(John Williams-Mozley, Lecturer in the Faculty of Arts, School of Human Services at QUT)
(Oodgeroo Unit Indigenous Guest Speaker & Research Forum, Friday 30 October, 1998 )
Introduction
I have been invited to this Forum today as a PhD student to discuss my research in progress. Broadly speaking, my research concerns Australian criminology’s explanations about the circumstance of Aboriginal over-representation in the Australian criminal justice system.
More specifically, I am concerned with developing a substantive theory about police racism as the most significant factor, from among a number of competing societal based explanations, in accounting for Aboriginal over-representation in police arrest rates.
My interest in pursuing this particular topic arises from my own experience as a police officer in the New South Wales Police Service and as a criminal investigator in a number of State and Federal law enforcement agencies where I had the opportunity to observe first hand, the behaviours and attitudes of sworn police in their dealings with Aboriginal people across a variety of geographic, lifestyle and cultural environments.
Although the desire to pursue a PhD program is relatively recent, my deliberations on the issue of police racism, both at an individual police officer level and within policings’ institutions, has long been held.
In this regard, I wished to conduct an examination of the recruitment, training and employment policies and practices of the NSW Police while a serving police officer in the early 1980’s.
It was my naive assessment at that time that police recruitment and selection processes were discriminatory towards anyone who wasn’t a 5 foot eight and a half inch, white Anglo Saxon male.
At that time, I was the only sworn Aboriginal police officer out of 10,000 serving police in that state. From memory, there were about 24 police who identified themselves as being from a non-English speaking background.
* I got into policing as a Cadet at the age of 16. I was one of two Aboriginal police cadets in the 40 year history of the New South Wales Police Cadet Corps. I gained entry in 1967, the same year as the federal constitutional referendum which provided that Aboriginal people be included in the census. Coincidental?
So, in order to find out whether or not policing in New South Wales discriminated against indigenous people in the selection and recruitment process, I applied for an Australian Aboriginal Overseas Study Award in 1984.
I was successful in obtaining the award and set out to examine how Australian policing’s recruitment policies and practices shaped up to those of the USA, Canada and New Zealand in terms of access to careers in law enforcement for the indigenous populations of those countries.
Consequently, I found that compared to the other countries examined, the NSW police – and all other Australian police agencies – had a number of physical, educational and character assessment entry criteria that were arbitrary or not substantiated in terms of being a bona fide occupational requirement.
In other words, many aspects of the entry process were in fact designed to generally preclude people from minority groups, including indigenous people.
I also found that most other police agencies in the USA, Canada and New Zealand, had developed positive programs for entry and retention of indigenous police. In Australia, the exact opposite was the case.
I reported my findings of the study tour in a 60 page document which recommended the removal of a number of the discriminatory practices or procedures, and the development of appropriate measures to discriminate positively in recruiting Aboriginal people to policing.
The report was handed to the head of the Equal Employment Opportunity Branch who advised that it wasn’t a good time politically, to send up such a report to the Commissioner.
Its amusing now to think about what happened then, but I still get a little pissed off when I recall that about a year after I submitted my report, I discovered that the majority of the recommendations I had made were introduced by the police service following a proposal – in the language of my report - from the head of the Equal Employment Opportunity Branch: the same person I provided a copy of my overseas study report to.
He was subsequently promoted to Commissioned Officer level for the work he had done in suggesting the removal of practice and policy aspects that could be shown to be inequitable or discriminatory.
Amusing perhaps, but a little story that introduces a perennial problem concerning the acceptance of indigenous knowledges.
From my observations, it is apparent that many non-indigenous academics have used the knowledge elicited from indigenous people, or communities, to further their own self-interest, whether its obtaining higher research degrees or employment.
For instance, in respect of academic pursuits, the Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander studies alone has a collection of over 8,000 field work research manuscripts, academic thesis and dissertations on Aboriginal history, ethnology, language and custom. Less than a handful of authors in this collection are indigenous.
While such people presume, in the first instance, to write knowledgably about indigenous issues and then subsequently, are given the imprimatur to do so by reason of obtaining a PhD, Master’s Degree, or a position where they are making decisions about indigenous cultural or lifestyle issues, indigenous people entering academia and ostensibly pursuing the same ends, are constantly required to justify either their identity, their knowledge as an indigenous person or their perspective as an indigenous person within their particular field of study.
