|
|
Home
| Databases
| WorldLII
| Search
| Feedback
Australian Journal of Human Rights |
Carolyn Cerexhe[1]
Another perspective, which is the thrust of this article, is to question the exposure itself -- assessing the nature of the exposure and what it says about the current state of Australian society and its relationship with indigenous people. There is a question of whether indigenous people, in fact, have been at the centre of debate. Certainly, the words `Aboriginal' and `indigenous' have appeared in the press with frequency. However, appearances can be deceptive. Has the debate really in fact been about indigenous people, or about non-indigenous people, and their own agendas, as affected by indigenous issues? The question, the, is how far does Australia really take notice of indigenous people and in what way have indigenous people been at the centre of public debate.
The recent nature of non-indigenous Australia's relationship with indigenous people can be evaluated by considering aspects of the native title debate which developed during the first half of 1997. By coincidence, or incredibly good timing, the Australian Reconciliation Convention ("the Convention"), held in Melbourne from 26 to 28 May, occurred after a period of months when public debate on indigenous issues had been almost constantly at the forefront of the media. The Convention was organised by the Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation, as part of the ten year reconciliation process set up by the Commonwealth Government in 1991, and it is important to reflect on the role that this played in public debate. But the Convention, although highly significant, was only one influence, and it is revealing to contrast other dynamics which occurred early this year, in order to gain a truer picture of the state of debate and its implications.
There has always been a resistance in Australian society to recognising the seriousness of indigenous issues. We have strenuously avoided debating indigenous issues, and particularly have avoided debating them directly with indigenous people. A primary mechanism for achieving a guilt-free colonisation, in Australia and throughout the world, has been through marginalising, ignoring, and, ultimately, forgetting the indigenous people being ousted from their land. As Ted Moses, Chief of the Crees Indians of Canada asked at the Convention: "how does a thief go about establishing legal and legitimate possession of his stolen spoils?"[3]
In 1968, Professor William Stanner, in his Boyer lectures, commented on what he termed "The Great Australian Silence".[4] Reflecting on Australia's past, he said that Australian society had a "cult of disremembering", practised on a national scale.[5] Since colonisation, non-indigenous Australians have blotted out Aboriginal people almost continuously from their image of Australia. Aboriginal people and their issues were almost entirely absent from mention in the media, in literature, and even in the portrayal of our nation's history. He observed that non-indigenous people had an "intense concentration on ourselves and our affairs"[6], which held no place for indigenous people. In other words, Australians were obsessed with themselves and with developing this country as if indigenous people had never existed.
Noel Pearson referred to Stanner during the Convention, stating that there is "still a lingering suspicion" that Aboriginal people are not quite human, that Australians need to come to terms with our history.[7] Pearson believes terra nullius originated from an assumption that indigenous people were not quite human: "we occupied the land but we were fauna".[8] His caustic remarks highlight the fact that the most basic of human rights is the right to be seen as human, and it is only then that other human rights can become relevant. One does not debate with people who are less than human. One does not consult them, or listen to their concerns.
Stanner's observations also were echoed at the Convention by the Governor-General, Sir William Deane, who noted that the Constitutional Conventions preceding Federation in 1901 almost completely ignored Aboriginal people, that there was almost nothing "approaching a serious expression of interest or concern about the Aborigines."[9] Why did these "otherwise good and decent men''whose efforts led to Federation, ignore the sufferings of the indigenous people, Deane asked.10 indigenous people were certainly not included in the Constitutional Conventions, as representatives. At the turn of the Century, "racial intolerance and disdain were the "entrenched norm"[11] and, fundamentally, there was an "unspoken consensus" that the Aborigines were a vanishing problem.12 So it happened that Aboriginal people were excluded from s 51 (xxvi)'s grant of power in the Commonwealth Constitution for the Government to make laws with respect to "the people of any race ... for whom it is deemed necessary to make special laws" and this was not rectified until the referendum of 1967.
For indigenous people, achieving participation in debate also has meant, since the 1960s, accepting an uneasy participation in Australian citizenship. Sir James Gobbo, the Governor of Victoria, spoke at the Convention on the issue of citizenship. He recounted his experiences as one of the legal counsel for the Commonwealth Government, in a case in 1965 about equal pay for stockmen in the Northern Territory. He remarked how no Aborigines were called to give evidence before the Arbitration Commission and said that he was instructed, at the time, that none of the Aboriginal stockmen were suitable for the rigours of giving evidence and being cross-examined. [13] But he added "today the same reply would surely not be given, as, whether in the cattle industry or elsewhere, indigenous people are able to put their views with force and persuasion". He emphasized that "citizenship has to be seen in its widest sense as the manner in which members of society participate in the public life of their society ... Nor does participation mean conformity or assimilation. On the contrary, participation has to proceed in a way which respects the identity and integrity of each group participating. Participation cannot be gained at the price of invisibility."[14] Obtaining recognition as citizens has been a method by which indigenous people have participated in the public debate, and through which they have tried, with different degrees of success, to gain access to many basic human rights in Australia.
