet. https://pmtranscripts.pmc.gov.au/release/transcript-24149. Abbott, Tony. 2015b. “Knights of the Order of Australia.” PM Transcripts - Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet. https://pmtranscripts.pmc.gov.au/release/transcript-24147. Abbott, Tony. 2015c. “Australia and PNG – an Enduring Partnership.” PM Transcripts - Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet. https://pmtranscripts.pmc.gov.au/release/transcript-24153. Abbott, Tony. 2015d. “Lone Pine Address, Gallipoli.” https://www.pm.gov.au/media/2015-04-25/lone-pine-address-gallipoli. Abbott, Tony. 2015e. “2015 Dawn Service, Gallipoli.” https://www.pm.gov.au/media/2015-04-25/2015-dawn-service-gallipoli. Anthias, Floya, and Nira Yuval-Davis. 1989. “Introduction.” In Woman, Nation, State, edited by Nira Yuval-Davis, Floya Anthias, and Jo Campling, 1–15. Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire: Macmillan. Bongiorno, Frank. 2014. “Anzac and the Politics of Inclusion.” In Nation, Memory and Great War Commemoration: Mobilizing the Past in Europe, Australia and New Zealand, edited by Shanti Sumartojo and Ben Wellings, 81–97. Oxford: Peter Lang. Brett, Judith. 2003. The Australian Liberals and the Moral Middle Class: From Alfred Deakin to John Howard. Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press. Bromfield, Nicholas. 2017. “The Turn to Anzac: A Critical Discourse Analysis of Prime Ministerial Anzac Entrepreneurship, 1972-2007.” Doctoral thesis, The University of Sydney. Bromfield, Nicholas. 2018. “The Genre of Prime Ministerial Anzac Day Addresses, 1973-2016.” Australian Journal of Politics & History 64 (1): 81–97. Cahill, Damien, and Matthew D.J. Ryan. 2018. “Economic Policy Debates.” In Double Disillusion: The 2016 Australian Federal Election, edited by Anika Gauja, Peter Chen, Jennifer Curtin, and Juliet Pietsch, 501–18. Acton, ACT: ANU Press. Calma, Tom. 2015. “Australia Survival Day.” AQ: Australian Quarterly 86 (1): 10–12. Capling, Ann. 2008. “Twenty Years of Australia’s Engagement with Asia.” The Pacific Review 21 (5): 601–22. Connell, Raewyn. 2005. Masculinities. Sydney: Allen & Unwin. Connell, Raewyn, and T. H. Irving. 1992. Class Structure in Australian History: Poverty and Progress. Melbourne, Australia: Longman Cheshire. Connell, R. W. 1990. “The State, Gender, and Sexual Politics: Theory and Appraisal.” Theory and Society 19 (5): 507–44. Crossley, Nick. 1996. Intersubjectivity: The Fabric of Social Becoming. Philosophy & Social Criticism. London [England]; Thousand Oaks, Calif: Sage Publications. Curran, James. 2006. The Power of Speech: Australian Prime Ministers Defining the National Image. Carlton [Vic.]: Melbourne University Press. Davies, William. 2014. The Limits of Neoliberalism: Authority, Sovereignty and the Logic of Competition. London, United Kingdom: SAGE Publications Ltd. Dowding, Keith, Nicholas Faulkner, Andrew Hindmoor, and Aaron Martin. 2012. “Change and Continuity in the Ideology of Australian Prime Ministers: The Governor-General’s Speeches, 1946–2010.” Australian Journal of Political Science 47 (3): 455–72. Elder, Catriona. 2007. Being Australian: Narratives of National Identity. Crows Nest, N.S.W: Allen & Unwin. Gillard, Julia. 2011a. “Speech to Dinner for Korean War Veterans.” PM Transcripts - Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet. https://pmtranscripts.pmc.gov.au/release/transcript-17810. Gillard, Julia. 