Shutting down debate is no way to solve a problem

IF we can’t have a debate unless it includes someone directly affected by an issue, all manner of important conversations will be stopped before they begin, writes Parnell McGuinness.

IF the media seems overly obsessed with opinion polls that change nothing, perhaps its because real news has become too hot to handle.

Channel 7’s Sunrise is the latest to feel the heat. The breakfast show has become a target of ongoing protests and its presenters are being bullied, just because it tried to do its job.

In the wake of the alleged rape of a two year old Aboriginal girl in Tennant Creek, the Assistant Minister for Children and Families, David Gillespie, said that he wanted to “relax rules requiring Aboriginal kids to be placed with relatives or other indigenous families”.

He told the Courier Mail this would increase opportunities for abused Aboriginal children to enter stable care arrangements, and potentially save them from ongoing rape, assault and neglect.

When Channel 7’s Sunrise put the proposal to its regular panel, mayhem ensued.

“Should white families be allowed to adopt Aboriginal children?” host Samantha Armytage asked PR Prue MacSween and radio host Ben Davies.

“Of course, it’s a no-brainer as far as I’m concerned,” responded MacSween.

“We can’t have another generation of young indigenous children abused in this way.”

Seems reasonable.

But she followed up: “Don’t worry about the people that would cry and hand wring and say this would be another stolen generation. Just like the first stolen generation where a lot of people were taken because it was for their wellbeing ... we need to do it again, perhaps.”

Now, adoption trauma is a recognised phenomenon in psychiatry, even where the process was entirely consensual on the part of the birth mother, so this was a pretty insensitive way to put things.

Protesters behind Channel Seven’s Sunrise broadcast on the Gold Coast.

For birth mothers who felt overruled, and the children who were taken from them, it’s downright distressing. They don’t give a stuff about the good intentions of the people who took their children away.

But Aboriginal children in abusive situations are also not helped by the good intentions of the advocates who stymie their chances of safety and stability.

Good intentions should always accompany policymaking, but they have a very poor track record of leading it. We can, and should, keep talking about how we can improve policy so it does good instead of just sounding good.

Greens MP David Shoebridge seized the opportunity to demonstrate that he cares more about sounding good.

Shoebridge complained to the Australian Communications and Media Authority that, as host, Armytage “made no attempt condemn or rebuke” MacSween’s words.

Let’s just examine that for a moment: instead of taking to task MacSween, the only person who could reasonably be held responsible for her own words and opinions, he tried to make the TV network, which had dared to give airtime to the issue, the target of his complaint.

He also objected that “no Aboriginal voice was referred to or given prominence”.

Now, if a regular panel can’t discuss an issue unless it has someone directly affected by the topic represented, we’re going to have to shut down all manner of public conversations on important topics.

This identity-obsessed approach to public debate is just not on. The more important the subject, the more it should be discussed by everyone. We shouldn’t let a topic out of our sight until something is damn well done about it.

What Shoebridge, the internet trolls, and the protesters who mouthed obscenities through the glass of the Sunrise studio really wanted was to shut down debate on an issue that doesn’t fit their narrative. They want the world to be understood on their terms or not at all.

What happened next was perhaps all too predictable.

Sunrise tried to make things right by getting together an Aboriginal panel to discuss the issue, led by Armytage’s co-host David Koch.

Prue MacSween’s call for a new “stolen generation” was insensitive and unhelpful. It’s time for the sensible centre to dig in and the wing nuts on all sides to be ignored.

The panel “clarified” the original segment for the Sunrise audience. One expert, from an organisation that does a lot of good otherwise, told Kochie that “There’s absolutely no prohibition or restriction on the ability of non-Aboriginal people to care for children.”

This is just not so, says Jeremy Sammut, author of The Madness of Australian Child Protection, who has researched the topic exhaustively.

“Departments either refuse to remove or make all effort to find an indigenous carer — sometimes at the expense of basic safety considerations. Telling a half-truth about no bans on non-indigenous carers ignores what really happens on the ground. The Tennant Creek toddler was one of many indigenous children left at risk that would benefit from adoption.”

Sunrise had hoped to put the whole episode behind them, but having sensed weakness, the activist class has singled it out as a platform.

This week another group of activists crashed the backdrop to Sunrise coverage of the Commonwealth Games. There were only a handful of them, but by capitalising on the last round of outrage they were able to posture to audiences across Australia.

Don’t for a second think this is the last attack on Sunrise by activists with more ire than ideas.

Let’s hope we all learn to respond better: it’s time for the sensible centre to dig in and discuss what needs to be discussed. Ignore the wing nuts.

You don’t get anywhere by pandering to extremists.

@parnellpalme

Originally published as Shutting down debate is no way to solve a problem