The end of ideology in Indigenous affairs

Both major political parties have pursued their ideological convictions in Indigenous policy to the detriment of Indigenous Australians.

Indigenous people have been subjected to a succession of ideologically driven experiments. The Howard Government’s practical reconciliation and quiet revolution are the latest chapters.

Arguments over Australia’s history have not helped one Aboriginal child beat trachoma or prevented one Aboriginal adult from dying before their time. Both Labor and the Coalition must be held to account and ideology removed as the driver of Indigenous public policy.

Labor in government pursued an agenda that focused on rights, reconciliation and self-determination. We invested a great deal of energy and political capital into this agenda: we are proud of our achievements and despondent at their undermining by the Howard Government.

But Labor has been too complacent about our record, and self-satisfied with claims to moral superiority. We put too much faith in the capacity of the rights agenda, self-determination and reconciliation to overcome Indigenous disadvantage.

Conservatives have used our failure to successfully tackle disadvantage to trash the real achievements of the Hawke-Keating period, and are now emboldened to resurrect failed ideological approaches.

The core of the Coalition’s approach is a belief that Indigenous people should be subsumed into the broader mainstream. Their ideology requires a fierce denial of past injustice. They reject self-determination, assertions of Indigenous cultural difference and any healing or symbolic measures.

Practical reconciliation was the Liberals’ ideological reaction against Labor’s rights agenda, which they replaced with policies that would “normalise” Indigenous outcomes so Aboriginal people could live like the rest of Australia.

Practical reconciliation was impractical - lacking clear goals, strategies and evaluation mechanisms, and looking to ideology as a guide, not evidence. Judged on results in areas such as health, education and employment, it has failed miserably.

Recently the government has reorganised the administrative arrangements and repackaged its policy as the “quiet revolution in Indigenous Affairs”: in part to distance itself from the failure of practical reconciliation.

The quiet revolution is a continuation and expansion of ideological policy. Indigenous service delivery is subsumed into mainstream departments and programs with Indigenous difference and special needs ignored. Urban dwellers - about three quarters of the Indigenous population - will have greatly reduced access to Indigenous specific programs or services.

Senator Vanstone labelled remote communities unviable “cultural museums”, reflecting the government’s desire to encourage remote people into urban areas. Rhetoric about Indigenous home ownership disguises the failure to provide adequate housing.

The Howard Government has refused Indigenous input into policy, programs and evaluation and has rejected self-determination and the role and expertise of Indigenous-run bodies.

By stripping back and micro-managing funding the government has reduced the advocacy role of native title representative structures and other community organisations, marginalised critical voices and imposed its own structures on service delivery. Mainstreaming has contributed to this dynamic.

The government’s National Indigenous Council repudiates Indigenous self-determination, with the minister determining the expertise, interests and needs of Indigenous Australians and hand-picking people to articulate them.

Indigenous input is limited to Shared Responsibility Agreements (SRAs), which the government claims are a direct conversation with communities. With only a quarter of Indigenous people living in remote areas, and SRAs being just a fraction of total funding, these conversations between central government and remote communities are limited and exclude most Indigenous people.

SRAs extend mutual obligation to entire communities, in some cases forcing them to bargain for rights of citizenship - basic services. Obligation demanded of communities is not met by government - Mulan did not get its petrol bowser despite meeting its obligation.

SRAs are driven by neither needs analysis nor established priorities; bargains are random; and obligations and rewards unconnected. In his 2005 report, Social Justice Commissioner Tom Calma noted serious problems in monitoring and evaluation frameworks and that SRAs were ineffective in “harnessing the mainstream”.

In its rejection of self-determination and Aboriginal participation, its encouragement of Indigenous people into the mainstream and denial of special needs or difference, the quiet revolution shares similarities to the assimilation policies of the past. It is the latest ideological approach to Indigenous affairs.