2011b. “Because We Are Australian: Speech to the Australian Day Luncheon, Adelaide.” PM Transcripts - Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet. https://pmtranscripts.pmc.gov.au/release/transcript-17614. Gillard, Julia. 2011c. “Speech to the Australian Council of Chinese Organisations Dinner in Celebration of Australia Day and Chinese New Year.” PM Transcripts - Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet. https://pmtranscripts.pmc.gov.au/release/transcript-17616. Gillard, Julia. 2011d. “Address to the Battle of Kapyong Memorial Service.” PM Transcripts - Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet. https://pmtranscripts.pmc.gov.au/release/transcript-17808. Grube, Dennis. 2013. Prime Ministers and Rhetorical Governance. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Hawke, Robert. 1990. “Prime Minister’s Australia Day Message January 26, 1990.” PM Transcripts - Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet. https://pmtranscripts.pmc.gov.au/release/transcript-7875. Herscovitch, Benjamin. 2013. “A Fair Go: Fact or Fiction?” Policy Monograph 135. Centre for Independent Studies. http://www.cis.org.au/app/uploads/2015/07/pm135.pdf. Higgott, Richard A., and Kim Richard Nossal. 1997. “The International Politics of Liminality: Relocating Australia in the Asia Pacific.” Australian Journal of Political Science 32 (2): 169–86. Higgott, Richard A., and Kim Richard Nossal. 2008. “Odd Man In, Odd Man out: Australia’s Liminal Position in Asia Revisited – a Reply to Ann Capling.” The Pacific Review 21 (5): 623–34. Howard, John. 1997. “Address by the Prime Minister the Hon. John Howard MP: Address to Australian Day Council’s Australia Day Luncheon - Darling Harbour, Sydney.” PM Transcripts - Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet. https://pmtranscripts.pmc.gov.au/release/transcript-10217. Howard, John. 1999. “Governor’s Dinner in Honour of the Australian of the Year, Sheraton Hotel, Brisbane.” PM Transcripts - Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet. https://pmtranscripts.pmc.gov.au/release/transcript-11381. Howard, John. 2007. “Address at Australia Day Citizenship Ceremony Commonwealth Park, Canberra.” PM Transcripts - Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet. https://pmtranscripts.pmc.gov.au/release/transcript-15152. Jaensch, Dean. 1989. The Hawke-Keating Hijack: The ALP in Transition. Sydney: Allen & Unwin. Jaensch, Dean. 1994a. Power Politics: Australia’s Party System. 3rd ed. St. Leonards, NSW, Australia: Allen & Unwin. Jaensch, Dean. 1994b. The Liberals. St. Leonards, NSW, Australia: Allen & Unwin. Johnson, Carol. 1989. The Labor Legacy: Curtin, Chifley, Whitlam, Hawke. Sydney: Allen and Unwin. Johnson, Carol. 2000. Governing Change: Keating to Howard. UQP Australian Studies. St Lucia, Queensland: University of Queensland Press. Johnson, Carol. 2007. “John Howard’s ‘Values’ and Australian Identity.” Australian Journal of Political Science 42 (2): 195–209. Johnson, Carol. 2011. “Gillard, Rudd and Labor Tradition.” Australian Journal of Politics & History 57 (4): 562–79. Johnson, Carol, Pal Ahluwalia, and Greg McCarthy. 2010. “Australia’s Ambivalent Re-Imagining of Asia.” Australian Journal of Political Science 45 (1): 59–74. Keating, Paul. 1995. “Statement By The Prime Minister, The Hon P.J.Keating, MP Australia Day 1995 Address Given To The Australian Of The Year Awards, Sydney, 25 January 1995.” PM Transcripts - Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet. https://pmtranscripts.pmc.gov.au/release/transcript-9462. Lake, Marilyn. 