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.

Why I’d vote no

For many, Australia Day is a day to celebrate — to catch up with friends over a barbecue (and likely more than a few beers) and watch the cricket (or the tennis, though no Australian players are left in the tournament). But for Indigenous Australians, Australia Day is a dark reminder of their history. It marks the day that white settlers colonised what was then regarded as an empty, unowned land — terra nullius. For many of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander heritage, this was not settlement but an invasion.

Fast forward over two centuries later, and modern day Australia remains unsure of how to promote reconciliation between Indigenous Australians and those whose descendents have come to this continent’s shores since 1788. The latest initiative, in a report released this month, is to amend the federal constitution to — among other things — officially recognise Australia’s first peoples.

A bolt of free speech

The most polite word I could use to describe Andrew Bolt is ‘populist’. Less charitably, I’d describe him as ‘loathsome’ — a commentator who plays to the baser instincts of humanity, and whips up fear to advance his arguments. However, in a liberal democratic society, I am entirely comfortable with him using his soapbox to say whatever the hell he likes.

Sadly, it seems, our legal system might not be quite so robust in defending this cherished principle of ‘free speech’. Bolt is currently the subject of legal proceedings under Australia’s Racial Discrimination Act. And why? Because he used his column to question the motives of white-skinned aboriginals identifying themselves as indigenous. Was this offensive? Undoubtedly. But one of the prices we pay for living in a free society, is that sometimes we might get offended. In the absence of evidence that Bolt’s words incited violence, or a judgement that he defamed individuals (proceedings for which would not call on the Racial Discrimination Act), then the case for curbing Bolt’s right to speak his mind would appear to be wafer thin. By all means, challenge Bolt on the evidence and call him out for what he is. But to silence him by law serves only to stifle debate — something we are all worse off for.

The good news is that I was having dinner with Ngati Porou as opposed to their neighbouring iwi which is Tuhoe, in which case I would have been dinner, which wouldn’t have been quite so attractive.