AustLII Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback

Indigenous Law Bulletin

Indigenous Law Bulletin
You are here:  AustLII >> Databases >> Indigenous Law Bulletin >> 2009 >> [2009] IndigLawB 12

Database Search | Name Search | Recent Articles | Noteup | LawCite | Author Info | Download | Help

Hart, Naomi --- "An Interview with Les Malezer" [2009] IndigLawB 12; (2009) 7(11) Indigenous Law Bulletin 9

An Interview with Les Malezer

By Naomi Hart.

On 10 December 2008, the Australian Human Rights Commission awarded Les Malezer the Human Rights Medal, recognising his exceptional commitment to human rights, social justice and equality. The 2008 award had a special significance as it was awarded on the 60th anniversary of the signing of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Mr Malezer, an Indigenous rights advocate both within Australia and internationally, has worked relentlessly for decades to further the rights of Indigenous peoples. Mr Malezer is the chairperson for the Foundation for Aboriginal and Islander Research Action (‘FAIRA’), an organisation concerned with international and domestic human rights issues as they affect indigenous peoples. Mr Malezer was instrumental in lobbying for the UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (‘CERD Committee’) to place Australia on its early warning/urgent action list in respect of the Commonwealth’s suspension of the Racial Discrimination Act1975 (Cth) (‘RDA’) as part of the NT Intervention. Australia became the first Western state to be named on the list.

Mr Malezer has been the Chairperson for the Pacific Region Indigenous Peoples Caucus at the United Nations and, since 2006, the Chairperson of the Global Indigenous Peoples Caucus at the United Nations. As a leading human rights advocate, he shepherded the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (‘the Declaration’) through to the General Assembly. The Federal Government formally endorsed the Declaration on 3 April 2009.

You have described the right to self-determination as ‘a universal right’. In what ways do you think that Indigenous Australians are currently denied self-determination?

All ‘peoples’ have the right to self-determination. This is the foundation upon which the United Nations Charter is established; the authority and mandate of the UN comes from the world’s ‘peoples’, not governments. Governments are the political institutions of the people. So the fundamental point is that Indigenous people have the right to function collectively to maintain our own identity as peoples, and to maintain our distinct institutions and decision-making capacity.

Many Articles in the Declaration describe elements of self-determination. For example, there are rights to autonomous government, the right to control territories and resources, the right to develop cultural identity, and the right to manage community services. In Australia, it has always been assumed that assimilation into western culture is in our best interests and that, in the process, we must divest our separate identity that we have maintained for thousands of years. The right of self-determination also brings into focus the way in which successive governments have interacted with our communities and the nature of political participation that our people exercise.

In what ways are the disadvantages encountered by Indigenous peoples in other parts of the world similar to Australia, and what forms of disadvantage are distinct to the Indigenous peoples of this country?

There are about 370 million indigenous peoples in almost 80 countries around the world. The UN has found that the situation of indigenous peoples is similar in almost all regions.

We know that indigenous peoples had viable cultures and civilisations prior to being colonised by alien governments. Their territories and lands have been taken over for economic gain by the colonisers. Indigenous people themselves are marginalised in the dominant society: they usually have the lowest socio-economic status in the country and are denied effective political participation. Statistics show a very high rate of imprisonment, poor health, low education and poverty. These disadvantages occur similarly in developed countries, like Australia, and in developing countries such as South America. Once colonisation occurs, indigenous peoples are at great risk of losing their property and cultural identity. Their languages and religions are frowned upon and ceremonies and spiritual connections are prohibited or discouraged.

In Australia, the long-term effects of government policies have reduced Indigenous communities to a high degree of dependence upon welfare. Many experience dysfunction due to past policies of regimentation and control. These communities are seen as being prone to alcohol and drug abuse, to violence and low achievements. This belief is inaccurate, but community control and leadership is vulnerable to external pressures from media and government. These institutions lack knowledge and interest in the development of Indigenous communities and often place unfair pressures upon individuals within communities, without any appreciation of the historical failures or long-term needs for development. In short, communities are too easily blamed for their own demise, ignoring the imposition of alien powers and unrestrained economic exploitation of their territories and resources.

The Federal Government has now formally endorsed the Declaration. What impact did Australia’s refusal to endorse the Declaration in 2007 have on Australia's reputation as a human rights leader?

We must remember that it took more than two decades to prepare the Declaration. Initially, Australia supported the need for international standards and even took the lead in advocating for the right to self-determination. Australia ensured that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander delegations were able to actively participate in the work on the Declaration. Canada and New Zealand also shared this view and were amongst the leading voices to advance the Declaration.

However, the Howard Government changed Australia’s position on the Declaration. For the last five years of negotiations, Australia took an increasingly conservative view, often misrepresenting the meaning of specific text and being overly pedantic about minor details. In particular, Australia was opposed to the five articles addressing land and resource rights. This opposition occurred during the same period that Australian native title laws were amended, and when the CERD Committee called upon the Government to revise the laws in Australia in partnership with Indigenous people.

