Like what you've read?

On Line Opinion is the only Australian site where you get all sides of the story. We don't
charge, but we need your support. Here�s how you can help.

  • Advertise

    We have a monthly audience of 70,000 and advertising packages from $200 a month.

  • Volunteer

    We always need commissioning editors and sub-editors.

  • Contribute

    Got something to say? Submit an essay.


 The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
On Line Opinion logo ON LINE OPINION - Australia's e-journal of social and political debate

Subscribe!
Subscribe





On Line Opinion is a not-for-profit publication and relies on the generosity of its sponsors, editors and contributors. If you would like to help, contact us.
___________

Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Closing the gap report revelations reveal nothing new

By Jack Wilkie-Jans - posted Tuesday, 11 April 2017


Last month the ninth annual Closing the Gap Report was released by the Federal Government and it revealed what anybody living in remote or regional areas could have revealed: that the targets to "close the gap" are not all holistically on track. In Parliament we heard the Prime Minister and Opposition Leader rehash the same rhetoric of the need for partnership and the need for more coordinated development & implementation of Indigenous affairs policy. For the past nine years such sentiments have been lauded yet never followed through. Which is why Indigenous affairs remains one of the most wasteful, in terms of spending, sectors in Australia and why only one of the "closing the gap" targets is said to be on track.

Dr. Jackie Huggins AM told ABC News 24 that should some of the Royal Commission and other reports relating to Indigenous incarceration and health statistics have been implemented sooner the issues may not be so systematic as they are now. Likewise, if all governments had opted to listen to the people on the ground- and I mean actually listened to, not just fly-in and then out again after sitting and taking photos with someone they'll go back to Canberra calling "Aunty" this or "Uncle" that in a speech. Governments have been warned over the years that their collective and shameful approach to Indigenous affairs has been secular and narrow minded.

The time is well overdue that new voices be heard in the Indigenous affairs political sphere. This is happening; more Indigenous representatives sit in Parliament than ever before and a newly revamped Prime Minister's Indigenous Advisory Council features the brilliant and underrated Dr. Chris Sarra.

Advertisement

In my experience, where Indigenous affairs policy falls down is not necessarily in its altruistic intentions and not even so much in its ground-level implementation but in its spending. Who gets the $30B [or so] per annum? Mostly the same old-hat organisations who have demonstrated time and again in numerous financial audits and other controversies that they and their governance are mostly interested in self-congratulation as seen in the disproportionate salaries adopted within such organisations' structures. I'm not barring any holds, when I say that I apply that to Indigenous run and Indigenous governed organisations in receipt of Indigenous affairs spending as well.

This is because for so long governments' approach to Indigenous people and Indigenous affairs has always been one of paternalism. Since the Aboriginals Protection and Restriction of the Sale of Opium Act 1897 (QLD) Indigenous people have never been perceived to do for themselves. As David Bowie espoused last year, albeit in ironic reference to his own artistry, "Nothing Has Changed". Apply that to Indigenous affairs and it rings true. Current policies such as the Welfare Reform Trials (although calling them trials is a blatant lie as they are clearly and sadly here to stay) and to a similar extent, Alcohol Management Plans, are cut from the same cloth with the racist mentality now so wet with good intentions that nobody can see them for what they actually are, being segregation and apartheid.

The week before the report was delivered the Prime Minister accused the Opposition Leader of leading a career hinged on the "politics of envy" yet at the unveiling of the Closing the Gap Report he ignored the politics of guilt shrouding Indigenous affairs spending. The vast swathes of cash streaming from Canberra to ineffective, bureaucratic riddled policies and poorly managed organisations is a direct result of this. The "mission mentality" towards Indigenous people (especially those living in places so remote to the major cities that they may as well be the slums of India or the shanties of Africa) being that of 'out of sight out of mind' is still strong and appears intentionally less divisive when flushed with cash.

The implications of all this and the layered on faux sympathy espoused- and to no real avail- from politicians in their thousands since the early 90s is that a sense of entitlement, in a sense, grows. Not from those on the ground but from those in elevated positions of influence who see beyond the need on the ground to the immense opportunity now afforded to be able to make significant dollars off the backs of the blacks of Australia and their plight.

