Crossposted from No Right Turn.
In the run-up to the 2007 election, then-Australian Prime Minister John Howard decided to repeat his successful racial wedge tactics with Aborigines as the victims, declaring a “state of emergency” in Northern Australia, taking over townships, and suspending anti-discrimination laws so it could subject aborigines to authoritarian and paternalist controls on the basis of race. Now, James Anaya, the UN Special Rapporteur on the human rights of indigenous people, has pointed out the obvious: that this was fundamentally discriminatory. And he didn’t mince his words in saying so:
“There is entrenched racism in Australia,” Anaya told reporters in the capital, Canberra, after visiting several Aboriginal townships in the past week. “These measures overtly discriminate against Aboriginal peoples, infringe their right of self determination and stigmatize already stigmatized communities.”
The Australian has more:
Compulsory income management and blanket bans on alcohol and pornography were “overtly discriminatory” and further stigmatised already stigmatised communities, he said.
“People who have a demonstrated capacity to manage their income are included.
“It’s inappropriate to their circumstances but is also, as expressed by them, demeaning.”
The indigenous rights expert was also scathing of federal Labor’s insistence that housing funds would only flow if indigenous communities signed over their land.
“It’s a mistake to assume that indigenous peoples … aren’t capable of taking care of their homes,” Prof Anaya said.
“Indigenous control can be appropriate to indigenous peoples’ development, to their aspirations, to indeed being in control of their lives like all others.”
As for compensation for indigenous people taken from their families by government agencies, the UN rapporteur was unequivocal: “There should be reparations,” he said.
That’s a pretty stunning condemnation of a government we all expect to behave better. It will be interesting to see how the Rudd government, which has moved a long way from Howard’s position, responds.
Toby Abbott was defending the racist intervention on last night’s QandA and he is the Opposition spokesman on Aboriginal Affairs! The Libs and Nats are definitely racist, but, as you said, Labor is not much better.
BTW, as I am typing this, there is a global warming denialist ad running in the right hand column. Can LP do anything to block this filth?
I support income management. I support it in some of the disfunctional aboriginal communities and support it in some non aboriginal areas. So at least it is not a race thing for me. In my experience many of those who oppose income management are very middle class, white and have little experience of the horrific culture amongst sections of the community that receive welfare. As a teacher in an area which could be described as underclass I see daily the real effects of neglect. People with ample welfare payments neglect their kids and do not provide for them. What is wrong with saying that if you fail to feed and provide for your kids then we will make sure a certain amount of your benefits are allocated only to food. As usual it is white middle class people living in luxury who are willing to allow some parents to continue to spend money on the wrong things while negelcting their kids. Kids welfare comes above ideological nonsense which does nothing to address negelct and abuse. There should be more not less control over welfare.
And it would also be a mistake to argue that such thinking is based merely on an ‘assumption’. A more realistic sentence would be, “…it’s a mistake to assume that people with a demonstrated lack of capacity to take care of their own homes should be assumed to be capable of taking care of their own homes.”
The problem with the intervention is its reach. There’s no evaluation of the individual at all, it’s closer to the benefit system than the legal system in that regard. Are you the wrong colour? Do you live in the wrong place? Then you qualify. That’s what I object to.
If there was a universal test that didn’t breach our human rights obligations, then definitely, bring it on. Put it in the hands of DOCS. Or perhaps not, they’re a little busy. Maybe Centrelink, they have a great record at making sure everyone gets all the benefits they’re entitled to and no-one misses out. Which does bring up the ugly question – who decides? Do we need another bureaucrazy to administer this system and fight with the existing bureacrazies, or do we just dump another unfunded obligation on top of one of the existing government departments and hope for the best?
But it’s only human rights. I’m sure Labour have more important things to worry about, like our relationship with China or how to avoid committing to anything in Copenhagen.
Look, I don’t like a lot about the intervention. Timing, scope, rhetoric….but SOMETHING is surely better than NOTHING…??
Human rights are all very well, but what about the rights of those living in the special kind of hell that some of these townships comprise (and yes, I have seen them first-hand). If someone can show me a better way I’m all for it – but what was happening didn’t work, and doing nothing is not an option.