The Australian Reconciliation Convention was a carefully planned addition to public debate. It was organised by indigenous leadership, to help bring about reconciliation between indigenous and non-indigenous people, and to bring a "renewal of the nation".[15]
The venue for the Convention was enormous, occurring at the very grand Melbourne Convention and Exhibition Centre. There was a large theatre for the plenary sessions, and numerous air-conditioned rooms for smaller group sessions. The main theatre was high-tech, with three huge screens for video projection, so the audience could have a creative multimedia experience to enhance their viewing, receiving different aural and visual messages at the same time. Participants did wonder amongst themselves whether this was a culturally appropriate place for a large gathering of indigenous people but, nevertheless, the venue accomplished the job of organising the 1800 or so people who attended. There was a large presence by members of the media, and the Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation had a slick media relations machine in operation, with specially allocated rooms for media interviews and post-plenary session press conferences with the main speakers.
The antagonistic response by governments, pastoralists and miners to the Wik decision energised discussion at the Convention, and many sessions addressed ramifications of the case. During the second day of the Convention, the Stolen Generations Report[16] was tabled in Commonwealth Parliament and this gave an enormous emotional push, as stories of the troubled and decimated lives of many Aboriginal people were portrayed in the media. The Stolen Generations Report, and the universal rejection of Howard's 10 Point Plan amongst participants at the Convention, landed in the media like bombshells. So indigenous people grabbed the headlines, and were able to add indigenous perspectives to the debate over that period.
Yet if one considers much other debate that has happened this year, the situation is more problematic. The Convention was an injection of indigenous perspective. But this did not reflect much of the significant debate that occurred in the first half of 1997.
From the moment the Wik judgment was handed down, indigenous people were on the receiving end in a country where every government was calling for extinguishment of native title on pastoral leases. This was reflected in the media and newspapers across the country, as the most strident voices took the front pages. These voices were non-indigenous, and included the Liberal Party, the National Party and the National Farmers Federation. The media heavily covered the views of these groups, who jumped up and down and used the media to best advantage. The views of these powerful groups were dominated by self interest, and the approaches that they took marginalised, misrepresented, or were simply ignorant of indigenous perspectives. Often their comments indicated that \tthey believed the only relevant interests in the nation were those of non-indigenous people.
A key characteristic of debate after the Wik decision was the carrying on of public debate as if indigenous people did not really exist at all and that such a serious matter could only be resolved by government and the captains of industry. This was epitomised by a significant speech given by the Prime Minister, John Howard whose views throughout the Wik debate have received considerable press coverage. On 17 May, approximately a week before the Convention, Howard, travelled a considerable distance to speak to a large gathering of pastoralists at Longreach, Queensland. His speech there was widely covered by the national media, as it was held at a time of high controversy, when he was under intense lobbying by the National Party and by pastoralists. In his quest for the support of the pastoralists, he emphasized his "immense affection for the outback and for the bush" and went on to reject earnestly any suggestion `that what I've done and what I've believed in has not taken proper account of the concerns of the Australian bush.' However, he did not define what he meant by "the outback" or "the Australian bush", whose concerns were so important to him, but they did become defined by the nature of his audience, and the fact that, in a reasonably lengthy speech, he did not mention the words "Aboriginal" or "indigenous" once.[17] By speaking of "the bush" in this manner, he suggested that if indigenous people were part of "the bush" at all, they were inconsequential, and that it was the pastoralists who truly characterised "the bush". The only references to indigenous people that he made were indirect. He repeatedly referred to "native title claimants", in a way that constantly set indigenous interests in opposition to pastoralists' interests. He also said that "the right to negotiate was a licence for people to come from nowhere and make a claim on your property", (which would be an "un-Australian" act), and he referred to the fear of unascertained members of a "tribe" getting included in claims.[18] His whole language was of exclusion, denying the real existence and humanity of indigenous people, and portraying them as undefinable, vexatious masses. Perhaps, by not mentioning the word "indigenous", he was just trying to keep the issues away from race, but the other comments he made and the manner in which they were delivered can be taken as the shunning of indigenous people. It was not a speech of reconciliation, but of someone living in a 1990s version of the colonial dreamtime, perpetuating the "Great Australian Silence" and keeping indigenous people out of any debate amongst equals.
