Australia needs to take a hard look at itself
30 May 2023
PHILIP FITZPATRICK
TUMBY BAY - Towards the end of this year, Australians will be asked to vote in a referendum to change the Australian Constitution.
They will be asked whether it should be changed to establish a permanent, independent advisory body, known as The Voice, to advise federal parliament and the government on matters relating to the Australia’s Indigenous population.
It’s a straightforward and overdue proposal with no power to direct government, no legal pitfalls and no adverse effects for the Australian people. But it's triggered a firestorm.
Referendums in Australia have a chequered history. To succeed, a referendum has to obtain an overall national majority of votes and also a majority vote in a majority of the six states.
Since Federation in 1901, when Australia gained independence, only eight of the 44 proposals for constitutional change have been approved.
In a referendum in 1967, the Australian people were asked whether two references in the Constitution which discriminated against Aboriginal people should be removed.
That referendum, with a resounding yes vote, was the most successful in Australian history.
The up and coming referendum will ask an equally innocuous question and should be a shoo-in.
Except it’s suddenly not looking that way at all.
The Liberal and National parties, who make up the current federal Opposition, both plan to oppose the proposal and run a campaign to encourage people to vote ‘No’.
Their argument is rapidly evolving as one based on racism, which is decidedly curious because they are claiming a ‘Yes’ vote will reverse the 1967 referendum and ‘re-racialise’ Australia.
More sensible people would see the current referendum as a natural (and overdue) progression from the successful 1967 referendum.
Clearly the Coalition and their ‘No’ vote followers do not understand racism nor recognise it in themselves.
That is not surprising. Many Australians have a great deal of difficulty in recognising individual racism in themselves and institutionalised racism which abounds in the nation.
As an example, Papua New Guineans know that Australia’s reluctance to grant them visas on entry is based on racism.
Papua New Guinea itself has responded to this by abandoning its visas on arrival scheme.
Australia claims that its law is to prevent illegal immigration and there’s a suggestion that Papua New Guineans are typical visa overstayers, which is a lot of bunkum unsupported by evidence.
But back to the referendum. The Coalition has form in racism and is hoping to stir up the innate racism in many Australians, divide the vote and have the referendum fail.
It is a tactic they’ve used before to great effect, particularly during the Howard era.
There was Howard’s rejection of Aboriginal land rights, obstruction of the UN declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and the refusal to apologise to the Stolen Generation.
In the latter case, when the Rudd Labor government finally delivered the apology, the current Opposition leader, Peter Dutton, walked out on it. And yet he claims not to be racist.
In 2021 John Howard, talking about the 2005 Cronulla riots, claimed that there was no underlying racism in Australia.
In that same year polls revealed that many Australians believe there is a lot of racism in Australia.
The referendum should be above politics. It’s a moral issue not a political issue.
By invoking racism the Coalition and its ‘No’ vote supporters are deliberately turning it into a political issue.
If the Coalition and their followers want to show they are not racists a ‘Yes’ vote in the referendum would do it.
And a word of advice to Labor.
The Coalition is claiming that The Voice is an airy-fairy thing that won’t lead to practical solutions to help disadvantaged Indigenous communities.
Handing down a mini-budget wholly targeted at alleviating Indigenous disadvantage in parallel with the ‘Yes’ vote campaign might just take the heat out of that particular Coalition furphy.
Racism is a difficult thing to pin down when it isn’t presented in an overt or blatant way.
So I would agree with what Chris says about racists being in the minority but only in terms of that overt, Pauline Hanson, kind of racism.
(Pauline maintains that she is not a racist by the way.)
I would argue, however, that a more subtle form of racism is widespread in Australia.
This makes it difficult to recognise.
A lot of racism is related to “the fear of the other”. That is, people who don’t look like you or act like you.
That’s called xenophobia but is a form of racism.
(Pauline doesn’t understand xenophobia either.)
Xenophobia is the excessive fear, dislike and even hostility towards anything “foreign” or to anything and anybody from outside one's own social group or country
That kind of racism cuts both ways across the white – black divide.
In Australia it is a significant factor in the racism directed at Aboriginal people and, to a lesser extent, Asian and African people.
This is also what Tim Soutphommasane talks about.
Posted by: Philip Fitzpatrick | 31 May 2023 at 03:09 PM
I agree with Phil in relation to The Voice.
The actions and rhetoric of the LNP - which is now composed of a rump of mostly Queensland MPs - have been contemptible.
Their actions reveal them for what they are: right wing reactionaries with no grasp of history and deeply problematic attitudes towards Aboriginal people.