I feel that I’m missing a lot of the backstory on Labor’s handling of indigenous affairs. Not denying for a moment that navigating one’s way through the policy and politics of reconciliation is hard, but it seems that they’re simply not doing very well at either.
Why?
Is it just keeping the focus groups happy and bugger the actual outcomes? Is Macklin simply incompetent? Or is there a belief (whether misguided or not) in the government that the current policies will work in the longer term?
On another related topic, one question I have about the proposed indigenous representative body – where’s the money to run it going to come from?
silkworm – re: the denalist ad…nobody from here is going to click on it or read it, and it’s their money they’re wasting. If they want to waste their money here, and LP is happy to drain their coffers (for which the denialists will get not a single extra supporter), then I say, let them take out a frickin’ site-wide sponsor$hip!
Just think…denialists are losing their budget to pay it to a progressive website. Don’tcha love it?
I hope Kevin gives our friend from the UN and all others like him who pretend to care for the plight of Aborigines a big “up yours”, but I doubt it.
Then I hope he gives him this article to read:
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,,25986136-5013172,00.html
What Moz said. It’s supposed to be a free bloody country. For a while I was quite near a “disfunctional neighbourhood”, and if the government took my money off me and appointed themselves in loco parentis because of my neighbours’ problems, I’d have been mightily pissed. American health care protester pissed.
Then again I’m white so that wouldn’t happen.
Supporters of the intervention would argue that, yes, the intervention was discriminatory, but that Aboriginal communities were becoming so dysfunctional that something serious had to be done.
The intervention had many facets to it – some parts struck me as sensible, others not well thought out. Howard Government ministers have basically admitted to the utterly cynical motives behind the intervention – though that is a surprise to no one.
The interesting thing is that Jenny Maklin met with James Anaya. I could be wrong, but I don’t think ministers in the Howard Government had the courtesy to even meet with similar figures. Can anyone be any help in this respect?
Ummm…something about the “Nanny State”. How long does “an emergency intervention” last for? How is all this measured? Does anyone really care?
Oh yeah Paul W thanks for that. I feel so much the same…I wish I could absolve myself, like you, with one emphatic gesture: “That’ll learn ‘em bloody do-gooder pooftas from Sidnee.”
Jenny Macklin should have reinstated the Racial Discrimination Act as soon as parliament stood after the election of the Rudd government. That she is still stuffing around on this front after all this time suggests either incompetance or another uncaring, possibly racist, minister to add to the Liberal list.
It is a bloody scandal that such a thing could happen and be maintained. And it is sad that we need Anaya to come here to draw our attention to it. Good on him.
Did we really need an outsider, Prof. Anaya, to tell us what was/is bleeding obvious for all who have eyes to see and ears to hear?
Well yes and no it seems.
People, informed and credible, have been saying since the invasion was announced that it was racist and would achieve nothing or even less, was never meant to achieve anything except maybe garner a few votes for a dying government.
So Prof Anaya should not have been necessary but, sadly, is.
And still the entrenched racism will deny the reality.
Using standard excuses mainly along the lines of blaming the victim, always an easy out.
Two of the major issues that are claimed to relate to indigenous people are also applicable to white middle and upper class communities throughout Australia.
Rates of child sexual abuse are probably as high in …..[name your city's elitist white suburb] as in any indigenous community.
Despite the screaming headlines I’ve yet to see any credible evidence of CSA rates in indigeous communities vastly exceeding the Australian norm. Or even slightly exceeding for that matter. Lots of claims, no evidence.
The closest thing I have seen was the Mulligan Report in SA which claimed, but without authority, CSA rates in indigenous communities that were slightly lower than the general estimate for all Australia [although AFAIK that last bit was not mentioned].
Nobody suggests moving the troops in and taking control of the family finances of entire rich suburbs where CSA is known to occur.
Domestic violence is another matter, there is evidence of very high rates in indigenous communities and that requires attention.
But, again, DV exists in rates unacceptably high everywhere [what rate is acceptable?] in Australia and again, nobody suggests clamping down on the entire financial structure of entire elitist suburbs.
There is one remedy for the poor and one remedy [if any] for the rich.
