Combatting Racism - Can We Still Be Confident? an Overview of Racism and Discrimination in 1993

Combatting Racism – Can We Still Be Confident? An Overview Of Racism And Discrimination In 1993

Each year the Australian Council of Trade unions provides an overview for its affiliates on racism and discrimination developments.

Our assessment last year suggested that Australia was perhaps winning the battle against racism.

Can and should that confidence be maintained?

Two major national assessments during the past year concluded that

“It is a credit to Australian social policy and to the Australia people in general that this cultural diversity has been achieved in a relatively short period of time with so little obvious friction or social dislocation” (State of the Nation: A report on people of non English speaking backgrounds (I. Moss, AGPS 1993)

“While Australia remains, overall, a tolerant society where racism is understood to be both anti-social and anti-democratic, the presence of pathological, cultural religious, or political predispositions to acting in racist… ways, is a matter for concern, although not for panic or overreaction” (Annual Reports 1993, Executive Council of Australian Jewry).

This overview specifically focuses on the experiences of Australians born overseas and not the Aboriginal community. It is recognised, however, that racism and discrimination in Australia, in fact can only be understood in the context of the brutal dispossession of the Aboriginal community from their land.

This overview, then, with its focus on the response of Australian institutions to overseas born Australians is based on an analysis of press reports, state and federal government departments’ and agencies’ annual reports, as well as research studies.

PARADOX

Evidence on discrimination and racism in Australia is complex and contradictory.

One study suggests that “40% of Australian university students believed their fellow students were racist.” (AJN 5.3.93), while another indicates that the issue is not among the top five issues of concern for young people (AYI National Youth Survey 1993). One survey sees a “massive 49 per cent increase” in racist incidents of violence and vandalism while another concludes that there has been “a decline in the occurrence of incidents”

Almost all of the State Government equal opportunity commissions/anti discrimination boards report a significant increase in complaints of discrimination and racism in the workplace. Yet annual report after report of Federal Government departments, indicate only one or two formal complaints of discrimination in their departments.

On the one hand, each of the State government agencies concludes that the racism and discrimination in the workplace is endemic, yet after nearly ten years there is no national strategy in place to combat such discrimination. One meeting of the National Committee on Discrimination in Employment took place in 1993; it has little administrative support and no resources.

A national strategy, developed both formally and informally, is in place to combat sexual harassment in the workplace, but no such strategy, built on ILO Conventions, is in place to respond to racism in the workplace.

There continues to be no national, agreed collection and analysis of data, and scant evidence of effective federal – state collaborative strategies in combating racism.

Confronted then by

• the State Government’s attack on the Victorian Equal Opportunity Commission
• the Federal Government’s delay of the racial vilification legislation
• the continuing budget cuts to state equal opportunity commissions and antidiscrimination boards
• the continuing administrative and financial rift between the NSW Anti Discrimination Board and Human Rights Australia, and
• the increasing number of inquiries and complaints,

can Australia still be confident in its commitment and strategies in combating discrimination and racism?

ASSESSMENT

It continues to be extraordinary difficult to make an assessment on whether or not racism is increasing, or whether or not the agencies that have been established are effective. The most comprehensive “state of the nation” analysis was completed in 1993 by Irene Moss, the Federal Race Discrimination Commissioner. (State of the Nation. A report on people of non English speaking backgrounds, AGPS).

This was an innovative, courageous first attempt “to monitor and assess the progress towards achieving true social justice for people of non English speaking backgrounds in accordance with Australia’s human rights obligations.”

In addition to this report, the following Federal Government reports provide evidence of racism and discrimination:

• Human Rights and Equal Opportunities Commission Annual Report

• Public Service Commissioner’s Annual Report (including a Report on Equal Opportunity Throughout the Service)

• ‘Appoint’ Reports published by Prime Minister and Cabinet on backgrounds, including birthplace, of people appointed to Federal Government advisory committees and boards

• Access and Equity Annual Report (Office of Multicultural Affairs)

• Annual Reports of Federal Government departments and agencies which are required to provide details on the implementation of their equal employment opportunity plans and access and equity programs, including birthplace backgrounds of people appointed to departmental advisory committees and boards).

