A fields day for the morally bankrupt conservatives

Over two years ago, four nights of “rioting” took place after the deaths of two young men as a result of a police car chase. The car crashed into a tree where the driver, Jesse Kelly, fled the vehicle at approximately 3am on the February 25, 2005. The riots occurred at the Glennquarie housing estate located in Sydney’s far southwest suburb of Macquarie Fields - a long neglected suburb.

It needs to be clarified that there were two popular explanations for these events which emerged at the time.

The first focused on the riots as a law and order predicament, reminiscent of Stanley Cohen’s “Moral Panic” theory, where politicians and conservative commentators criminalised the youth at Macquarie Fields. The second explanation interpreted the riots as an issue of social disadvantage, where socio-welfare and economic policies had failed the local community. Further, this explanation highlighted the poor relationships between the community and local police, which were deteriorating: the riots were a reaction to the frustration associated with being disadvantaged.

The first explanation was largely influential in interpreting the riots and dominated popular understandings. Consequently, the interests of the Macquarie Fields community were neglected during the “media-hype”.

It needs to be questioned whether such a crusade of interpreting the riots is still pursued almost two years after the events. At the moment an inquest into the car chase is underway to investigate whether the police car chase by an unmarked police vehicle was necessary or whether it violated police guidelines.

In reporting this inquest, the mainstream media have described the car crash as “the event which sparked the riots”. This may well be true, yet such reporting favours the conservative interpretation of the events: issues of social disadvantage are not mentioned and remain “invisible” to the public eye.

The inquest has raised significant issues that have been used to theorise the cause of the public disturbances. On its first day, the council assisting the coroner, Paul Lakatos, opened the inquest and raised the question why the police chase was necessary when police had identified the three youths and had them under surveillance. This question raised an important issue - whether an injustice resulted from the actions of police

On its second day, the inquest shifted the focus away from police towards Jesse Kelly, the driver, and his Aunt Deborah, who was blamed at the time for fuelling the riots. After the car crash, Kelly had rung his aunt and said “they were my best mates and I killed them”. His Aunt’s response was to make a fabricated claim that police had “rammed” the rear of his vehicle causing him to crash. Jesse Kelly later admitted that this was not the case.

Focusing on Deborah Kelly’s response shifts away from the crucial issue of social disadvantage and instead places blame on the community. Further, this focus lacks any empathy, after all anyone in her position might have reacted the same way. If anyone received a phone call from a relative who had been in a crash similar to Kelly’s predicament, the first response would be to try and calm the person down. In Deborah Kelly’s case, it might have been easier to suggest that police had “rammed” the rear of the vehicle rather than suggest that Jesse Kelly was responsible for his friends’ deaths.

Obviously, this is not an easy situation to find oneself in and it is difficult to determine how anyone would behave in such a tragic situation. Therefore, one can understand how Kelly’s aunt put herself in such a position. This does not aim to justify her actions, rather places them in context.

By the same token it needs to be questioned how Kelly’s aunt managed to “fuel the riots”. Such an accusation would need to provide evidence that she actively assembled the approximately 150-200 local youth - evidently proving that this explanation of the riots is not feasible.

On the third day of the Inquest, the focus shifted back to the police, where the possibility of “miscommunication” between senior and junior police officers had contributed to the police chase. Further, the idea of police “understaffing” is rejected by a senior detective. Examining police actions is necessary in highlighting the context of Macquarie Fields, where poor relationships between police and the local youth population was a significant issue.

Within the first few days of the inquest, it is clear that the explanation of the riots as a law and order predicament - which was popular at the time of the riots - has continued to reign. This explanation serves the interests of conservative commentators who advocate for “harsher policing” measures and criminalises the youths involved and their associated communities.

Years before the riots, Sydney Criminologist Murray Lee had conducted numerous research projects into the Macquarie Fields housing estate where he identified several factors of social disadvantage. These factors were varied and interlinked, and illustrated how poverty factors maintain the subordinate social position of the “have nots”.

Lee identified central issues to include: lack of sufficient public transport; low educational achievements; loss of employment opportunities in the area; deteriorating education institutions; boredom; and deteriorating relations with police. Lee’s research findings prior to the events of public disturbances had illustrated how social disadvantage was a significant issue in the Macquarie Fields area, yet these findings - as significant as they were - were never brought up in public discourse explaining the riots. After all, pointing out the ample evidence of social disadvantage would crumble the popular rhetoric put forward by conservative arguments.

