The Rorschach Manifesto

If, as the old adage goes, the truth will set you free, then reading anything written by a politician must be the intellectual equivalent of house arrest.  Half-truths provide the comfort and assertion sustains the facade, but the bars of ideology jut like ribs behind the wall.

Despite having this warning in mind (or perhaps because of it), I sat down with Tony Abbott’s epic tome: A Strong Australia – The Values, Direction and Policy Priorities of the Next Coalition Government.  Sadly, it contains no wizards or elves, no Catholic Church conspiracies (which was surprising) and very few shades of grey.  Rather, between the agitprop and the polemics, it simply paints the picture of a lead character, Tony.  Tony is a man who cares.  See Tony care.  Care Tony Care.  Tony wants to make our country better for everyone ... *terms and conditions apply.  The narrative twists on the asterisk.  For it is in these terms and conditions that Tony is unmasked by his own language – the facade collapses to reveal the skeletal cage behind. It’s almost Shakespearian.

Something wicked this way comes

Early in the story, Tony talks about immigration.  It is, he argues, a good thing – it’s what Australia is founded on.  Brave man that Tony.  Then, bullied from the success of that break-through, he continues:

“Every migrant has chosen Australia in a way that no Australian-born person has ever had to. No migrant takes Australia for granted in the way that some who were born here do. The vast majority of them choose Australia not because they want to change us but because they want to join us. Nothing makes me prouder to be an Australian than the eagerness of people from all over the world to swap their life for ours.”

So now we have a definition of the “good migrant” – one who comes here not to change but to be changed, not to enrich but to forego.  One who wants to swap out who they were to be like us –  trading up to the superior model.

Tony is quite explicit, however, that this definition of the “good migrant” does not apply to asylum seekers.  We are told that those arriving on our shores illegally are “bad”.  By focussing on the means of arrival, rather than the reason, Tony dehumanises and misrepresents the entire plight of the refugee. Seemingly, unlike those who have the resources to exploit the immigration system through more traditional means, those who circumvent the system out of desperation are not fit to “join us”.

But, even there, the “us” they are joining is heavily qualified.  It seems we have an enemy within: no migrant takes Australia for granted in the way that some who were born here do.  Those traitors!  Please, Tony, tell us who they are.  They are, of course, those who oppose the apparently self-evident assertions that infest this “book”.  Those who would support a carbon tax.  Those who would support onshore processing of refugees. Those who would support organised labour.  Those who would bludge on our welfare system.  Every real citizen of Tony’s dehumanised “Australia Inc.” (as he puts it) knows who the traitors are: those who don’t share Tony’s vision for our organisation. 

Having marked out the divisions in society, Tony continues with his noble tale of building stronger communities:

“After all, the measure of a decent society is how it looks after its most vulnerable members. Once the budget is strongly back in surplus, our aim is to provide the additional services that Australians yearn for...”

Decency it appears is a luxury (as discussed in my previous post The Discretionary People).  Once again the most vulnerable and at-risk members of our community will be left swinging in the wind, pondering (like the rest of us) what “once the budget is strongly back in surplus” actually means. 

In this act, Tony drops character from caring nation-builder to become the miser doling out indulgences as he sees fit to those he sees as fit.  And that definition of “fitness” is clearly one based on Social Darwinism, because the most vulnerable – take, for example, those with a disability – are not at the front of the line, but at its rear.  Tony makes it clear that, putting all motherhood statements aside, the National Disability Insurance Scheme (one the most important policy innovations this country has seen) “cannot fully be implemented until the budget returns to strong surplus”.  Middle-class and corporate welfare, however, are to be expanded in the interim.  Perhaps those with a disability also need to stop taking this country for granted?

Like any great story, however, there are a few twists and turns along the way.  Just when we feel we have the character sussed, Tony demonstrates his human credentials, saying: “Should I become prime minister [sic], I will spend at least a week every year in a remote indigenous community.” This is no act of trivialisation.  This is no vainglorious publicity stunt.  This is sensitivity and compassion writ large.  After all, as Tony tells us, “I was part of a government that sent in the army to improve infrastructure in remote Aboriginal communities, launched an intervention to get ‘the booze out and the police in’.” I am sure those remote indigenous communities will look forward to his arrival.

As Prime Minister Gillard announces that we shall go to the polls in September of this year, the most concerning aspect of this ideological diatribe is that we will almost certainly see it enacted.  It is more than likely that Tony will be our next Prime Minister and the effects of this worldview will become real.  Not a stronger Australia, but a harder, colder and more divided country.  Australia Inc. Not a nation, but an incorporation of individuals bound in self-advancement.  A society (like our character Tony) that has forgotten: it is who you don’t care for, not who you do, that truly reveals you ... [fades to static].

