PM's Wedge Is No Gift To Aborigines

by Michael Costello - The Australian

John Howard has tried his hardest to wedge Labor over the issue of his dramatic intervention in indigenous issues in the Northern Territory. He has failed. Despite much doubt and trepidation inside the Labor Party, Kevin Rudd's decision to support Howard's action in principle has stuck, despite the provocative elements in the new legislation.

Howard has, however, succeeded in something else. He has succeeded in driving a wedge deep into the leadership of Aboriginal Australia. On the one side you have people such as Noel Pearson, Sue Gordon and Peter Yu supporting the intervention. On the other, people such as Pat Turner, Olga Havnen, Pat Dodson and John Ah Kit are bitterly opposed to it, especially to what they see as a land grab and the abolition of the permit system.

This deep division is a tragedy because Gordon, Pearson, Dodson, Turner and many others are people of the highest quality, whose unity of purpose and commitment is vital to the cause they have pursued all their lives.

I support the intervention. But although I'm appalled at the brutal language used by some of those who oppose it, I can understand the deep distrust and suspicions that drive them. They are being asked to trust Howard's good intentions. Yet look at Howard's record. He set out to virtually destroy native title, with success. He denies the existence of the stolen generations. He sneeringly derides what he describes as a "black armband" view of our history. The attacks on the personalities and institutions of indigenous people have been remorseless. He has succeeded in neutering the whole reconciliation agenda. So it's reasonable to ask why you would trust the good intentions of someone with a record such as that.

And just in case you think Howard has shifted on these issues, there comes confirmation this week that he has not.

This concerns a matter that was a mere zephyr in the hurricane of political news this week. It concerns a video of an Australian soldier in Darwin at what was apparently a drunken bucks party. It wasn't particularly appealing, as you would expect. But what was startling was the footage of an Australian soldier dressed up in Ku Klux Klan regalia. Australia's military leadership was appalled. They described it as abhorrent and made clear that they thought the KKK costume was racist (a word that I acknowledge is too freely and lazily thrown around, but which is accurate in this case).

So what did the Prime Minister do? Did he support the military leadership in these condemnations? He did not. He said that it was just a soldier "letting off steam". He urged us not to get into a "lather or sweat and so on". He expressed understanding.

I desperately want to believe that our Prime Minister simply doesn't understand the implications of his comments.

So just in case he didn't understand, let me explain.

The Ku Klux Klan was formed in 1866 after the American Civil War. It is racist, white supremacist, anti-Semitic and homophobic. It was part of the culture that beat, crucified, burned, hanged, bombed and shot blacks and others, and which organised lynchings of blacks as family picnics to which all the kids were invited.

It emphatically supported Hitler and Nazism. It was a bitter, violent enemy of the civil rights movement in the 1950s and '60s. It has not disappeared. Depressingly, it has undergone a resurgence in the past few years.

For an Australian soldier to dress in the outfit of the Ku Klux Klan is not just a bit of fun; it's not just boys being boys. For Howard to dismiss this matter in the contemptuous and patronising way he has can only reinforce the views of Aboriginal leaders that in his heart, Howard either can't understand or can't be trusted on these issues.

I repeat: I hope it's the former.

What a striking contrast there is between Howard's insouciance and the military leadership's response. The Australian Defence Force added further lustre to its reputation by the manner in which, at the same time Howard was giving such offence, the navy showed compassion and sensitivity to its former enemy from World War II, the Japanese.

Once again, it got little coverage in a week crowded with other news, but you could only be proud of the way this country honoured the bravery of the two-man Japanese crew of the mini-submarine M24, which carried out an attack in Sydney Harbour in June 1942, sinking the HMAS Kuttabul. The families of the crew were able to pay their last respects in a moving ceremony at sea, and they were joined by a survivor of the Kuttabul and by senior members of the Australian navy. Clearly, the Japanese deeply appreciated the honour shown, just as Australian families deeply appreciate the honour shown by Turkey to Australians who fell at Gallipoli. It was a symbolic occasion of genuine importance to the individuals and to the two countries concerned.

Perhaps Howard can learn something from this memorial service. Perhaps he could learn that symbols are not always empty gestures, but can be a vital element in achieving the trust and respect necessary if concrete practical progress is to follow.

Perhaps he could just say that while we are rightly proud of the many great achievements of our forebears, we are honest enough to acknowledge and say sorry for the hurt they caused. To borrow from Shakespeare, perhaps both the good and the evil of those who came before should live after them, and neither should be interred with their bones.

I would not suggest Aboriginal leaders hold their breath waiting for a Howard change of heart. But I hope they do not let Howard succeed in driving them apart: their cause is too great for that.