1992. “Mission Impossible: How Men Gave Birth to the Australian Nation-Nationalism, Gender and Other Seminal Acts.” Gender & History 4 (3): 305–22. Lukin, Annabelle. 2015. “The Construction of a ‘narrative’ in Australian Federal Budget Speeches, 1996–2013.” Australian Journal of Political Science 50 (2): 258–78. Miller, Charles. 2017. “Australia’s Anti-Islam Right in Their Own Words. Text as Data Analysis of Social Media Content.” Australian Journal of Political Science 52 (3): 383–401. Nagel, Joane. 1998. “Masculinity and Nationalism: Gender and Sexuality in the Making of Nations.” Ethnic and Racial Studies 21 (2): 242–69. Neuendorf, Kimberly A. 2017. The Content Analysis Guidebook. Los Angeles: SAGE. Norman, Wanye. 2004. “From Nation-Bulding to National Engineering: On the Ethics of Shaping Identites.” In The Politics of Belonging: Nationalism, Liberalism, and Pluralism, edited by Alain Dieckhoff, 69–105. Lanham, Md: Lexington Books. Paternoster, Henry. 2017. Reimagining Class in Australia: Marxism, Populism and Social Science. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan. Paternoster, Henry John, Deborah Warr, and Keith Jacobs. 2018. “The Enigma of the Bogan and Its Significance to Class in Australia: A Socio-Historical Analysis.” Journal of Sociology 54 (3): 429–45. Phillips, Harry C.J., and Liz Kerr. 2017. “Western Australia July to December 2016.” Australian Journal of Politics & History 63 (2): 310–15. Poguntke, Thomas, and Paul Webb. 2005. “The Presidentialization of The Presidentialization of Politics in Democratic Societies: Politics in Democratic Societies: A Framework for Analysis.” In The Presidentialization of Politics: A Comparative Study of Modern Democracies, edited by Thomas Poguntke and Paul Webb. Oxford University Press. Pusey, Michael. 2003. The Experience of Middle Australia: The Dark Side of Economic Reform. Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press. Rudd, Kevin. 2010. “Prime Minister Transcript of Remarks Australian of the Year Morning Tea, The Lodge, Canberra 25 January 2010.” PM Transcripts - Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet. https://pmtranscripts.pmc.gov.au/release/transcript-17018. Seal, Graham. 2004. Inventing Anzac: The Digger and National Mythology. UQP Australian Studies. St Lucia, Qld: University of Queensland Press. Sheppard, Jill, and Nicholas Biddle. 2017. “Class, Capital, and Identity in Australian Society.” Australian Journal of Political Science 52 (4): 500–516. Simms, Marian. 2009. “Political Parties.” In The Australian Study of Politics, edited by R. A. W. Rhodes, 186–200. Basingstoke, UK; New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Turnbull, Malcolm. 2016a. “Anzac Day National Ceremony Commemorative Address.” PM Transcripts - Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet. https://pmtranscripts.pmc.gov.au/release/transcript-40312. Turnbull, Malcolm. 2016b. “Australian Citizenship Ceremony.” PM Transcripts - Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet. https://pmtranscripts.pmc.gov.au/release/transcript-40168. Turnbull, Malcolm. 2017a. “Speech at the 2017 Australia Day National Flag Raising and Citizenship Ceremony.” PM Transcripts - Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet. https://pmtranscripts.pmc.gov.au/release/transcript-40708. Turnbull, Malcolm. 