This issue has caused me considerable distress over of late and I find myself questioning the reasons why it is I think I need to pursue a PhD to validate my knowledge, my experiences or my world view as an indigenous person.
For example, on the one hand, I can be considered to be the most experienced and perhaps the most accomplished Aboriginal criminal investigator in this country. In this regard, I have experienced first hand, police and judicial officer’s attitudes, behaviours and decision making in respect of indigenous people and communities.
I have also held responsible policy positions at the federal level dealing with a vast range of indigenous issues and examined the vagaries of politics and politicians in determinations about indigenous issues
On the other hand, I am told these experiences and the knowledge acquired over thirty years of direct practical application towards the investigative, policy and program delivery processes account for little in terms of the higher degree research process.
The contradiction is, at least for many indigenous people, a philosophical conundrum with no immediate resolution because the gatekeepers of the academy, its knowledge and its criteria for determining ‘approval’, ‘acceptance’ or ‘success’, continue to believe that their way of seeing and understanding "knowledge’, is the only way.
In many respects, this issue is fundamental to my proposed research. What I want to say, essentially, is that criminology’s explanations about Aboriginal crime and criminality, and thereafter, its conclusions about the substance or extent of police racism, are all derived from a non-indigenous perspective.
It remains a fact that there is no Aboriginal voice to Aboriginal experiences of police racism; other than in a cursory manner as informants, respondents or interviewees on behalf of white researchers. And, given the lengthy history of Aboriginal people as both offenders and victims in the criminal justice system, the lack of a specific Aboriginal voice or perspective in criminology is iniquitous.
If criminological accounts and explanations about Aboriginal people have misinterpreted certain phenomena, asked the wrong questions, or been prevented by its own constructs from scrutinising all relevant contributory factors, their usefulness in providing fair and proper counsel on Aboriginal specific issues is dubious at the least, offensive at best.
One of the reasons why this circumstance prevails is that, perhaps, non-indigenous people continue to presume to know what is best for Aboriginal people. This particular predilection was acknowledged by Hal Wootten, former Commissioner to the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody who stated that:
"one of the most important and all-pervading issues of which I have become aware in the almost invariable failure of non-Aboriginal people to listen seriously to Aboriginal people who are trying to explain issues from their own direct and personal experience. Unconsciously or consciously, the assumption is that white experts know best, and certainly better than Aboriginal people, not only what the problems are, but what should be done about them".
Have these white experts been correct when it comes to explanations about the cause or causes of Aboriginal crime and why Aboriginal people are disproportionately over-represented in arrest rates?
Earlier I alluded to the extent of research into Indigenous issues generally. Specifically, the Australian Institute of Criminology has over 700 titles dealing with research into Aboriginal people and criminal justice issues.
And while Australian criminology research deals with an expansive range of issues, there is one fact that is remarkably consistent throughout: Aboriginal people, for a variety of societal and cultural reasons, are significantly over-represented in arrest and imprisonment rates compared to the broader Australian population.
As an Aboriginal criminologist I am continually confronted with the fact that, despite the extent of such research, the attention it often receives in the media, and the alleged commitment of governments following the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody, criminology has not had any significant impact on reducing the over-representation of Aboriginal people in arrest or imprisonment rates.
In fact, arrest and imprisonment in some states and territories have increased over and above what is already described as the highest incarceration rate of any people in the world (Walker & McLean, 1995).
This point in raising this issue is that, essentially, the same things have been restated, reiterated, recapitulated to the point where they could now be considered redundant. Nevertheless, for all the research that shows this country’s criminal justice system continues to disadvantage the most disadvantaged group in Australian society, nothing has really changed.
For example, Australian criminology research has provided sufficient evidence to prove that the policing of Aboriginal people was racist (Cunneen, 1992). This research has been most critical of policings’ preoccupation with containing and controlling Aboriginal people’s behaviours, languages and interactions in public space.
Although evidence of discriminatory policing practices has been recognised for many years, such practices remain unchallenged.
Similarly, explanations concerning the extent and nature of Aboriginal over-representation in arrest and imprisonment rates have featured in the discourse of Australian criminology research for over twenty years. Despite this, it is apparent such explanations have failed to convince the broader community that a significant socio-political problem exists.
One of the major reasons why this remains so is that, essentially, the only group in Australian society for which the issue has specific meaning or implications is the Aboriginal population.
Given Aboriginal peoples’ marginalisation from mainstream Australian society, together with this country’s history of indifference, apathy and neglect towards them, it is not difficult to envisage why articulation on the subject remains muted or ignored.
