This article contains offensive language
Sitting across from respected barrister Andrew Kostopoulos, more than 30 years after his admission to the bar, it’s obvious how much his experiences of racism still impact him.
“I’m putting to you shocking points that I’ve experienced personally that I can’t get out of my head,” he says over coffee at a North Sydney cafe.
Over the course of an hour, memories tumble out of him; there’s a visible release of tension, confusion and pain, which has been suppressed over three decades of working life.
In every aspect, Kostopoulos is the picture of a successful barrister: His career includes representing high-profile clients such as the NSW Police, appearances at various royal commissions and the Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC) in NSW.
Andrew Kostopoulos (left) leaves the ICAC hearing into Australian Water Holdings with his client Rod De Aboitiz in 2014. Source: AAP / Dean Lewins
But as he nears retirement, he is ruminating on the advice his father gave him when he was 27 years old, just before he was admitted to the bar in 1989.
“He had tears in his eyes. He said to me: ‘I’m very proud of you but I want you to change your name, and that was quite hurtful [to hear],” Kostopoulos says.
His father suggested he change his surname to Konson, which is the English translation of his Greek name, meaning “son of Kon”.
He was worried his son would suffer from racism, just as he had. But Kostopoulos didn’t take the advice, and he now acknowledges it was a warning of what was to come.
Alcohol fuels offensive jokes
Even though Kostopoulos is a third-generation Australian on his mother’s side, he was quickly lumped together with another young barrister of ethnic background during his “reading year” — a barrister’s first year of practice supervised by a senior barrister.
They were dubbed the “duelling dagoes” — a derogatory racial slur used against Italian or Greek migrants.
Racist comments became commonplace, often jokingly thrown around at Friday night drinks or long boozy lunches, including disparaging references to soccer as “wogball”.
Andrew Kostopoulos with his father. Source: Supplied
They often came from those at the highest levels of the profession.
Kostopoulos recalls that on one occasion, a Queen’s Counsel (QC) made a joke about migrants marrying off their children, saying they deliberately put their fingers in factory machines to get workers’ compensation to pay for the wedding.
He also heard a friend’s Asian wife called “Kosciuszko”, a reference to her being “the meanest slope in Australia”.
“[The barristers would be] drunk, and then they’d start with women [and] First Nations people,” Kostopoulos says.
Even if it’s a joke, it’s contrary to the law and it’s also not creating a collegial environment.
Andrew Kostopoulos
‘If you raise it, it’ll hurt your career’
Kostopoulos points out that Australia’s Racial Discrimination Act has been in place since 1975, and NSW’s Anti-Discrimination Act since 1977.
As a working-class boy from Petersham, he expected the bar to be a place that upheld the laws and the anti-racist values underpinning them.
“My expectation was not met,” he says.
Instead, he found that legal professionals either ignored or tolerated racism and accepted it when it was expressed as a joke.
Alcohol-fuelled events would exacerbate the problem, and Kostopoulos believes it was after one such lunch that a former QC — senior barristers now known as senior counsel — stopped him in the street and demanded: “I want to know why ‘you people’ wear hair on your face.”
When Kostopoulos tried to raise such remarks with his superiors, they would often brush them off as jokes and warn him: “If you raise anything like that, it’ll hurt your career.”
After the incident with the QC, Kostopoulos was advised by a friend not to make a “song and dance” of it as the perpetrator had friends in large firms who might stop briefing him.
“These people ultimately will judge you, either on the bench … or when you’re seeking recognition or elevation to [another] position — senior counsel [for example].”
Over time, the comments led Kostopoulos to focus on his work more and withdraw from socialising at work events.
“You go into your shell and you become very quiet.”
Andrew Kostopoulos has been grateful to have the support of his wife and daughter throughout his long career. Source: Supplied
He acknowledges there were moments of “self-racism” when he joined in on the banter and laughed at jokes that were made.
But as he became more senior, he started taking a stand against inappropriate comments, including moving offices after a QC on the same floor referred to the Australian Lawyers Phil-Hellenic Association, which Kostopoulos founded, as “that wog association”.
He believes attitudes have changed in recent years, but there has never been a reckoning of the past.
Part of that is down to a reluctance to call racism out — and the potential repercussions for doing so.
Kostopoulos wants to see the Australian Bar Association follow the example of those in countries such as South Africa and Papua New Guinea, which have made it an offence not to report barristers for unethical or immoral conduct.
“That’s the way to fix it, [then] there won’t even be chatter about these things behind closed doors.”
SBS News asked the NSW Bar Association if it could consider introducing mandatory reporting of barristers for unethical conduct.
President Dr Ruth Higgins said the association had developed guidelines to assist individual chambers and floors to address racial and other forms of discrimination. A complaint can also be made to the Legal Services Commissioner.
“Without commenting on individual cases, racism amounting to discrimination, harassment, or bullying may be a breach of the Barristers Rules,” she said.
“If a breach of the Barristers Rules occurs, this may result in a finding of either unsatisfactory professional conduct or professional misconduct.”
Reluctance to use the word ‘racism’
In a report released last month, the Australian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) acknowledged the importance of being able to call out racism.
