Abstract
In the past 12 months there has been a major shift in both the politics and the processes within the College. It has drawn attention to the process of policy formation within the College and the licence that individuals may have as spokespersons within certain areas of the College.
Having been a Fellow now for about 6 years, a regional trainees representative before that, and an associate for a few years before that, I cannot recall any time like the present in which the College has thrown itself into the party political process.
A personal disclosure is required before I continue. I have been an office bearer in the Liberal Party and have run and participated in campaigns. I have also been an office bearer in several Jewish organizations and on campus I actively campaigned for ‘multiculturalism’ (whatever that now means), and campaigned against racism and terrorism. I led a street demonstration against Medicare complaining about the inequitable funding that I thought would lead to disaster. My last and most public campaign was in Western Australia where, as the leader of the trainees, I ran a campaign against a state hospital that was quietly reducing services and conditions for members of the public. The campaign was a complete success (I think) because the hospital rules were rewritten to empower the psychiatrists and staffing levels were re-established in order to provide a community service.
I have listed a brief description of my career as a campaigner to illustrate both my biases and also my (perhaps foolish) lack of fear in being involved in the political process. I have made many media statements, written speeches for politicians and been active in the administration of many community organizations.
When College spokespersons attacked Peter Hollingsworth by name about his role in sexual abuse in the Anglican Church, I initially resonated strongly with this view. We have all seen the effects of sexual abuse and know that the institutional cover-ups have added to the intergenerational damage that is done. As time passed, however, I began to form a different view. Peter Hollingsworth was a personal choice of the Prime Minister. There was no trial of this man, other than by the media. His clumsy and embarrassing statements deserved a community outcry. We, however, as a medical body, chose the least effective and most primitive response to this situation. Did the victims of sexual assault benefit from our outrage or did we marginalize ourselves as the credible spokespeople on this enormous problem? I was also aware that I had not been asked about my views on this matter. I did not speak out because I initially shared the anger and lack of foresight of my College spokesperson.
When the College began contributing to the debate about asylum seekers and detention centres, I was less comfortable. I was seeing more of the emotive statements that I resonated with about Peter Hollingsworth. This time the facts and issues seemed more complicated.
We have gone from being concerned about children in detention centres to being active opponents of the centres and direct opponents of the government. As the College attacked the minister by name and was drawn into the fray, I became distinctly uncomfortable. Is the evidence for inadequate health facilities to detainees convincing? Do we blame the parents for protracted appeals that keep the children in detention? Should we be worried about the way that children are being manipulated into violent demonstrations in the detention centres or more worried about how they have been used in school-based campaigns against government policy? Do we have a uniform and homogeneous view within the College about how the government should protect its borders? There has been no real debate and certainly no credible research that supports the College positions. Has the College read and responded to the Minister's response to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission? I would encourage all Fellows to read this. It makes our College comments shallow and mindless.
Our opportunity to do research and to enhance the mental health needs of detainees has now been undermined. We are not seen as a balanced professional organization. Once again, those about whom we have concerns have missed opportunities for help, but we have also lost the voice of reason and the ear of government.
The most puzzling response was the College statement about the ‘Be Alert Not Alarmed’ campaign. The essence of the statement was that the campaign was likely to cause anxiety in the public. These benign ads represented the very gentle government campaign that was designed to save lives and reduce panic. This type of action has saved lives in many countries. Again, I am unaware of any literature that demonstrates that such initiatives are outweighed by the psychological harm they cause. Was this just government bashing?
I wondered what the community was really worried about. Was it the coverage of the Bali bombings and ‘Be Alert’ campaigns, or the violence behind them? Should we be speaking out about fundamentalist Islamist violence, religious leaders dehumanizing their perceived enemies or the desecration of synagogues? Where does it end? It most certainly does not start with attacking media campaigns and we have failed to address the deeper and more meaningful debate about the structure of our community. My guess is that our community is more anxious about inviting refugees into our country from cultural groups who have concepts of human rights that are markedly at odds with Australian values, than about an advertising campaign headed by Steve Liebman! Do we launch our own campaigns to manage xenophobia, the Durban Conference coined ‘Islamophobia’ or the plain antisemitism that has become ubiquitous in many societies? Surely these are all worthy mental health issues.
In January 2003 after a criminally coordinated attack on five detention centres, the College was suggesting that the violence was understandable in view of the manner in which the detainees had been treated. This specious argument is precisely the same one used by terrorist organizations worldwide in their rationalization of violent acts. If we had any credibility left at all, this position left no doubt at all that we had intellectually betrayed our knowledge base for political point scoring. The failure of the College Executive to exercise internal mechanisms of restraint and feedback suggests an embarrassing intellectual absenteeism.
Increasingly, our reactionary and divisive contribution has marginalized us as advisors to government services. Governments will naturally favour and strengthen those groups who work with them (not necessarily agreeing with them) and will deliberately weaken and marginalize those who behave in a combative, primitive manner. This is true no matter which party holds government.
The reason that the aforementioned situation has been able to develop is that the College is a body that lacks a true democratic structure. We do not have the normal checks and balances that other credible groups have. It is not simply a matter of direct election of president, nor the absence of a policy officer. We need a complete external review of our procedures and practices. I wonder whether the College can survive a failure to embrace this process with urgency.