This is an edited version of the Gerald Ward Lecture given by Phil Glendenning at the National Museum of Australia in Canberra on 20 November 2009.
I believe over the course of our history we have discriminated most consistently against two groups of people in Australia – those who were here first, our Indigenous peoples, and those who were here last, especially refugees.
We have had new terms of derogatory language to accompany each new group of arrivals, whether it was with the Irish ‘paddies’ and the ‘coolies’ in the 19th century, through to the ‘wogs’, ‘dagoes’ of the 1950’s and 60’s to the other ugly terms used to describe those who came from south-east Asia in the seventies, those from the Middle East in recent years and from Africa now. Such characterisations were used in order to say to people, “you are less equal than me.”
However, I will make a prediction. In 10 years from now, one of Afghan children who arrived by boat this year will be playing fullback for the Rabbitohs, and his sister will be scoring for the Hockeyroos. They will be embraced by Aussies. Others will be at uni, or working hard in the community. This is what happens in Australia.
Yet whilst attitudes shift towards the last to arrive, Indigenous people continue to find themselves at the bottom of every social indicator in the nation. In NSW, Indigenous people make up 2 per cent of the population but make up 52 per cent of the jail population. Enough. Enough. Enough.
You’d think we could learn from our history rather than continue to repeat it. The apology in Parliament to those taken by the state as children is a reminder of the great unfinished business stemming from the apology in 2008 to the Stolen Generations.
Saying sorry is the very least we should do – sadly, for many, that is the only thing that has been done. It is not enough to say that present generations are not responsible for the actions of previous generations, since present generations benefit from that original dispossession and its ongoing repercussions.
We should also recognise that no compensation could ever be satisfactory because, as Peter Adam said in a powerful speech in Melbourne earlier this year, what was done was so terrible, so immense, so universal and so pervasive, so destructive and so irreparable. But recompense we must. The idea of recompense is not alien to our society. James Hardie had to recompense workers harmed by asbestos. There was widespread support that this should be the case. If this recompense is right, then surely it is also right to offer recompense to the Indigenous peoples of Australia.
The Bringing Them Home report into the removal of Aboriginal children from their families noted that compensation or reparation had to be part of the holistic approach towards delivering justice and facilitating healing. It recognised the enormous barriers that face members of the Stolen Generations in seeking to now make claims of compensation for emotional, sexual and physical abuse. It proposed a national tribunal to facilitate these claims and assist people with a legitimate legal right in accessing compensation. The proposed tribunal would be a partnership between governments, churches, Indigenous organisations and the Stolen Generation’s community, but would also be independent.
As we have seen concerning boat people lately, there is a crisis of moral leadership in the country. Where are our moral leaders with the courage to advocate with passion for necessary changes, rather than continue to start from a fear of offending the powerful, or the static desire to maintain the status quo?
Perhaps a starting point would be to reclaim the language in the national debate. If we were to go back 25 years and listen to the debate in parliament and in the media, it was clear that we lived together in a society. If we unpack the debate today, we seem to live together in an economy. This is significant because the people who live together in a society are citizens; those who live together in an economy are customer or consumers. Thus every human relationship is reduced to an economic relationship.
The dehumanisation of the language is reflected in the treatment given to those who have come to this country most recently – refugees and asylum seekers. There is something about us as Australians and our attitude to people who come by boat. After all, what they are doing is precisely what all non-Indigenous Australians or their ancestors have done – come here from somewhere else. As one Aboriginal leader commented at a function at Government House in Sydney, it was worth noting that we were gathered a few hundred metres from where the first boat load of unauthorised arrivals landed in 1788!
The politics of fear have characterised much of the debate around asylum seekers and refugees. We have locked people away in remote detention centres, and denied them a face. Again the language used points to the ethos at work: “The Pacific Solution”. If ever there was a chilling policy in Australian policy it was this one, reasonating down the years to Europe in the 1940s. Thank God the Pacific Solution is no more.
The way to deal with the politics of fear is to separate the myths from the facts. There have been a number of falsehoods in circulation led by shock jock radio hosts, the press and politicians with a taste of playing the race card. Separate the myths from the facts by clicking here.
In the light of Christian faith lies a fundamental belief that it is possible to live on this planet like a human being: this is sign of the Good News we can never lose sight of. Ultimately, if we remain close to the people we seek to assist we will also hear the truth that liberates us all.
I realised this again recently in Afghanistan in the strength of an elderly woman who had one son killed and had another missing after returning from Australia. I did not know how I could help her so I reached into my wallet and offered her $20 to cover her costs for travel. She lives on $4 a week. Zahra gently refused and said, “No sir. Sometimes when you offer money it makes it worse. Just because one lives in poverty and oppression, doesn’t mean they live without dignity.” I will never forget her courage, wisdom and strength.
We seek a world where those who come first and last in this country might be able to enjoy an equitable place in the life of the nation. We seek a world where the needs of the poor take priority over the wants of the rich; the freedom of the weak takes priority over liberty of the powerful, and the access of marginalised people on society takes priority over the preservation of an order that excludes them.
Phil Glendenning is the Director of the Edmund Rice Centre in Sydney. He is also the National President of Australians for Native Title and Reconciliation.