the international year of tolerance: its challenge to australia

Aust. N.Z. J . Surg. ( 1995) 65, 833-837

GEORGE ADLINGTON SYME ORATION

THE INTERNATIONAL YEAR OF TOLERANCE: ITS CHALLENGE TO AUSTRALIA

RONALD WILSON

INTRODUCTION It is a great honour for me to be invited to present the 1995 oration in tribute to the memory of Sir George Adlington Syme, a great Australian whose vision and industry contributed so much to the formation of the College in the 1920s when he was elected as its first President. I’m sure he would be gratified if he could be here in 1995 to witness its progress and growth in stature.

This year, 1995, was already destined to be a significant year for the international community, even before it was designated by the United Nations General Assembly to be the International Year of Tolerance. For this year is the 50th anniversary of the formation of the UN, an event of incalculable significance for the whole world.

It is ironic that a century that has seen unparalleled acts of sophisticated savagery by human beings against each other has nevertheless witnessed an extraordinary growth of consensus among the nations of the world about the inherent dignity of human beings, a dignity from which is derived fundamental freedoms, rights and duties. At the very time of the suffering of innocent civilians in the obliteration bombing of Hamburg and Dresden, of London and Coventry in the second World War and the dawning horror of the Holocaust, diplomatic activity was preparing for the adoption of the Charter of the UN in 1945.

In that Charter, 50 years ago, ‘We, the peoples of the UN’ affirmed our faith in the dignity and worth of the human person.

The Commission for Human Rights was established, the first achievement of which was to secure the proclamation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948. That Decla- ration affirmed that every human being is born free and equal in dignity and entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth therein without distinction of any kind such as race, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.

There was the vision of 1945, the vision of a human family occupying this planet in freedom, justice and peace.

For many millions of human beings in our world of 1995, this expression of global idealism must be felt as nothing more than a cruel hoax because of the wars, the poverty, the hunger and the violent oppression that still exists.

It would seem that humanity is condemned to weep forever in the face of violence, of hatred, of fear, of intolerance and lust for power. Only last November a consultation was held in Sri Lanka attended by leaders of the world’s great Christian communions. From this deep well of spirituality came the sombre warning:

‘Conditions seem ripe for more cities and villages to be destroyed, for more people to be left destitute, for more b l w d lo flow’.

Less than 3 weeks later, a new name was added to those tragic images of Bosnia, Rwanda, Burundi and many other places; Chechnya, yielding a new demonstration of violence bursting between people who share the same terrain, but differ in eth- nicity, race, language and religion.

But the vision remains. It is constantly reaffirmed and, despite all the hypocrisy, nation states go to great lengths to present their human rights’ record in the best light. I attended part of the annual meeting of the UN Commission for Human Rights in Geneva in late February this year and witnessed first hand the intense lobbying in which nation states engage in an effort to blunt any criticism. Human rights are now as much a matter of international discourse as trade and tourism. The promotion and protection of human rights is no longer a duty owed by the nation state only to its own citizens; it is a duty owed equally to the international community.

The universal hope for a better world marked by freedom, justice and peace finds its latest expression in the designation of 1995 as the International Year of Tolerance (IYT). IYT calls on all peoples:

‘to practise tolerance for the maintenance of peace, justice, respect for human rights and the promotion of social progress’.

You will appreciate that, when we use the word ‘tolerance’ in this context, we are not talking about a lack of standards or conviction, that kind of broadmindedness that amounts to no- mindedness, nor about that kind of tolerance that amounts to little more than smug, patronizing condescension. No, the Year of Tolerance is focused on that kind of justice and freedom that makes for peace between human beings and maximizes the experience of human dignity; in other words a reflection of the vision that inspired the UN itself. I like my Collins’ dictionary definition of tolerance as being to treat someone with generous respect. I shall return to this theme.

