When Mick Dodson was announced as Australian of the Year, I made this observation:
[It] might also be a good idea to take some sort of stock on how the whole “Bridging the Gap” thing is going – almost a year after the Apology. Debate on Indigenous issues appears to have gone into cold storage recently. Although it’s a good thing if Indigenous people are no longer being used as partisan footballs, conversely if we’ve all decided to sit on our bums in a permanent warm glow after the Apology, that’s not a good thing at all.
While it’s probably understandable that the combination of bushfires and the economic crisis and stimulus package kerfuffle have pushed Indigenous matters out of the media spotlight this week, that’s nevertheless deeply disappointing. Props, though, to organisations like SBS which have taken the trouble to highlight the anniversary of the Apology and to interview a range of Indigenous people each night on the news. But, bushfires, Senate shenanigans and the media cycle aside, I think the comments I was making back in January do suggest that “Closing the Gap” has largely fallen off the political agenda, at least in terms of what’s highlighted publicly. So I’m pleased to see Professor Jon Altman reporting in Crikey today on how much progress is or isn’t being made. Go read!

Indigenous activist, academic and co-chair of Reconciliation Australia Professor Mick Dodson has been named “Australian of the Year”. This award makes an interesting contrast with the selection by The Australian of Dame Elisabeth Murdoch and Bart Cummings. I think Dodson’s selection is a well deserved recognition, and I’m encouraged to see someone selected who will undoubtedly be quite critical of the government’s stance on some human rights issues.
Two other observations are worth making. First, there has been some suggestion that the nominations and the selection (as well as the theme of “Reconcilation” for Australia Day) are a reaction to the ALP’s reneging on an election pledge to consider an alternative to 26 January as our national holiday. Frankly, I’m quite stunned that ever made it into the ALP’s platform. Rudd’s apparatchiks must have fallen down in the controversy proofreading stakes. It’s certainly something I would support, and it would be something of a pity if Dodson’s award were indeed in part a device to draw attention away from this pledge.
Secondly, it might also be a good idea to take some sort of stock on how the whole “Bridging the Gap” thing is going – almost a year after the Apology. Debate on Indigenous issues appears to have gone into cold storage recently. Although it’s a good thing if Indigenous people are no longer being used as partisan footballs, conversely if we’ve all decided to sit on our bums in a permanent warm glow after the Apology, that’s not a good thing at all.
Elsewhere: Lauredhel at Hoyden on the nominees.
Elsewhere: Guy Beres.
Elsewhere: Andrew Bartlett at his blog and at Crikey, Hoyden About Town, Dave Bath.
Over at Catallaxy, Jason Soon links to Kerry Miller’s article in Spiked about Clive Hamilton’s influence in the propagation of the idea of the “Clean Feed” web censorship plan. There are some strange alliances around this issue, and Miller, who writes for the Maoist site Strange Times (formally, as The Last Superpower, about the only actually existing Australian example of the pro-Bush “Decent Left”) can’t resist a side swipe at us “pseudo-leftists” even when we’re on the same page. There’s also a bit of a contradiction in her piece. She argues that Hamilton is a “communitarian” – which I think is to give him too much credit and in light of his views on other issues, somewhat inaccurate. But nevertheless, the moral authoritarianism of communitarianism is certainly in play in the censorship stakes. Miller claims:
The ALP under Rudd is in fact far more moralistic and authoritarian than the Liberals ever were.
I think that’s far too broad a statement, and could be contradicted with evidence from other policy domains. And needless to say, there were enough Howard Ministers – Tony Abbott being one who immediately comes to mind – who could trump almost anyone when it comes to sanctimonious authoritarianism. It’s more accurate to say, in my view, that the arguments of “communitarians” provide useful cover for left ALP ministers (for instance, Gillard, Tanner and Macklin) to sign on to an agenda which actually derives straight from the Catholic right, and which has more than a little political calculation behind it – both in terms of Senate numbers (and the cohesiveness of the ALP Senate caucus itself) and also in terms of skimming some votes from churchgoing socially conservative Catholics and Evangelicals.
A very similar dynamic is observable with regard to the arguments of the Noel Pearsons and Warren Mundines of this world – in that they provide cover for authoritarian interventions in Indigenous affairs (and increasingly in social policy more generally). The basic mindset is the same – worrying about the breakdown of norms and the absence of community. The communitarian stream of political philosophy – which largely developed in the 1990s and has strong affinities with “Third Way” politics – generally bemoans the alleged fracturing of moral values and shared ethics and places the duty on the state of recreating community in its absence. Very often, the practical and political application of such views has more than a tinge of racism about it. The goals set can never be achieved (which is useful politically for the more canny operators), and a lot of the concern is misplaced and wrongly framed, but a lot of damage can be done along the way by state intervention. Also writing in Spiked, Guy Rundle is much more sensitive to the real political dynamics of moralistic social democracy than Miller.
