Yuendumu: the pool, the press, protocols and permits…and the Code of Conduct for Ministerial Staff

As Crikey and The Northern Myth have reported and discussed on Tuesday and Wednesday this week there are real concerns at Yuendumu and across central Australia about the way that some journalists went about their business reporting on what should have been, and largely was, a good news story.

The opening this past Monday of the Yuendumu swimming pool was the result of years of hard work by locals and their supporters. Of the large media contingent that descended on Yuendumu last Monday, most correctly reported the opening of the pool as the result of that sustained local effort. But two, Russell Skelton of the Sydney Morning Herald and Natasha Robinson of The Australian reported that the opening of the pool, directly or indirectly, was somehow linked to the Jenny Macklin’s NT Intervention.

The very real local concerns about these articles arise from two issues – firstly the false links between the swimming pool and Macklin’s NT Intervention, and secondly, whether journalists get and write their stories in a fair, balanced way that accords with local ethical standards. At the centre of this second concern is the perception that journalists may be acting unethically or unfairly by conducting interviews with, and attributing comments to, local people without properly explaining who they are, what they do, where their words will go and for also failing to ensure that locally-specific language and cultural issues and sensitivities are properly recognised and respected.

This last issue has been of particular and long-standing concern to the Pintupi, Anmatjere & Warlpiri Media and Communications organisation (PAW Media – formerly known as Warlpiri Media).

As long ago as 1988 PAW Media established protocols for media, film crews and photographers wanting to work at Yuendumu and nearby Warlpiri lands and were based on a number of concerns raised by yapa (Aboriginal people).

As noted in the PAW Media Filming and Photography Protocols (the PAW Media Protocols) as at October 2008 these concerns were:

“1 – Insensitive coverage of Aboriginal people and issues due to cultural misunderstandings of kardiya journalists and fiilmmakers;

2 – Filming or photography of culturally sensitive areas and cultural activities within the Yuendumu settlement as well as on country within the [Yuendumu] Lands Trust;

3 – Taking away of images and audio of yapa without any copies being left or returned to Yuendumu;

4 – Loss of the ability to exercise intellectual property rights to Warlpiri content recorded/filmed by external media when the content was not made available to yapa and thus unknown;

5 – Loss of control of photographs or films in which deceased people were portrayed; and

6 – Impacts on the privacy of yapa where media and filmamkers felt able to travel around Yuendumu and film of photograph people going about their daily business.

The establishment of Warlpiri Media Association was itself a direct statement about yapa taking control of:

• Their own representation in the media.
• Decisions about what was appropriate to film, photograph, record or report on.

In 1988, at the direction of senior people and Warlpiri traditional owners, an approval process was initiated based on a legal document that would be familiar to any film and media crew in Australia – an Agreement to Film – that establishes procedures similar to the uncontroversial access and rights processes familiar to journalists across Australia and established by, for example, these procedures used by local government (insert link – http://www.dlg.nsw.gov.au/Files/Information/film2.pdf) in New South Wales and in Commonwealth-controlled National Parks in the NT.

In relation to Aboriginal land in the NT both the Northern and Central Land Councils have long-established protocols for media and filming access to Aboriginal land.

And, as the PAW Media Protocols state, there are real benefits for the media in complying with PAW’s preferred procedures.

These include:

• Planning feedback – to ensure that, dependent upon availability and inclination, the right people are available – this ensures that media and filmakers do not waste valauble time and effort by attending at Yuendumu when people relevant to each project are unavailable;
• Communication facilitation – advice on correct behaviour, local cultural norms and practises and on areas in and around the Yuendumu community and surrounding lands where entry is forbidden or restricted;
• Cultural facilitation and translation – assistance with interpretation and translation – a vitally important matter on the Warlpiri lands where most people speak English as a second or third language;
• Cultural safety – ensuring that people do not breach important local cultural protocols, particularly in relation to mourning rituals;
• Cooperation – compliance with the PAW Protocols can result in greater levels of engagement and cooperation.

But perhaps the most important role for PAW Media’s is its offer to act as a cultural “fixer”.

As the PAW Media Protocols note:

“The role of the fixer is a well accepted and paid role in relation to foreign journalists. It is important to reflect on places such as Yuendumu, where English is not the first language is not the first language and where strong cultural practices remain largely unknown to mainstream to mainstream Australia, as being in a sense ‘unknown country’ where a guide can make the difference in getting the story or not getting the story.”

And, while the role and importance of the local fixer in Australia isn’t as well-known as it is for those working with Australian foreign correspondents internationally, as discussed by the ABC’s Media Report in 2006, it still carries some risks. Particularly when others take it upon themselves to do your job for you.

It appears that while in Yuendumu earlier this week, rather than using PAW Media as their local fixer and complying with the PAW Protocols, Minister Macklin’s staff, with no local knowledge or agreement, took the role of local fixer on for themselves.

Crikey understands that Macklin’s staff “backgrounded” selected journalists on the day – particularly on the content of the private meetings between the Minister and community members from which the media were excluded. PAW Media sought to record those meetings on video for later local broadcast but were told to leave by the Minister.

