SYDNEY LAUNCH OF SOCIAL JUSTICE REPORT 2001
SENATOR ADEN RIDGEWAY
17th July, 2002
I would like to begin by acknowledging the Gadigal people of the Eora Nation, the traditional owners of the land we meet on today. I would like to thank them for allowing me to speak on their country.
I also acknowledge my colleagues who join me today to help launch the 2001 Social Justice Report and 2001 Native Title Report, and thank you, as members of the audience, for also showing your support by your presence.
Introduction
I want to reflect on the national reconciliation process, and ask some challenging questions about how we can remove the obstacles that stand in the way of a better and more equal relationship between black and white Australians.
As part of this discussion, I want to focus on the current political leadership in Canberra, which I think is a serial underachiever when it comes to reducing Indigenous disadvantage. Not surprising when you appreciate that it is driven by the conviction that better economic opportunities and individual initiative alone will deliver real equality between all Australians.
Unfortunately, this has led to a situation where Australia has not maximised the opportunities that achievements like the 1967 referendum or the Mabo decision opened up to us. Instead, through our political leaders, we have allowed these opportunities to be squandered by half-hearted political responses.
At the same time, it is important to acknowledge that it is primarily because of the Mabo decision that Australians have begun to take a much more honest look at the past, and have started to realise that we have a black history that sits uncomfortably with the national ethos of 'a fair go' for all.
Ordinary Australians - black and white - have had to grapple with native title issues at the local level. People who were historically on opposite sides of the fence have had to open a dialogue and give each other a voice in decisions about land and natural resource management.
Coupled with other revelations from our nation's past, such as Aboriginal Deaths in Custody and the stolen generations, the Mabo and Wik decisions have given rise to an unprecedented outpouring of community action in support of native title and reconciliation, culminating in the bridge walks in 2000 and the release of the Documents for Reconciliation by the now disbanded Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation that same year.
After all this work and the investment of significant resources in the reconciliation process, people now have a right to ask: what has been done? How can we as a nation maintain and build on the momentum that the reconciliation process set in train?
Practical reconciliation - or historical denial
Yet for the vast majority of Australians, Indigenous Affairs remains a 'problem', and predominantly, one that can only be addressed if Indigenous people get serious about putting their own house in order.
This is a very convenient situation for any government. If most of the country thinks the problem lies with Indigenous people themselves, a government doesn't have to try too hard - and it certainly doesn't have to set the historical record straight.
This is precisely what the policy of 'practical reconciliation' enables the present Government to do.
The Prime Minister made it very clear in comments in May this year, that the measure of success in terms of the reconciliation process, will be when Indigenous Australians blend into the wider community and no longer stand out as an embarrassing statistical anomaly.
The Prime Minister's vision for a reconciled Australia is underpinned by a number of simplistic, and in my view, unsubstantiated assertions, that do not stand up to intellectual rigour or historical reality.
These assertions divorce the experience of Indigenous people in this country from any historical context, and they assume that all Australians have the same life opportunities - that it is all a question of individual motivation and choice.
Among their assertions are:
- focussing on Indigenous health, housing, education and employment (basic citizenship rights) alone will overcome Indigenous disadvantage and achieve lasting reconciliation;
- symbolic aspects of reconciliation, like an apology to the stolen generations, or a treaty, will do nothing to address Indigenous disadvantage and are socially and politically divisive;
- there has been too much focus on Indigenous rights at the expense of Indigenous responsibility, and there is more to be gained by encouraging and supporting individuals to become self-reliant; and
- by 'turning off the grog', and tackling 'welfare dependency', Indigenous communities will be able to address family violence, alcohol abuse and social dysfunction.
A few prominent Indigenous commentators have developed and advocated aspects of these assertions as part of a broader analysis of the way forward in Indigenous Affairs policy.
But by using the language of neo-liberalism, and consequently being seen to be of a similar mindset to the Howard Government, they have been cast in the media as legitimaters of the 'practical reconciliation' agenda.
Now, rather than being acknowledged as a critical turning point in Indigenous Affairs in this country, the 1967 referendum and the attainment of equal citizenship rights that it once symbolised, is being recast as the beginning of the era of Indigenous welfare dependence and social dysfunction - the beginning of misery.
