The tent embassy revisited
The most recent Australia Day offered a reminder of how contentious some issues are in Australian politics. When opposition leader Tony Abbott responded to a question about the Aboriginal tent embassy in Canberra by suggesting that it might be ‘time to move on’, it unleashed a robust response just hours later at a glass-walled restaurant within spitting distance of the Indigenous protest site that was marking its 40th anniversary that day. As is now well established, Abbott’s comments were only considered offensive by the protesters because they were misinterpreted — those at the tent embassy had been whipped up in a frenzy at suggestions (perhaps by an insider from the prime minister’s office, or a related party to them) that Abbott had called for the tent embassy to be shut down.
Still, even as the facts have become clearer, some still reckon the reaction from the tent embassy’s defenders was justified. In a rather jumbled diatribe produced for The Age, researcher Russell Marks criticises Abbott for daring to offer an opinion on the merits of persisting with the tent embassy. On different occasions, Marks acknowledges that Abbott’s remarks were ‘factually accurate’ and ‘technically correct’. But apparently being right isn’t a justification for answering a question at a press conference. (Never mind the fact that if Abbott had declined to answer the question, it might well have provoked much doubt and more damaging commentary about Abbott’s intentions.)
Particularly offensive is the underlying argument that somehow it’s somehow ‘racist’ for Abbott to even express a view on indigenous political affairs (as represented by the tent embassy). First of all, as a political figure himself, Abbott is probably able to form an impression about whether a particular strategy is working well or not. It is deeply regrettable that indigenous disadvantage remains such a serious issue today — but the fact it persists 40 years after the tent embassy was erected suggests that there might be more productive approaches that would be worth considering. Second, it implies precisely the kind of divisive sentiment — an ‘us and them’ approach — that Marks himself seeks to condemn.
