Embracing the Challenge of Changing Times
Speech by : Zita Antonios, Race Discrimination Commissioner, Cultural Diversity Forum, Ethnic Communities Council - Tasmania, Hobart - 25 October 1997
Thank you for inviting me to participate in your cultural diversity forum. It has been a tough year for race relations in Australia and it has been the most challenging year of my term to date. In the past twelve months, racism remained a contentious political issue and race discrimination Australian style continued to dominate the landscape, featuring daily in local, national and even international media.
Our significant migrant presence, the policy of multiculturalism and the immigration intake especially from Asia have been questioned or under attack. The vulnerability of native title, the forcible removal of Aboriginal children, the continuing appalling indicators on Aboriginal health, Aboriginal imprisonment and the pressing need for reconciliation were all issues which confronted us directly this past year and forced us to ask questions about our history and identity.
As federal Race Discrimination Commissioner I administer the Racial Discrimination Act which allows people to make a complaint if they feel they have been discriminated against on the grounds of their race or ethnic origin.
In the last year the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission received a total of 589 complaints under the Racial Discrimination Act. Complaints under the Racial Discrimination Act received by the Commission’s central office rose from 154 in 1994-95 to 197 in 1995-96 to 375 in 1996-97 - a staggering increase of 90% over the past year. The two biggest areas were discrimination in employment and complaints under the relatively recent racial hatred legislation which was introduced two years ago in October 1995.
Let me give you a couple of case examples. An employee in the manufacturing sector alleged she had been the subject of racist taunts for several years by her co-workers. She said that she had become isolated in her workplace and that her attempts to stand up for herself had been met with increased hostility. Although she brought the abuse to the attention of her supervisors, she complained they were unable to exert any pressure for changes of behaviours by her coworkers.
Following a conciliation conference, the respondent agreed to pay financial compensation and implement a training program and grievance process to address harassment in the workplace.
Indigenous complainants have told us of a steep rise in endemic racial abuse. A mother was harassed by other mothers at a school after she complained about her child being victimised. Such complaints are not uncommon and represent the tip of the iceberg.
Like many, I welcomed the Australian parliament passing a resolution affirming the country’s core commitment to the rights of all Australians to enjoy equal rights regardless of race, to restate the principles of racial tolerance and to reaffirm our commitment to a non-discriminatory immigration policy and to reconciliation with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. However, the context in which the statement "had" to be made - that of growing intolerance and blatant racism in some sections of the Australian population is a sad reflection of where Australia is today. While such statements are an important reminder to us all, if public and private actions within this country deny these principles, then the resolutions stand not as an affirmation of this country’s values - but a benchmark of our hypocrisy.
Many of you may ask me why, after a number of years of tolerance, did multiculturalism suddenly become a dirty word? Why are there groans at the sound of the term "access and equity"? Why did ATSIC, (which represents, if not self-determination, at least some substantial degree of self-management), suddenly become a reviled body? Could it be that they were revealed as policies or agencies that were indeed beginning to deliver substantive equality? That is, they actually started to affect the status quo.
Let me try and explain. Historically disadvantaged groups - Indigenous Australians in particular, but also women, and people of non-English speaking background, have been the targeted beneficiaries of formal, legal measures to achieve equality in comparatively recent times. I refer here to the passage of legislation such as the constitutional changes after the 1967 Referendum; the repeal of discriminatory immigration laws in 1973; the passage of the Racial Discrimination Act in 1975; and the Sex Discrimination Act in 1984.
These were profoundly important steps and the legislation could be used by affected groups for beneficial changes and for redress of complaints. But the legislation per se did not have a particular meaning or resonate much in the lives of so-called 'ordinary Australians’ - a shorthand term for members of the so-called dominant culture.
However, social policies which came slowly in the wake of legislative change operated at a more personal level. The results were, for example, signs in other languages in public buildings; on official forms you were asked if you were of Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander descent; terms such as `non-English speaking background’ and `Abstudy’ came into the language.... and then there was more! Then there was Mabo!
Mabo was a profound shock to those who believed consciously or unconsciously that they were superior to other groups on the basis that their forebears had brought culture and civilization to this land - had claimed it from the wilderness as `terra nullius’ and made it what it is today. That comfortable sense of superiority was challenged by Mabo.