I turn now to consider how we fare in Australia in this International Year of Tolerance. I believe IYT challenges all Australians to move beyond our present achievements as a comparatively socially just, democratic and tolerant community. Of course, a superficial view might suggest otherwise. It might draw the image of a peaceful, prosperous country with a predominantly Anglo-Saxon culture grounded on that wonderful sense of mateship that has created so many heart- warming stories from the outback in decades past, an egali- tarianism cemented by the outdoor climate of blue skies and sun and endless sporting encounters that unify the nation in the good feeling that the worst thing that can happen to us is that we lose a cricket match or a premiership ... a country that believes in a fair go. What need have we for further tolerance? We have plenty already. Ladies and gentlemen, this is dangerous complacency. We are hearing new voices in our

WILSON 8 34

day, voices coming from the extreme right, expressive of intolerance and division, of a new spirit of illiberalism, that threat- ens both our present achievements and our progress towards a still better future.

IYT challenges us all, every Australian who cares about justice and freedom and equality, to be vigilant and to discern and reject these influences. I propose to discuss the Australian scene under three headings: poverty, discrimination and the treatment of minorities, and reconciliation with indigenous Australians.

POVERTY A few weeks ago, Nugget Coombes, that extraordinary Austra- lian, teacher, economist, social philosopher, sympathetic and informed interpreter of the lifestyle and aspirations of indigenous Australians, and (if I may say so, a West Australian) now 89 years old, made a thought-provoking speech to the St James Ethics Centre in Sydney.

He drew a picture of today's modern industrialized society as one in which the big international corporations dominate even the role of governments and the operation of a democratic society, becoming all too often the expression of a personal lust for wealth and power.

Nugget Coombes' lament was that there is no longer enough of the intellectual and ethical reflection that is essential to the survival of a civilized society. The result, as Coombes saw it, is that those sources of moral and ethical leadership have allowed themselves to be subverted or suborned so as to become instruments of the corporate society.

Coombes sees the dangerous consequence of this trend in the emergence of a permanent underclass as the gap between the rich and the poor grows wider, a gap which is then reflected in the power structures in the community. His concern is reflected in and confirmed by the experience of the Brotherhood of St Laurence. Bishop Michael Challen, Executive Director of the Brotherhood, recently recalled the late Professor Ronald Hen- derson's words in the landmark 1975 Report on Poverty that:

*... poverty is not just a personal attribute. it arises out of the

organization of society. Australian society has failed in a number of respects to adapt to people's needs and this has led to poverty'.

Bishop Challen affirms that these words remain apposite 20 years later, after two decades in which the impact of economic change has been to increase the extent of family poverty in Australia. Investigations in 1990 placed more than two million Australians with incomes below the poverty line, three-quarters of whom were in families with children and nearly half of the total were children. Bishop Challen concludes his eulogy of Professor Henderson with an exhortation that is relevant to my theme. He said:

valued highly. IYT challenges us to transcend all divisions, whether economic, racial, political, religious or social.

It is interesting to note the concern expressed recently in the USA about the welfare solution to poverty. I t is described as 'the welfare trap', where the brand new day of social justice and welfare has atrophied. In the words of Jim Wallis, a well- known American commentator:

'Somehow, the liberal solution lost its moral foundation and political

imagination and became identified with huge. distant. impenonal

bureaucracies concerned more with control than caring, often entrapping

the poor instead of empowering them'

Again, at the UN Social Development Summit held in Copenhagen in March, the conference of non-governmental organizations threw down the gauntlet to the heads of governments gathered there. Economic growth does not necessarily solve social problems. The gap between rich and poor countries is widening and economic growth is increasingly taking on the character of jobless growth, providing no answer to unemployment and thereby contributing to greater inequality and exclusion.

The questions that face us, therefore, are whether we as a nation wish to live in a society where the differences between rich and poor become so great as to be obscene, where the leaders and other well off members of our society in the political, economic and cultural sectors cannot even imagine the harsh realities and burdens of life for a large and increasing number of Australians. Is this how we, as a society, wish to live? Is this the legacy we wish to leave our children?