At the State government level the most comprehensive data is provided by either the equal opportunity commissioner (e.g. Victorian) or anti discrimination board (eg. NSW). In some states there is a further division of responsibilities with a specific office established to promote equal opportunity in the public service (Director of Equal opportunity Tribunal provides additional information.

• Managing the Back Injury of Women from Non English Speaking Backgrounds, k. Clapham etc., National Women’s Consultative Council.

• Blue Collar and Byond: The experience of non English Speaking Background Women in the Australian labor force. C. Alcorso and G. Harrison, Commonwealth-State Council on Non English Speaking Background Women’s Issues.

• Retrenched Worker’s Rights Project, Ethnic Affairs Commission of NSW and Human Rights Australia.

• Underemployment, hidden Unemployment and Immigrants, M Wooden BIPR.

• A Framwork for the Delivery of Multicultural Serivices, I. Thompson, Anglican Homes for Elderly People.

These research studies were complemented by a major evaluation in 1993 of the Federal Government’s “Community Relations Strategy” set up in 1989 with a budget of nearly six million dollars.

The study is a damning report of how not to develop a national strategy. There was a “lack of preexisting baseline data”, “financial resources for evaluation were limited”, “the evaluation team was recruited when the form of the projects had already been finalised and in fact some… had already been completed,” a lack of attention was give “to the question of evaluation;” and only rarely did projects contain “formal evaluation procedures.” The evaluation team concluded that “there is little possibility give the design of the bulk of the projects of measuring the degree of impact…. This make it very difficult to assess in any other but an impressionistic way, whether impacts have been permanent or transitory.” (Community Relations Strategy: An evaluation (OMA)

Full credit, however, should be given to OMA (Office of Multicultural Affairs) for undertaking such an evaluation. Too many programs are set up without any attempt to analyse their effectiveness.

At the non government level, only the ‘Jewish Community’s central data base’ is able to produce any kind of national monitory of racism and discrimination developments on an annual basis. No other community, non government organisation or church attempts to utilise its national network in such a way.

The Annual Report of the Executive Council of Australian Jewry, however, recognises the difficulties of such monitoring. In discussing incidents of violence, vandalism and intimidation of the Jewish community, it concludes, “it is difficult to give a comprehensive analysis of the reasons for the particular incidents… mainly due to the fact that most are carried out anonymously or with the use of fake names.”

Their data suffers the dilemmas and weaknesses of all complaints based data.

One is left with the conclusion that the monitoring of racism is fragmented, divided, and that there is seemingly, an unwillingness of all the agencies, government and not government, state or federal, to ever sit down and talk together let alone develop a national strategy!

LEGISLATIVE DEVELOPMENTS

A number of significant legislative developments occurred during the year under review:

1. Federal

The Federal Government made a number of “declarations” , enabling individuals who believe their rights to have been violated under

• the Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination, and,
• the Convention Against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman and Degrading Treatment or Punishment,

to take their cases direct to the appropriate international treaty monitoring bodies (UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, and the UN Committee Against Torture).

Declarations were also made under Article 21 of the Convention Against Torture, and under Article 14 of the International Convenant on Civil and Political Rights, which permit other states to lodge complaints against Australia.

Early in the year Australia also declared that the,

• UN Convention in the Rights of the Child, and the,
• Declaration on the Elimination of all Forms of Intolerance and Discrimination based on Religion or Belief,

were international instruments relating to human rights for the purposes of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act.

(NB. Justice Elizabeth Evatt was elected to the UN Human Rights Committee).

