Trumping the Race Card: The role of ANTaR and the people's movement in achieving justice for Indigenous Australians.

Paper presented to the Diversity Conference 2001
Deakin Woolstores Campus, Geelong Waterfront,
November 30 – December 1, 2001

Dr David Cooper
National Coordinator
Australians for Native Title and Reconciliation (ANTaR)

I'd like to begin by acknowledging the ancestors and elders of the Wathaurung people, on whose land we meet today.

Recently we have witnessed the spectacle of a Federal election in which a desperate Coalition Government played the race card to get it over the line. And for a change the target was not Indigenous Australians. This time Indigenous affairs was all but pushed off the agenda during the election campaign.

I believe history will judge John Howard harshly with regard to this election. The circumstances of his victory have tainted his third term as Prime Minister. But of greater concern is the fact that it has established a precedent which a future federal government with its back against the wall will find hard to resist repeating.

So, was it really a race-based election and what exactly does that mean? This is a particularly significant question in that Howard has skilfully labelled accusations that he played the race card, as an implied accusation that the majority of Australians who supported his policy on border protection, are themselves racist.

Therein lies the rub. The central problem with the term “racist” is that noone ever admits to being racist or to discriminating on the basis of a person's racial or ethnic origin. Rather, they are more likely to express indignation at being accused of such behaviour and will offer rational reasons as the basis for their actions or views. The Sydney Morning Herald's Miranda Devine, for instance, (and I do not accuse her of being racist, I might add) recently tried to convince us that the Coalition's win had nothing to do with racism, but was simply concern that the Tampa boat people were "breaking the rules". Mind you, she and many other similar commentators make no mention of the shameful demonising of asylum seekers that the Government indulged in. "Queue jumper" and "illegals" were slurs on the mild end of the scale in this exercise. Linking them with terrorists and accusing them of throwing their children into the sea was true demonisation in action! This was where public opinion was most cynically manipulated and turned against asylum seekers. And what all the accusers carefully avoided and strenuously denied was any direct reference or appeal to the ethnicity and religious differences of the asylum seekers. Muslims, we were told, were not the target. But as we also know, they, along with all the many genuine refugees on the boats, were the “collateral damage” of the Coalition's re-election campaign.

This is the attraction of so-called "dog-whistle politics". You merely need to allude to, or peripherally connect with, an underlying prejudice in the community to activate its potency. Mention alcohol problems in an Aboriginal community and many non-Indigenous Australians will cite the longstanding prejudice that Aboriginal people can't handle alcohol. Mention government funding in relation to an Indigenous community or individual and you connect with indignation about free-handouts that other Australians don’t get. Mention unemployment and many will tell you that Aboriginal people don't want to work. How easy it is, then, to direct such prejudices towards the consideration of particular circumstances or issues.

And when it comes to justifying an opinion this same ready-made suite of “reasons” is there to draw on. Let’s face it, we are all, when we want to be, masters at shifting ground, deceiving ourselves and others when it comes to justifying our own actions, beliefs and prejudices. "What, me racist? Oh no, mate, I’ve got nothing against Aboriginals. A lot of my friends are Aboriginals. But when they get on the grog they can't control themselves. And those half-castes are just in it for the money. All this land rights and sacred sites stuff is just a con". I wish I had a dollar for every time I heard such comments during my time living in the Northern Territory!

We have experienced this many times before – it’s nothing new. In the case of Australians for Native Title and Reconciliation, or ANTaR - our very existence came about because of the shameful scare-mongering over native title that occurred, particularly following the Wik High Court decision of 1996. The appeal to fear and envy - of back yards being under threat, of development being paralysed, of pastoralists losing their land and rights - was the vehicle for manufacturing adverse public opinion about native title. And it was extremely successful.

In fact, we almost had a so-called race-based election over native title, but for the blinking of Senator Harradine. The unfortunate reality is that, for all his concern to spare the nation such an outcome, he simply postponed its occurrence, and did so at the expense of the rights of those he claimed to want to protect. In the end, his appeasement of the race-card hand was as futile and counter-productive as that of Labor's appeasement of Howard during the recent election.

The truth is, race-based elections are not new to Australia. And we don't need to go back very far for evidence. The Northern Territory's Country Liberal Party (CLP) were the masters of the race-based election, using race as an issue in successive elections between 1978 and 1999 to keep themselves in power.

