Leopards, spots & Tony Abbott

Tony Abbott yesterday spoke publicly about his attitudes on homosexuality, leadership and religion. In a fifteen minute interview on '60 Minutes' he expressed contrition that on previous occasions he had expressed opinions characteristic of bigotry and religious zealotry. Such public humility augurs well for the emotional maturity of the man predicted to be the next Prime Minister of Australia.

Unless it's a stunt.

Abbott's message of change was clearly framed as both a break from his past and an indicator of his potential as a leader. '60 Minutes' interviewer Liz Hayes described him as a "twenty-first century man who can admit the mistakes of his past". These views contrast favorably with his hardline image but as the unofficial campaign for election 2013 heats up the timing might be considered suspicious.

The interview addressed comments Abbott had made in 2010 stating he was "threatened" by homosexuality. The public now knows that Tony Abbott's sister is gay and had come out to him in 2010. He reflected that the comments made in 2010 were a reaction to what he perceived as a threat to the "cohesion" of his family. Having us believe that his deeply offensive comments were motivated more by personal confusion than any deeply held belief; Abbott said "I've changed and I'd like to think I've grown" adding "I've said some things then that I don't believe now", describing these comments as "throwaway lines".

The personal, confronting nature of the interview with both Abbott and his sister Christine jarred with the measured responses given by Abbott. The interplay between head-shots and scenes of a cosy family dinner felt to me like a carefully crafted message, but on what?

Public confession has become something of a cottage industry in the media of late. Lance Armstrong being the most recent in a string of public figures to fall on their proverbial swords, presumably hoping to rehabilitate their public persona. Australian politics has it's own precedent with former Labor Prime Minister Bob Hawke establishing a tradition of public confession that included alcoholism, infidelity and family drug problems. Hawke's mea culpa did little to harm him politically and arguably endeared him to the public as an honest, 'real' character.

Does Abbott then seek approval as the 'everyman', just a knockabout bloke? Scenes from the interview showing him in the surf and cooking a barbeque scream yes and the increasingly populist, presidential nature of our federal election campaigns accords with this strategy. Is this enough though to erase memories of past indiscretions?

There is of course the problem of Abbott's staunch derision of public changes of mind. Frequently on record condemning the Labor government for what he saw as lies over the carbon pricing scheme. He would have us believe these revisions, directed at the cohesion of the Labor/Independent/Green government, were unforgivable but that we should see his own revisions in a more favorable light. Such contradictions should sit uneasily with voters wanting to believe in the integrity of the 'new' man.

One question the voting public must ask is whether these softened attitudes are enough for a potential national leader? When Tony Abbott uses his considerable public profile to make comments against a woman's right to choose or the right of gay Australians to marry he lends credence to discrimination on all levels of society. His public change of heart does not undo the wrongs his public statements have contributed to. It is important to consider that Abbott has not signaled a policy shift on issues such as gay marriage in the wake of this interview. A true reflection of his changed perspective should include public advocacy of issues such as marriage equality and a woman's right to choose.

Ultimately it is up to the public to judge Tony Abbott's attempt to make amends. Describing his challenge to become Prime Minister as the "supreme challenge of my life" may acknowledge his sincerity or simply his ambition. I am not convinced and would prefer to hear 'sincerity' at a time when it is not also politically advantageous.

Our 'problematic' use of language

There is a conspiracy of misinformation at work in our daily lives. We are all guilty of this sometimes and we all fall victim when the truth is obscured from our sight. Misinformation occurs when the truth is glossed over with convenient catch-phrases, half truths or blatant omissions. Our politician's use these techniques to cloud their political reality and we suffer a lack of transparency about the society we live in. Those who suffer most however are those with the least ability to speak out and consequently to be heard.

I read an article in Monday's Sydney Morning Herald reporting Department of Immigration communiques describing suicidal and self-harming asylum seekers as 'Problematic'. The report goes on to detail other instances of obfuscation such as 'voluntary starvation'. This gem of a phrase details asylum seekers efforts to protest their conditions. Presumably by emphasizing the 'voluntary' aspect of the protest mitigates any blame for those responsible for the conditions being protested.

Every year people throughout the world flee their homes and their homelands because of civil war, internal strife and ethnic differences. When these people flee they travel, sometimes great distances to seek safe haven in countries and claim asylum under international law. They have the right to make this claim and be assessed in a timely manner. One of the countries that extends this right is Australia.

Within Australia the arrival of asylum seekers is not greeted with general approbation, you might say we can be hostile. I think one of the reasons is the way we talk about, and consequently understand who these people are...

Let's start with the names we give to asylum seekers; the one I found frequently repeated in the article above is 'client'. The term 'client' is used by both politicians and those working in detention centers. It sounds rather benign, perhaps even safe to the average reader who is frequently a client of various services. The term 'client' connotes someone who is accessing a service, and straight away we have fallen into the widespread use of doublespeak that distracts clear thought. For asylum seekers and refugees are not 'clients' accessing 'services' they are people fleeing violence and persecution in their homelands. All the name 'client' does is desensitize us when the government tries out the phrase 'access denied'.

George Orwell claimed the purpose of such political speech and writing was "the defense of the indefensible". He felt that some truths were "too brutal for most people to face"*, but more importantly that these truths couldn't be spoken by politicians who wanted to keep their jobs. Hence the use of fancy terms until asylum seekers and refugees become better known in popular vernacular as 'boat people' and 'queue jumpers'. The use of pejorative terms makes it much easier for everyone to look away when people are being locked up, or towed back out to sea on leaky boats.

