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]