In this threatened state - whipped up by a frenzy of hysteria in certain media and populist quarters - some in Australia looked around fearfully and realised, possibly for the first time, that there was a great deal of diversity in the faces in the street. `This is not my Australia’, they thought, `this is not the place I grew up in’. And indeed, it probably wasn’t. Substantial changes had taken place in the last twenty years.
At the time that this realisation was dawning, the racial vilification bill was wending its way, yet again, through the corridors of parliament. The press had a field day: never has one piece of legislation faced such a concerted attack. It hammered the point that the new concerns people were feeling about Mabo, about land rights, about immigration policy etc. could never find expression because this draconian new law would prevent any freedom of speech! Visions of innocent bystanders being dragged off to gaol for repeating Irish jokes became standard. But there were people who stood up for the bill and it was eventually passed, although without any criminal sanctions.
The attacks on the bill were damaging, and certainly contributed to the change in climate. The emphasis on `free speech’ without regard to responsibility in speech had a negative result. Some thought it became acceptable to use terminology that would have been regarded as unacceptable a short while before. It also became acceptable to air opinions that directly contravened what were formerly bipartisan social policies. Any objection to these opinions was dismissed as `political correctness’.
Racist ideology could now be spouted with impunity. The speaker of the racist diatribe insists that he or she is operating under the principle of freedom of speech and airing views that were repressed in former times - as if the Australia of the 1980s and early 1990s was somehow analogous to a repressed state. Anyone who objects to the racist content is deemed to be an agent of the repressive state, part of the `thought police’. Following that peculiar logic, a person who expresses opinions in favour of multiculturalism or Aboriginal self-determination etc. is therefore branded as one who wants to perpetrate the system of state repression and put an end to individual freedom of expression. The tolerant one is called intolerant. The perpetrator becomes the victim.
There are, of course, other factors at play. It is inevitable, unfortunately, that at times where many people feel concerned, for example, about the rising cost of housing, health care costs, failing crops in drought affected areas, there is likely to be an upsurge in racial tension and communal disharmony. The disaffected in seeking answers to their uncertainty find unfortunate solace in the belief that their problems can be attributed to "too many migrants" or "too much money being spent on Aboriginal health". As we have all witnessed in the last eighteen months, people like one prominent agent of division speaks to the disaffected in terms which grossly oversimplify, deliberately mislead and wrongly scapegoat migrants and Indigenous people. "Everyone should be treated equally" is a common argument. In the face of structural and other disadvantage, this of course denies the reality that equality of treatment does not necessarily result in equality of outcome. In other words, treating people the same does not mean one is being fair.
It could be suggested that the impact of racism and discrimination has been cushioned to an extent because of our federal and state anti-discrimination legislation and because of the work of a number of government and non-government organisations dedicated to the elimination of racism and other forms of discrimination.
Unfortunately such protection is not set in concrete. It is something that must be vigorously defended. The sort of climate which allows public expressions of racism is the same one which allows attacks on the institutions which speak for the victims of intolerance and discrimination. At the very time when advocacy is most needed, it becomes increasingly difficult to be an advocate.
It is no coincidence that at this particular time we have cuts of a very significant magnitude to all sorts of community and advocacy bodies, including the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission.
However, we all know the problems and today we are here to talk about identifying strategies. Before I try and summarise some of those strategies, I want to make a point about focussing on the message and not the messenger.
I recognise the anger that many of us feel about the recent upsurge in public expressions of racism. I know full well the indignation of having our language and our concepts - the language of human rights - stolen and misappropriated. I also feel the frustration when people start lecturing me about equality for `ordinary Australians’ - as if I am not an Australian. But despite all of these provocations, we must make sure that our anger is not directed towards identifiable individuals.
We know that our arguments are sound; we know that we occupy the high moral ground. We must work with logic and decency. We cannot afford to make cheap jibes at those we disagree with - especially jibes that can be seen to have sexist or class overtones - references to occupation, employment or educational status, for instance. If we support racial hatred legislation and the principles it stands for, we must speak out about the issues - attack them - not the person.
Each one of us has to take a personal responsibility for action. If we do this, we can become part of the movement which has clearly already started - started by people who are clearly not about to wait for governments or for others. We rely on ourselves. We are seeing aspects of this movement in street marches; the formation of the group `Australians for Native Title’; and others such as racial respect; in the number of phone calls received by the Commission offering donations to ensure the monitoring of the recommendations of the `stolen children’ report.
