Left v. Right

 Left / Right Politics in discussions about Indigenous Australia

Pick up any book about Indigenous Australia, or read any news article and you may or may not identify the author’s political bias. But to me that’s the first task when verifying if a report can be relied on or not. For too long indigenous issues have simply been an extension of the typical ‘Left v. Right’ political debate. Reporters adhering to their ideological position rather than reporting the facts.

This attitude is particularly destructive as it never learns from past mistakes. It never looks at the evidence.

Knowing the author’s position is critical when it comes to indigenous affairs. Usually you can establish whether an author or journalist is left, right, pro-indigenous or anti-indigenous after reading two or three of their writings. By ‘Left’ or ‘Right’ I mean they are more concerned with adhering and proving their political philosophy than achieving positive outcomes for indigenous people. They will always espouse that adhering to their worldview achieves better outcomes. The give away clue is that on every indigenous issue they take the typical left/right viewpoint.

Then there’s the ‘pro’ and ‘anti’ authors. A pro-indigenous author can usually be identified by the way they write. Do they have a genuine affection, admiration or empathy for indigenous people? How often do they write about indigenous issues? Do they write with a desire to improve outcomes?

Martin Flanagan is a good example. Try http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/not-all-black-and-white-as-the-goalposts-keep-moving-20120413-1wz1n.html as an example of how Flanagan recognised that while the football world and media screamed ’racism’ there was probably no racism involved. His interest is to resolve issues and improve indigenous outcomes. He has no interest in securing a headline.

A recent book I read is called ‘Aboriginal Self-Determination: The Whiteman’s Dream’ by Gary Johns. It is highly critical of Australia’s self-determination policies that have been in place since the mid 70s. Clearly there has been a decline if you compare health, drug-use, employment and alcoholism in many remote communities over that period. Anecdotal reports confirm this.

But reading between the lines and Johns can’t seem to find one positive feature of indigenous society or culture. Alarm bells ring. Is Johns' main concern reigning in expenditure by facilitating assimilation? Life could be so simple if only indigenous people were educated like whites, found employment and moved into regional centres or cities. He has no interest in retaining any language or culture. 

When it comes to the ‘left’ and ‘right’ a recent episode of Media Watch comes to mind. Russell Skelton is a journalist/author who writes on indigenous issues.  His book ‘King Brown Country’ is critical of indigenous governance in Papunya. The emergent them is that he is upset that the community has not been properly looked after. A recent positive article about Rio Tinto, http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/political-news/good-intentions-can-often-lead-to-indigenous-hell-on-earth-20120410-1wmup.html, indicates Skelton celebrates when he hears good news for indigenous people. I’d classify him as ‘pro indigenous’.  Recently however he accompanied Jenny Macklin up to Yuendumu to report on the opening of the local pool. While he was there he talked to locals and received a clear impression that women in particular were supportive of the NT intervention.  He reported that as the case. However within days one of the locals who supported intervention changed her mind and protested at being quoted in support of the policy. Read about it here: http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/s2409170.htm

To me here’s a case of the ABC ‘Left’ adhering to their position. Skelton is interested in positive outcomes for indigenous people. He is dedicated to that cause. He has no agenda to support the intervention. But he reported it as he heard it. The ABC couldn’t let a single comment supporting the intervention slip by. And you don’t need to see the show to imagine the cynical, self-important tone that Media Watch would take.

A real shame. A reporter searching for, and reporting on, the truth. A TV show reporting from a pre-conceived position. 

The intervention is an issue where honest evaluation of the evidence is critical. We can’t afford to be playing political games with it. There are kids whose lives are meant to be improving because of it, plus there are adults who may have effectively managed their finances who suddenly find their income under government control. 

Let’s keep the politics out of it. Look at the evidence. Listen, evaluate before taking a position. It’s the least we can do after 200 years of making decisions for the first Australians.