When it came before the General Assembly for consideration, the Australian Government made extraordinary efforts in diplomatic communications to build up international opposition to the Declaration. Mr Howard even made personal contact with the newly-elected Prime Minister of Canada in early 2007 to encourage that Government to vote against it.

Many countries were disappointed by the position adopted by Australia, Canada, New Zealand and USA. Some made clear calls for a consensus on the Declaration, encouraging the four states to accept the majority position. Ironically, as the only ones to vote against the Declaration, these countries have brought much attention to themselves and the situation of their indigenous populations. Australia has improved its credibility with its recent announcement of support for the Declaration. This sends a clear signal to the international community that Australia’s international position has changed. Many governments and civil society organisations continue to encourage Australia to take a leadership role in the human rights agenda at the international level.

What responsibility do non-Indigenous citizens have for protecting the human rights of Indigenous Australians?

Every individual has a responsibility to promote and protect human rights. No person can be blind to injustice and prejudices based upon race, gender, religion and other characteristics. Cultural diversity is part of the richness of human existence. It is through differences in languages, cultural practices, religious beliefs and social values that humanity thrives. No civilisation is superior; each society has something to contribute and something to learn from other societies. Unfortunately, Australians do not have a good understanding of Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander cultures and are not familiar with their languages. With this lack of awareness, many non-Indigenous Australians feel threatened by Indigenous cultures and efforts to promote Indigenous identity. On the other side, many Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, particularly of the older generations, have been made to feel inferior because of their Indigenous identity, including language and cultural practices. Fortunately, this is now changing and younger generations are once again learning their languages, ceremonies and stories from their elders.

Respect for human rights is as much a political and legal issue as it is a cultural issue. The Indigenous peoples of Australia do not feel confident that any prejudice and hostilities directed towards them will receive a fair hearing. This perception is only reinforced when they experience intolerance from police, politicians, media and even the education system.

Importantly, the existence of agreed international standards does not necessarily mean that people can enjoy or exercise their human rights. In Australia we need to build a tolerant, informed society where individuals are prepared to stand up and defend human rights. To do this we need to improve knowledge about the role of universal human rights standards, and greater commitment to these standards at the highest levels of society.

You are an opponent of the NT Intervention. How do you think the Government could have better responded to the Little Children are Sacred Report?

The Little Children Are Sacred Report (‘the Report’) did not contain new information. It simply brought to the Government’s attention the desperate situation in Aboriginal communities in NT. For many, many years there were reports on insufficient services going to Aboriginal communities, particularly in the remote areas, and the problems of alcohol and drug abuse. Family violence was also well known but Government, without pressure to act, was not prepared to address these issues.

The Intervention is a bad example of Government in action. The Commonwealth decided to act without regard to the communities or the NT Government. The legislation was hastily prepared, did not address the recommendations in the Report, and was punitive in its application. The Commonwealth brands criticisms of the Intervention as demonstrating indifference about Aboriginal children in remote Australia. In reality, Aboriginal families and communities, along with local organisations and councils, have been trying for decades to secure assistance for their most basic needs. Despite media coverage and Government hype over the past two years, nobody is sure what services are really being delivered, or how communities are faring under the Intervention. One recent report on child health in NT suggests that the health standards of the Aboriginal children have actually dramatically declined in the past year.

In the rash experimentation, millions of dollars have been wasted and longer-term programs have been interrupted or terminated.

The Intervention has diverted attention from the needs of Indigenous populations around the rest of Australia (more than 80% of the total population). Australia has now been directed by two international human rights treaty bodies to consult with local communities and work in partnership to address the needs in the communities. This is obvious advice but it will not be easy; these communities now lack capacity and infrastructure to negotiate with Government to achieve a good outcome. There is also significant dissent caused by divisive policies and government practices.

What rights do you believe need a place in the Constitution? Do you feel that the proposed National Charter of Rights will have any meaningful impact on Indigenous rights?

I have little confidence in a Bill of Rights or constitutional change that simply recognises Indigenous people in a preamble. History has shown that Australia, given the chance, will avoid the issue of the rights of the First Peoples. The Constitution is an antiquated document that excludes Indigenous peoples from Australian society. The 1967 referendum was an important social change, but discriminatory provisions remain present in the Constitution while Indigenous rights remain absent.

Since the International Decade of the World’s Indigenous Peoples (1995-2004), the UN General Assembly has called upon governments to review their constitutions and legislative arrangements to ensure that Indigenous rights are duly recognised and respected. Of course, we have heard nothing of this in Australia; this call has been made several times by the General Assembly but Australia will not budge.