It is generally agreed that in fighting racism, we must have a complimentary mixture of both legislation and education. Legislation is critical. Even though it may not be perfect in its drafting or in its execution, it nevertheless, at the very least, sets a standard for community behaviour - a symbol for what is absolutely unacceptable in our society.
Education too is vital in the fight against racism and the promotion of cultural diversity. It can be of a formal nature through organised curricula and programs within educational institutions. It can also be of an informal nature, organised by community groups as part of their advocacy and lobbying roles.
Social policy lies somewhere between legislation and education. It has a strongly educative role but is not mandated by legislation. Social policies such as access and equity and arguably the ten-year program of reconciliation were put forward by the government of the day with bipartisan support and which strongly influenced services and programs at a federal level.
Multiculturalism was a major policy spelt out in the 1989 national agenda for a multicultural Australia. There are many who decry the use of the term multiculturalism, who see it as a term that has "had its day". These are people who don’t know the meaning or the value of the term. But let’s stop and ask what exactly is it claimed "has had its day?" Multiculturalism means the right of all Australians to express and share their individual cultural heritage, including their language and religion ; has this right had its day? Multiculturalism also means the right of all Australians to equality of treatment and opportunity and the removal of barriers of race, ethnicity, culture, religion, language, gender or place of birth - has this right had its day? It also means the right to maintain, develop and effectively use the skills and talents of all Australians regardless of background. Has this too had its day? I think not. We must protect these values and rights even if we do not continue to use the term multiculturalism. Let’s review the word by all means - but not the meaning.
Another strategy which should be easily recognisable is that of local solutions for local diversity - the strategy of working within your own area, whether a geographic area or an area of specific expertise. For example Ipswich Council has embarked on a reconciliation process for the community in that area.
Forming coalitions is another strategy. In some areas of Australia, I have been enormously heartened by the coming together of Indigenous groups and ethnic communities with the common purpose of combatting racism. We must continue to search out partnerships where we can.
Employment has always been a key element of anti-discrimination measures and I note is a topic on today’s agenda. Protecting peoples right to work and to develop economically was a vital part of a social justice imperative to address racial inequality. Employment cases have always accounted for the bulk of complaints received under the Racial Discrimination Act as people have sought their right to equality in employment.
Firstly, I suggest you make sure that your employers have clear anti-racism and anti-discrimination policies. Not merely paper principles - ensure that they are implemented, reviewed and amended as appropriate. While complaints about race discrimination can be made to the Commission - I really believe that most often local resolution is going to be more satisfactory.
Secondly - value and use diversity to your advantage. At the Commission we often have difficulty with the idea that diversity is something to be managed. In the way that the term is sometimes used, managing diversity is too often about addressing the diversity "problem". Diversity is a fact of life and a reality for modern management, but I would assert that it is not a problem to be managed. Rather diversity is a source of untapped potential.
Ask the diversity questions. Workplaces need to think about the diversity they need to succeed. Ask questions about the language skills you need, the professional backgrounds you should draw on, the various informal skills that would offer a new perspective on your particular situation.
Lastly, dissemination of information is essential at this time - using your networks to distribute accurate information about critical race issues is one of the most powerful things that any of us can do. Firstly you can inform friends and fellow employees that there are rights and responsibilities regarding the Racial Discrimination Act. Secondly, dispelling the myths is crucial at this time. Use the information contained in publications like Face the Facts to counteract popular misinformation. One company took to printing a section with their pay slips. Others have reproduced sections in their newsletters. Such tactics are immensely useful in combatting popular myths.
If our country is to be measured by its actions, if the restoration of community faith is to be continued, then ultimately the quality of life of all Australians within the next ten years will be moulded by the actions not only of our leaders, but all of us, individual Australians, in those areas where we have influence.
What we need to do now is strive for a society where respect for racial equality is so deep-seated that occasional irresponsible outbursts, whether in parliament or elsewhere, go nowhere because no-one is listening.
We must I believe stop exaggerating the differences between us; we must stop under estimating the similarities. By over-focusing on difference, we lose sight of all the fundamental things we share; we have to talk more about what unites us, our shared core values - and shared hopes and goals - we all, regardless of our skin colour or the shapes of our eyes want security, safety, freedom, good health; we all value and want peace.
In general, we must recognise that we need different strategies for different purposes. We have to work to the best of our capabilities and our resources, using our strength wisely - and not shooting the messenger. As a young man remarked to me recently, discussing the need to work strategically, `now is the time to work with warm hearts and cool heads’.
Last updated 1 December 2001
