Site navigation

ROMA MITCHELL ORATION:
“Dialogue or Monologue – Human Rights in Australia”

Speech by John von Doussa,
President, Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission, Adelaide, Monday,
24 November 2003.

---

The Annual Mitchell Oration is held as a tribute to Dame
Roma’s lifelong efforts to improve the respect in Australia for
human rights, and to counter discrimination experienced by many people,
especially women, members of Indigenous communities, and of ethnic minorities.

I am sure all of you here tonight who knew Dame Roma
have very fond memories of her. She was a person who I greatly admired.
Her role in public life has influenced me, as I am sure it has influenced
many of you.

During my years in the law I had the privilege of hearing
many lectures by Dame Roma and of appearing before her during her distinguished
18 years as a Judge of the Supreme Court of South Australia. I found all
of these experiences rewarding, as were her endless contributions to conferences
and education programs run by the Law Society.

It was a sad day in the legal profession when Dame Roma
retired from the Bench. Little did we realise that her retirement was
not to be the end of her pioneering career, but the start of other equally
outstanding contributions to charities and to public life, especially
in her role as Chair of the Australian Human Rights Commission, and later
as Governor of South Australia.

Dame Roma was appointed as the first Chair of the Human
Rights Commission on its establishment in 1981, and held that position
until December 1986. It was in her role as the Chair of the Commission
that I had an encounter with her which I wish to draw on tonight. It demonstrated
the public importance of the work the Commission was carrying out under
her guidance.

As the Chair of the Commission Dame Roma was a staunch
advocate of Aboriginal issues. The event was, I think, in late 1984. As
an officer of the Law Council of Australia I was one of a number of community
representatives invited to attend a meeting with a panel of Aboriginal
women that Dame Roma convened in Adelaide to discuss discrimination issues
which they encountered.

The women spoke of their life experiences in urban and
country South Australia. I found the meeting a confronting and moving
experience. I had never before been party to an intimate sharing of the
experiences of lifelong tragedy and discrimination which the women related.
It was Dame Roma’s view that commitment to equality comes from realising
that equality does not exist, and plainly it did not for these women,
and their communities.

I left the meeting also with a feeling of wonderment
about the dignity of the women who had told their stories dispassionately,
without trace of bitterness or hostility towards those who had denied
them opportunities in virtually every aspect of childhood and adult life.

That meeting illustrated to me themes I wish to pursue
this evening – that it is the fear of difference that leads to discrimination,
that the way forward is genuine dialogue that will allow us to understand
and learn from each other, and that it is through dialogue that shortcomings
in the enjoyment of human rights in Australia must be addressed.

Dame Roma’s efforts to further the interests of
the disadvantaged in our community are legendary, and her work as the
first Chair of the Human Rights Commission set standards of excellence
that remain a benchmark.

It is a great honour and privilege to be invited by the
Equal Opportunity Commission of South Australia to present this year’s
Mitchell Oration.

Australia remains one of a diminishing number of common
law countries without a bill of rights or a charter of fundamental rights.
Many say Australia does not need a bill of rights. The official Government
line is that Australia is a harmonious multicultural society with a strong
sense of natural inclusiveness; a land where everyone gets a “fair
go”, a land with a firmly entrenched rule of law. This view assumes
legal rights beyond those already recognised by the common law and statute
are not needed.

In the closing years of the 20th century, this optimistic
assessment seemed correct. Australia had acceded to major international
human rights instruments. Large parts of them had been enacted into domestic
law. Anti-discrimination law was in place federally and in States and
territories.

Apart from Australia’s treatment of Indigenous
people and emerging concerns in the international community about the
way it was dealing with asylum-seekers, Australia was regarded internationally
as a leader in protecting human rights.

There was a promising movement towards reconciliation
with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities. It was boosted
by the Mabo decision and an understanding of the cruel imprints of history
through the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody and what
was widely known as the Stolen Generation Inquiry. The “bridge walks”
in 2000 were powerful public displays of support for reconciliation. Promising
dialogue was taking place.

But what then happened? In recent years dialogue on human
rights seems to have stalled. The enjoyment of rights by Indigenous people
and by minorities has suffered serious blows.

For Indigenous people, major High Court decisions since
Mabo and Wik, and political discourse have shifted their attitudes towards
reconciliation in ways that have caused a pervasive sense of apathy and
disillusionment which has brought the promising impetus to a halt.

