No to Howard's election blackmail!
By Sue Boland
For 12 months John Howard has been threatening to call a double dissolution election on the issue of native title. He claims that unless the opposition parties in the Senate pass his amendments to the 1993 Native Title Act (his 10-point Wik plan), they will be responsible for a "race-based" election.
Last December, a majority of senators agreed to eight of Howard's 10 amendments. The first part of point nine — to make it more difficult to register native title claims — was weakened, and the second part — to impose a six-year sunset clause on claims — was rejected. Point 10 — to abolish Aborigines' right to negotiate with mining companies on pastoral leases — was totally rejected.
Independent Senator Brian Harradine and the ALP justified their votes for most of Howard's 10 points on the grounds that they were avoiding a "race-based election".
Now Howard is using the threat of a "race-based" election and the likely election of One Nation senators to blackmail the Senate into passing his Wik bill unamended.
With polls showing significant support for One Nation, a double dissolution election might result in Pauline Hanson, rather than Harradine, holding the balance of power.
Howard wants total capitulation. He needs to win back the racist vote which the Coalition lost to One Nation in Queensland.
Harradine isn't the only one calling for "compromise". Frank Brennan, former adviser to the Indigenous Working Group, has called for the opposition parties to allow the Wik bill through.
Any further watering down of native title would amount to its extinguishment in all but name. That is Howard's aim, since openly legislating extinguishment would leave the government open to compensation claims.
The attempt to avoid a "race-based" election by making concessions to the government will not help defeat racism. And the next election, whenever it's held, will have racist parties campaigning in it.
The Coalition government's policies are thoroughly racist. Its 10-point Wik bill, its cuts to ATSIC funding, its cuts to immigration and its cuts to migrant welfare are racist.
All these measures discriminate against Aborigines and migrants, making them scapegoats for unemployment and declining public services. The government relies on racism to allow it to get away with these attacks.
It's folly to think that you can avoid racism by ignoring it. You have to confront it head on, especially when Hanson, Howard, their supporters in the media and academia and many in the ALP are trying to legitimise racist policies under the name of "equality for all Australians".
The ideological onslaught from the big business media and government against "political correctness" has sown confusion about what is and isn't racist. Many politicians say they're opposed to the racism of One Nation, while simultaneously supporting racist policies. Hanson herself says she's not racist, despite advocating racist policies.
While racism in Australia has a long history, there have been times when popular support has been built for measures against racism.
In 1967, a big majority voted in favour of the right of Aborigines to vote and the right of the commonwealth to override the states in matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander affairs.
Following the referendum, the Aboriginal movement won land rights in the Northern Territory and indigenous-specific services. These reforms were not won through appeals to the "good nature" of politicians. They were won as a result of militant struggles, such as the 1966 strike at Wave Hill station by the Gurindji, and solidarity campaigns in the big cities.
Through meetings, rallies, stalls and petitions, the activists were able to counter the racist misconceptions cultivated by government, big business and the media. Activists organised a freedom bus ride around country towns in NSW to oppose racial segregation.
While these campaigns did not eradicate racism, they did win mass support for policies to combat the effects of racism and reduced the level of racism.
More recently, campaigning by Australians for Native Title and Reconciliation (ANTaR), helped to increase public support for native title. This was reflected in opinion polls in 1997.
Organising numerous suburban meetings, big city-wide events and public meetings in regional areas enabled ANTaR to challenge the scaremongering from the government, the media, the National Farmers Federation and the mining companies. If ANTaR hadn't embarked on this campaign, most people's only source of information would have been the big business media, which oppose native title.
Unfortunately, towards the end of 1997, ANTaR shifted its focus to lobbying politicians. If ANTaR had maintained the campaign to counter the myths and lies, the vote for One Nation might have been reduced.
The only way of countering a party that seeks to build a mass movement for racism, is to build a mass movement against racism by campaigning against racist policies.
Vague calls for tolerance and diversity are not enough. The racist policies of the government and One Nation have to be challenged. It has to be explained that Hanson and Howard's catchcry of "equality for all Australians" is fundamentally racist because institutionalised racism prevents Aborigines and migrants from participating equally with other Australians.
The opposition parties in the Senate have a lot to answer for. Labor, the Democrats and the Greens all support anti-immigration policies. The ALP supported the cuts to some of the welfare provisions for migrants, as well as voting for most of Howard's Wik bill.
Talking about "racial tolerance" allows parties like the ALP to avoid explaining what racism really is, how it works and how it benefits big business.
To really eradicate racism, you have to be prepared to tackle its social causes — the impoverishment that results from destruction of jobs and services in the interests of maximising profits for the only real privileged minority — the rich who own the big corporations.