A Place in the National Consciousness
By raising the contrast in how farmers compare to Aboriginal people as part of the Australian psyche I am not trying to press the claims of one over the other. I am merely trying to illustrate how two parts of the Australian story are treated so differently
Clive Hamilton, head of the Australian Institute, recently argued that the drought relief package was bad public policy and would only perpetuate bad farm management. He argued that Australian governments have a long history of bailing out farmers who do not adequately manage their land, thus perpetuating the effects of drought. He said:
“Droughts happen regularly in this country and there is a marked difference between how farmers prepare for drought … some do it well, some do it badly and if the soil blows away that is a sign of bad farm management. It’s time we just faced up to the reality that much of the land currently farmed, shouldn’t be farmed and by repeatedly bailing out farmers through drought relief, which is erroneously called exceptional circumstances relief, we’re only making the problem worse.”
Hamilton’s comments were met with outrage by politicians who declared his remarks to be “agrarian genocide” and “unAustralian”. John Cobb, the federal Member for Parkes said, “I can’t believe at a time like this a mob of left wing greenies like Clive Hamilton would suggest that farmers could be kicked off their land.”
Hamilton acknowledged that the decision to provide support for farmers is not based on simple economic factors but can be explained by the fact that they are such an important part of the Australian mythology. He said:
“I mean we love to imagine ourselves to be stoical Aussies out there battling against the elements and I think we in urban areas get a kick out of thinking those farmers are somehow representing our better selves.”
For the last year, right wing think tanks and some politicians have made the claim that remote Aboriginal communities are not financially viable with the suggestion that they should be closed down and that people who choose to continue to live there cannot expect continuing support from the government and the tax payers. At the suggestion that these communities should be shut down for financial reasons we did not hear claims that this was “unAustralian” and we did not hear accusations of “genocide” since the policy would effectively kill off a way of life. We did not hear any defence of the existence of Aboriginal communities as an important part of the national identity. Instead, we were fed constant news stories about how dysfunctional some Aboriginal communities were so that the general perception was that all Aboriginal communities were that way and little was said to defend their existence – whether on economic terms or otherwise.
By raising the contrast in how farmers compare to Aboriginal people as part of the Australian psyche I am not trying to press the claims of one over the other. I am merely trying to illustrate how two parts of the Australian story are treated so differently. And not only is the Aboriginal story treated differently, it is treated as a threat. In fact, John Howard used the fear of Indigenous land interests, specifically native title, in the run up to his election win in 1996. He used the decision in Wik to peddle fear. Consider his comments at At a speech in Longreach, Queensland:
“… Although I was born in Sydney and I lived all my life in the urban parts of Australia, I have always had an immense affection for the bush. I say that because in all of my political life no charge would offend me more, than the suggestion that what I’ve done and what I’ve believe in has not taken proper account of the concerns of the Australian bush.”
There is no such concern for Indigenous people who clearly do not fill this same sentimental, nationalistic ideology. Mr Howard then proceeds to rank the rights of one over the rights of the other.
“We knew the right to negotiate was a licence for people to come from nowhere and make a claim on your property …. Well let me say I regard that as repugnant, and I regard that as un-Australian and unacceptable and that is going to be removed by the amendments that are already in the federal parliament. You won’t have to put up with that anymore…”
Views about the place and role of Aboriginal people in the national consciousness are not just philosophical or psychological matters. These distinctions translate into differences in legal status and in resource allocation. The nature of native title and the way in which it has been demonised and weakened from when it was first recognised in the Mabo case highlights how so-called “special laws” for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people are actually laws for different and lesser protection.
Far from being the special and separate sector of the Australian community, we are its benchmark. The way to measure the effectiveness and fairness of our laws is to test them against the way in which they work for the poor, the marginalised and the culturally distinct. It is not enough that they work well for the rich, well-educated and culturally dominant. This measure of fairness and equity rejects an “us” and “them” mentality and holds that our fate and our worth as a society are measured best by how the most disadvantaged within our community fare. By valuing laws, policies and practices that work best because they achieve an equality of outcome, society begins to understand that extending the protections of a democratic society to those who are marginalised does not disadvantage another sector; it actually makes everyone better off.
Indigenous people are the best measure of the fairness of Australia’s laws and institutions. As an historically marginalised, culturally distinct and socioeconomically disadvantaged sector of the Australian community, our treatment within Australian society is its success or its condemnation. Viewing Indigenous well-being in this way moves us from the periphery of society’s consciousness to its centre. Not only does this erode the “us” and “them” mentality, it also moves to a mind-set that sees the giving of the benefits of a democratic society to the disadvantaged will enrich society as a whole.
About Professor Larissa Behrendt
Professor Behrendt – an academic, writer and aboriginal affairs advocate - is a Eualeyai/Kamillaroi woman.
She serves as the Professor of Law and Director of Research at the Jumbunna Indigenous House of Learning at the University of Technology, Sydney.
She is a Judicial Member of the Administrative Decisions Tribunal, Equal Opportunity Division and is the Alternative Chair of the Serious Offenders Review Board.
Larissa has published on property law, indigenous rights, dispute resolution and Aboriginal women’s issues. She is a Board Member of the Museum of Contemporary Art, a Director of the Sydney Writers festival and a Director of the famed Bangarra Dance Theatre.
Articles