A number of notable events have also changed, perhaps
only subtly, the attitudes of the majority of the wider community towards
minority groups generally.

The detention of asylum seekers who arrive by boat, the
Tampa incident and the Pacific solution that followed are recognised by
Australian human rights organisations and lawyers as gross breaches of
Australia’s international obligations. They have attracted international
condemnation. Yet the government injected into public discourse the notion
that these people are ‘illegals”, and the vanguards of an
invasion of Australia’s privileged lifestyle.

Then came September 11 2001 and the Bali bombings last
year. These events brought home to Australians that they are not immune
from terrorism and terrorist threats. Fear and ignorance made ethnic minorities
in Australia the targets of racist and religious violence and discrimination.
The Federal Government has introduced anti-terrorism legislation, and
there is talk of more to come. Aspects of these laws permit significant
curtailment of well recognised rights to liberty, privacy and legal representation.

Since 11 September 2001, Arabic and Islamic community
organisations have reported increased levels of prejudice, discrimination
and vilification. Muslim women who wear the hijab have been particular
targets for abuse.

Intolerance towards these particular groups encourages
discrimination against other minorities – including Sikhs, Jews,
Christian Arabs or non-Arab Muslims. Attacking respect for cultural and
religious diversity has an alarming ripple effect.

Sikhs were harassed following September 11 because they
wore turbans. It seems that some thought they were Arabs. Jews continue
to be the target of racial and religious violence – usually directed
to the things that make them stand out from other Australians –
for example, their synagogues and schools. Indigenous people continue
to face rampant stereotyping.

Fear of difference is not a new phenomenon in Australia.
Successive waves of migrants have been viewed with suspicion and hostility.
Chinese prospectors in the gold rushes were not always welcomed as fellow
Australians. Italians, Yugoslavs, and Vietnamese in the early years after
they arrived all faced barriers and taunts. The glee with which proponents
of eugenics greeted the notion that Aboriginality would die out shows
they wanted Indigenous people to become less different. Fear of difference
manifests itself in many ways. People are shunned and ignored or discriminated
against or become targets for violence. In Australia in 2003 it is not
acceptable for us to treat people in this fashion.

Xenophobia alone does not explain the current animosity
towards Arab and Muslim Australians, many of whom are not new to our nation.
Muslims established a presence in Australia in the 1860s when Afghan cameleers
arrived to work the camel trains which opened up the vast interior of
our continent. The remains of Australia's oldest mosque was built by these
cameleers in Maree, South Australia.

People of Arabic background first came to Australia in
the late nineteenth century. Today there are over 200,000 Arabic-speaking
Australians. Arab Australians are an extremely diverse group - socially,
economically and even religiously. Despite the widespread misconception
that all Arabs in Australia are Muslim, statistics prove otherwise. For
example, 55% of Lebanese-born Australians and 84% of Egyptian-born Australians
are Christian. Only 31% of Iraqi-born Australians are Muslim.

It may be difficult for some to make sense of Australia's
rich cultural diversity. But we are a sophisticated nation and should
be able to handle debate on this complex issue.

Fears are played on by Government and others who benefit
from the perpetuation of myths and stereotypes. One of the myths that
seems to be current is the view that allowing minorities to enjoy a measure
of human dignity commensurate with that enjoyed by the wider community
means the wider community has to give up some of their rights. Put simply
– they believe the left hand takes from ordinary Australians what
the “rights hand” gives to minorities. Typically peoples’
response to this kind of threatening belief is driven by self interest,
and not by compassion and reason.

The Federal Government received strong electoral support
for the 1998 changes to the Native Title Act which promised ‘buckets
of extinguishment’ and its stance on asylum seekers. Any incentive
individual members of government may have had to show generosity and fairness
to these groups evaporated in favour of political self-interest. Leaders
who follow their perception of the current sentiments of the electorate
add strength and direction to those sentiments. Whilst leadership can
bring positive results if decisions are based on fairness and equality,
it can be destructive where decisions are otherwise based on preserving
popular support.

The potential for beneficial leadership was demonstrated
following the terrorist events. Bigots sought to demonise people who had
characteristics in common with the terrorists e.g. people of middle-eastern
appearance, Arab ethnicity or followers of Islam. Anecdotal information
indicates a surge in attacks following the bombings. Prompt and decisive
comments at the time in support of Australia’s Arab and Moslem communities
from some senior politicians and other community leaders appeared to have
immediate effect. With the passage of time, however the message was forgotten,
and not renewed. And bigots have begun to hold sway. Their message of
exclusion is often delivered through the media in a perversion of the
notion of freedom of speech. They have kept alive simmering fears by disseminating
frightening misinformation about Arabs and Muslims.

