In a country where newspapers display their allegiances on their front pages and shout their left- or right-leaning views from opinion columns and editorials, there has been a surprising trend towards consensus in Britain on the Federal Government's intervention in Aboriginal communities.
Indigenous-related stories have traditionally focused on Aboriginal art and tourism. But since June, when Prime Minister John Howard announced plans to send police into Northern Territory communities and to ban alcohol and pornography, stormy headlines have carried the words sex abuse, emergency, paternalism and racism.
Even straight-bat news stories have been sceptical about the Government's political motives in enacting the proposal now, 11 years into its term. All stories carry the shocking life expectancy and sexual crime statistics; many are accompanied by photographs of scrawny children, drunken adults and shanty towns. If international coverage of the problems in indigenous communities holds a mirror to Australia's political and cultural face, that face is bruised and unkempt.
One of Australia's most vocal expatriates, Germaine Greer, has maintained the rage against the Government in her regular columns in The Guardian. Earlier this month the newspaper published an essay of Greer's in which she graphically depicted the troubles in NT communities such as Mutitjulu and Wadeye, and explained the Government's proposal in the following terms:
"The name of the game, as usual, is bad faith. Everything Howard does is calculated to win him votes. The suffering of Aboriginal women and children at the hands of their deranged menfolk has been going on all Howard's life. At this late hour, on the eve of a national election, he is suddenly taking it seriously."
When asked, The Guardian said it had no official position on the issue. But within its relatively extensive coverage, it has published only one piece that defends the Government's plans - a response by the Australian High Commissioner in London, Richard Alston, to a scathing comment from novelist Richard Flanagan.
The Independent has taken a loud and clear position. On June 30 an editorial, Paternalism with a racist streak, was published. It begins: "The Australian Prime Minister John Howard has once again sullied his country's good name."
It continues: "The whole plan is outrageously illiberal. It has been suggested that Mr Howard is doing this to boost his waning popularity before next year's national elections. But something more sinister can be discerned too. The plan reflects the old idea that Aborigines are, by nature, irresponsible children and need to be treated as such."
"We are like most British papers; we do take a particular line," says The Independent's chief editorial writer, Mary de Jevesky.
"We tend to be on the side of the oppressed wherever they are, and have taken an interest in communities that are discriminated against, like these latter-day apartheid situations."
De Jevesky is also keenly aware of her readership. "If you go to something about sustainable development, aid ... that sort of area, it's stuffed with people under 30. A lot have done voluntary work, worked in aid agencies, done gap years and there's a huge amount of expertise.
"As a paper [the indigenous issue] is something that goes together with green territory; it's in the constellation of subjects that fits our readership."
Bernard Lagan, The Times' Australian correspondent, says poverty in Aboriginal communities interests the newspaper because of its contrast with the image of Australia as an affluent nation.
"As an outsider, I really was completely amazed at those [indigenous] conditions and how it could be like that in this country," Lagan says.
He says the problems feed the view internationally of Australians as racist - unfairly reinforced, he says, by Australia's immigration record and stories such as that involving Mohammed Haneef, the Indian terrorism suspect.
Lagan says The Times invests heavily in indigenous pictures. "They are quite confronting, the photos, which goes back to that paradox. English people find it difficult to understand how a country like Australia has such a blight," he says.
Even the BBC has sunk the boot in. In its most comprehensive report on the issue, on June 21, reporter Rachel Harvey concluded by saying: "Mr Howard's critics say his proposals are paternalistic and draconian and fail to address the roots of the problems in Aboriginal communities ... The Government has given its proposals six months to work. But that may not be enough."
Web links
The Guardian: Worlds Apart
http://www.guardian.co.uk/australia/story/0,,2117202,00.html
The Guardian: Aboriginal policy is not underpinned by race, but by health concerns
http://www.guardian.co.uk/australia/story/0,,2122599,00.html
The Guardian: This draconian outrage has shaken Australia awake
http://www.guardian.co.uk/australia/story/0,,2113168,00.html
The Economist: Hard paternalismhttp://www.economist.com/world/asia/displaystory.cfm?story-id=9409303
The Independent: Paternalism with a racist streak
http://comment.independent.co.uk/leading-articles/article2723197.ece
The Observer: The Australians who are outcasts in their own land
http://www.guardian.co.uk/australia/story/0,,2109980,00.html
The Guardian: Aboriginal abuse plan denounced as racist
http://www.guardian.co.uk/australia/story/0,,2109494,00.html
The Times: Aborigines lose right to run their lands in sex abuse scandal
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article1969109.ece
The Times: Aboriginal self-determination is over
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article1968574.ece
______________________________