Continue reading ‘Strange affiliations: the Clean Feed’s political trajectory’
I have to confess at the outset that I haven’t read the report – I am really busy with work at the moment and I simply don’t have time (or energy when I do have time), but I wanted to comment instead on the practice of not reading. I was struck by this when reading Mark’s post from last night about the reactions of Gerard Henderson and Kevin Donnelly to the report released by Stuart Macintyre’s history curriculum panel. Donnelly, when interviewed on Lateline (and why is it necessary to interview him – for balance? … so that the substance of the story can be obscured by inscription in a “history wars” frame – what happened to journos perhaps reading the report and reporting on its substance not a press release?) couldn’t actually point to anything in the report which would support the line he wanted to run about a “black armband view” and wanted to mutter something dark instead about Labor being tricky about pretending not to be as left wing as they are. Incidentally, that’s the cunning new strategy that Chrissy Pyne came up with the other day, if we believe his ghost writer Glenn Milne.
Similarly, Hendo appeared to be reacting to a press release. Now these characters are held up as “public intellectuals” and their assemblage of titles (thinktank director, educator/consultant, etc) supposedly represent authority and expertise. Obviously, they’re just going to push the political line they run with constantly, but what’s happened to the idea that you should actually inform yourself about what you comment on?
(Hendo, I suppose, doesn’t have time, what with having to write 50 emails a day to Robert Manne about what they each thought about Indonesia in the 1960s, or monitoring the ABC all day for “bias”…)
Something very similar is operating with the reaction of Warren Mundine to the NT Intervention Review. Andrew Bartlett asks some pointed questions:
Yet almost all the attacks seem to be ignoring the evidence about what has been happening on the ground, and the views of the people that live there, instead treating policies such as universal compulsory quarantining of welfare payments and scrapping the permit system as sacred totems which cannot be touched, regardless of the evidence.
Continue reading ‘Review into the NT Intervention: on not reading and stereotyped debates’
Occasional guest poster at LP, Marcus Westbury, is on Q&A tonight – ABC1 at 9.30pm. Let’s hope he can get a word in between the pompous comedy stylings of Greg Sheridan, and the litterateur/Macquarie Bank shill Bob Carr.
Germaine Greer will also be a guest. Greer has just released a new essay in book form – On Rage, which I’m very much looking forward to reading. I was interested to see her obvious frustration last night in a Lateline interview with Leigh Sales at the difficulty of articulating any position that goes beyond tired dichotomies on Indigenous Policy and the NT intervention (including those which claim to transcend tired dichotomies). Or perhaps it would be better to say the inability to hear any heterodox position. I suspect a lot of the rage directed at Greer herself comes from an inability to comprehend or recognise any thought that doesn’t follow the predictable grooves of a “debate”, and indeed any call for reflection on issues and stories a lot of us would rather not face. So it’ll be interesting to watch her in this format too.
Recent comments
anthony nolan, Helen, Nickws, kph, Helen, Caroline Church [...]
Saint Furious of Ikea, Chris, Paul Burns, David Irving (no relation), joe2, David Irving (no relation) [...]
Deborah, Saint Furious of Ikea, terangeree, Darren Lewin-Hill, billie, Paul Burns [...]
Saint Furious of Ikea, JohnL, sg, Christopher Pearson, Deborah, Chookie [...]
Tim Dymond, Nickws, iorarua, anthony nolan, Mercurius, conrad [...]
Rx, Paul Burns, Andos
Fran Barlow, Robert Merkel, Kiashu, Mervyn Langford, OldSkeptic, Frankie V. [...]
anthony, Ginja, Anthony, Terry, Alison, anthony nolan [...]
Chris, Ken Lovell, Gummo Trotsky, desipis, Pavlov's Cat, Pavlov's Cat [...]
Fran Barlow, CMMC, Gummo Trotsky, Guido, pablo, Saint Furious of Ikea [...]
Fascinated, Laura, Casey, Liam, anthony nolan, pablo [...]
BilB, OldSkeptic, anthony nolan, mitchell porter, Vanessa, Vanessa [...]