As the invasion exemplifies we are not only a racist country, but classist as well.
Are there any measures in place for determining if anything has gotten better/worse/neither after the Intervention?
Patriot@5: if we were in the first 48 hours after the Intervention was announced, maybe you might have a point. It’s no less pathetic that Tony Abbott has devoted no more thought to this than he did at the time.
Paul @ 8:
Thanks for that article – so true in so many ways.
The response from the government is to just reject the findings of the report but say they are going to reinstate the racial discrimination act. And I think they have also said previously they were going to roll out intervention measures like income quarantining to disadvantaged non aboriginal areas. And perhaps that is how they will justify the intervention with the act reinstated.
hannah’s dad – the DV rates in indigenous communities appear to be much much higher though so I think there is some justification for treating the problems differently. A quick google points to a government website which says indigenous females are 13 times more likely to seek help to escape violence than non indigenous females and 35 times more likely to be hospitalised due to DV. I don’t think you can claim that the problems are of similar magnitude.
Get a load of what this racist Howard supporter thinks:
How dare he disparage the supreme moral authority of the UN.
From Warren Mundine this is hardly surprising, Craig Mc.
Chris@16 I do not think you are correct in suggesting that the government has plans to run the Tony Abbott model of also descriminating against the white disadvantaged in our community so that they can reintroduce the racial discrimination act.
If you have any information that proves me wrong- and I may well be- please provide links.
Chris at #16.
Re DV
“I don’t think you can claim that the problems are of similar magnitude.”
I didn’t, please re-read.
I am fully aware that DV in indigenous communities is a severe problem.
But the evidence for a similar situation re CSA, is simply lacking, yet that has not stopped extremist statements [" Won't somebody please think of the children!!!!!!"] being made.
The core point is that no one advocates the solving of such problems in white communities by the same methods as are so self righteously advocated for the indigenous communities.
We have a Car Rally happening in the North Coast Area of N.S.W. where Aboriginal input has been denied.A uranium mine was allowed through without any representation from women of Aboriginal descent,whilst the major shareholder,has been associated with matters that edge close to U.S. laws involving murder and other skullduggery,that if pointing the bone was at all useful there maybe an arrangement for him.And a number of Aboriginal Corporates in N.S.W. have had their right to exist repealed,because they did not meet legislation requirements for reporting.Accounting and law upholding wins the day,rather then the slow process of getting use to such,amongst people who probably find little point in it anyway.So the question of a new ABORIGINAL representative body and how it is financed with people who have finessed themselves well with requirements of Law…seems to be similar ,if not racism.As an exercise in clear thinking,there are many ways to insure welfare money isn’t wasted,rather than that imposed by government itself.What do banks do as automatic processes!? As one example.There should of been a more pointed attempt at getting the fresh garden produce in,by design,that meant,not much work had to be done,and was done in minimal time if necessary,whilst waiting around for something..even the commercial washing machines.Women working are pretty good generally,at being mean with their money where that counts.But where were the Aboriginal Women’s work ideas,with the Rudd Government Intervention!? Sadly all the potential of the Internet as ideas generating hasn’t seemed to of transformed into any form of activity rewarding in itself,and,potentially transactional!There still seems an easily recognisable failure of communications,even,with a Blog like this,which doesn’t cater to being unfriendly to Aboriginal concerns generally.
While problems of political economy for the first Kiwi’s; the first Americans and first Canadians may not have been completely solved, all those three places seem further ahead in these areas than us. So surely some model, or mix of these models would give first Australians an economic base for political power?
New Zealand has the treaty
Canada has autonomist homelands
America has reservation casino’s and cigarette sales
We have the re-invasion by an unjust and undemocratic army now supported by neo-labor. Surely we all should expect and demand and deserve far better than that.
#2 Spana says Aug 28th, 2009 at 4:23 pm
Spana, your simple comment, with its transluscent honesty and evident humanit,y stands in marked contrast to the evasions and equivocations of many of the so-called progressives on this site.
At the time it happened I thought the intervention an admission of failure/helplessness to effectively assist the indigenous. The rapporteur’s conclusions seemed consistent with the bleeding obvious I thought, and as well as agreeing with it, it’s pretty consistent with how Australia is viewed internationally. I’ve found the media denialist responses extraordinary.
