Published 11 October 201011 October 2010 · Main Posts Wild rivers, intervention and liberal hypocrisy Scott Foyster I got an email last week from a friend about some comments Nigel Scullion has been making. The comments were regarding the Wild Rivers legislation, and Tony Abbott’s private member’s bill in particular. As Shadow Minister for Indigenous Affairs, Scullion spoke about the lack of informed consent in regards to the way the Wild Rivers legislation was written and implemented. A point that, if true, is a valid criticism and one that means the Wild Rivers legislation needs further work to become law. I’m not going to get into that here though, it’s too big for my limited lack of legal matters to get my head around and I feel that there have already been some good writings about it that can be found online. The point of my friend’s email was the hypocrisy of the Coalition running this line. This statement about the lack of informed consent was coming from a man who, in the early days of the Intervention, told a Yolgnu man that they didn’t have anyone’s consent (as seen in Our Generation). Now maybe it’s just cynical of me to think this. For all I know, Scullion may have had issues with the way in which the Intervention was first rolled out, he may himself not have been informed or consulted about the legislation before he had to go and inform people across his electorate. Given the rushed nature of the NTER legislation, that isn’t impossible. Possibly he – and the rest of the Coalition – may have changed their minds about fundamental principles when it comes to Aboriginal policy in Australia – they are now bracketing informed consent, after all. This may be the case. Maybe. I just can’t say. Only those in the room and the politicians involved can know that. Whatever the case, to my friend here in Alice, there seems to be a hypocrisy around a party that can rush legislation without any consultation whatsoever – legislation that overrides and suspends the Racial Discrimination Act, that vilifies and demonises Aboriginal people living in selected areas – yet now has issues with a lack of informed consent. Which they then use as grounds to repeal legislation that doesn’t fit with their neoliberal agenda. This looks a lot like hypocrisy about when and where informed consent matters. Scott Foyster Scott Foyster lives in Mpartnwe/Alice Springs where he writes and collects stories to share. He is one of the editors of Wai, an independent quarterly national newspaper on social jusice and environmental issues around the country/region, and is also one half of Black Kite Press, an independent press that is currently working on it's first publication. More by Scott Foyster › Overland is a not-for-profit magazine with a proud history of supporting writers, and publishing ideas and voices often excluded from other places. If you like this piece, or support Overland’s work in general, please subscribe or donate. Related articles & Essays 28 March 20249 April 2024 · Main Posts Why we should value not only lived experience, but also lived expertise Sukhmani Khorana In the wake of this year’s International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, I want to extend the central idea of El Gibbs’s 2022 essay on 'lived expertise' and argue that in media accounts of racism, analytical expertise and lived experience ought to be valued together and even in the same body. 5 March 2024 · Main Posts Andrew Charlton’s school assignment Alex McKinnon Australia's Pivot to India exists for three reasons: so that when Andrew Charlton is interviewed on the radio or introduced on Q+A, his bio includes the phrase "he has written a book about Indian-Australian relations"; to fend off accusations that he is another Kristina Keneally engaging in electoral colonialism in western Sydney; and to help the Albanese government strengthen economic and military ties with Modi’s Bharatiya Janata Party.