DISCRIMINATION AND THE TREATMENT OF MINORITIES

The Australian network In the 47 years since the UN General Assembly adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and notwithstanding the rapid expansion of the membership of the UN through the entry of newly independent and other Third World countries, the UN Human Rights Commission has established an impres- sive record. It has secured the adoption and widespread ratification of a number of important conventions; these include conventions or covenants on the elimination of racial discrimination, on civil and political rights, on economic, social and cultural rights, on the elimination of discrimination against women, on the outlawing of torture and degrading treatment of detainees and, most recently, a convention on the rights of the child. There are principles relating to the rights of the mentally ill and of people with disabilities and recently completed is a draft declaration on the rights of indigenous peoples. There are others.

Together they form a comprehensive and sophisticated set of instruments designed to defend the human spirit and body against the assaults that in our lifetime have constantly been made upon it.

Domestically, Australia has also taken some very positive steps. Little more than 20 years ago, there was no effective legislation in Australia, federal or state, directed to ensuring the

'Every human being at some point in her or his life is confronted by the

testing dilemma that we experience both good and evil, justice and suffering. love and hatred. Furthermore. we find we are forced to choose as to whether we believe good is good and justice is right and love is

the fundamenldl virtue or not. I f we choose yes. then we must support

and work for goodness. justice and love, in the face o f all those values or forces or beliefs that would threaten or deny these discoveries'.

This is the challenge that IYT presents to all Australians. It is possible for all of us to become more human, to insist on living in an environment that is hospitable to people, where people matter, where justice and compassion and caring are

observance of equal opportunity. We now have general anti- discrimination laws in every mainland State and in the Northern Territory and Australian Capital Territory. Recently, Tasmania also enacted a law forbidding sex discrimination.

THE SYME ORATION 835

There have been important developments at the national level. Until the 70s. the White Australia policy was still largely in place as the keystone of our immigration practice. In 1975, the federal government ratified the Convention on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination and the Parliament then immediately embodied it in domestic law in the Racial Dis- crimination Act 1975.

In 1980, the Commonwealth Government ratified the enormously important Convention on Civil and Political Rights and followed with the establishment in 1981 of the Human Rights Commission, chaired by Dame Roma Mitchell, the present Governor of South Australia.

The Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women was ratified in 1984 and immediately incorporated in domestic law by the Sex Discrimination Act 1984.

In 1986, the Human Rights Commission Act 1981 was allowed to expire and was replaced by the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act 1986. This Act established the present Commission, of which I happen to be the President, notionally part-time. Initially consisting of three Commissioners and a President, the Commission has since doubled its size to six Commissioners. It is now responsible for the administration of the Racial Discrimination Act, the Sex Discrimination Act, the Disability Discrimination Act and the Privacy Act, with a particular Commissioner responsible for each. The remaining Commissioners are the Aboriginal Social Justice Commissioner and the Human Rights Commissioner. In addition to adminis- tering the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act, the Human Rights Commissioner exercises a monitoring role in respect of a number of human rights instruments sched- uled to the Act, including the Civil and Political Rights Cove- nant and the Convention on the Rights of the Child.

The recently retired Human Rights Commissioner, Mr Brian Burdekin, is well known for his use of the procedures of a national inquiry to expose the parlous condition of vulnerable sections of the community, in particular, homeless children and, more recently, mentally ill persons.

The Race Discrimination Commissioner has also used the technique of a public inquiry to good effect in the National Inquiry into Racist Violence. It was this Inquiry which exposed, in the view of the Commission, the need for the Racial Hatred Bill which is presently before the federal Parliament. The evi- dence given to the Inquiry focused attention on the existence of minority groups in Australia for whom the fear and humiliation of ridicule and abuse based on racial or religious differ- ence is real. No Australian should have to suffer that kind of prejudice. The proposed law amply protects freedom of speech, but there is no justification for the tasteless, offensive, intimi- datory kind of behaviour at which the proposed law is directed. This is one instance where, in my opinion, it is helpful to have a law define the standard of tolerance that is acceptable in this country.