Many in the Indigenous leadership now find themselves in the invidious position of being labelled 'part of the problem' and disciples of the 'rhetoric of victimhood' that underpins Indigenous dysfunction. [1]
The reality is however, that you cannot treat the symptoms of dysfunction in isolation from the historical causes. Good public policy can only emerge where there has been an honest and accurate analysis of past errors and omissions, and a genuine commitment to meeting the needs and aspirations of the people affected by any new policy.
I want to refer to just three examples of where I believe, as a nation, we need to be much more honest about our past, to ensure that we tailor our future responses more appropriately. They are:
1. The role of the Constitution in shaping contemporary Indigenous disadvantage. I don't think many Australians realise that the current high levels of Indigenous social and economic disadvantage have their roots in the exclusion and blatant racism that was enshrined in the Australian Constitution. However, in the interests of brevity, I will focus in more detail on the two other factors that I believe have to begin shaping public policy in Australia, namely:
2. The youthful character of Australia's Indigenous population - and how this reality must begin to drive the decisions taken by Canberra and the Indigenous leadership alike.
3. The need for education, capacity building, leadership growth, and sustainable models of community governance to be at the forefront of future policy development.
The demographics of Indigenous Australia
At the end of the day, we need to remind ourselves that we are only 410,000 Indigenous Australians - the largest total since Indigenous people were included for the first time in the national census in 1971.
Even though this is a quite manageable number to deal with, many Australians are still prepared to accept the stereotype of Indigenous affairs as being a terminal case of public policy failure.
How is it possible that 410,000 people should overwhelm our imagination or our ability to formulate responses to familiar challenges within community development?
Indeed, there are some additional aspects to this demographic that are quite important to remember:
- Of the 410,000, about two-thirds are under the age of 25. This is a marked contrast to the broader Australian population where the profile is very much the reverse.
- This means that 240,000 are under the age of 25 and most of them under the age of 18.
- 40% of the nation's juvenile detention population is Indigenous, as is 20% of the nation's prison population.
- Less than half of young Indigenous people aged 15 to 19 are attending secondary school, and consequently, only about 10% are completing their HSC.
- These figures contrast with those for non-Indigenous Australians, of whom 70% are attending secondary school and about 30% are completing their HSC.
In my mind, the education statistics for young Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians are both of concern. But in the case of young Indigenous people, they highlight just how much ground has to be made up if all Australians are to have equal life opportunities.
It would seem apparent to me that these statistics have significant implications for how policy initiatives should be structured and delivered over the short, medium and longer term.
It is clear that in the longer-term, inroads have to be made in relation to Indigenous educational opportunities to ensure that a new generation of leaders is able to emerge and be nurtured. The cost of failure in this regard is the possibility that current problems of high unemployment, community violence, family breakdown, and general lack of life opportunities will be compounded in generations to come.
Similarly, a group of 410,000 people should no longer tolerate the "poor bugger me" attitude and focus more of our energies in growing our organisations and sponsoring our young.
Despite the gloom of the present, we have every reason to be optimistic in recognising the presence of an emerging class of young Indigenous leaders to open a new phase in defining black/white relations.
In this vein, I can only hope that ATSIC elections later this year, give us new outcomes, fresh blood and new ideas. Not because the others haven't done their job - because I think they have - but because those who fall into the 30% club need to make room for the majority, indeed, it is time that, that 70% are reflected in our leadership make-up and not confined to juvenile detention centres or our nation's gaols.
I also want to highlight the need for Australians to throw-off the romantic notion that all Indigenous people live in the remote outback. Only 30% of the Indigenous population live in remote locations.
The other 70% live in the towns, regions and cities of Australia. They live here in the suburbs and in Redfern or Mt Druitt.
These are people who for the most part have a telephone, watch TV and listen to radios in their own homes. The postman goes past everyday. The whole infrastructure of government remains within their day-to-day reach.
But for the Indigenous people of rural, regional and urban Australia, isolation is not a factor of distance, but a matter of prejudice. Overt and institutional racism are the underlying causes of our contemporary isolation, more so than any geographic realities.