2017b. “Address to the National Press Club.” PM Transcripts - Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet. https://pmtranscripts.pmc.gov.au/release/transcript-40718. Vickers, Jill. 2006. “Bringing Nations in: Some Methodological and Conceptual Issues in Connecting Feminisms with Nationhood and Nationalisms.” International Feminist Journal of Politics 8 (1): 84–109. Whitmeyer, Joseph M. 2002. “Elites and Popular Nationalism.” British Journal of Sociology 53 (3): 321–41.  Appendix The corpus was collated via available archival records from sources such as the PM Transcripts archive, prime ministerial libraries, and media reports, and, to the best knowledge of the authors, represents the entirety of prime ministerial Anzac Day and Australia Day speeches and media releases for the period. As such, the paper employs descriptive statistics in the analysis, as the corpus has been treated as a population. The corpus was coded with a mixture of computer coding for initial simple counts of the identified variables and hand-coding by two coders for verification and cleaning. Some descriptive features of the corpus are listed in appendix table 1 below. Note that the ALP’s much larger word count for Australia Day can be explained by Rudd’s tendency to use the period surrounding Australia Day to travel to state capital cities to spruik ALP policy programs. Feature ALP LPA Total n Anzac Day speech n 19 24 43 Australia Day speech n 46 46 92 Party speech total n 65 70 135 Anzac Day speech word count 18052 15967 34019 Australia Day speech word count 93463 56206 149669 Speech word count total n 111515 72173 183688 Appendix Table SEQ Table \* ARABIC 1 – corpus descriptive statistics. Table 1 was collated utilising stemmed terms. The stemmed words included in the counts were: achieve, achievable, achieved, achievement, achievements, achiever, achievers, achieves, achieving; Anzac, Anzacs; Australia, Australian, Australianness, Australians; build, building, buildings, builds; celebrate, celebrated, celebrates, celebrating, celebration, celebrations; challenge, challenged, challenges, challenging; community, communities, communal, commune, communed; country, countries; day, days, today; economy, economies, economic; first, firstly; future, futures; government, governments, govern, governance, governed; great, greats, greatly, greatness; growth; honour, honours, honourable, honoured, honouring; investment, investments, invest, invested, investing, invests; live, lives, lived, living; long, longed; many; minister, ministers; nation, national, nationalism, nationals, nations; need, needs, needed, needing; new; now; one, ones; people, peoples; release, released; service, services; terms, terms; thank, thanks, thanked, thankful, thanking; think, thinks, thinking; time, times, timely; value, values, valued; war, wars; work, works, worked, working; world, worlds; year, years. Tables 2 and 3 were explored by coding stemmed mentions of class, equity and fairness. Class stemmed was included in the counts for class: class, classes. Equal stemmed, egalitarian stemmed and equity idioms and colloquialisms were included in the counts for equity: equal, equality, equity, equally; egalitarian, egalitarianism; walk/walks of life. Fair stemmed and fair idioms and colloquialisms were included in the counts for fairness: fair, fairness, fair-go, fair shake of the sauce bottle. Tables 4 and 5 analysed gender and was tabulated by coding agents who represented Australianness in the speeches, utilising singular gendered nouns (eg man/woman, he/she, him/her) or conjoined gendered nouns (eg men and women/fathers and mothers/brothers and sisters). Additionally, the gender of specifically named agents of Australianness was also coded and included in the counts. Tables 6 and 7 unpacked nationality and place and was tabulated by coding mentions of countries (eg America or France or Turkey etc) and places (eg Gallipoli or London or Kokoda). These mentions were grouped into geo-cultural spheres – the Anglosphere (the UK, Canada, the US, New Zealand and associated cities and sites) and Europe (continetal Europe, excluding the UK and Ireland); the Asia-Pacific; and the Middle East (including Turkey and associated cities and sites).  Tables Rank Word Party - ALP Rank Word Party - LPA 1 Australia* 1.49% 1 Australia* 1.68% 2 nation* 0.64% 2 day* 0.59% 3 day* 0.54% 3 nation* 0.54% 4 year* 0.45% 4 year* 0.41% 5 economy 0.33% 5 people* 0.33% 6 government 0.30% 6 country* 0.33% 7 one* 0.27% 7 great* 0.27% 8 great* 0.27% 8 one* 0.22% 9 people* 0.26% 9 world* 0.20% 10 challenge 0.24% 10 Anzac 0.20% 11 country* 0.21% 11 thank 0.17% 12 time* 0.21% 12 honour 0.16% 13 future 0.20% 13 living 0.16% 14 world* 0.20% 14 many 0.16% 15 work 0.20% 15 service 0.16% 16 new* 0.17% 16 achieve 0.14% 17 terms 0.17% 17 time* 0.14% 18 build 0.16% 18 war 0.14% 19 need 0.16% 19 new* 0.14% 20 investment 0.15% 20 think 0.14% 21 long 0.15% 21 minister 0.12% 22 community 0.15% 22 values 0.12% 23 growth 0.15% 23 release 0.12% 24 now 0.15% 24 celebrate 0.12% 25 first* 0.14% 25 first* 0.12% Sum total 7.35% Sum total 6.87% Table 1 - word frequency of the top 25 words in the corpus by party. Further information on the collation of the top 25 terms contained in the appendix. * indicates words shared by parties.  Median Anzac Day Median Australia Day Party Class Equity Fairness Party Class Equity Fairness ALP 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% ALP 0.00% 0.00% 0.03% LPA 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% LPA 0.00% 0.03% 0.01% Mean Anzac Day Mean Australia Day Party Class Equity Fairness Party Class Equity Fairness ALP 0.00% 0.01% 0.01% ALP 0.00% 0.03% 0.06% LPA 0.00% 0.01% 0.01% LPA 0.02% 0.12% 0.04% Table 2 - mean and median representations of class, equity and fairness by party. Median Anzac Day Median Australia Day PM Class Equity Fairness PM Class Equity Fairness Hawke 0.00% 0.00% 0.04% Hawke 0.00% 0.00% 0.16% Keating 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% Keating 0.00% 0.06% 0.04% Howard 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% Howard 0.00% 0.03% 0.00% Rudd 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% Rudd 0.00% 0.00% 0.02% Gillard 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% Gillard 0.00% 0.03% 0.03% Abbott 0.00% 0.00% 0.03% Abbott 0.00% 0.01% 0.11% Turnbull 0.00% 0.00% 0.03% Turnbull 0.00% 0.03% 0.02% Mean Anzac Day Mean Australia Day PM Class Equity Fairness PM Class Equity Fairness Hawke 0.00% 0.04% 0.00% Hawke 0.00% 0.00% 0.16% Keating 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% Keating 0.00% 0.08% 0.06% Howard 0.00% 0.00% 0.01% Howard 0.03% 0.15% 0.03% Rudd 0.00% 0.00% 0.03% Rudd 0.00% 0.00% 0.03% Gillard 0.00% 0.02% 0.00% Gillard 0.00% 0.02% 0.04% Abbott 0.00% 0.03% 0.00% Abbott 0.00% 0.01% 0.11% Turnbull 0.00% 0.03% 0.03% Turnbull 0.00% 0.03% 0.02% Table 3 - mean and median representations of class, equity and fairness by prime minister. Further information on the collation of class terms contained in the appendix.  