It found the reluctance of governments to use the term “racism”— instead preferring to promote “social cohesion” — had weakened anti-racism efforts over the past decade.
This month, Independent MP and Greens senator were both asked to withdraw comments in parliament after describing a policy proposed by Opposition Leader Peter Dutton as racist.
earlier that he didn’t think people coming from Gaza should be entering Australia at all, citing national security concerns, and called for a temporary ban on visas for Palestinians.
Steggall addressed Dutton’s remarks in parliament last Thursday, 15 August, saying he was trying to paint normal families as terrorists.
Zali Steggall is standing by her comment that Peter Dutton’s Gaza visa ban is racist. Source: AAP / Lukas Coch
Dutton interjected, calling her comments “complete rubbish”, to which Steggall responded: “We heard you in silence; you can hear me in silence. Stop being racist.”
The Independent for Warringah was asked to withdraw the comment after Dutton complained it was “offensive and unparliamentary”.
When Steggall sought clarification about why describing his comments as racist was “unparliamentary”, she was asked to “assist the House” by withdrawing the remark so debate could continue.
When asked whether she had received any further clarification, Steggall told SBS News: “My conversations are ongoing with the Speaker.”
‘Why won’t you use the ‘R’ word?’
On Monday, the pattern was repeated in the Senate.
Senator Mehreen Faruqi was asked to withdraw two comments: that Dutton’s proposed entry ban had set a “new low in racism”; and that Dutton and One Nation senator Pauline Hanson had been “spewing racism”.
Faruqi criticised the government for not showing leadership and calling out Dutton’s behaviour, describing it as “vile, dangerous racism”.
“Why won’t you use the ‘R’ word?” she asked in parliament.
It is a shame that in this chamber racism is not called out, but a crackdown on those who call it out is the go.
Greens senator Mehreen Faruqi
Mehreen Faruqi has questioned why people won’t use the “R” word. Source: AAP / Lukas Coch
Faruqi was told by the leader of the Senate that her comments breached the standing orders, which are rules that govern Senate proceedings.
These rules include that senators should not use “offensive words” against other members and that “imputations of improper motives and all personal reflections” are considered “highly disorderly”.
When asked why politicians couldn’t call out a policy as racist, a spokeswoman for the President of the Senate, Sue Lines, said she would not be providing further comment.
The AHRC’s Race and Discrimination Commissioner Giridharan Sivaraman told SBS News that MPs should be able to talk frankly about racism, particularly if a policy is operating in a racist way.
“We need to have a discussion about that because nobody, I would assume, wants racist policies,” he says.
“If you have a policy that says people cannot come from one country — irrespective of the reasons — that arguably is in contravention of the [Race Discrimination Act].
“But if you’re not even allowed to use the word racism, then how are you going to call it out?”
Australian Race Discrimination Commissioner Giridharan Sivaraman says people should be able to talk frankly about racism. Source: AAP / LUKAS COCH
Sivaraman says backlash for calling out racism is a persistent problem in Australia.
Racism is about power: When you call out racism, you’re challenging the power that is behind it, and powerful forces will often suppress those who try and challenge their power.
Giridharan Sivaraman, Australian Human Rights Commission
“It makes it really difficult to talk about racism because you get attacked, you get shut down.”
Need for racial literacy
The censuring of Steggall and Faruqi has raised questions about how to bring up racism in the workplace.
During her parliamentary address, Faruqi asked Labor senator Penny Wong if the government would mandate anti-racism training, but Wong defended the government’s focus on social cohesion.
“I believe in an Australia where people should be brought together; that is what we will always work towards,” Wong told the Senate.
The government this week introduced . Recommendations from a 2022 joint select committee also backed anti-racism training for MPs.
When asked if this would be introduced, a spokeswoman for Special Minister of State Don Farrell told SBS News the government is seeking to improve the culture of parliament.
“This has included strengthening the parliamentary workplace support service – to deliver both HR support and training – as well as introducing legislation for a new independent parliamentary standards commission,” she said.
“The onus is on every parliamentarian to maintain the highest standards, as is expected by the Australian people.”
Government spokesperson
SBS News also asked the Opposition Leader whether he would support the introduction of anti-racism training but did not hear back before deadline.
The AHRC says improved racial literacy is needed so people understand how race operates.
“People automatically have a set of assumptions, or beliefs or even prejudices,” says Sivaraman.
The commission has recommended anti-racism education in schools to stamp out racist attitudes early, ensuring perpetrators understand the behaviour is unacceptable and mitigating lifelong disadvantages for victims.
It has also called for a national anti-racism council to be established to work directly with government, business and other stakeholders to integrate anti-racism initiatives in federal policies and nationwide programs.
It represents the kind of accountability that Kostopoulos, and other Australians of diverse backgrounds, want to see more of.
He says the impacts of racism are lifelong.
“At the time, it was terrible and hurtful for a night or a week … and then you become accustomed to it, accustomed to the pain,” he says.
“Even today, it causes me problems that [my dad wanted me to change my name] because he was right … I would have been left alone.
“I don’t want this to happen again to hurt other people.”