Some Australians have spoken out vigorously against the
human rights denials of recent times. They have become the voice of human
rights in Australia. Yet instead of being part of a productive dialogue
they appear to be delivering monologues – either to the converted
or the disinterested. There are few signs that the concerted efforts of
these advocates are significantly changing the minds of the electorate
or the behaviour of the discriminators.

When we look at our relationship with Indigenous Australians,
reports continue to find that reconciliation is off-track. Some former
advocates have withdrawn from the debate. What began as an attempt to
reduce the fear of difference, gain mutual understanding and teach non-Indigenous
Australians about Indigenous culture, spirituality and symbolism has become
a debate about statistics, funding and administration.

On any measure of disadvantage, the figures continue
to be disheartening. Life expectancy for Indigenous women is decreasing.
The gap between life expectancy for Indigenous and non-Indigenous women
is widening. The unemployment rate amongst Indigenous people is continuing
to rise, and in the criminal justice area the rates of incarceration,
especially for women, are many times higher than in the rest of the community.
We should be horrified, but a significant number of Australians are shrugging
their collective shoulders then turning their backs on these figures.

Passionate advocates on the international scene and within
Australia are essential. Knowledgeable experts will continue to publicly
record human rights denials. But are the promulgation of benchmarks and
logs of abuses changing reality? Events around us suggest not.

It is easy in a gathering such as this – or in
the media – to present a catalogue of abuses; to mesmerize the audience
with graphic details of tragic events. It is more difficult to offer solutions
to bring about change. Advocates who identify abuses and then call for
government action will have little or no effect unless the government
sees electoral support. Policy changes at the political level depend very
much on the attitudes of the electorate. Changing community attitudes
is a slow process, especially when emotions such as fear are involved.
Basic, unassailable facts and gentle persuasion must be the starting point.

This brings me to two simple propositions. First, that
our efforts to promote and protect human rights in Australia must be directed
to educating and persuading the majority. We need to focus on those who
can dictate to Governments through the electoral process the sort of nation
they want.

Let us work with the tools of democracy – not bemoan
their failure to deliver our own agendas.

Dame Roma remarked eloquently upon this process in a
speech to Amnesty International two decades ago, in 1983, when she said:
“human rights will be won not by spectacular pyrotechnics but by
gradually warming the heart of man towards fellow man.”

In similar vein, in a recent speech, the Professor of
Law and Indigenous Studies at the University of Technology Sydney, Dr
Larissa Behrendt, said that the challenge for equality is to link law
reform with a “hearts and minds” change in middle Australia.

It remains for people of good conscience to speak out
about injustice, racism and inequality – in our neighbourhoods,
in academic debate, in political discourse. And to question, question
relentlessly. Too often, people go ahead with policies and attitudes that
contradict human rights, and are contrary to our vision of Australia as
a place where everyone is treated fairly.

Legislation that allows lengthy detention of suspects,
the questioning of minors and restricts access to legal advice may seem
acceptable in the climate of fear generated by terrorist acts. However,
people must question whether there are sufficient safeguards to protect
ordinary citizens from abuse of that power should they ever be in the
wrong place at the wrong time. Ask questions publicly and demand the answers
be explained clearly so that everyone may understand.

I think we should also speak out about good news. Australia
has made some notable advances in human rights. Some took decades longer
than they should have to occur – but they have occurred. The abolition
of the White Australia policy, the 1967 referendum on Indigenous rights,
the equal pay decisions for men and women during the 1970’s, and
the enactment of anti-discrimination laws. These changes have not caused
the sky to fall in. They have benefited the whole community, not just
those people affected.

There are many reconciliation success stories in Australia
which we should not forget. In recent times they include economic agreements
over mining and access to cultural lands and personal stories of Indigenous
and non-Indigenous families meeting in friendship 100 years after hostilities
divided them.

The Sorry books that sprang up around Australia which
allowed hundreds of thousands of ordinary Australians to record their
feelings about the past relationship with Aboriginal people are a good
example. The Sea of Hands, initiated by Australians for Native Title and
Reconciliation, were colourful and powerful symbols of reconciliation.