Median Anzac Day Median Australia Day Party Masculine Conjoined Feminine Party Masculine Conjoined Feminine ALP 0.8% 0.16% 0.00% ALP 0.14% 0.01% 0.13% LPA 0.53% 0.33% 0.00% LPA 0.04% 0.07% 0.16% Mean Anzac Day Mean Australia Day Party Masculine Conjoined Feminine Party Masculine Conjoined Feminine ALP 0.75% 0.24% 0.08% ALP 0.16% 0.04% 0.10% LPA 0.68% 0.34% 0.07% LPA 0.31% 0.09% 0.20% Table 4 – mean and median representations of gender by party. Median Anzac Day Median Australia Day PM Masculine Conjoined Feminine PM Masculine Conjoined Feminine Hawke 0.47% 0.26% 0.00% Hawke 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% Keating 0.57% 0.26% 0.00% Keating 0.07% 0.00% 0.15% Howard 0.31% 0.33% 0.00% Howard 0.02% 0.07% 0.08% Rudd 0.85% 0.07% 0.15% Rudd 0.20% 0.04% 0.13% Gillard 1.26% 0.09% 0.09% Gillard 0.22% 0.04% 0.18% Abbott 0.72% 0.04% 0.04% Abbott 1.04% 0.06% 0.31% Turnbull 1.49% 0.38% 0.29% Turnbull 0.02% 0.00% 0.17% Mean Anzac Day Mean Australia Day PM Masculine Conjoined Feminine PM Masculine Conjoined Feminine Hawke 0.47% 0.26% 0.00% Hawke 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% Keating 0.56% 0.35% 0.00% Keating 0.16% 0.05% 0.11% Howard 0.53% 0.39% 0.03% Howard 0.23% 0.11% 0.19% Rudd 0.77% 0.15% 0.15% Rudd 0.21% 0.05% 0.10% Gillard 1.18% 0.16% 0.19% Gillard 0.20% 0.04% 0.13% Abbott 0.72% 0.04% 0.04% Abbott 1.04% 0.06% 0.31% Turnbull 1.49% 0.38% 0.29% Turnbull 0.02% 0.00% 0.17% Table 5 – mean and median representations of gender by prime minister. Further information on the collation of gender terms contained in the appendix.  Median Anzac Day Median Australia Day Party Anglosphere and Europe Asia Pacific Middle East Sum Party Anglosphere and Europe Asia Pacific Middle East Sum ALP 0.85% 0.25% 0.78% 1.88% ALP 0.13% 0.04% 0.01% 0.18% LPA 0.29% 0.13% 0.66% 1.08% LPA 0.09% 0.04% 0.00% 0.13% Mean Anzac Day Mean Australia Day Party Anglosphere and Europe Asia Pacific Middle East Sum Party Anglosphere and Europe Asia Pacific Middle East Sum ALP 0.67% 0.70% 0.83% 2.20% ALP 0.18% 0.11% 0.04% 0.34% LPA 0.40% 0.27% 0.73% 1.40% LPA 0.12% 0.09% 0.02% 0.23% Table 6 – mean and median representations of nationality and place by party. Median Anzac Day Median Australia Day PM Anglosphere and Europe Asia Pacific Middle East Sum PM Anglosphere and Europe Asia Pacific Middle East Sum Hawke 0.35% 0.04% 0.44% 0.83% Hawke 0.00% 0.00% 0.16% 0.16% Keating 0.54% 1.07% 0.48% 2.08% Keating 0.37% 0.14% 0.00% 0.51% Howard 0.04% 0.04% 0.55% 0.64% Howard 0.08% 0.02% 0.00% 0.11% Rudd 0.29% 0.26% 0.64% 1.18% Rudd 0.07% 0.05% 0.03% 0.15% Gillard 0.30% 0.22% 0.47% 0.99% Gillard 0.01% 0.01% 0.00% 0.02% Abbott 0.91% 0.54% 1.19% 2.64% Abbott 0.15% 0.16% 0.02% 0.33% Turnbull 1.04% 0.43% 1.14% 2.61% Turnbull 0.09% 0.05% 0.01% 0.16% Mean Anzac Day Mean Australia Day PM Anglosphere and Europe Asia Pacific Middle East Sum PM Anglosphere and Europe Asia Pacific Middle East Sum Hawke 0.35% 0.04% 0.44% 0.83% Hawke 0.00% 0.00% 0.16% 0.16% Keating 0.54% 1.26% 0.40% 2.19% Keating 0.30% 0.16% 0.02% 0.48% Howard 0.20% 0.20% 0.59% 0.99% Howard 0.12% 0.08% 0.02% 0.22% Rudd 0.33% 0.41% 0.53% 1.27% Rudd 0.16% 0.07% 0.03% 0.26% Gillard 0.35% 0.80% 0.50% 1.65% Gillard 0.03% 0.12% 0.01% 0.16% Abbott 0.91% 0.54% 1.19% 2.64% Abbott 0.15% 0.16% 0.02% 0.33% Turnbull 1.04% 0.43% 1.14% 2.61% Turnbull 0.09% 0.05% 0.01% 0.16% Table 7 – mean and median representations of nationality and place by prime minister. Further information on the collation of nationality and place terms contained in the appendix.