Another of the figures who took this exclusionist approach to debate was Pauline Hanson, the Member for Oxley, who has held central stage in public debate this year. Hanson does not hesitate to mention the word "Aboriginal", but does so only to insist on taking away their uniqueness and stripping them of their heritage. With loud invocation of "the Great Australian Silence", her attacks on indigenous people and native title emphasized repeatedly that "we need policies that see us all as Australians, not different kinds of Australians, just as Australians".[19]
Mick Dodson, Social Justice Commissioner for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders, perceived the direction of debate, even before the Wik decision was made. He commented:
The present thrust of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander policy, its fundamental direction, is toward assimilation. The assertion that Government policy is assimilationist is reacted to almost vehemently as any allegation of racism. Given the history of that policy in Australia, and the means employed to put it into effect, that is hardly surprising. It is a policy that will not speak its name.[20]
Reaction against the Wik decision focussed on particular issues, as well as simply denying recognition of the existence of indigenous people. Various issues were raised by the Wik decision, but public debate appeared to emphasize two particular issues, raised by John Howard and other non-indigenous players opposing Wik. One was the "lack of certainty" allegedly created by Wik, and the other was the issue of compensation. These two issues staked out the ground for debate and were presented as the major issues facing Australian society as a result of the Wik decision. But these two issues, which so dominated the media, were derived almost totally from the perspective of non-indigenous people.
The issue of "lack of certainty" is such a broad, meaningless concept that it has been impossible for indigenous people to respond. Such "lack of certainty" was overwhelmingly expressed to be in relation to pastoralists, mining companies and government, and there has been almost no discussion of any implications of "lack of certainty" for indigenous people. In this way, the "lack of certainty" issue was another method of keeping indigenous people out of debate, by again treating them as if they do not exist.
The issue of "compensation" was the other main matter which dominated public debate in the months after the Wik decision. With economic rationalist fervour, the central questions were: how much money was needed for this compensation, and who should pay. These questions need to be resolved in order to ensure that the recent indigenous windfall (as it was presented) giving indigenous people new interests on pastoral leases, could be extinguished and the leases of the pastoralists could be upgraded to primary production or converted into freehold. Was the Commonwealth government to pay, or the States, or the pastoralists, or a combination? It was a very tricky issue. If only this could be resolved, it was argued, then the issue of native title would be resolved, and Australia could get on with business. This issue was repeated, and repeated, so that Australians would know how critical it was. Again, there was little apparent indigenous response to this major issue -- or, more likely, little response that was reported. The Australian public easily could have thought, therefore, that this was the crux of the matter, and that many indigenous people even saw it this way. And the issue remained in the forefront of debate, with media space given overwhelmingly to the non-indigenous players.
Focussing on the issue of compensation was a very clever, or fortuitous, means of keeping the debate away from indigenous people. It would have placed indigenous people in a great dilemma, catching them in a trap that is not new to them, but which was much worse in this situation because of the magnitude of the issues involved, and the time pressure being put on them to respond. On the one hand, their claim to the land is fundamentally based on the cultural and spiritual significance of the land, which is something that cannot be quantified. On the other hand, where they have been, or are about to be, dispossessed of land, they are justifiably cautious and reluctant to say that they do not want any financial compensation at all. Yet, if they enter into the compensation debate they risk appearing greedy and only concerned about money, in which case their spiritual claim to the land looks like a sham. Another difficulty would be for indigenous people even to be able to describe to non-indigenous people what particular rights they want compensation for -- rights and practices that have been developed over many thousands of years, but never needing precise definition in Western terms, or committal to paper. Even divulging many of their concerns might be a cultural impossibility, and certainly would require considerable thought and slow consultation among their communities and with their elders. Furthermore, the Wik decision had recognised property rights, not just rights of usage, and it would be an extremely difficult cultural leap to quickly try to mesh ancient indigenous attitudes to land with such a category in the non-indigenous common law system.
In the first half of 1997 there was very little in the public debate publicising indigenous perspectives. One of the clearest statements on native title by indigenous people finally came from the Summit of senior Aboriginal people which occurred at Timber Creek, 300 kilometres south-west of Darwin, in May. Unfortunately, the deliberations of this gathering gained little publicity, compared to the Prime Minister's speech at Longreach, or the Reconciliation Convention. The most significant aspect of the Summit was the universal rejection by indigenous people themselves of Howard's 10 Point Plan, which, among different things, sought to provide for the stripping any native title on pastoral leases. There was also a clear rejection of the emphasis on compensation, placing the priority on the indigenous spiritual and cultural value for their land. Billy Fitz, Deputy Chair of the Northern Land Council, expressed the feeling succinctly:
We don't want our native title rights changed, we want them to remain as it is and we're asking the Australian tax-paying public to come and support us in this fight because we don't want compensation, we just want the rights to our land, rights to ownership and the recognition of ownership to our land. Our land is more important to us than money, it's valued to us and it belongs to us.[21]
Spiritual and cultural issues, and any analysis of them, were almost entirely left off the front pages of debate in the first half of 1997, and were hardly addressed at all by the media. It is ironic that, if only non-indigenous economic interests and governments would give indigenous people respect, and focus on allowing their culture to survive, the issue of compensation might become a relatively minor part of non-indigenous concerns. Non-indigenous people have mostly created their own confrontation, as indigenous people have repeatedly emphasised their willingness for coexistence.