From Natasha Robinson’s article in The Australian on 28 October and Russell Skelton’s in The Sydney Morning Herald of the same date it is apparent that each received some information on the content of those meetings from either Minister Macklin or her staff.

If that information came from Macklin’s  staff then two considerations arise.

Firstly, in relation to any information passed by any of Macklin’s staffers to the selected journalists in the backgrounding, if it did indeed occur, did Macklin’s staffer/s contravene the provisions of the Australian Government Code of Conduct for Ministerial Staff?

Particularly:

• Did the staffer/s act at all relevant times with “honesty, integrity, care and diligence”? (clauses 1 & 2);
• Did the staffer/s behave, particularly in relation to the forthright views expressed in opposition to several aspects of the Intervention at the various private meetings held between men and women residents of Yuendumu and the Minister, and the presentation to the Minister of a petition with over 230 signatures, that treated those men and women, and their views, in a manner that treated those men and women with respect and courtesy (clause 7);
• Did the staffer/s inform the journalists selected for backgrounding with copies of or an indication of the nature and content of the petition presented to the Minister? If not, why not? How does that failure comply with the staffer/s various obligations under the Code of Conduct for Ministerial Staff? (clauses 1, 2, 7 & 16);
• Did the staffer/s maintain an appropriate confidence about their dealings with the Minister, particularly in relation to information she, he or they may have acquired in the course of their attendance at the various private meetings attended by the Minister?;
• Did the staffer/s provide false and/or misleading information in relation to a request for information, or in the course of volunteering that information by way of background to the selected journalists, with particular reference to false representations about the conduct and conduct of the various meetings with the Minister and men and women residents of Yuendumu, and/or the failure to advise those journalists of the content and nature of the petition presented to the Minister and/or the forthright views expressed at those meetings in opposition to the Intervention? (clause 16);
• Did the staffer/s comply with the MEA’s Code of Conduct (if applicable)? Is/are the staffer/s aware of the PAW Media Protocols, and if not, why not? If the staffer/s is/are aware of the PAW Media Protocols, why did they firstly not comply with them and secondly, not direct the attention of various journalists, including those selectively backgrounded, to them? (clause 20).

The Code of Conduct for Ministerial Staff is still relatively new and I’m sure that the finer points of the Code aren’t immediately familiar to many Ministerial staff.

And, as Crikey’s Bernard Keane noted shortly after the Code was introduced in June this year:

“What the Code cannot and doesn’t pretend to do is formalise and better define the role and responsibilities of ministerial staff, who have emerged to meet the political and operational needs of government since the 1970s without a corresponding process of accountability. Halfway between the political world and the public service, wielding significant power, and yet without any external check, ministerial staff are immensely valuable buffers between ministers and their public service, but also highly expendable.”

Secondly, why were only a selected few journalists apparently selected for the privilege of a backgrounder and on what basis, and by whom, were they selected??

And it seems that Russell Skelton of the Sydney Morning Herald just can’t take a trick. Referring to his article of Tuesday this week Russell notes in this article today:

“Ms. [Peggy Nampijinpa] Brown was interviewed by the Herald in the presence of a member of Ms Macklin’s staff as she left the shop.”

In relation to the Statement by Peggy Nampijinpa Brown, the bi-lingual text of which was published in Crikey yesterday, he describes that as

“…a statement released in Ms. [Peggy Nampijinpa] Brown’s name by the Intervention Rollback Action Group…”

Russell should have a closer look at Nampijinpa’s statement – if he does he will see that it was signed by Nampijinpa and witnessed by one of her close friends. Nampijinpa’s Statement was written and released from here at Yuendumu. And Russell, in light of other comments made in today’s article, has still not seen, or has failed to report on, the petition signed by over 230 Yuendumu residents, men and women, in which they express their concerted opposition to Macklin’s Intervention in their township.

Crikey also understands that late yesterday afternoon Russell had a long and sometimes heated telephone discussion with a local woman who offered him the opportunity to return and make his apologies and to sit down to hear the real story from the women of Yuendumu. Russell apparently refused to offer an apology as he was ‘not obliged to’ but would accept the offer to return “When he has the time.”

The PAW Protocols also raise local concerns about the effect on media access of the recent changes to permit system on Aboriginal land in the NT introduced by the previous Federal government and make a plea for respect and commonsense:

“Recent changes to Australian Government legislation as a result of the 2007 NT Emergency Response legislation have given journalists wider access to remote communities. As at September/October 2008 the changes are the subject of debate in parliament and the results of the debate are not yet known.

“Journalists are encouraged to make contact with PAW Media prior to planning a visit to Yuendumu and to also make contact with the Central Land Council to determine the legislation in place at the time of the planned visit.

“Where access for journalists without an entry permit is legislated for, the Yuendumu community requests that journalists abide by normal standards of journalistic integrity and have special regard for the sensitivities of remote Aboriginal communities.”