It should also be noted that “the new Industrial Relations legislation introduced into Parliament at the end of 1993, prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, colour, sex, marital status, family responsibilities, political opinion, national extraction and social origin.” (West Australian 11.12.93). The legislation also provides for an annual report on developments with bargaining, and in particular, its impact on women, part time workers and workers from non English speaking backgrounds.

During the year there was considerable debate on the Federal Government’s proposed racial vilification legislation. Most of the early written responses to the draft law were opposed to the legislation (AJN 29.1.93). In the end no further action took place in introducing the legislation.

1. State

At the State government level, the following action included:

2.1WA

Amendments to the WA. Equal Opportunity Act 1984 relating to racial vilification commenced operation

2.2NSW

The term ‘ethno religions’ was introduced into the definition of ‘race’ for the purposes of racial vilification, and financial penalties for offences of racial vilification were increased to $5000.

2.3Victoria

A review of the Victorian Equal Opportunity Act was undertaken by the Parliament.

2.4Queensland

The first report of the Queensland Anti Discrimination Commission was table in Parliament.

2.5N.T

The Anti-Discrimination Act 1992 came into effect in August with the appointment of an Anti Discrimination Commissioner.

EMPLOYMENT

Discrimination in the workplace is flourishing.

By far the majority of complaints to state equal opportunity commissions are employment related: 75 percent of complaints in Queensland relate to employment; in Western Australia employment related complaints constituted 71 percent; in NSW, 61 percent; and in Victoria 74 percent.

Its of interest to note that in Victoria, for the first time since 1988 it has been possible “to call up and analyse the extensive data recorded….. by the Attorney General’s Department… but due to design and retrieval flaws inaccessible until now.”

Of the 812 employment related complaints made in Victoria during 1992/93, 105 related to race, but were 26 percent of all race complaints. In NSW of the 847 employment related complaints, 143 related to race; and of the 285 race related complaints, 148 related to employment.

At the national level, of the 370 complaints formally lodged under the Federal Racial Discrimination Act (1975), 205 related to employment.

All, or most of the above information reflects the situation at a state level.

At the Federal level the most comprehensive analysis of employed related data is that provided in both the annual reports of Federal Government departments, and the annual report of the Public Service Commissioner.

Since the mid 1980’s all Federal Government departments have been required to develop, implement and report on their equal employment opportunity programs.

In 1992-1993 the Public Service Commissioner reported that there was:

• an increase in the number of women staff
• an increase in the number of Aboriginal staff
• numbers of non English speaking background staff remained the same, and that
• there was a reduction in the number of people with disabilities.

Even more surprising particularly given the significance of employment related complaints being recorded by State equal opportunity agencies, is the extremely low level of complaints recorded by Federal Government Departments. So for example:

• Transport and Communications: No formal complaints
• Industrial Relations: No formal complaints
• Arts and Administrative Services: One formal complaint
• Immigration and Ethnic Affairs: Four formal complaints
• Prime Minister and Cabinet: Two formal complaints
• Finance: No formal complaints

The stark differences between what is happening in the wide community and the Federal Public Service would appear to warrant further investigation.

A further glimpse into management attitudes to discrimination, particularly at the Federal Public Service level, is to be found in the reports available on appointments to advisory bodies and committees.

Again, Federal Government Departments are required to provide regular reports on such appointments. So for example:

• Transport and Commuications:Board and Executive appointments total 186 (1 male Aboriginal, 3 female NESB); of the 72 new appointments made during 1992-93, 9 were female (no Aboriginal, no NESB).

• Industrial Relations:Of the 141 new appointments made, 11 were women, and no Aboriginal or NESB person were appointed. NB. In 1992 of the 172 new appointments, 27 were women,/1 NESB, and no Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander.

• Arts and Administrative Services:Of the 115 new appointments (including re-appointments) 49 were female, 4 were Aboriginal and 6 were from non-English speaking backgrounds. Of the total 268 appointments only 12 were from a NESB.