Patrick Dodson commented at the Reconciliation Convention that:
the truth behind the Stolen Generations was to colonise our mind and spirituality -- to dispossess us from our cultures and societies -- are we to continue the dispossession and deny the cultural revival so necessary for real compensation and restitution. Reconciliation is at the heart of coexistence ... [Without reconciliation] we still remain the "plaything" of the dominant society.[22]
Gatjil Djerrkura has also discussed the meaning of "reconciliation", as seen by indigenous people, saying that "reconciliation is not something to be bartered or offered as a reward."[23] Unfortunately, non-indigenous people are too busy forcing their own agenda on the nation to value or accept the extensive goodwill and generosity of indigenous people.
The debate about native title is ongoing. It is an issue that is central to indigenous concerns, central to the survival of their culture. Yet the issues that are in public debate largely focus on what non-indigenous people have to fear from native title claims, and not on the perspectives of indigenous people. Instead, the non-indigenous agenda is presented as paramount. There might be an appearance that indigenous people are being involved in the debate, but the very nature of the issues that are discussed, and the manner in which they are discussed, indicate that they are not being involved. This ability to carry on debating indigenous issues without giving indigenous people time or place to respond or to have any effect on decision making is a perpetuation of attitudes which dehumanise indigenous people and their culture. It seems to take major, orchestrated, media pushes, like the Reconciliation Convention, to achieve much public discussion of indigenous perspectives. Full debate, amongst equals, will not happen unless indigenous people are given real respect, and are able to participate knowing that the survival of their culture is not constantly in danger. The Reconciliation Convention held out a hope that indigenous people were getting closer to full involvement in debate, but the continued drastic threats to native title that have occurred since the Convention indicate that indigenous perspectives are still a long way from being heard.
[1] Carolyn Cerexhe has worked as a solicitor, and is Co-Editor of the Indigenous Law Bulletin.
[2] (1996)187 CLR 1.
[3] Moses, T "Renewal of the Nation" Speech presented at the Australian Reconciliation Convention, 27 May 1997, p 3.
[4] Stanner, WEH, After the Dreaming: Black and White Australians - An Anthropologist's View (The Boyer Lectures, Australian Broadcasting Commission ,1968).
[5] Ibid, p 25.
[6] Ibid, p 24.
[7] Pearson, N at Seminar on A National Document of Reconciliation, 27 May 1997 and Speech to the Australian Reconciliation Convention, 28 May 1997.
[8] Cited by David Marr, "Primal Fear", Sydney Morning Herald 31 May 1997, Spectrum p 1.
[9] Deane W Address on the occasion of the Australian Reconciliation Convention, 27 May 1997, p 1.
[10] Ibid, p 4.
[11] Ibid.
[12] Ibid, p 5.
[13] Sir James Gobbo, Speech to the Australian Reconciliation Convention, 27 May 1997, p 3.
[14] Ibid, p 4.
[15] Dodson P Chairperson's Notes, Walking Together, Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation, No 18 May 1997 p 3.
[16] Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission, Bringing Them Home, Report of the National Inquiry into the Separation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Children from Their Families, Commonwealth of Australia, 1997.
[17] The Prime Minister the Hon. John Howard MP Address to Participants at the Longreach Community Meeting to Discuss the Wik 10 Point Plan, Longreach Queensland. Transcript. 17 May 1997.
[18] Ibid, p 4.
[19] Sydney Morning Herald 14 June 1997 p 37.
[20] Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner - Fourth Report, Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission, Canberra, AGPS, November 1996 [1997] 2 AILR 116.
[21] Land Rights News, June 1997, p 11.
[22] Dodson, P Speech at the Opening Ceremony, Australian Reconciliation Convention, 26 May, p 8.
[23] Gatjil Djerrkuura "The Meaning of Reconciliation", Walking Together, Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation, No. 18 May 1997, p 18.
AustLII:
Copyright Policy
|
Disclaimers
|
Privacy Policy
|
Feedback
URL: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/AUJlHRights/1997/20.html