We stand with Nyadol Nyuon.
Nyadol is an accomplished lawyer, writer, speaker, OAM recipient and human rights advocate who arrived in Australia as a teenage refugee. She has spent years speaking publicly about racism, belonging and the experiences of refugee and migrant communities, often at a real personal cost. In recent days she has been at the centre of an intense and polarised public debate, after speaking openly about culture, assimilation, race, dignity, humanity and belonging on national television.
We have no interest in settling every argument in that debate. We are writing because of the negative commentary and backlash that has been received in response to her comments. The response, on media, both mainstream and on social media raises serious questions about who is allowed to speak about challenging issues in this country, and on what terms.
Australia’s migration debate has been reduced to numbers: a fixation on net overseas migration, and migrants being framed as the cause of long standing issues with housing supply and infrastructure pressures. While these raise legitimate questions, they also warrant serious policy responses, backed by data and evidence. Cost of living pressures, housing supply, and a sense that some systems are not working, deserve measured debates and real data that then inform policy responses. They should not be redirected, as they so often are, towards migrants and refugees themselves, as convenient scapegoats.
On the National Forum aired on the ABC on September 17, the conversation centred on migration numbers before turning to broader conversations about housing and social cohesion. In the context of that conversation Nyadol Nyuon, an Australian of South Sudanese heritage, made comments about belonging and assimilation. In the days since the program was broadcast, Nyadol has been the subject of vicious online threats and racial vilification.
The conversation also included a discussion of Nyadol’s intent to leave Australia and renounce her citizenship based on her experiences of racism. The backlash against her has revealed a profound disconnect: Australian society is comfortable discussing migrants in the abstract – as statistics and data points - but when migrants or refugees speak for themselves about the impact of the process of striving for belonging, the conversations change and the mood of the room shifts.
We have seen time and again when First Nations, refugees and members of communities who have arrived in Australia relatively recently, speak out in ways that expose racism or mount a pushback against existing narratives, the mood change is palpable. It has been unfortunate to witness responses from those in our society who can only tolerate migrants as an economic debate and fail to see them as human beings and members of our community.
Belonging is treated as a loan, repaid through performance and silence. The moment people stop performing in a grateful manner, and start naming what is broken, the door quietly closes.
We believe disagreement is legitimate but abuse is not. People can and will disagree with Nyadol’s views. Debate about migration, identity and national culture is to be expected, and a democracy is better for it. As a society, we must be able to hold these uncomfortable conversations about race and belonging without silencing or undermining those who speak them. Racist abuse, threats, and calls for someone to be expelled from the country are no longer part of a debate, but they incite hatred and harm.
We believe truth must anchor the conversation. Much of the online outrage is built on a misquotation of Nyadol’s views on culture and assimilation. Before amplifying anger, we must insist on the truth of what was said, in the context in which it was said. We must reject narratives that rely on confusion and inaccuracies rather than evidence. In the polarised environment of a rising right-wing, we know that racism is increasingly amplified by distortion - the deliberate twisting of facts and context to uphold a narrative that is unjust and incorrect.
We believe belonging should not be conditional. Too often, refugees and migrants are welcomed while they are grateful, exceptional and quiet, and questioned the moment they name what is broken. Nyadol has never been willing to play the “good refugee” role quietly. She has kept naming racism plainly, even when she is the subject of it. No one should have to perform gratitude to be treated as an equal. Whether or not individuals agree with every detail of her account, the broader truth is undeniable: people who name structural racism rarely find the process easy or safe and are socially silenced.
Structural racism does not only harm people directly. It teaches them that naming the harm will cost them more than absorbing it. Institutions that say they are committed to inclusion should meet those concerns with care, not defensiveness, proving they protect the messenger, not just the message.
We believe a country is strengthened by those who challenge it. You can love Australia and criticise and challenge the parts of it that need to evolve and advance. Freedom of speech is also one of our Australian values. Nyadol has said she loves this country. Holding a country to its own ideals is not disloyalty.
We believe migration is our common thread. Migration is not just a policy debate - it is our shared history. Almost every one of us has a migration story, whether it is our own, our parents’, or our grandparents’. Behind every number in the headlines is a human journey. We are all part of the Australian story, and how we treat people from different backgrounds reflects who we are as a nation.
We believe in shared values. From temporary visa holders to new citizens, every person moving here is required to formally commit to Australian values. Importantly, the government’s own citizenship framework clarifies these values - such as respect for the dignity of the individual, racial equality, mutual respect, tolerance, compassion, and equality of opportunity - and presents these as values that operate within a diverse society. They are not defined by one ethnicity, religion, or ancestry. In this heated debate, we must remember that commitment and honour it with equal respect.
Media and commentators: Verify the record. Report on what she has said, not on rumour or on her family. Be vigilant with sources, and be clear about the difference between reporting and campaigning.
Political and community leaders: Model the debate you want to see. Challenge her arguments if you disagree, and be equally clear in condemning abuse and dehumanising rhetoric.
The public: Before sharing a pile-on, ask whether it adds to the debate or only to the harm. And when the conversation turns from numbers to people, stay in it. Let’s not only celebrate refugees when they are winning.
We see you.
Thank you for your clarity, your courage and the cost they have carried.
You do not stand alone.
#WeStandWithNyadol
Click here to sign the statement