In the wake of discussion of Andrew Forrest’s proposal for the creation of 50 000 full time jobs for Indigenous Australians (discussed here at LP) and Germaine Greer’s remarks on the continuing force of history in shaping Indigenous responses to state initiatives (discussed here and see the video of last night’s Q&A), I thought it was worth linking to a paper prepared for the Australian Education Union by UTS Indigenous academics Larissa Behrendt and Ruth McCausland. The specific topic they examine is welfare quarantining and schooling outcomes. I’d recommend anyone interested read the whole thing, but the abstract has also been posted at Australian Policy Online.
As well as discussing the philosophy of mutual obligation (referred to as John Howard’s most significant legacy to social policy), the authors point to the lack of an evidence base for most policy initiatives in this area - something almost totally lacking in the research which justified Noel Pearson’s proposals for “family commissions” in Cape York, which is now being held up as a model for the rest of Australia. This appears inconsistent with Jenny Macklin’s disclaimers of ideological motivation and claims that evidence and “what works” would be the criterion for Indigenous policy. They also point to several studies which demonstrate that parental responsibility in sending kids to schools is at best only one factor in school attendance and outcomes, with the quality of schooling and child health also being very important variables.
The obvious conclusion to be drawn is that most policy initiatives in this area are at best blunt instruments. It also suggests that they are being driven by a new orthodoxy - arguments about “personal responsibility” and “social norms” being more assertion than evidence based. Most tellingly, perhaps, and here Greer’s comments are important too, is the suggestion that the obligation is almost entirely one sided and thus lacking in mutuality - and that the state is failing to put in place the preconditions for such experiments to have much chance of providing enduring outcomes. That doesn’t leave me feeling me feeling very hopeful about the prospects of closing the gap.
The “evidence base” stands out loud and clear if only one is prepared top look for it. See here for example: http://www.crikey.com.au/nt-intervention/20080618-NT-Intervention-Anniversary-a-positive-difference-for-one-community.html
And here: http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23625735-5013172,00.html
But wait, there’s still more: http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2007/s2220371.htm
Also note the success of the Pearson team in recent council election in Cape York. So much for the argument that Pearson speaks for no one.
The chair of the NLC has also backed the Forrest Plan.
The only thing missing from the evidence base seems to be a free set of steak knives.
Part of the problem with Indigenous policy is that it is written in Canberra to suit the needs of the voting Australians, most of whom do not live where the so-called problem areas are (remote and regional Australia- though it has to be said that Aborigines in Western Sydney are not much better off than their remote cousins). As a result policy makers/actors have no real reason to try to understand the realities of Indigenous Australians in determining policy for them. In fact one of the critical problems in the arena of Indigenous policy is a lack of Indigenous voices as policy actors. Some might argue that they do not have the “capacity” to participate in the policy making game, however this could, and should be turned around to highlight that the current crop of policy makers (including Macklin who it appears to me to have no substantive idea of what she is doing in Indigenous Affairs) do not have the cpapcity to understand what Indigenous people might be saying.
Sadly there are things that work that get overlooked and ignored or treated as one-offs that we should be learning from. However if we did this the mainstream majority might think that we were making too many concessions to Indigenous ways of being- and that would not be on.
Err, Lord Sir etc, you have an odd notion of evidence, particularly in the last report you linked to which isn’t all that upbeat about school attendance.
One point to be made here is that some communities respond better to some of the policy measures than others - for all sorts of reasons. Yet the policy measures are relatively disconnected from individual community needs, particularly wrt welfare quarantining which also makes no distinction - in the NT - between those who have problems and those who don’t - and indeed whether people have kids or are the kids’ carers or not.
And media reports are not the same as policy evaluation!
As to your comment about Pearson, who said that? Yet another example of importing a whole lot of assumptions about “sides” in the debate.
I’d strongly suggest you actually read the report linked.
I agree that a couple of media reports do not evidence make.
The main point to be made is that even things like twiggs 50K are not going to make a substantive difference unless Indigenous people are comprehensively involved in both policy formulation and implementation. What many dont seem to understand is that we dont have a lack of “good” ideas, we have a lack of partnerships that can make good ideas become reality. It doesn’t matter if I think I have the answer (whether it be Indigenous Affairs or carbon trading), the point is that it is only when all the players have the knowledge and ability to make decisions will things actually happen. Unfortunately many people still regard Indigenous knowledge as deficient when it comes to addressing contemporary concerns. The truth is that this knowledge is just as important now as it ever was and is overlooked and/or derided to the detriment of all. The issues that currently confront Australia in regard to its Indigenous people will only be solved through cooperation and this DOES NOT mean some version of forced responsibility taking (as if forcing someone to become responsible makes them responsible!)