They Know Not What They Do

My wife makes many sacrifices for me.  The most recent being that she purchased a series of Doctor Who DVDs for my Xmas present.  Now, not only does she have to put up with the sci-fi content, but also my regular swooning over the delightful Billie Piper.  While I do love Doctor Who (and would rate David Tennat as a close number two behind only Tom Baker), I would have to admit that sometimes the show does suffer from a bit of loose writing.  You know the episodes where The Doctor plucks from nowhere some solution of obscure invention.  Of course, just a quick fluttering of Billie's eye lids and all is forgiven. Genius.

It would appear though that Julia Gillard has been watching a little too much Doctor Who also.  She too has resorted to the solution of obscure invention.  The appointment (or should that be annoitment?) of former accomplished hockey-stick swinger, Nova Peris-Kneebone, as a federal Labor candidate in the Northern Territory has left many scratching their heads - possibly including Nova herself who has been strangley absent in all the debate surrrounding Julia's decision.

The appointment has raised a ranged of issues.  Putting aside (if we can) the whole debate around "celebrity candidates", the decision to parachute Peris-Kneebone into candidacy has raised criticism from within the Indigenous community - some of it constructively challenging, some of it appalling.

Most of  the criticism has focussed on the issue of Peris-Kneebone's political credentials.  As

Michael Anderson, a former leader of the Australian Black Power movement and a founder of the Aboriginal tent embassy, puts it, "She has been missing in political action all the time.'' Implicit in such criticism is a rightful unwillingness by the Indigenous community to be placated by the appointment of non-threatening representatives.  Beyond some vague reference to her work with "girls in the Top End", Labor has done nothing to allay the concerns that Peris-Kneebone's appointment is palatable tokenism, nor has Peris-Kneebone herself articulated her position on the issues facing the people we are told she represents.  In this context and in the absence of further explanation, such criticism of the appointment and of Labor's commitment to meaningful Indigenous representation is legitimate.

 

What is not legitimate, however, is the direction taken by Alison Anderson, an Indigenous Minister in the Northern Territory's Country Liberal Party.  Anderson is reported as telling the NT Times that Nova will be nothing more than "a maid to do the sheets and serve the cups of tea''.  With its overtones of servitude and subjugation, it's hard to imagine how Anderson (a supposed leader in the Indigenous community) could have said anything more offensive without actually dropping the "N" word. 

 

While my experience of intra-race relations only extends to having watched Django Unchained, these comments are surely designed to undermine Peris-Kneebone with both the Indigenous and Non-Indigenous community. But they do so by clumsily playing into that pre-existing narrative of the "useless aborigine" only good enough to serve.  In doing this, Anderson's comments undermine the broader cause of Indigenous representation by giving legitimacy to a myth.  That this comment went unchallenged in the media says as much about the persistent, silent and ugly strength of this narrative, as it does about our unwillingness to tackle discrimination regardless of its source.  Indeed, as discussed in my previous post The Razor's Edge, we have entered into a space where discrimination is defined by its source in preference to its effect, and this will ultimately serve to further disadvantage marginalised groups in our community.  Irrespective of her status as Indigenous, Anderson should have been challenged over comments that tap into a narrative of discrimination.  She may yet be, let's hope so...

Such a discriminatory comment is not out of character for Anderson though.  Even a cursory glance at her website reveals the following gem about one of her own staffers, Ana: "During times when Parliament sits way into the night, Ana also feeds me and all my staff here in Suite 4. She is of Greek heritage so she can cook up a storm".

Race and stereotype is clearly important to Anderson in defining people.  As a person holding influence and power that makes her comments and mindset dangerous because her position lends effect to them.  In this sense, and this sense alone, does source become important in the consideration of discrimination.

But perhaps of more lasting significance are the questions Peris-Kneebone's annoitment raises for the Labor Party.  At its heart is the issue of whether the Party is a servant of the Leader or whether the Leader is a servant of the Party?

The Liberal Party does not have such a quandry, with authority being vest more strongly in the parliamentary leader.  But, historically, Labor's power has laid in the movement and it should not be surprising that a left-wing party has seen greater importance in the will of the collective than in the whims and ambitions of an individual. Labor is the Party of the servant leader (Labor leaders violate that at their peril, don't they Kevin?) and, with all its complexities and frailties, it is perhaps the model that is best suited to progressive society.  It is no mistake that the servant leader mindset has made significant traction in the business world over the past decade.  Indeed, such dissemination of influence can be Labor's great differentiation as a Party in creating real meaning and value to membership and political participation.  Giving us something better approximating "rule by the people for the people".  It is perhaps interesting to note that the Victorian Liberal Party has recognised this in its move - albiet a slight one - to decentralise its policy development process.

The danger for Labor is not just that Peris-Kneebone's appointment will fail at the ballot box, but that it actually destablises the engagement of the rank and file by antagonising the implicit authority structure in the Party and de-valuing the internal currency of "contribution to the cause".  Autocratic actions don't sit well with the left, particularly, where the underlying motives don't reflect, reinforce or reward the values of the organisation.