Two primary examples of this occurring is in the sudden plague of Regional Training Organisations (RTOs) & Remote Jobs Communities Programs (RJCP) as well as unfair misuses of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cwlth).

The reality, no matter what boxes most RTOs tick, they are not interested and nor can they really truly help increase Indigenous employment. In Cape York Peninsula, Indigenous people on welfare remain some of the most over-qualified yet under-skilled. When it comes to providing training as a service to welfare recipients often obliged to participate, factor in the process of "loading" (a process of identifying greater or lesser need/vulnerability of the applicant) the selecting of Indigenous prospective trainees can prove quite lucrative.

Advertisement

In Queensland in the past there was a little thing called "Contestable Eligibility" which in a way was a more appropriate means to link the right candidate to the right training opportunity or course. While this assisted in more training to jobs realisation, it may not have provided RTOs and government policy agendas with the desired number of successful completion of traineeships or courses. In Queensland the former Newman lead Liberal National Party (LNP) Government opted to scrap Contestable Eligibility as a means to introduce more trainees into courses. This ultimately lead RTOs to play a numbers game and focus more on the number of incoming and successful trainees- not necessarily focusing on the actual skills acquired and mastered to accompany said pieces of paper.

This scrapping of Contestable Eligibility basically created a cash cow for RTOs under the Indigenous sector of public money.

While training can never fully be argued to be a bad thing, the false hope this constant push provides to Indigenous people such RTOs claim to be helping is in truth setting them up to fail. Without question.

Many locals from the communities, who are indeed grateful for the training opportunities provided, also lament the lack of jobs and more importantly a lack of commitment on part of governments to open up industries for job creation which restricts opportunities to start up small, locally owned and managed businesses. Another aspect of the training industry they feel leaves them up the creek is the lack of any professional development during the training process, meaning training is overly text book orientated with not a great deal of practical work as most work (when regarding labouring) is seasonal in Cape York. Due to the FIFO nature of training providers people rarely see their trainer and rarely engage with them in any workplace placement post completion of training. A bare minimum of engagement they say is due to the fact they are treated as numbers and quotas in order to pull in the government cash incentives.

For all the positive elements of this up-skilling and training trend, the holes in its ultimate success on the ground, in real terms is left wanting. That is because where RTOs have placed much emphasis (being bush areas) are also areas where jobs and job prospects are slim. Many Aboriginal communities and rural/remote towns have no retail and no space for retail, township growth and subdivision of cattle stations are somewhat forbidden and there is much political focus on locking up these areas, shying away from agriculture and primary industries. Essentially what this means is that increasing employability of a person or people is but one piece of two conjoining pieces. Increasing economic opportunities by way of reneging on the 'lock up and throw away the key' emphasis placed on places like Cape York is the other, crucial yet ignored piece needed to close the gap in Indigenous/non-Indigenous employment.

Not specific to the Closing the Gap Report but relative to Indigenous affairs (in terms of contributing to inequality and spending waste) are issues relating to Native Title which are becoming more and more noticeable across the board. Any conversation about the plight of Indigenous people and the state of Indigenous affairs has to be brave enough to look at the short-comings of Native Title.

What is becoming clearer by the day is that there are growing problems with how Native Title is working- or rather not working. This is shown as I and the newly formed representative & advocacy group for Cape York, the Cape York Alliance, is in receipt of a growing number of letters, emails and complaints about the way Traditional Owners are being poorly represented by their Registered Native Title Representative Body, meaning Land Councils. The issues with Native Title extend beyond Traditional Owners to non-Indigenous land holders who in areas where freehold is not the nature of a land lease are subject to Native Title Indigenous Land Use Agreements (ILUAs).


 

 

In a perfect world Native Title would not necessarily cause division amongst Traditional Owner groups nor would it pose a threat to the viability of non-Indigenous managed land and its uses. However due to the very human condition we all are limited by, the concept of greed is seemingly the driving force behind many an ILUA negotiation and Native Title dispute; made worse by the valuing of money over true cultural ambition and a will to live alongside one another in cohesion.