• Attorney General:Of the 452 appointments, 84 are women. “One appointment identified as the EEO target group ‘Aboriginal’ and one is the EEO target group NESB”. During the year 58 appointments were made, of these 23 were women and one in the EEO target group ‘Aboriginal’. NB. In 1992 of the 96 appointments 15 were women. No appointments were identified as belonging to any other EEO group.

• Foreign Affairs and Trade:Of the total 237 appointments, 39 were female, there were no Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders, and ten NESB. All Chairs and deputy chairs were held by males. Of the 63 new appointments only 15 were female, no Aboriginal or NESB were appointed. NB. In 1992, of the 11 appointments, two were female and 3 from a NESB.

• Prime Minister and Cabinet:Of the total 175 appointments, 17 are Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islanders and 23 from a NESB.

It should be noted, however, that not other section of the public service, possibly with the exception of NSW, would have any idea of the characteristics of the advisory boards/committees it sets up. No state government has in place a system such as that developed by the Commonwealth Government.

And no state government, has in place a strategy such as the expressed in the NSW Government’s “Charter of Principles for a Culturally Diverse Society.”

Information from Federal Government departments is difficult to analyse.

Many departments provide only limited information; eg. while Treasury supplies a gender analysis, there is no other EEO data supplied on graduate applications and acceptances; the Trade Union Training Authority and Worksafe Australia provide almost no data.

No information is supplied on promotion details of staff in terms of EEO criteria and no indication as to whether or not EEO groups are getting access to training. DAS, for example, has details of all of its staff who received Australian honours but provided little details on its overseas born workers.

No annual report provides any evidence that overseas born Australians or Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders are benefiting in terms of training and promotion as a result of the current EEO programs. Hoever, the Public Service Commissioner, in his report on equal employment opportunity in the whole service, nots that there was in fact a decline in the number of overseas born Australian workers (first generation) at the professional level (1988, 7.8%, 1992, 5.9%) while the second generation remained unchanged (1988, 7.0%, 1992, 7.0%)

The Federal Race Discrimination Commissioner reported that “there is considerable anecdotal evidence that people of non English speaking background believe that they either cannot apply for promotion, or are refused promotion because they are ethnically or socially different” (State of the Nation Report. 1993.. p 139)

The Department of Finance reported that “despite an increase in overall staff numbers, the number of staff in other EEO groups in unchanged.”

Its of interest to note that an agency committed to combating discrimination and promoting equal employment opportunity, the Affirmative Action Agency, employs no Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders, no people with a disability and three overseas born Australians employed at the lower end of the salary structure.

A further dilemma is that frequently workplace harassment is defined only in gender terms. So, for example, Workplace Australia in its three year EEO program 1993-96, sets out in detail sexual harassment, but makes almost no reference to racial harassment.

As disturbing, are the conclusions of the 1993 Access and Equity Annual Report (“Access… implies that all who are entitled to a public service should face no barriers…. Equity implies that all who are entitled to government service provision should be equally likely to receive it if eligible”).

Reporting on the Industry Training Advisory Board (ITAB) network, is said,

• “In general, ITAB’s initiatives are handicapped by the lack of data base… that includes detailed, recent and accurate information on workers of non English Speaking and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander background” (p. 11)

• “ITAB Executive Officers… do not always have a clear understanding of equity…. There is a widespread belief that affirmative action strategies are contrary to the merit principle” (p 12).

• The research concluded that the equity enhancing opportunities of the new training reform agenda have largely been interpreted in a monolingual, monocultural framework, and that this approach is a great barrier to equity.” (p13).

Some academics appear to avoid the whole issue of racism and discrimination. In discussing barriers to employment, one researcher concluded that either there were no jobs, or that the fault was with the job seeker; there was no suggestion that recruitment or selection procedures or the perceptions (prejudice, racism etc) of management may also play a role. (M. Wooden, Underemployment. Hidden Unemployment and Immigrants, BIPR 1993).