Let me now make a brief assessment of how we stand in the IYT with respect to some minority groups, leaving aside for the moment our indigenous Australians. I believe there is cause for considerable satisfaction in the progress that has been made but little ground for complacency.

Migrants from non-English-speaking background The abandonment of the White Australia policy has opened the way to the emergence of a multi-racial, multi-faith Australia

with all the promise of a fascinating mix of cultural diversity within the firm bonding of a common commitment to a national identity. Of course, we must always emphasize the unity of the nation and see and enjoy the enrichment that comes from cultural diversity against that background, and within that frame- work. The IYT, however, challenges us to a new level of sensitivity to the problems of settling into a new country, espe- cially in the areas of language or cultural strangeness, and employment problems associated with a lack of recognition for the skills and experience that have been gained before coming to Australia. The recent disclosures of the plight of migrant women in Australia’s textile industry is enough to shake us out of any complacency.

Children In relation to children, Australia’s ratification of the UN Con- vention on the Rights of the Child in 1990 marked a significant step forward in the recognition of the rights of a significant but almost powerless section of society ... our children. Unfortu- nately, many Australian children experience a family life that exposes them to poverty and abuse, leading in some cases to homelessness and a draconian juvenile justice system. There is little point welcoming the rights recognized in the Convention if our governments are not seriously committed to their imple- mentation. I believe the IYT is saying to Australia that the well-being of this nation’s children demands that we move towards the incorporation of CROC into domestic law and by the appointment of a Children’s Commissioner attached to HREOC.

Australians with disabilities Then there is the position of Australians with some form of impairment of mind or body or both. This is a significant section of the community, yet often easily forgotten. The very barriers that hinder the participation of many people with disabilities in the community also mean that they are often out of sight. Discrimination in this area as in others is both destructive of human dignity and wasteful of human talents and potential. A major step forward in protecting the rights of people with disabilities was the passage of the Disability Discrimination Act in 1992. With this legislation, for the first time, came comprehensive national protection for people with disabilities from discrimination in a range of areas of life activity. However, anti-discrimination legislation in this area as in others is of course only part of the picture, and only part of the process needed to change attitudes. People with disabilities should enjoy the same human rights as all human beings. They are entitled as a matter of legal right to participate in the total life of the community as fully as is humanly possible.

The truth is they need people like you and me, scattered in the community to act as advocates to make sure their are recognized and respected, not only by governments but by all of us.

Women While women could hardly be described as a minority the passage of the Sex Discrimination Act was of major importance in the field of human rights in Australia. This Act, and similar provisions at State and Territory level, provide important tools in working for equal enjoyment of human rights. But even a

WILSON

quick reading of the International Convention indicates that prohibition of discrimination is only a part of the agenda for equality. Again, the truth is that women still come out badly in any thorough assessment of gender equality. The still limited representation of women in top executive positions in government, in the professions and in commerce and industry is a fact of life. Domestic violence, with women and children the victims, continues to be disturbingly prevalent in Australian society.

The problem of access The achievement of a comprehensive equal opportunity network covering virtually the entire country and supported by State, Territory and federal legislation makes an enormously influential statement about the commitment of governments at all levels of life in Australia to advance the dignity and genuine equality of all Australians. But it is not enough simply to have laws in place. The laws must be accessible to those who need them and complaints must be handled promptly and effectively with a view to just outcomes for both complainants and respondents.

But even achieving a user-friendly, cost-free jurisdiction for the handling of complaints of discrimination must leave us still concerned with the problem of access.

However well-known the procedures are and however com- passionate and sensitive the process there will still be many eligible complainants who will be unwilling or unable to access the system. The reason may lie in the stressful emotional or psychological consequences of the discrimination. To be a victim of discrimination can be a source or perhaps a consequence of disempowerment. For some people, to make a com- plaint is to confess their powerlessness. There may be other reasons: it may be a desire to retain one’s job, or not to provoke hostility, or to protect against some form of blame, or a basic lack of confidence in legal processes.