It is worth dwelling briefly on the Northern Territory experience as it has a number of lessons for us as we consider the impacts of the recent Federal election. Firstly, the techniques used in the Territory seemed to have found their way into this election. Little wonder, with the former Northern Territory Chief Minister, Shane Stone, installed as Liberal Party National President since 1999. The CLP mastered the use of the negative campaign and was also an early user of push polling in this country. One thing seems certain - the coalition knew in advance of the Tampa from its own polling, about the hardening of community attitudes on the issue of asylum seekers. It just needed the opportunity to capitalise on that knowledge.

Secondly, and more importantly, the Territory example shows us that you can call the bluff of the race card hand and win. Surprised as everyone was, including me as a former Territorian, Territory Labor beat the previously unbeatable CLP on a platform that included repealing the pernicious but none-the-less electorally-popular mandatory sentencing laws. The Territory's mandatory sentencing laws were devised to appeal to whipped-up, non-Indigenous community concerns on law and order, particularly in relation to break and enter crimes in Darwin’s northern suburbs, often attributed to Aboriginal people. Classic race-based wedge politics can be defeated. However, in order to do so, the wedge issue must be honestly addressed and a credible alternative offered.

But, in the context of both the asylum seeker issue and Indigenous issues in general, what patently doesn't seem to work is resorting to accusations of racism. I would have to agree with Bob Ellis, who suggested in a recent article in the Canberra Times that there is a need for a better word for the phenomenon that is usually cast as “racism”. His suggestion of "different-ism" perhaps illustrates why we haven't already coined an alternative term. Nevertheless, "different-ism" does better describe the dimensions of what we seek to define. Importantly, it is the substance of the phenomenon rather than the terminology, which is most important.

Such an approach also has the advantage of being inclusive and less threatening, and of challenging us all to acknowledge “different-ism” in our own actions as well as in the actions of others. "Different-ism" or "racism" - or whatever else we might call such a phenomenon - is something we all share to some degree. Those who are perhaps more self-reflective or who have witnessed or experienced discrimination may have challenged it within themselves, but it is still there in some form.

How can we imagine then, that we will change anything by accusing what appears to be a majority of Australians of responding on the basis of racism? Instead we must seek to address the root causes of such attitudes. In this, it is often underlying arguments and values which form the sub-text of the debate, which are most potent. This sub-text, if not addressed and resolved, will undermine and subvert any attempt to persuade the community about the broader policy issues.

There are two related issues which I would like to address which shed some light on this task.

The first is that "different-ism" connects closely with the idea of assimilation. If only they - and it is always they - would be like us, then all would be OK. In the area of Indigenous affairs, assimilationist thinking remains widespread, and is, in my opinion, one of the most significant barriers to achieving justice for Indigenous Australians.

Assimilation emerged as government policy in the 1930s, in response to the realisation that Aboriginal people were not heading for extinction, as had originally been thought, but were once again increasing in numbers after a catastrophic decline caused by the violence and introduced diseases of the frontier. Assimilation was replaced by the policy of limited self-determination following the election of the Whitlam Labor government in 1972. The new policy approach enjoyed a degree of bipartisan support until Howard pulled the plug and introduced his neo-assimilationist policy of "practical reconciliation".

The creed of neo-assimilationists is one of equality - belief that all Australians should have the same rights and be treated equally. This simplistic but powerful argument of formal equality in one sweep challenges the whole rights-based agenda - particularly such issues as self-determination, customary rights to land, including native title rights, the protection of Indigenous heritage, and, of course, the idea of a treaty process. If only Indigenous people would assimilate with us, not only would we put behind us the contentious issues of cultural difference and historical relations that currently grab headlines, but we'd also be able to solve all the social disadvantage in health, housing, employment etc, that Indigenous people currently experience.

In other words, we seem to have moved from smoothing the dying pillow of an entire race, to smoothing the dying pillow of its unique cultures. Assimilate and all will be hunky-dory.

Gary Johns from the right-wing Institute of Public Affairs is one who is particularly keen to smooth that pillow. "The task is to help them adjust to [the modern] world", he says. Johns' villains are what he calls the "new authorities" in Aboriginal society - the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission, land councils, Aboriginal services and programs. Their agenda for such things as a treaty, an apology and reparations to the stolen generations, and the recognition of customary rights, is, he says, the barrier to achieving dignity and equality for Indigenous Australians. What we need, he argues, is not "collective self-determination", but "individual self-determination".