Over many years, I have become cynical about constitutional change being achieved in Australia. There is so much that Australians have taken from Indigenous peoples and there is a definite hostility towards any act of reparation. This is evident in the native title regime. Nearly 20 years since Mabo, there have been no significant changes in land titles or reparations. Although PM Howard warned that 75% of Australia would be claimed under native title, the amount of land in Aboriginal hands has only increased from 15% before Mabo decision to 16% after it. This land is mostly in central and remote areas. In the eastern states, where 70% of the Indigenous population lives, less than 1% of the land is under Aboriginal title.

Yet while land rights continue to be opposed, our population is up to 20 times over-represented in prisons, 60% of youth in Government care is Indigenous and our workforce is 54% unemployed. These statistics are kept carefully hidden from the public.

We can never realise our right to self-determination when our population is so devastated. We need a major shift in power to allow communities to take control of their futures, to build Indigenous institutions to negotiate with Government, to educate our people, to generate Indigenous economic development and to free our population from servitude and dependence. In 1990, when the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission was formed, Government talked of bipartisan support for Aboriginal self-management. That talk has since dissipated; Parliament cannot be relied upon to uphold justice and equality. We can only turn to the Constitution or a belated treaty with Government.

In any event, the Government must educate the public about human rights and the rights of Indigenous Peoples. This is a major priority in Australia, even more important than the impact of the global economic recession on Australia.

What or who are your inspirations?

My work at the international level has come about at the end of a long career working for Indigenous people. At high school I found myself involved in campaigns and protests against injustice experienced at the local level. At the time I had no idea that I was interested in human rights or aid work.

Because I had good educational qualifications, I soon found myself working for Aboriginal Employment in the Commonwealth Government and thus began a career in the public service in Aboriginal affairs. I worked in the Department of Aboriginal Affairs when it was first formed as a national department and this took me all around Australia. As a community development officer, I was in close contact with many communities including in remote areas.

Even though I was in the public service, more and more I found myself involved in street protests and campaigns. In 1977, I became the founding president of FAIRA, an organisation set up to fight against racism and for land rights. At that time, the Bjelke-Petersen Government ruled in Queensland and there were plenty of challenges. I think any black person who grew up in Queensland at that time had to be tough and determined. My inspiration at that time came from people like Dennis Walker, Mick Miller and Clarrie Grogan. I also followed Charles Perkins. I never forgot those years and I never opted for the comfortable life even though I rose to the top of the public service, both in the Commonwealth and the Queensland Governments.

By the mid 1980s I was working as the Secretary-General of the National Aboriginal Conference; I worked closely with Rob Riley, a good friend and a strong fighter for rights. During the development of the native title regime, I decided to give up on the public service because of the lack of recognition of Aboriginal self-determination. I felt that our communities needed more support, infrastructure and skills to achieve real goals. Other people who had inspired me during these years were Gary Foley, Marcia Langton, Michael Mansell, Bob Weatherall, Pat O’Shane and Pat Dodson. There are so many who truly fought against injustice.

In 1998, I turned to the UN to pursue human rights for our people. I learnt a lot very quickly and soon became tied to the work on the Declaration. Because of my full-time dedication to international agendas, I have become known as an expert within the Indigenous delegations from around the world.

My work continues but I am trying to focus now upon the changes needed in Australia. I do not know what keeps me going in a dogged way with this human rights work. I think is it mostly because the work is needed and I am in the right place to get some important things done. It seems a natural extension of my career path, training and experience. It might take some time yet but I am trying to make Government listen to and respect Indigenous communities.

What is your advice to young Indigenous people who want to be involved in human rights advocacy?

I did not know about human rights when I first started, but I knew what was wrong and unfair. When the RDA came along I spent a number of years telling communities about those anti-discrimination laws and helping them to challenge and remove racism. Much of this time I was also speaking to local authorities to persuade them to take different approaches to Indigenous people. In those early years I read a lot about racism, relying mostly on writings from black America and some works from Africa. Even now I spend a lot of time researching and studying up on human rights issues. I try to know as much as possible about structures, procedures, resources and trends or priorities in human rights. I am not a lawyer but I understand the technical information regarding human rights, and I have access to international human rights lawyers when I have any difficult questions.

I think the most important key to success is to communicate as much as possible. It is important to have a good understanding of the people you represent. I spent many of my younger years working at the community level, listening and learning. I tried to be active in organisations and at community meetings. I also made an effort to talk to leaders in the community. Now I put together information that I glean from my research; I write opinion pieces and commentaries on things that are happening and of relevance. Most of all, I like to spend time with people at the community level, to stay in touch with real issues and to understand their real priorities.

Naomi Hart is in her final year of an Arts/Law degree at the University of Sydney. She has worked for several years as a legal assistant at Redfern Legal Centre, has completed an internship at the Sydney Centre for International Law, was a contributing author to the Australian Yearbook of International Law in 2008, and is currently the Executive Director of The Globalist, an undergraduate international affairs magazine published in ten countries.


AustLII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback
URL: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/IndigLawB/2009/12.html