I do not pretend to have the answers to this problem. But the IYT challenges us to recognize it. That recognition may encourage us to look for alternative ways of focusing the attention of the community on the existence of unlawful discrimination, perhaps by grasping the nettle of respresentative complaints or by more general inquiries and reports that focus on systematic injustices. It may itself be a form of injustice to rely on victims to pursue individual justice in order to highlight widespread breaches of human rights.

Growing a culture IYT challenges us to recognize the importance of community education in developing an Australian culture which is com- fortable with the objectives of human rights and equal opportunity initiatives.

The growing of such a culture is important in several differ- ent ways:

( i ) community support for equal opportunity will discourage governments from being tempted to deprive the statutory agencies of their independence;

( i i ) it will encourage the victims of discrimination to avail themselves of the remedies provided by the system;

( i i i ) such a culture will blunt the impact on Australia’s rep- utation, at home and abroad, of the views of those who believe that our support for the UN human rights instruments is an unwanted derogation from national sovereignty. I am convinced

that such a view is not only misconceived and mischievous but flies in the face of reality. The truth is that no international committee can dictate to the Australian people. Australia remains free to determine for itself whether any action should be taken within this country to reflect those moral and ethical standards which are the subject of widespread international agreement in the UN. Of course, if/when the national Parlia- ment chooses to legislate, then by virtue of s. 109 of the Con- stitution, that legislation will be paramount over any inconsistent State legislation.

Sadly, some political commentators and even some State government ministers demand that ‘State rights’ should take precedence over human rights.

In my view, in this area a State does not have ‘rights’, but rather ‘responsibilities’ to its citizens.

In any event, in this shrinking world of the late 20th century it is quite impossible to cut ourselves off from the world and world opinion. As I have said, human rights are as much a fact of life for the world community as trade and tourism. This is not to say that there should not be consultation between all governments within Australia with a view to overcoming per- ceived difficulties in relation to the federal compact from the operation of the external affairs power. That is an entirely dif- ferent question.

The growing of such a culture will help to restrain a Gov- ernment under the stress of expediency from acting in defiance of international human rights standards, conduct unfortunately exemplified in harsh juvenile justice laws and the Common- wealth Government’s lack of compassion in dealing with a few boat people and other illegal asylum-seekers. It will also equip the community at large to reject emphatically those outrageous comments that are made occasionally by persons in leadership positions, for example:

(i) the comment to the effect that the people of Australia have done enough for its minorities and that it is time to consider the interests of the majority (as if the two were incom- patible) or

(ii) the comment that public monies should not be used to enable community organizations to cdticize government policy. This reported ministerial comment is outrageous because i t carries the necessary implication that the disadvantaged members of the community have no right to a say in the formation of government policy.

The growing of such a culture is not solely a task for governments and their equal opportunity agencies. It is a task in which the media, community organizations and all sectors of industry and commerce, together with individual Australians must be involved. In this connection, non-governmental organizations which have been formed to promote particular human rights objectives have an important part to play. In recent years, NGOs have become increasingly important in the promotion and protection of human rights. I have no doubt that the IYT will encourage them in their work.

RECONCILIATION WITH INDIGENOUS AUSTRALIANS

This is an area where one can expect the challenge of IYT to be taken up with enthusiasm. Reconciliation has already become a dominant theme of the present decade. It began with the Report of the Royal Commission into Deaths in Custody, a report of the most intensive examination ever undertaken of the Aboriginal

THE SYME ORATION 837

people of Australia, the sad history of their experience of Eur- opean settlement with all its brutality, its forced dispossession, its persistent disadvantage and constant humiliation.