Having said that, I did read the artlicle linked at #8 and totally felt for and agreed with Mrs Price! I wanted to give her a hug, but knew I’d get a clip on the ear.
Speaking from my own experience working with indigenous communities, stuff only works when you go there, sit down with them, work it out with them (by which I mean ensuring that it becomes their business, not some bloody “policy”) and then work with the group to do and complete whatever it is, and ensure real continual follow-up. And what might be a great idea for one group, will not be for another.
Reliance on any assumption that one has a clue how a community is going to work based on experiences with other communities is risky.
Any broad brush stuff therefore, (and I know, for instance, when I’m involved in policy development, I automatically go into broad brush land) is going to be inherantly flawed. But this is just my experience please note. Maybe I just wasn’t very good at what I was doing.
It’s a mess, there’s no doubt. Though I should point out that suspending the RDA was an act of legal pragmatism: if it had stood, the very idea of an intervention would still be crawling through the intestines of the legal system 10 years from now.
Of course, it doesn’t help that Northern Territorians, not being members of States, have zero constitutional protection from the Commonwealth. Much of WA, SA and Queensland face nearly identical problems. The Commonwealth did what it did in the NT because it could, not for any particular suffering there.
Income management should be rolled out nation-wide. It won’t be for electoral reasons. Any government who does it will have to face the wrath of hundreds of thousands of welfare recipients, many of them concentrated in marginal seats. Whereas the intervention covers the seat of Lingiari, which is welded to Labor. There was nothing for Howard to lose.
“Consultation” is a common catchcry, but it’s not a panacea. Consider the controversy over SIHIP, for instance. Consultation is busily chewing up dollars which could have been used to build houses. Those houses are becoming more and more expensive because every community wants a different design. And not a one has been built. I’m not trying to blame the victim, I’m trying to blame the belief that all you need is love.
From my own point of view the conditions and opportunities found in traditional aboriginal Australia are a shameful blight on the soul of the nation. It’s a shame job — it’s sorry business.
It would be interesting to see how prof Anaya and many of the commentators on this post would react if the government got serious and removed all the special laws and practices associated Aborigines. This means no difference between Aboriginal land ownership laws and those that apply to the rest of us, no Aboriginal affairs dept, no limitation on the availability of grog, no special treatment on the basis of Aboriginal law etc. The reality is that Aborigines and people on both sides of politics have been happy to accept racial discrimination when it suits.
The key question is: How much of this discrimination has really helped Aborigines? When answering this question it is worth remembering that most of the communities that are in the biggest mess are those that have “benefitted” most from the special laws.
For example, consider land rights: The land rights granted by Malcolm Frazer had a number of special provisions including collective ownership, no right to sell the land and ownership of mineral rights. Some Aborigines have benefitted from these provisions. However, others have been disadvantaged. For example, many more Aborigines would have been granted land if it hadn’t been for the understandable opposition of the minerals industry. Many Aborigines would have benefitted if the laws hadn’t discouraged outsiders from setting up businesses, providing jobs and indirectly helping communities adjust to the modern world.
Consider too the unequal application of the law. This has meant lighter sentences for violence between Aborigines, less protection for Aboriginal women and more tolerance of appalling school attendance. It has also meant that children who are “failing to thrive” as the nurses put it are left in situations that would justify removal if they were non-aborigines.
I am not arguing that we should go cold turkey and suddenly drop all special provisions. The situation is far too complex for that. For example, the sudden change in the booze laws after 1967 has, and still is, wreaking enormous damage. Perhaps what really needs to happen is for bans on strong beer and other actions that have worked on Aboriginal communities to be applied to Australia as a whole? Aborigines are not the only people who have their lives diminished by booze.
We also have to take account of how foreign Aboriginal culture is. The priorities are very different, the responsibilities are very different and the processes are very different. There are problems both with Aborigines understanding of our very foreign culture as well as our understanding of theirs.
It is time we had a hard look at the effect of all the special laws and practices. When we have done this we may be in a better position to make decisions about the intervention.