To illustrate my point, I would like to briefly mention a few of the studies that have been carried out which support the contention that Aboriginal people are indeed over-represented in arrest and imprisonment rates and what researchers say are the reasons for this happening.
The first significant research to examine the extent and nature of Aboriginal over-representation was conducted by Elizabeth Eggleston over twenty years ago (Eggleston, 1976). Her research is considered significant because it provided a consolidated picture of Aboriginal over-representation in arrest and imprisonment rates across three states with distinctive urban, rural and tradition oriented Aboriginal populations.
The research showed that, overwhelmingly, police arrested Aboriginal people for minor street offences such as ‘offensive language’ or ‘being found drunk in a public place’.
In the same year, the Australian Institute of Criminology initiated collection of its ‘Australian Prisoner’ index which focused attention on the disproportionate imprisonment rate of Aboriginal people compared to non-Aboriginal people. Since that time it has provided continuous evidence of Aboriginal over-representation in prison populations throughout the country(Walker, 1994).
The issues highlighted in Eggleston’s research, and data on prison populations collected by the AIC, have since become the cornerstone of most criminological research on Aboriginal crime and criminality.
Parallel with these two factual events, it is particularly important to mention that criminological research also concludes that Aboriginal people are no more inclined towards criminal behaviours than any other group.
Since 1976, there have been numerous studies undertaken which attempt to explain or rationalise the continuing over-representation and disadvantaged position of Aboriginal people in the country’s criminal justice system.
In this regard, William Clifford (1982) has argued the need for a specific Aboriginal criminology where Aboriginal criminologists would develop theories and explanations for Aboriginal crime and criminality;
Sturma (1987) has provided a cogent historical evaluation of the hostility and violence in Aboriginal police relations in colonial Australia;
Greta Bird (1987) has developed a meaningful proposition of the effects of the civilising mission on Aboriginal crime and criminality. In her study of seven towns in South Australia and Western Australia, she sought to discover whether Aboriginal people were being arrested, convicted and imprisoned at a rate different to non-Aboriginal people, and if so, what causes which might account for this involvement in the criminal justice system.
In gathering her data, Bird found that Aboriginal crime consisted largely of ‘public order’ offences with adults involved in drunkenness, offensive language and behaviour, and juveniles involved in vandalism and petty thefts, generally directed against government buildings.
In this regard, her findings echo Eggleston, Dorothy Parker (1970) and the 1982 NSW Anti-Discrimination Board’s research which showed that most Aboriginal offending consisted of offences against good order - many of them prompted by drunkenness. In contrast, the majority of non-Aboriginal offenders were charged with traffic offences. Specifically, Bird’s study showed that those towns with visible Aboriginal populations were highly policed and the objects of policing were the Aboriginal people.
John Braithwaite (1989) has developed a theoretical proposition about shaming and reintegration in line with Indigenous cultural mores and values;
Chris Cunneen (1995, 1994, 1992, 1991, 1990) has conducted specific research into police practice and procedure and, more importantly my purposes, the notion of overpolicing as an explanatory device to understand police racism.
Julie Marcus (1991) has examined the circumstance of Australia’s racism with respect to the treatment of indigenous people.
Michael Wearing (1991) has analysed the reports of the Royal Commission in terms of the way in which the legal repertoires of the Commission disassociated Aboriginal people from proceedings;
Kayleen Hazlehurst (1992) has examined the contemporary circumstance of Aboriginal police relations;
Richard Broadhurst (1994) provides a cogent discussion on the incidence of alcohol use as a determining factor in Aboriginal arrest rates;
John Walker (1994) argues that better education and employment outcomes are the key to reducing Aboriginal over-representation;
And John McDonald (1994) has argued that, essentially, the Royal Commission was a huge waste of time and money.
Overall, these studies have provided explanations predicated on discrimination by police, the criminal law and the criminal justice system, racism and exclusionary practices within Australian society generally, original dispossession and colonisation, alcohol, and poverty.
Similar to the focus of these societal-based explanations, the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody concluded that the fundamental cause of Aboriginal over-representation is the continuing unequal and disadvantaged position of Aboriginal people in Australian society; socially, culturally and economically (RCIADIC, 1991).
From a review of the literature, it is evident that the nature of Aboriginal crime has changed little since Eggleston’s monumental research published in 1976. And while later research notes an increase in the level and use of inter and intra-personal violence, Aboriginal crime is still generally described in terms of offences against ‘good order’.