For its part, the Council for Reconciliation at its first meeting adopted a vision to encourage it in its work. It is a vision which has now been adopted by many of the State and Territory Par- liaments and some local governing authorities. The Report concluded with Recommendation 339:

‘That all political leaders and their parties recognise that reconciliation between the Aboriginal and nowAboriginal communities in Australia must be achieved if community division, discord and injustice to Abo- riginal people are to be avoided. To this end, the Commission recom- mends that political leaders use their best endeavours to ensure bipartisan public support for the process of reconciliation and that the urgency and necessity of the process be acknowledged’.

This plea was heeded and the Council for Aboriginal Rec- onciliation was established with the support of all members of the national Parliament.

The task of the Council was to facilitate a process across the nation directed to the following objectives:

(i) fostering a better understanding by all Australians of their shared history since British settlement;

(ii) breaking down the walls between Aborigines and other Australians, getting rid of the old often unjust stereotypes, providing opportunities for us to talk openly and frankly to one another in a spirit of goodwill and understanding, recognizing each other as human beings with families, hopes and plans and rights;

(iii) discovering and appreciating the riches of Aboriginal art and culture as a treasure belonging to all Australians; and

(iv) encouraging on the part of all Australians a commitment to change. The direction of that change is best described by Aborigines themselves. My colleague, Aboriginal Social Justice Commissioner Mick Dodson, has defined social justice in this way:

‘Social justice must always be considered from a perspective which is grounded in the daily lives of indigenous Australians. Social Justice is what faces you in the morning. It is awaking in a house with an adequate water supply, cooking faciliiies and sanitation. It is the ability to nourish your children and send them to a school where their education not only equips them for employment but reinforces their knowledge and appre- ciation of their cultural inheritance. It is the prospect of genuine employment and good health: a life of choices and opportunity, free from discrimination’.

Lois O’Donohoe, the Chairperson of ATSIC, makes her plea for reconciliation:

‘What a blight it is. this failure to deal with a relationship that goes to the core of our identity. It’s something like members of a family refusing to recognize each other ... I say to all Australians, black and white: this country belongs to all of us. That’s the bottom line ... As an Australian, I am confident that the reconciliation process is no mere passing fashion. It is the way of the future, our shared future in which Australia is united as one people with a rich heritage and a passion for justice and equality’.

It is a vision of ‘a united Australia, which respects this land of ours, which values its Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander heritage and which provides justice and equity for all’.

The decision of the High Court on native title, the Mabo decision, was of enormous significance to the reconciliation process. For it reminded us that hopes and expectations of the Aboriginal people do not rest solely on goodwill, but on legit- imate rights, legal rights in some cases, but in all cases human rights, those fundamental rights and freedoms inherent in every human being.

CONCLUSION For my conclusion, I return overseas, to South Africa and to surely the most remarkable person alive today, Nelson Mandela. In his recently published autobiography Long Walk to Freedom, Mandela gives us a glimpse of the spirit that underlies the challenge of IYT. It was his indomitable faith in the essential goodness of humanity and a leadership dedicated to a universal vision of justice that went beyond boundaries of every kind. He writes:

‘Even in the grimmest times in prison. when my comrades and I were pushed to our limits, I would see a glimmer of humanity in one of the guards, perhaps just for a second, but it was enough to reassure me and keep me going ... Humanity’s goodness is a flame that can be hidden but never extinguished’. (p. 615)

Mandela’s commitment to reconciliation and tolerance was revealed when he was writing about the joint award to him and F. W. de Klerk of the Nobel Peace Prize in 1993. He then wrote:

‘To make peace with an enemy, one must work with that enemy, and that enemy becomes your partner’.

It was demonstrated when he invited his former jailers to be special guests at his inauguration.

It remains to be seen whether the spirit and wisdom of Mandela will enable South Africa to lead Australia and the world in discovering how human beings might live together justly on this planet. I leave you with the concluding words of his autobiography:

‘We have not taken the final step of our journey ... For to be free is not merely to cast off one’s chains, but to live in a way that respects and enhances the freedom of others. The true test of our devotion to freedom is just beginning’.

the international year of tolerance: its challenge to australia

Documents