This is also essentially the foundations of the Howard Government's "practical reconciliation" policy approach. Practical reconciliation is little more than a meagre rehash of the old policy order of inadequate programs in health, housing, education and employment. It merely constitutes a partial carrying out of the government's existing responsibilities to provide basic services for all its citizens. Its sub-text is neo-assimilationist and no less paternalistic and patronising than former assimilation policies. Worse, its adoption as a policy approach has been specifically designed to drive a wedge between 'practical' measures (the sub-text of which is 'equality' and 'assimilation') and the so-called ‘rights agenda’, including more symbolic measures, such as an apology to the stolen generations. Practical reconciliation is not so much a policy as a political tool for garnering public support and for dampening the momentum of the push for rights-based reconciliation focussed on an Indigenous agenda of ‘unfinished business’.

In this regard, the agenda of practical reconciliation and assimilation has been given a significant boost by the present focus of debate on Indigenous alcohol and substance abuse and related community dysfunction. In saying this I stand in full support of these issues receiving the serious attention and high priority they clearly require. The shameful statistics on Indigenous health and mortality would not for a moment be tolerated in the non-Indigenous community. However, it is an unfortunate reality that such issues are and will continue to be used opportunistically by those whose agenda is an ideological one against a rights agenda and its supporters - the so-called 'elites' and 'progressivists' amongst us.

Already we have seen a significant amount of gratuitous criticism of supporters of the rights agenda, many citing the recent statements of Noel Pearson. But while such critics have been falling over themselves to parrot Pearson's criticisms of so-called "progressivists", they appear equally careful to omit to report his clear support for the broad principles of the rights agenda. One can never accuse Noel of being an assimilationist. Just as an aside, we often hear that education is the key that will deliver Indigenous youth from the poverty and disadvantage currently experienced by most Indigenous Australians. Others go further to state that education will also inevitably bring the abandonment of Indigenous values in favour of those of western society. But we perhaps should also ponder why it is then, that many of the most educated and skilled Indigenous Australians are the most passionate and articulate campaigners for the rights that the likes of Howard and commentators such as Gary Johns, Piers Ackeman and Paddy McGuiness, seek to deny?

We need to consider the attractiveness of simplistic appeals, such as formal equality arguments, to ordinary Australians short on real information and uncomfortable with the current climate of conflict and uncertainty.

More specifically, we need to consider how to communicate the alternative concept of substantive equality that the neo-assimilationists dismiss. Substantive equality recognises that it is, in certain circumstances, discriminatory to treat everyone exactly the same. For instance, it would be discriminatory towards the many Australians who do not speak or understand English adequately to only provide important government information in English, or to fail to provide interpreter services. Furthermore, substantive equality recognises that special measures may be required (such as non-English texts or interpreters) in order to provide all citizens with equal access to services or entitlements. Finally, substantive equality recognises that some groups may posses rights not shared by other members of society by virtue of their unique cultural position, and that such rights may require special protection. In this category are such things as native title rights and rights to protect unique cultural heritage such as sacred sites.

Substantive equality, then, urges us to seek to affirm a commitment to the rights and perspectives of Indigenous peoples to determine their own future with the support of the Australian people. In short, we need to demonstrate that practical measures and a rights agenda are not mutually exclusive, but are both fundamental to providing justice for Indigenous Australians.

The second issue I'd like to address is that of history, because one of the foundations of genuine reconciliation must be an appropriate and shared acknowledgment of our past. Australia is self-consciously a nation that has not reconciled itself with its own history. It should be of little surprise then, that history has in fact become a central arena in which particular issues of public policy - particularly policy relating to Indigenous affairs - are contested.

The conflict over our history is most simply stated as the difference between the so-called 'black armband' view of our history, and, what in response has been termed the 'white blindfold' view.

Consider just a couple of the issues which have been the subject of debate cast between these opposite poles. There is, for example, the historical denial by of the likes of Keith Windshuttle and Paddy McGuiness, about the extent of past killings and violence against Indigenous people. They attribute the demise of Indigenous populations to a combination of introduced disease and the fundamental inferiority of traditional hunter-gatherer societies in comparison to western civilisation. Similar, is the debate over the stolen generations concerning the nature, extent and effects of forcible removals, and the appropriateness of recommendations for an apology and reparations to those affected by such policies.

The ‘black armband’ view regards the addressing of the darker aspects of our history as an essential step in the process of reconciliation and, more broadly, in the maturing of our nation. The ‘white blindfold’ view disputes the basic facts and takes umbridge at the perceived slur and unfair apportioning of guilt on non-Indigenous Australians, both past and present. It asserts that past actions and policies were well-intentioned and, on balance, beneficial. There is also a prevalent cynical view that the ‘black armband’ analysis is no more than a calculated ploy to extract cash compensation.

