A fields day for the morally bankrupt conservatives

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.