John@24: if the government got serious and removed all the special laws and practices associated Aborigines… For example, consider land rights
Yes, lets. That’s a very good case. We start with the claims to own land in Australia and ask who can prove clear title going back to first white settlement. No country I’m aware of recognises fraudulent land transfers as valid, and most regard attempts in that area as crimes. So we’d have a situation where aboriginal groups owned pretty much all the land in Australia. Could be expensive to resolve, methinks. Then we could move along to more serious crimes like murder, rape, kidnapping and so on. All done under a presumption of equality before the law, as you suggest.
Or did you mean to only apply that law to Australia as it stands more or less today? If you do, let me know where you live and when the change-over happens so I can arrange to be in possession of your house at the time.
‘We also have to take account of how foreign Aboriginal culture is.’
Well I couldn’t agree more. They should all attend compulsory 12 month courses in Australian Values – that’s after they learn to speak English instead of the primitive foreign gibberish they talk now. I mean if they want to come to this country they should have to learn how to be Australians.
Ken @27: When I went to live on an aboriginal reserve I learnt all i could about the culture and studied the language for a while so that I could avoid some of the bloobers and understand some of the behaviours. None of this was about a value judgement or relative merits – it was partly curiosity and partly about avoiding mistakes. However, one of the things we did find was that many aborigines don’t really understand how we work and this either makes them very dependant on others to help them deal with the rest of the world or simply leaves them floundering. To deal with us they needed the same induction that we had when we moved to Groote, an induction from someone who understood what the critical differences are. This should be no more an effort to turn them into people like us anymore than my induction was about turning me into an Aborigine.
Aboriginal culture is very foreign to us. It is very strongly driven by obligation and relationship. (In the mother/cousin etc. sense) The relationship determines who you can talk to, who you can marry, who you are obliged to share with, who you can have a banter realtionship with etc. Responsibilities are different. Fathers are not responsible for the discipline of their children – which is often a source of condemnation from people who don’t know how the culture works.
Moz @26: You are quite right about land ownership. However, I did say that more aborigines should have received land grants and probably would have if there had been no difference between aboriginanal and non-aboriginal land. My observation is that a lot of harm to Aborigines has come form people acting out of the very best of motives.
The fundamental problems with Teh Great & Noble Intervention are:
1. It is a one-size-fits-all approach. The competent and decent indigenous individuals and communities have every right to feel outraged and offended and stigmatised by being so indiscriminately lumped in with those who are incompetent and treating their kids badly. White middle class suburbia would not tolerate being treated like that for ten seconds. A more selective and nuanced targeting would have gone a long way to making it both workable and acceptable.
2. It applies only to one group within the broader Oz society. If it was applied equally to all dysfunctional abusive families/small communities in our country it would be a lot more acceptable (at one level at least).
3. It was clearly driven by base political opportunism. Truth is it was nothing more than Howard’s last minute attempt to:
a) cover for the history of his own and his government’s complete failure to seriously address these problems in the previous 11 years, and to
b) wedge Labor for immediate electoral advantage, or
c) if that did not work, and Labor won, then to at least leave them a nasty pile of shit to deal with. If they succeeded in any serious measure then Howard could claim the credit for instituting it and taking the ‘tough decision to force the issue’. And if they failed, then he could blame them.
suspending anti-discrimination laws so it could subject aborigines to authoritarian and paternalist controls on the basis of race.
#29: ’1. It is a one-size-fits-all approach. The competent and decent indigenous individuals and communities have every right to feel outraged and offended and stigmatised by being so indiscriminately lumped in with those who are incompetent and treating their kids badly. White middle class suburbia would not tolerate being treated like that for ten seconds.
2. It applies only to one group within the broader Oz society. If it was applied equally to all dysfunctional abusive families/small communities in our country it would be a lot more acceptable (at one level at least).’
Yet, no seems to have remembered that we hand out welfare on the ‘basis of race’, more or less in a ‘one-size-fits-all approach’, ‘only to one group within the broader Oz society’. Let’s be honest, two Australians can be in equivalent circumstances, and present themselves for government assistance, and they will be put on different welfare programs based solely on their race eg Indigenous Wage Subsidies and ABSTUDY compared to the ‘standard’ welfare programs offered to every other Australian. Furthermore, I don’t know of any other Australians other than our indigenous folk who are given housing and services to remain in their communities no matter where they’re located despite the extraordinary cost of delivering services to remote areas.