In the broader sweep of the rights agenda, we see, as I just mentioned, use of the assimilationist argument thus: that Indigenous culture and society has been so destroyed that there is now no reasonable basis for recognising Indigenous rights based on traditional or customary principles. The flaw in such an argument is to view Indigenous culture as separated in time between an authentic 'traditional' past and a depauperate contemporary expression. One is seen as entirely obsolete and non-viable in the modern world and the other as a corrupted form, inexorably being assimilated into western culture.

The significance of the polarisation of current debates should not be underestimated. The attractiveness of simplistic arguments about formal equality and denialist views of history, and the difficulties of communicating the complexities and realities of contemporary Indigenous cultures, give the assimilationists an advantage.

And whether we like it or not, the battle lines are sharply drawn, and arguments typically encompass not just single issues, but rather allude to a whole suite of "facts" and explanations, attitudes and prejudices, which define each side of the divide.

How then, do we connect with ordinary non-Indigenous Australians, without mounting cumbersome and therefore largely inaccessible explanations of these issues, and without being trumped in the process by simplistic misinformation? How do we trump the race card?

One way is provided by the experience of ANTaR and the people's movement for reconciliation. We have seen great progress in building support from ordinary Australians for reconciliation. This has included support for appropriate PROCESSES to resolve the complex array of issues that form the goals and objectives of reconciliation. Ordinary Australians want to see these issues resolved and are persuaded by the idea that Indigenous people themselves must be at the centre of the resolution process. We have even seen in some polling, a majority of Australians supporting the idea of a treaty.

The task has been to place Indigenous people at the centre, not at the periphery. The Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation was a working example of such principles and the success of its work would not have been possible without this. The task, it seems to me, is to extend these principles to the next stage of the reconciliation process - dealing with the so-called 'unfinished business' of reconciliation.

This will not be easy in the short term. Until the Howard Government, the work of CAR enjoyed bipartisan support. Howard has changed that, and his rejection of the central recommendations of CAR, together with the abandoning of a formal process and role for government, has acted to stall the reconciliation process.

This is Howard's way. He did it over native title and the stolen generations issue. But as we saw, his obstinacy and patently discriminatory approaches resulted in the beginnings of the people's movement, spurred on by the idea that if the Federal Government wasn't prepared to do the right thing, then the people could by-pass it and move ahead without it. It is estimated that a million Australians signed the Sorry Books, offering their own personal apologies to the stolen generations. More than a quarter of a million people have signed a hand in ANTaR’s Sea of Hands in support of native title and reconciliation. And, of course, the bridge walks around the country in support of reconciliation also attracted about a million Australians. In the history of social movements in Australia, these are incredible achievements.

And so it is that we must continue to by-pass the present Government in the short term while still encouraging them to accept their responsibilities, both moral and legal, to recognise and act on the Indigenous agenda of unfinished business.

The next stage of the reconciliation process, sketched out by CAR in its final recommendations, is to establish the appropriate processes for resolving unfinished business. ANTaR has been working hard since its inception to secure community understanding and support for appropriate processes with regard to Indigenous issues. That is, processes which place Indigenous people at the centre, not the periphery. On the issue of native title, ANTaR has pushed for a negotiations approach founded on the principle of coexistence, rather than the government's discriminatory approach of extinguishment. In relation to reconciliation, ANTaR has supported the need for a formal negotiations approach which places Indigenous people as equals at the negotiating table. In relation to a treaty, ANTaR has, at the request of Indigenous representatives, been conducting an education campaign in the non-Indigenous community on the benefits of a treaty process. This complements a parallel process occurring within the Indigenous community, led by the National Treaty Support Group and facilitated by ATSIC.

In relation to ANTaR’s treaty education campaign, what we seek to communicate is the importance of process rather than outcome, of ‘means’ rather than ‘ends’. Treaty negotiations, for instance, may not necessarily result in a single treaty or in fact any treaty at all. The more important consideration is that the final outcomes are the result of negotiation and agreement with and by Indigenous people themselves. Secondly, we seek to communicate that properly addressing such pressing issues as Indigenous disadvantage requires Indigenous developed and led solutions which are best achieved within the framework of a comprehensive negotiations approach.

What is common to the resolution of all these issues is the principle of negotiation. We should not imagine that there can ever be any resolution without the full and equal participation of the real experts - Indigenous people themselves.

This approach needs to underpin our work in seeking the understanding and support of ordinary Australians for finally achieving justice for Indigenous Australians.

We need to be here for the long haul. We also need to avoid the trap of reacting to the inevitable use of wedge politics by accusations of racism. We need more creative ways of addressing divisive strategies. Most of all, we need to be clear about the underlying principles we seek to communicate to our fellow Australians. In this regard a focus on proper process is our best tool.

Thank you.