Opinion & Commentary
Petty name-calling just adds to polarisation
Working in the field of indigenous affairs you are made acutely aware that there are two camps -- those on the Left and those on the Right. Or, as some would have you believe, those who support the Northern Territory intervention and those who do not.
I was overseas when the furore around Larissa Behrendt’s tweet on Bess Price’s support of the intervention erupted, but returned to find an inbox filled with nearly 20 articles on the subject.
Residents of remote communities might be somewhat bemused that their plight has generated such strong opinions on the best way to “deal with” or “help” them.
People’s beliefs may inspire them to focus on certain areas and behave in certain ways but, at the end of the day, it is effective policy and not ideology that is needed.
The Centre for Independent Studies indigenous affairs program favours action over apathy, which is why we supported the intervention despite its flaws. The intervention was a game-changer and brought the living conditions of remote indigenous Australians to the forefront of public concern. Academic expositions, such as Jon Altman’s on the virtues of hybrid economies and the development of curricula relevant to local settings, increasingly were seen as ridiculous.
Behrendt may have responded so vehemently to Price because she is frustrated her human-rights agenda has been sidelined by bipartisan support for welfare quarantining and alcohol restrictions.
It is too late to put the genie back in the bottle and revert to the days when Aboriginal people living in remote outstations were viewed through rose-tinted glasses. But recognising the problems and doing something about them are two different things. Rather than pontificating on whether the intervention was a good idea, it is time to look beyond it to the measures needed to bring about change. This means getting the basic building blocks for reform right: private property rights, education, employment and health.
Nowhere in the civilised world has prosperity been achieved without private property rights. But the 99-year lease model developed under the intervention was seriously wrong in having the head lease held by a government entity.
Despite large bribes on offer, communities have not been rushing for a Commonwealth government takeover. Community-held leases would have been a much better strategy.
We need to rise above the petty name-calling and polarisation in indigenous affairs and look at effective policies instead.
Sara Hudson is a Research Fellow at The Centre for Independent Studies.