The use of this sort of doublespeak is not limited to simply classifying a group of people. Half truths and loose terminology is used in describing all aspects of Australia's immigration detention program. In a short survey of Sydney Morning Herald articles dealing with asylum seekers for the month of February I found politicians and government officials quoted on the following:

• accommodation found wanting by United Nations officials was described by the Department of Immigration as "in line with living standards for local PNG residents"                                       (no description of how these local residents live was provided)
• in response to claims that children in detention were legitimate refugees the government maintained it was "prudent" to conduct its own checks
• in responding to reports of hunger strikes, suicide attempts and cutting with razors by asylum seekers, the Department of Immigration described a "significant decrease in self harm incidents" (no baseline or comparison data is offered)

The picture the government is attempting to create is one where they are working toward a solution to a 'problem' and making some progress. What this picture ignores is the significant harm, both physical and psychological, that occurs while inadequate action is taken. Oh and if you think the alternative is better, the opposition repeatedly promise that the government is too soft and that they would 'tow the boats back'.

I am not stating absolutely that all asylum seekers arriving by boat are mistreated and deserve more from Australia. I think many are. What I am telling you is that it is difficult to get a true impression of their treatment through the media.

Before making up your own mind on this issue, or any issue in the upcoming election, it is imperative that we all examine the evidence we are offered and demand more if it is inadequate.** Tomorrow the Greens Senator Sarah Hanson-Young will move amendments to the Migration Act that would allow media into offshore detention centers. Such scrutiny should at least provide some context for the message we've already received on asylum seeker's conditions.

It is important to support these efforts towards transparency and to question anyone who attempts to hide the truth. We are the keepers of our democracy so best we keep these politicians, our public servants, accountable...

______

* George Orwell, Politics and the English Language (1946)

** Orwell himself was wary of being guilty of "the very faults I am protesting against". If you find me so guilty, or have any other fault with my arguments please drop me a line. This is not the sort of discussion that ever ends, or where we ever stop learning... 

Trust...

The opening salvo of election 2013 has been fired.

Tony Abbott has declared the election to be about trust. In this statement he has sought to frame the whole election race; if you trust me then you will make me your prime minister he says. What he doesn't really clarify is what this elusive virtue trust is, or how we might apply it to politics.

Fool! 

(I hear you loudly declare) 

Trust is simple and you have it or you don't; that PM we currently only kinda, sorta like betrayed our trust when she kept promising things and then changing her mind.

That statement sounds so obvious that I refuse to trust it without giving it a good once over. That's the thing trust, it shouldn't be given blindly. Things are rarely what they seem (especially in politics) and if someone is shouting loudly trying to get you to look at what they're doing with their right hand, there's a good chance they're robbing you with their left.

Firstly let's consider the 'trust me, I don't lie' claim. Every election, large or small, parties (frequently two) claim and counter claim against their policy platforms. They announce plans and schemes for what they will do when they obtain office. The thing is only one party will get into office and that means only one party will be judged on whether they come good on their plans. This makes it simple for the other party to say trust me; they haven't yet been tested. If elections were decided on trust and this was the standard we used it is likely we would swap governments every election. Trust has to be more than simply tallying the plans not enacted because the incumbent will never win.

But ol' Tony may still have a point, Julia did use words like promise and pledge when she was talking about the carbon tax and the budget surplus. Were they promises she could reasonably make? Did she jump, or was she pushed? In both these situations, circumstances outside the party lead to them abandoning their earlier statements (read: breaking their promise). The Greens compelled a scheme that put a price on carbon as part of forming a minority government and global finances, particularly a downturn in China forced a recount of the pennies in the piggybank.

Don't even get me started on whether these 'broken promises' were a good thing. A mechanism for forcing polluters to pay for pollution - tick! A reevaluation supported by the majority of economists - tick! Do we really want politicians of any colour or flavour that are unable to respond to changing circumstances?

So the second point to consider is whether election platforms are the sort of promises that are brought down from the mountain in stone or whether they might be something else. At present the coalition are fairly thin on the ground when it comes to presenting policies. Tony Abbott's reputation as 'Dr No' stemmed largely from his lambasting government policy without offering alternatives. Such a position, viewed in the light of the argument above, seems shrewd. No promises, platforms, positions then there's no chance of being accused of lying if you have to change track. The coalition is waiting for the best time to announce a platform they know they can back. Now we already know the world isn't always kind like that, so let's hope nothing comes up to surprise them.

Even the Greens, ever the hardline, firm statement types have announced a new policy platform filled with 'aims and principles'. Sounds like they know what they want to do, but are smart enough to give themselves a little wriggle room just in case reality gets in the way. 

Sounds like Tony Abbott's trust platform isn't quite what it seems. I don't want a politician so set on a particular agenda that they ignore the rest of the world. Our democracy only allows us to personally effect change once every three or so years. In between I want to be able to trust our politicians to think about the issues and move with new circumstances.

Political mistrust seems more the domain of back-room dealings and corrupt politicians. We've seen plenty of that across the board over the last few years, with both parties splitting at the seams on more than one occasion. As far as trust goes though, I'd rather see this election run on policies...