If we are to tackle the scourge of racism, we first have to overcome the ignorance and misinformation that is recycled - sometimes by our political leaders, but also by friends and family.
Building up strong, accountable and sustainable Indigenous governance structures
The other point that I would like to emphasise is that identifiable Commonwealth expenditure on Indigenous specific programs is not simply 'on top of' the general government expenditure that benefits all Australians.
For example: Close to one-third of Commonwealth expenditure on Indigenous people directly substitutes for expenditure on mainstream assistance programs. [2] The Indigenous-specific programs deliver virtually the same outcomes, but the way in which services are structured or accessed is different on account of the cultural and other needs of the Indigenous people who use them.
To name a few:
- Abstudy is a substitute for Youth Allowance
- Community Employment Programs substitute for Newstart Allowance
- Aboriginal Medical Services substitute for Medicare supported services, and so on.
Even the Government's own Commonwealth Grants Commission found in its National Report on Indigenous Funding that despite the entrenched levels of disadvantage experienced by Indigenous people across all of the key economic and social indicators, we access mainstream services at very much lower rates than non-Indigenous people - regardless of whether we are in urban or remote areas.
As a consequence, the Indigenous-specific services that were only designed to supplement mainstream services, are struggling with levels of demand that they are simply not equipped to meet. And more often than not, it is the most disadvantaged Indigenous people who miss out.
The recent CGC Report also clearly recognises that the Indigenous Affairs budget has to be more wisely spent and directed to areas of greatest need. It made some very valuable recommendations about the need for greater Indigenous "control of, or stronger influence over, service delivery expenditure", particularly at the regional and local levels. [3]
I am heartened, though, by what we've seen recently in the Northern Territory - with that Government biting the bullet and creating regional health partnerships between Government and Indigenous organisations and communities.
All Indigenous health money - that is Territory and Federal money - for a particular region, will be pooled and administered by a community-controlled health board.
This will not only put Indigenous people in charge, it will also cut down on duplication, bureaucracy, and the general complexity and over-administration, with which most people working in the delivery of Indigenous services, are only too familiar.
While the Territory Government's action is not about rationalising the operations of Indigenous community organisations, it does attack part of the problem at its source. That is; streamlining funding so it is directed, effective and most importantly, Indigenous-controlled.
Conclusion
In finishing, I want to make these final points:
It is clear that our current circumstance is derived from the dominant position of government in Indigenous affairs and the failure to see Indigenous rights as a crucial plank in changing the status quo.
No Australian Government has ever wholeheartedly embraced the right of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders to self-determination, and the associated inherent rights that flow from it.
Recognition has only ever been partial - the Mabo decision is testament to that - and then, given begrudgingly and in a compromised form. Leadership has been more forthcoming in the law than it has in Parliament because at least the law has remained 'colour-blind' in recognising Indigenous rights.
Far too much energy has been expended trying to contain and restrict the application of any rights that are recognised, and invariably more energy is consumed in manoeuvres to limit the application of those rights once they are recognised, native title, being the prime example.
Reconciliation is about the next generation. It is about giving our young people the opportunity to take up the challenges and develop the skills to avoid that pathway to gaols and unemployment queues.
Issues such as education, capacity building, leadership, and sustainable models of community development must be addressed as our top priorities. And as a community, we should be more willing to celebrate and learn from our successes.
I believe, that despite the gloom of the present, we have every reason to be optimistic in recognising the presence of an emerging class of young Indigenous leaders to open a new phase in defining black/white relations.
410,000 is not a lot of people. We can turn our future around.
In the meantime, I join with Commissioner Jonas in his call for a Senate Inquiry into the adequacy of the present Government's response to the outcomes of the last decade of reconciliation. We have to have a mechanism that will make governments accountable. And we have to hold the current government to account to ensure it delivers - even if it is only on its limited promises of 'practical reconciliation'.
Thank you
1.
Philip Ruddock (2002) Changing Direction, Speech delivered at the ATSIC
National Policy Conference 2002, 26th March, 2002, p. page 8.
2. Department of the Parliamentary Library (2001) Indigenous
Affairs Expenditure, Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra, p.7.
3. Commonwealth Grants Commission (2001) Report on Indigenous
Funding 2001, Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra, p. xix.