None of what I am saying is new, not to black fellas or to white fellas. We all see what greed and in-fighting can do to communities and families. What these problems are, are not always easy to resolve but what is clear is that such problems have arisen under the provisions and powers of the Native Title Act. But I suppose more in the attitudes of those exercising those powers and provisions.

Native Title these days seems to cause more fighting and disagreement and disharmony than it does long-term good. All the media ever reports on are the determinations of Native Title, the hand backs, yet they never scrutinise the deals made under relative ILUAs and follow up to see whether or not the Traditional Owner stakeholders did or didn't benefit in the long term and whether or not any possible royalties made it to the people or was instead swallowed up in the Native Title representational machine, or even if job quotas negotiated under ILUAs are being filled by the rightful Traditional Owners or by a clique instead.

I and so many others, especially from my home region of Cape York, are seeing the concept of Traditional 'ownership' over the ancient charge of 'custodianship' supersede the latter and is being warped into a very cold, capitalist greed machine by a small but powerful and influential few. I am seeing the concept of 'co-existence' as being superseded by the notion of 'land lording' to an extent similar to pre-Magna Carta England in some ILUA negotiations; 'negotiations' being the operative word. I see the Native Title powers and processes being abused & misused and the provisions of negotiation for mutual benefit at odds with the fact that, accept it or not, we as in the First Peoples of Australia are part of a globalised world where nationwide responsibilities of unity are currently being overlooked for the sake of individual gain- unwittingly ushering in a warring contrast between the environmentally sustainable use of land and the 'lock-up' mentality of regions such as Cape York.

Native Title is no longer the same as what Eddie Koiki Mabo, Rev. David Passi and James Rice began to fight for in the early 90s. Native Title is almost unrecognisable from their dignified and righteous intentions as Native Title has moved so far beyond what it was intended to achieve, which was recognition and adherence of the ongoing and vital link to country that Indigenous peoples here in Australia and in the Torres Strait Islands have.

Nobody is saying that Native Title in its perfectly theoretical incarnation doesn't have a valid role to play in achieving recognition for the First Peoples however, what is upsetting is the blind eye we have all turned and the fact that nobody is saying what needs to be said. The time has surely come to ask the tough, no doubt unpopular but much needed question of whether or not we review the Native Title Act more than what is presently being argued is needed. The under-performance of the Office of the Registrar of Indigenous Corporations (ORIC) must also be placed under scrutiny.

The problems facing Indigenous people across Australia are varied and extend far beyond government/Indigenous relations but to internal relations as well. The problems facing Indigenous affairs are as extensive as the Closing the Gap Report annually showcases however the problems reach far beyond the report's scope. Continuing down the path of throwing cash at the problems without any difficult-to-swallow scrutiny of existing outlooks, processes and policies will only continue to exacerbate the problems. Tough review and overhaul of the way we look at "closing the gap" is needed and as I have always said, the answers to this can be found in the middle, common ground as after-all you cannot truly close a gap based on racial statistical paradigms but only with a human approach, and we are all Australians.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. All


Discuss in our Forums

See what other readers are saying about this article!

Click here to read & post comments.

19 posts so far.

Share this:
reddit this reddit thisbookmark with del.icio.us Del.icio.usdigg thisseed newsvineSeed NewsvineStumbleUpon StumbleUponsubmit to propellerkwoff it

About the Author

Jack is a Traditional Owner from the Western Cape, Cape York Peninsula, an Aboriginal Affairs advocate and he sits on the board of the Cape's peak body organisation for social, economic and environmental development, Cape York Sustainable Futures Inc.

Other articles by this Author

All articles by Jack Wilkie-Jans

Creative Commons LicenseThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Article Tools
Comment 19 comments
Print Printable version
Subscribe Subscribe
Email Email a friend
Advertisement

About Us Search Discuss Feedback Legals Privacy