What is particularly disturbing, however, is that there has been no change to the over-representation of Aboriginal people in arrest and imprisonment rates since the early 1970’s.
Overpolicing Defined
An analytical tool that has emerged from Chris Cuneen’s work - and one that I wish to further explore - is the concept of over-policing.
At its most basic level, the concept is taken to mean both the extent of police intervention and the nature of that intervention. It is used here to describe the incessant surveillance and intervention by police with respect to Aboriginal peoples’ use and occupancy of public space.
Despite police protestations over time which claim that the law is applied equally and impartially to all, research clearly shows that no other group or class of people within Australian society is subject to the same inordinate degree of scrutiny and supervision.
The fact that Aboriginal people’s use and occupancy of public space is the object of over-policing can be determined from their continuous history of over-representation in arrest rates for trivial or minor offences against ‘good order’.
In essence, over-policing is a term that both clarifies and exposes the policing of Aboriginal people as ‘racist’. On this point Marcus (1991) argues that within Australian society, racism is a crucial element of daily life for Aboriginal people, one which is deployed constantly through the media, the arms of the state administration, the practices of individuals and within the knowledge-producing institutions.
At the same time, Australia remains reluctant to acknowledge the existence or effects of such racism, instead, preferring to locate it as a problem pertaining to others, beyond the structure and nature of Australian culture and society.
That racism has led to crime and violence against Aboriginal people; it can also be said that it has been instrumental in the criminality and criminalising of Aboriginal people. The reality of the dual nature of racism in the policing of Aboriginal people is well illustrated by Marcus (1991) who argues it becomes obvious through:
In this regard they informed the conference of a range of Aboriginal experiences which showed that policing in New South Wales was designed to force Aboriginal people to accept the standards of white society, that Aboriginal towns appeared to have more police than non-Aboriginal towns, and that Aboriginal people were subjected to significantly greater levels of policing than non-Aboriginal people.
Although rudimentary, the issues raised by Coe and O’Shane (cited in Cunneen, 1992) led a number of criminologists to investigate the term and explore its usefulness or otherwise as a means of explaining Aboriginal over-representation in the criminal justice system.
In an Aboriginal community context, such studies showed that the degree of intervention can be demonstrated through the number of police deployed in areas with large Aboriginal populations and through the type of specialist police used to control Aboriginal communities. The nature of the intervention occurs through particular policing practices, and may refer to retrospective charging, the use of particular legislation, spotlighting, stop and search procedures, or close surveillance (Cunneen, 1992).
Nevertheless, and despite its illustrative quality, a number of problems are evident in any attempt to validate it as a significant cause of Aboriginal over-representation in arrest for offences against ‘good order’.
In many instances, the suggestion of over-policing is viewed as either an isolated incident, an aberration of normal policing or excusable. However, when viewed from an Aboriginal perspective, the application and intent of over-policing takes on distinctly different meanings. It is this perspective of the concept - a concept grounded in the lived experiences of Aboriginal people - which I wish to pursue.
As stated, over-policing is at once both efficient and problematic as a conceptual device for explaining police practice and procedure. On one hand, it can be viewed as a convenient shorthand term to encapsulate the range of policing activities which are said to contribute to the over-representation of Aboriginal people in arrest rates.
On the other hand, because many operational and administrative aspects of policing remain hidden from view, the general usefulness and applicability of the concept will often appear delimited.
In addition, empirical research on the issue of over-policing in this particular context is minimal.
Currently, Aboriginal over-representation in imprisonment is 14.1 times greater than for the wider population. Equally important is the fact that almost 30 per cent of all arrests continue to relate to offences against good order (ABS, 1997).
My research highlights some of the more significant studies which argue that over-policing is, at the very least, a term which broadly signifies the manner in which Aboriginal people are policed. Conversely, it is also a term with which Aboriginal people readily identify as a result of their lived experiences of policing.
While I have the greatest respect for the work undertaken by the researchers mentioned in bringing to light an array of credible reasons for Aboriginal over-representation in the criminal justice system, it seems to me there is one important perspective missing: An Aboriginal perspective.
To date, all criminological explanations about Aboriginal crime and criminality, the administration of criminal justice and its effects on Aboriginal people are almost exclusively derived from non-Aboriginal perceptions and understanding of Aboriginal cultures and societies.