This brings me to a second point – the importance
of dialogue over monologue. As advocates we must be able to walk outside
the circle of the converted and engage with the broader community. We
must take the opportunity to engage in dialogue when it is presented.
And our systems must enable “shared responsibility” for solutions.

I know many indigenous people have withdrawn from the
formal process of reconciliation. However, as Prof Behrendt also pointed
out, Indigenous people need to be able to articulate their vision for
the future. Not engaging in dialogue limits the options for articulating
that vision.

“Shared responsibility” is a notion well
known to Indigenous people. It is evident in land use agreements, in community
justice processes, and in whole of government community trials flowing
from the Council of Australian Governments agreement. The Social Justice
Reports by the Commission’s Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
Social Justice Commissioner Dr Bill Jonas talk about shared responsibility
as the basis for moving forward.

Indigenous think tanks, such as the Lingiari Foundation
in Broome and groups promoting leadership such as the Australian Indigenous
Leadership Centre, play a crucial role and must be properly recognised
and consulted by Governments.

How do we go about warming the hearts of a sufficient
majority to convince political leaders to make decisions that respect
human rights?

Plainly, there is no easy solution. There are millions
of hearts to be warmed, and what works for some may have little influence
on others. There must be many programs, operating on many levels and operating
incrementally so as to touch the greatest possible number of people.

In searching for solutions about how to alter community
attitudes I mention two crucial areas in which HREOC is working.

The first concerns discrimination against Arab and Muslim
communities since the terrorist attacks. The second relates to broader
education on human rights.

The Commission began a dialogue with Arabic and Muslim
representatives last year following concerns about continuing religious
and racial discrimination. Called Isma (“listen” in Arabic),
it has catalogued programs in place around Australia to tackle discrimination
and violence. There are many programs – ranging from Arabic hotlines
for reporting abuse, state-run conferences, seminars, information about
Arabs and Muslims in Australia produced by their representative bodies,
and recording of racially motivated crimes by police in some States. The
responses are piecemeal; there is duplication and big differences between
the actions taken in different States. To have the greatest possible effect,
there needs to be more widespread adoption, greater co-operation and learning
from the success of others. And in this education will be a central tool.

To be effective all human rights programs must provide
information simply and directly and explain the justice of allowing everybody
to participate in community life on an equal footing.

Few people would be much the wiser by wading through
the text of international instruments that set human rights norms. Understanding
is more likely if the notion of human rights is set out in elementary
terms. Overlooking this in human rights education can alienate people
and lead to perceptions of a club that only the well-versed can join.

We are all born free and equal. There are basic freedoms
that enable us to live with dignity – such as the freedom to make
independent choices and to develop our potential as human beings.

Australia should be able to define itself as a nation
in a way that reveals how we regard each other as human beings. My colleague
Dr Bill Jonas has said reconciliation goes to the very core of our national
identity - of what it means to be an Australian. This is a good start
for our definition.

The fertile minds of primary and secondary students are
a good place to begin human rights education. Programs often have to counter
stereotyped views at home.

The Commission has developed educational programs for
Australian schools. The Youth Challenge began as a day long human rights
workshop involving schools from around Australia. It is now a comprehensive
web-based program designed so that it can be slotted into the curricula
of all secondary schools.

My host today, South Australian Equal Opportunity Commissioner
Linda Matthews, federal Sex Discrimination Commissioner Pru Goward and
I recently attended a Youth Challenge forum in Adelaide on sexual harassment
that involved students from a number of city and country high schools.
The students were very perceptive and gave us heart that we can advance
an understanding of human rights through the youth of today.

Court decisions also have great educational value. This
is why HREOC believes its power to intervene in court cases about human
rights is extremely important in furthering community understanding about
discrimination laws, and human rights issues generally.

There is a tendency in human rights discussion to refer
to the old Chinese proverb that every journey of a thousand miles must
begin with a first step. In Australia we are well into the human rights
journey. We have made some notable advances along the way. But when the
going gets tough, as it is today, each next step becomes as important
as the first.

Horror stories about human rights abuses will always
be part of the debate. However, if we can influence the large number of
Australians not moved by horror stories we can shift the political process.
And soften the heart of the nation.

The experience of listening to stories of the South Australian
women told under Dame Roma’s encouraging eye will remain with me.
As advocates we must re-ignite old dialogues and coax the broader community
to engage productively in the discussion.

As Australians let us not be damned by our silence. Or
shamed by our ignorance.

 

Last
updated 7 January 2004