I have been working in East Arnhemland for a few years now and I have to agree with Larissa Behrendt. There are plenty of problems in the Indigenous domain, but largely it is Government, which is failing in its responsibility.
I think on the individual level personal responsibility has its place, but I would first ask the question, at which point in Australia’s history has Indigenous disadvantage been adequately redressed?
One of the few things that was good about the NT Emergency Response was that it started to fund Indigenous communities appropriately. It is just sad that the only way it was possible to do this is in a victim blaming way where the aboriginal had to be saved from themselves by the superior white man.
I agree with Roger and Yuwalk.
I beleive they have surreptitiously retreived some of the worst elements of Howard’s policy, and that goes back to the reasons for the original.
Quite apart from the profiteeering aspect, the ideological reasons for privatisation of aboriginal property have been enthusiastically canvassed by the likes of Pearson.
The other significant covert reason would be the opportunity for a back door onslaught on welfare in general. No hope of taking away white welfare if the blackfellas are still receiving it. Also suits the prejudices of the mortgage belt and ideological bent of a new crew of neo liberals.
I have to agree with Roger, Larissa and Yuwalk. I’ve been out of the field for a long time, but 25 years ago when I was involved in organisations fighting new and extended liquor licences in Alice Springs, and dealing with the outcomes of the Hawke Government’s first attempt to come to terms with the stolen generation, ’set up to fail’ was the standard outcome of all indigenous initiatives. There were lots of initiatives and proposals coming from indigenous groups and communities and all were given just enough funding to attempt, but not succeed, at whatever was proposed.
I despair at hearing the debates these days, knowing that we were having the same debates 25 years ago. I get even more despairing at how quickly we forget the the things that failed. As an example, does anyone remember why we pulled police from Aboriginal Communities in the first place? ‘Deaths in Custody’ anyone?
Interesting results from a survey on the Intervention by the Central Land Council in Alice Springs:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/08/15/2336727.htm
An indication of how distorted these debates gets comes from the following quote from Warren Mundine - responding to criticisms about the one size fits all model of the Intervention:
In fact what he’s responding to is the view of Indigenous people in the Territory.
Where I went to school I was taught evidence is more than the occasional news story. Crikey has many stories on the intervention, most of them negative. The news article pointed out in the second comment does not say how many people were tested. Perhaps that is why notifications are down. Perhaps the younger teenagers do not feel comfortable coming into the clinic as they once did.
I do get a little tired with government types who don’t come out as it is too far to come. It is remote. It does take time to visit. Or to understand.
I am unsure that there is a new orthodoxy. More that terms and conditions relevant in one culture are trying to be imposed on another.
I think that’s the same thing, in a way, BiteTheDust, because the new orthodoxy lacks any mutuality (despite its protestations) and often lacks any dimension of consultation let alone empowering communities. So in effect it’s a one way form of action.
In response to my comment that Pearson, Kim says:
“As to your comment about Pearson, who said that? Yet another example of importing a whole lot of assumptions about “sides” in the debate.”
Obviously you don’t bother reading what your co-commentator Mark Bahnisch says. He has made multiple comments such as this:
“I’d be more than happy if Indigenous people themselves got to elect their leaders, rather than the loudest voice with the most access to the whitefella press getting the gong as a “leader”. If people like Mundine and Pearson have standing sufficient to succeed in a democratic process, then, for mine, that would give more legitimacy to their interventions.” http://larvatusprodeo.net/2008/04/19/spare-a-thought-for-jackie-huggins/#comment-458400
I suggest you take your own advice and listen rather than “import assumptions”.
Kim sez:
“Err, Lord Sir etc, you have an odd notion of evidence, particularly in the last report you linked to which isn’t all that upbeat about school attendance.”
Link sez:
“Attendance rates at remote Indigenous schools have jumped 20 to 30 per cent since the Federal Government intervention in the northern territory.”
Yup. A 20 to 30 per cent improvement is an abject failure alright.
And what’s the source for that statistic? An assertion by a reporter. In any case, whoever mentioned “abject failure”? The whole point of the report which is the subject of this post is that school attendance per se is meaningless in the absence of effective schooling, and the capacity of children to benefit from schooling.
I can assure Lord Sir Sidney that teachers don’t really welcome trying to teach a bunch of kids who really don’t want to be there. With too many unwilling souls in the class the tendency is that the whole show becomes impossible.