In 13 years of Labor and 10 years of the Coalition - on the key indicators in health, education, employment and housing - success has been minimal and in some cases the gap between Indigenous and non-Indigenous outcomes has widened. The community is now less optimistic about real change in Indigenous affairs. Neither Labor nor the Coalition occupies the high moral ground.

We desperately need to lessen the partisanship in Indigenous affairs: after all, we all believe in an equal chance for Indigenous people to share in Australia’s benefits, and a fair go for Aboriginal children.

Both sides must look beyond ideology. Labor must acknowledge that the rights agenda is only part of the solution. We must be more focused on outcomes. The Coalition must accept the need for national settlement with Indigenous Australians, their involvement and empowerment and their experience and difference.

Labor remains committed to the recognition of past injustices and the need for reconciliation and Indigenous self-determination. They are crucial contributors to removing disadvantage. But from here on our guiding principle will be the evidence of what works and what does not work in reducing disadvantage. Not ideology - evidence.

Labor will engage more in the welfare debate, which has been shifted by Noel Pearson’s articulate and passionate contributions.

Pearson forces us to confront difficult issues, and this in part explains the failure of many in the Left to respond.

Labor has not engaged sufficiently over how to address the dysfunction of many Indigenous communities. However, support for self-determination and for the aspirations and achievements of Indigenous people must not lead us to political correctness or a refusal to confront difficult problems.

Labor supports community-based solutions to the problems of alcohol, violence and abuse, where those solutions are based on informed consent. Solutions must be non-discriminatory but balance competing rights. The right to access alcohol and welfare must be balanced against the rights of others to be safe in their homes and communities. Agreements which protect the vulnerable, and which are reached in communities through informed consent, can and must be supported.

In tackling these core issues we must focus on causes and not just symptoms. I struggle to see how removing an individual’s welfare benefit assists them to overcome the alcohol, drug or petrol addiction that drives their behaviour.

These debates should not be held in a politically charged atmosphere. Labor must do better than labelling political opponents racist and paternalistic. Conservatives must do better than accuse us of excusing violence and abuse.

Labor is promoting a national approach of clear goals, an evidence-based strategy and Indigenous involvement at all levels.

Australia desperately needs clear, achievable goals to beat Indigenous disadvantage; allowing us to channel the financial and personal contributions made across our community, to properly evaluate progress and to hold both government and Indigenous organisations to account.

Tom Calma noted, “an absence of targeted action and contentedness that we are ‘slowly getting there’ is not going to result in significant improvements". Bob Hawke’s promise to eradicate child poverty by 1990 shows that goals must be realistic, achievable and adequately resourced.

Australia has not eradicated trachoma - but Oman, Morocco and Iran have done so. We could do this over five to ten years on a budget of $5 million. The goals we set should be clear, achievable, transparent and broadly endorsed. Continuity of policy and direction is vital.

All programs and measures we adopt must be pragmatically grounded in evidence of what works and what does not and measured through transparent frameworks and benchmarks. Labor will continue programs of this government which are shown to be working, but claims of success without clear evidence of fulfilled objectives should be treated with caution.

Indigenous self-determination at all levels is essential. This is not merely Labor ideology. International evidence shows that in tackling disadvantage the input and ownership of those affected is vital, a principle applied by the World Health Organisation, the UN Development Program, various charitable development agencies and national aid organisations.

The government’s refusal to support representative organisations, the bypassing of community groups and the decline in Indigenous public service representation all hinder success.

Unfortunately, Indigenous affairs remains on the periphery - a priority never reflected in government or opposition policy - something to be managed, not highlighted. Labor and the Coalition must take responsibility.

These problems are not intractable. Pessimism can be as corrosive as ideology and we must look beyond both. Labor is arguing for an evidence-based approach with clear goals and full Indigenous involvement - this is the way forward.

Australia will never reach its full potential until our first peoples have a fair chance of reaching theirs. Political parties must contribute to the solution not act as barriers to progress. We can and we must do better.