The unintended consequence is that such writers can only presume to know what is in the hearts and minds of Aboriginal people because they are working from the perspective of someone whose values, mores, attitudes knowledge, beliefs, and opportunities derive from those of the dominant society.
As an indigenous researcher, my explanation for Aboriginal peoples’ lengthy history of over-representation in this country’s criminal justice statistics would starts from an entirely different proposition than those I have discussed.
In this regard, I would argue that whereas governments once supported policies intended to dispossess, eradicate, dislocate, segregate and remove Aboriginal people from their traditional lands and families, and equally importantly, out of sight of ordinary Australians, these repugnant policies have now been replaced with a law and order rhetoric which emphasises draconian legislation and policing strategies which criminalise and remove Aboriginal people from view; with sentencing practices which see Aboriginal people disproportionately imprisoned compared to non-Aboriginal offenders; and with custodial environments which presuppose a high incidence of self harmful behaviour, sudden or violent death, and a revolving door to recidivism.
The question for me is, "Why have governments done nothing over the last thirty years to reduce the abysmal incarceration rates of Aboriginal men and women, or lately, the criminalisation of a new generation of Aboriginal youth"?
I would argue that the answer lies in the predilection of governments, past and present, and by extension, many within the broader Australian community, for Aboriginal people to simply disappear, as predicted at the time of federation and the drafting of the Australian Constitution.
If Aboriginal people disappeared, governments would not have to contend with such issues as Native Title, land rights, implementation of the 1986 Australian Law Reform Commission Report into Aboriginal customary law, the compensation issue for the stolen generations, the continuing battle to force local and state governments to provide basic essential services to Aboriginal communities, or development of special medical and health interventions to remedy the deplorable state of Aboriginal ill-health, Reconciliation.
The governments of this country may still be able to sit on their hands and do nothing because the combination of increased rates of arrest and imprisonment, death in custody and self harmful behaviours; a downward spiral in average life expectancies; an increase in mortality and morbidity rates related to respiratory and circulatory and a new regime of ‘assimilation’ may yet remove us from society, altogether.
Ultimately, my decision to continue to research these issues in connection with a PhD program rests on whether or not I believe its completion will actually make a difference, or simply be destined to gather dust like most reports on indigenous criminal justice issues that have been conducted over the last thirty odd years.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Australian Bureau of Statistics. (1997). Prisoners in Australia – 1995.
Bird, G. (1987). The civilising mission: race and the construction of crime. Journal of Contemporary Legal Issues. ( 4), Faculty of Law: Monash University.
Brown, D., Neal, D., Farrier, D., Weisbrot, D. (1990). Criminal laws. Federation Press: Sydney.
Clifford, W. (1981). An approach to Aboriginal criminology. AIC: Canberra.
Cowlishaw, G. (1991). Inquiry into Aboriginal deaths in custody: The limits of a royal commission. Journal for Social Justice Studies. ( 4), 101-116.
Cunneen, C. (1992). Policing in Aboriginal communities. C. Cuneen (ed). Aboriginal Perspectives on Criminal Justice. Institute of Criminology: Sydney.
Cunneen, C. (1991). Racist Violence. Polemic. ( 2), 148-151.
Cunneen, C. & Robb, T. (1987). Criminal justice in north west NSW. Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research.
Eades, D. (1994). Aboriginal english in court. Judicial Review. (14), 368-378.
Egger, S. & Findlay, M. (1988). The politics of police discretion. Findlay and Hogg (eds) Understanding Crime and Justice. Sydney: Law Book Company
Eggleston. E. (1976). Fear, favour or affection: Aborigines and the criminal law in
Victoria, South Australia and Western Australia. Canberra: ANU Press.
Gardiner, G. & Mackay, M. (1997). Arresting koories: A review of Victoria police statistics 1995/96. Victoria: Monash University Press.
Langton. M. (1983). Medicine Square: For the recognition of Aboriginal swearing and fighting as customary law. Canberra: ANU
Marcus, J.(1991). Under the eye of the law. Journal for Social Justice Studies. (4), 117-132.
Morris, B. (1995). States of Seige in the Far West. Cultures and Crime and Violence: The Australian Experience. La Trobe University Press.
New South Wales Anti-Discrimination Board (1982). Study of Street Offences by Aborigines.
Walker, J. (1994). The over-representation of Aboriginal & Torres Strait Islander people in prison. Criminology Australia. (6), 13-15.
Wilson, P. (1987). Black Deaths White Hands. Sydney: Allen & Unwin.