In a frankly provocative article titled “A Fields Day for the Do-Gooders”, notorious columnist Miranda Devine perfectly represented conservative understandings of the Macquarie Fields riots, where the youth involved were constructed with “Otherness” characteristics. In her article, Devine alleges that “do-gooders” - concerning social workers and academics - had no basis for pointing out issues of social disadvantage, and therefore had a “fields day”.

If Devine had paid attention to the popular media and political rhetoric from both major political parties, it would have been understood that social disadvantage perspectives were popularly dismissed, therefore if anyone experienced a “fields day” it would have been the powerful views put forward by conservatives, which dominated understandings of the events.

Former New South Wales Premier Bob Carr immediately ruled out issues of social disadvantage and applied a simplistic, yet scientific method of explaining the riots. In Carr’s view, since other disadvantaged communities had not rampaged and attacked figures of authority, there is “no excuse” for the youth at Macquarie Fields. This view is simplistic in that it does not acknowledge the complexities involved in mapping out poverty, viewing the riots through “black and white” lens and dismissing the “grey” area. It is scientific in that it applies theories such as “A + B = C” - again an inadequate approach to understanding social conflict that overlooks complexities.

The NSW State Parliament Opposition further criminalised the youth involved and dismissed “social disadvantage”. The opposition aimed to misuse the riots as a political opportunity, where former Opposition Leader John Brogden criticised the Carr Government for implementing “soft” policing measures.

Even though it was well documented that reported crime in the area had reduced prior to the riots, and that local youth had made several complaints of police misconduct “harsh policing” still characterised possible solutions to the riots. Interestingly, social, welfare, and economic policies did not receive the same criticisms, ultimately suggesting a mainstream comfort existing in these policies.

Stigmatisations of public housing tenants and welfare recipients also emerged from Macquarie Fields, allowing conservative commentators to justify their advocacy of harsher policing and criminalise the youth and associated communities involved. Radio shock jocks further contributed to the negative stigmatisations of public housing tenants involving discussions on criminal activity where housing estates are a supposedly “no-go-zone” consisting of alcohol, drugs, laziness and the popular “dole bludging” “criminals”. The mainstream media networks have an enthusiastic obsession in articulating these stereotypes.

Devine successfully brought up these negative stigmatisations as a method of providing context for her case against the “do-gooders”. She begins by sharing a personal anecdote of a completely different housing estate that remains nameless, located adjacent to a non-public housing community (as many are). In her description, these non-public housing tenants are “hard working” leaving their homes vulnerable when they go to work, where residents of this particular housing estate were “law-breakers” responsible for conflict invading the “hard working” properties of their neighbours. Devine uses this description as a background for understanding the riots, highlighting negative stereotypes which benefit conservative explanations.

In a suburb, far from any employment resources, where the residents earn about half the national average, Devine’s colourful prose does nothing to help these residents.

While families were mourning the deaths of two boys, conservative media commentators (such as Devine) were encountering a “fields day” openly vilifying the two young men and the youth involved in the riots, consistently drawing attention to the criminal records of the young men. It needs to be questioned whether it is “morally” acceptable to allow family members to endure such treatment during a period of mourning.

Using aspects of criminalisation to understand the riots is a very simplistic and lazy approach. It is lazy because it lacks any sincere and genuine research into the context of the events of public disturbances. It further proves to be morally bankrupt and neglects crucial social justice issues and dismisses reviews of welfare policy.

Meanwhile, low socio-economic positions of disenfranchised youth are maintained and they continue to experience further exclusion from the national mainstream. Devine uses the example of Cheri Burton, a parliamentarian who grew up in Minto public housing as proof that these youth are not disadvantaged. Such simplistic reasoning does not address the harsh realities of inequality in Australia, where there exists a massive disparity between the achievements of individuals from privileged backgrounds and individuals from low socio-economic backgrounds.

Adopting an alternative perspective that recognises issues of social disadvantage - one that is so enthusiastically belittled as “do-gooders” - does not aim to excuse the criminal actions of youth or justify assaults on police. Another misconception is that it suggests all police are bad and irresponsible. On the contrary it points out how police officers are misused and blamed for “soft policing”, where crucial issues of social justice and the review of welfare policies are overlooked.

In hindsight, we can learn a lot about the riots, particularly the method in which a hierarchy of the “haves” and “have nots” is maintained. Discourses of Otherness and criminalisation reigned, proving that a “fields day” was experienced by conservative political actors and commentators.

Though this inquest is just beginning, it seems the focus is on removing responsibility from the police towards the community, and vice versa. Once again crucial issues are neglected, and the interests of low socio-economic communities such as the Macquarie Fields residents continue to be excluded.