I very much hope that the 'quiet Australians' who the LNP claims to represent comprehensively repudiate them when it comes time to vote on The Voice.
I do not believe that Australia is a racist country, but it indisputably harbours racists amongst its population. They are a very small but often vociferous and malicious minority, who pollute and diminish us by their mere presence.
Race theory is a product of the 17th century which was used to justify European imperialism and the institution of slavery.
Despite being exposed as a now obvious fraud, race theory persists nonetheless, and is still being used for its original purpose.
I hope Australians have open minds and big hearts when they cast their votes on The Voice. It's our chance to shine and to repudiate racist thinking in the most crushing possible way.
_________
In 2017, Dr Tim Soutphommasane, the then Race Discrimination Commissioner, delivered an important speech on Australian racism. Here's the link to the section on institutional racism followed by some extracts from Dr Soutphommasane's speech - KJ
https://humanrights.gov.au/about/news/speeches/institutional-racism
“The Australia of 1967 was still one which had a White Australia policy…. It was also the year we had the referendum which led to Aboriginal people being counted for the first time in the reckoning of the Australian population….
"Even so, racism persists – and it persists in a serious way. We may have eliminated racism from many formal institutional settings in Australian life but that hasn't eliminated all forms of racism.
"We know, for example, that there remain some very explicit institutional expressions of racism, or, at the very least, institutional sanctioning of racism.
“The constitution still has two clauses that permit racial discrimination. Section 51 (xxvi) gives the Commonwealth a head of power to make laws with respect to any race of people, whether that is for their benefit or detriment.
"Section 25 of the constitution allows for people to be potentially disqualified from voting in state elections because of their race. We cannot pretend that we have expunged racism from the formal structures and institutions of Australian society….
“There can be structural and institutional racism – a more banal form of racism, one that can appear with the face of respectability.
"It doesn't need to involve physical violence or threatening abuse. It can be perpetrated perfectly well, with a pleasant smile, and with good manners. Structural racism needn't involve people signing up to racist beliefs or acting as boors. Prejudice, ignorance, thoughtless, indifference – these all add up to what we would understand as racism.”
Posted by: Christopher Overland | 30 May 2023 at 03:49 PM
It says above "Papua New Guinea does not apply such a racist law to Australians, who can get visas on arrival."
I don't think that is correct. All visitors to PNG have to apply for a visa which can take up to three months for approval. The visa is only valid for one month. An extension for another month can be applied for and costs K500. Only one extension of an additional month is allowed.
Different rules apply to people with work permits who are issued with multiple entry visas.
Regarding PNG overstayers in Australia, I know three wantoks who were deported from Australia for overstaying their visa. One of them was 14 months over his visa expiry date. There must be many more doing the same.
________
Thanks for the correction, Jei. You are correct, the visa on arrival scheme has been abandoned (not for the first time) and slipped my attention. PNG authorities do warn that entry and exit conditions can change at short notice.
All travellers need a visa to enter PNG and must apply for one ahead of travel.
You can apply for most visas online and the eVisa portal link is here:
https://evisa.ica.gov.pg/evisa/
For tourists the Easy Visitor Permit is available for 30-60 days) and is intended for people who intend to visit "for holidays, sightseeing, social or recreational reasons, and to visit relatives and friends".
There is no Migration Service Fee for the Easy Visitor Permit, but a fee of $US50 is payable for applications lodged through the e-Visa portal.
By the way, despite your own observations, Jei, there are Papua New Guineans who overstay their Australian visas, but they are not amongst the worst offenders.
Malaysians and Chinese are easily the top offenders with Britons, Indonesians, Indians, South Koreans, Filipinos, Vietnamese and Thais in the next group. And after them, Germans, French, Japanese and Fijians - KJ
Posted by: Jei Massim | 30 May 2023 at 02:30 PM
Lidia Thorpe, an Indigenous politician who recently resigned from the Australian Greens to become an Independent because of what she called racism in the party, made a very interesting comment a couple of days ago.
Lidia is pretty feisty and strident in what she says and does, just like her uncle, Robbie Thorpe, with whom she worked for a while, and puts people off for that reason.
Nevertheless, I think that what she said has more than a ring of truth to it: “I’m not in the no camp and I’ve never been in the no camp. I won’t sit with racists and white supremacists on the no side.”
That, I think, was a pointed remark aimed at Peter Dutton and the Coalition.
Posted by: Philip Fitzpatrick | 30 May 2023 at 01:37 PM