Further problematising the issue if the lack of faith within the Party for Gillard, or at least lack of faith in her political judgement.  Having repeatedly exhibited the seasonded political judgement of a student activist, any good will and subsequent autonomy she may have been granted has long since dissipated.  There's an old adage: it's easier to ask for forgiveness than for permission.  The problem for Gillard is that this adage only applies if you're winning.  In politics, if you're ten goals down at three quarter time, you work to bring people with you.  You'll need them.  That's what the servant leader would do. In removing the rank and file's right to choose how they are represented and by whom, Gillard has misunderstood both the role of leader in the Labor movement and the degree of trust she currently holds.  This misunderstanding has sent a tremor through the foundations of Party's values and power structure.  Whether or not this tremor is significant in itself is not the issue.  The issue is that giving the foundations a nudge is generally not a good idea when you're the one standing on the cliff's edge ... [fades to static]

The Razor's Edge

You can always tell when a government is worried about a piece of legislation.  It’s invariably released on a Friday or, if it’s really troublesome, during the summer school holidays. This year was no different, with the Gillard Government unveiling its long-awaited draft Human Rights and Anti-Discrimination Bill.  Now, this Bill was never going to please everyone.  It is, of course, the great irony of anti-discrimination policy that someone always ends up feeling like they’ve been discriminated against.  Whether it’s the tattooed-neck brigade complaining that you caarn’t even say wot you fink wivout bein’ called racist or men feeling oppressed by breastfeeding women, every action has a reaction.

Ban public breastfeeding! I don’t like the way those babies are looking at my head.

I genuinely don’t envy policy writers in this space.  In fact, I always think back to that classic line from the TV series, Yes, Minister.  Jim Hacker is asked what the government’s position is on abortion.  He replies, “Our position is not to have a position.”  Not only is human rights and anti-discrimination a no-win space politically, but it is a logical vortex: how do we enshrine policy that fosters plurality and, yet, is protective and enforceable?  One point on for a right answer, one point off for a wrong answer.

In this muddle and melee, one thing has always been privileged above all others, religion.  The new Human Rights and Anti-Discrimination Bill continues this history through provisions that allow religious organisations to lawfully discriminate against people they might consider “sinners”.  The most discussed implication of this provision is the right of Christian-based organisations to refuse employment to gays and unmarried pregnant women and mothers.  There would, of course, be many other examples of lawful discrimination targets and the exercise of such a right to discriminate would not be limited to Christian groups.  In fact, when it comes to faith, we’re quite indiscriminate in giving away our right to discriminate.

The point of this piece is not to get bogged down in the detail of this specific piece of complex draft legislation (indeed, I feel the pain of its authors), but to ask the question: why should religion be gifted this prized position?  In a secular society, why does religion serve as the weight against which all other rights are measured and balanced?

He’s not the messiah, but he does have the right to sack you if you’re unwed and get pregnant.

Religion is, at best, a system of belief in something that may or may not be true.  There is a necessary uncertainty in religion.  That’s why it’s called “faith” and not evidence-based spirituality.  Therein lays both the beauty and the graft of religion. And, yet, we have chosen to use such a contested concept as a justification for discrimination and to allow belief to triumph over reality.  That I believe you to be sinful or incapable, according to a doctrine that may or may not be valid, is sufficient, regardless of your actual ethics, values or capability.  My right to believe you sinful – founded on criteria devoid of evidence – is more important than your right to live free from discrimination. This is the essence of prejudice. But, somehow, we will allow the infliction of real social and economic harm for one group, rather than create cognitive dissonance for another.  Yet, as far I can tell, an atheist cannot discriminate against someone for holding religious beliefs.  So the equation only works in one direction.  God botherers must clearly have a far more acute sensitivity to challenges to their values than atheists.  Strange for people of such conviction.

Once we assign primacy to religious values, we are confronted then with the problem of defining “good religion” versus “bad religion”. Where do we draw the line?  Sacking a man for committing adultery: good religion or bad religion?  Sacking a woman for refusing to cover her head: good religion or bad religion? This is the inherent problem of applying religious values as some kind of foundation point: all religions contain such a vast array of interpretations as to make them unworkable.  You would think that policy makers may have learnt something from the past 2,000 odd years of human conflict.  Thus, at some point, we still need to define what is acceptable, or at least tolerable, to our society.  Which begs the question: if we can articulate such principles, why the need to confer primacy on religious values in the first place?

Indeed, with regard to human rights, the ultimate test should be that the protection for any ideology or group does not exceed the protection from that ideology or group.  Our new Human Rights and Anti-Discrimination Bill fails to recognise this balance.

The reason for this imbalance in favour of religious values is political, of course.  Despite their mask of piety and “higher calling”, religious organisations are not above grubby politicking.  This is why we see a Gillard Government that in one breath is chastising its Opposition Party for being led by a misogynist with 1950s values, while on the other hand enshrines the right of certain organisations to discriminate against single mothers, gays and anyone else an ancient fairytale tells them is sinful.  Atheists, however, will once again have to turn the other cheek ... [fades to static]