Michael Sutcliffe@30: look at the packages offered to farmers. Those are definitely on the same basis – they get assistance even though they choose to live in remote areas and live in self-destructive ways. I would love to see that assistance capped purely on environmental grounds.
If you wanted to target “bad assistance” in remote areas there are much better options – should we really be building roads purely to allow old growth forest to be removed from remote or hard to access parts of the country? Surely if it was profitable the logging companies would build their own roads, and if not, WTF?
I agree Moz. Subsidies to farmers hurt us all (and it’s primarily to buy the rural vote) and logging companies can build their own roads into remote areas (and maybe even remove them if required).
Moz, although I think you’d find the per capital assistance given to indigenous remote communities would far exceed that given to farmers. But I’m happy to be proven wrong.
I mean ‘per capita’. But you knew that.
One of the things that the intervention exposed – though it should have been a surprise to no one – is how many Aboriginal communities are utterly lacking basic services. Contrary to the Hansonite myth that too much money was going towards indigenous issues, the intervention showed plainly that they are not getting their fair share.
We’re talking here about services that non-aboriginal communities of similar size just wouldn’t put up with – basics like functioning sewage systems.
There should be just as many well-stocked libraries in indigenous communities as there were outlets for selling alcohol.
Many make the point that middle-class suburbia wouldn’t put up with the kind of interference in their lives that Aboriginals in the NT have to put up with. But if the rest of Australia faced the kind of problem with alcohol that many of these communities face, I’m certain we would have prohibition of alcohol for the whole country. Until the alcohol problem is brought under control, it’s almost impossible to fix any of the other problems.
I understand there’s a split in these communities with women being much more supportive of the welfare changes and alcohol bans.
Contrary to the Hansonite myth that too much money was going towards indigenous issues, the intervention showed plainly that they are not getting their fair share
The link above suggests a substantial (extreme?) amount of money is being spent on indigenous housing in rural areas. If it’s not delivering services that the rest of the community are getting for a much cheaper elsewhere you’ve got to ask whether it should be spent in remote areas at all or if it’s time to relocate. Is it still your ‘fair share’ if the spending on one group (based on their race, mind you) is substantially greater than another group because of a perceived ‘right’ to keep their community in an isolated area?
P.S. Michael Sutcliffe, you complain about money going to remote areas – have you ever heard of the National Party?
Just this week, the Nats and rural Libs got their way with the “gap-year” student allowance issue. That is very often a lurk that allows wealthy students from rural areas to receive an entitlement that they otherwise wouldn’t be entitled to. To pay for this, many kids from poorer backgrounds now won’t get the benefits of changes to the rules for student allowances.
But somehow if you’re white and from a well-off family it never seems to count as discrimination.
The Nat’s are agrarian socialists who are simply a legacy from the times when landowners held the power. Their supporters are people who want their choice of rural lifestyle unreasonably subsidised in the name of ‘fairness’ for rural areas, and their importance to the rest of community to be publicly overstated by their elected representatives.
The reality is that it is the remoter areas that subsidize the cities, not the other way around. Think mining and agriculture. When I lived in Newman it used to irritate a wee bit when we were told that it was unreasonable to expect the sort of services that were being enjoyed by people in Perth even though the services in Perth were being paid for by the royalties and taxes coming from the efforts of the people working in the heat and the flies of the Pilbara and other mining areas.
Part of the problem with aborigines in remote areas is that they have been encouraged to live in large communities set up for the convenience of administrators.
Many of these communities are high stress areas because traditional enemies have been lumped together in one community and/or the community is too large for relationship based systems to worj well – too hard to remember the exact relationship with everyone in the community. It is these stresses that are behind the outstation movement. Transistions need to be properly planned and take account of the culture.
The reality is that it is the remoter areas that subsidize the cities, not the other way around.
That ain’t true. If we go from this breakdown of the labour force from Wikipedia:
agriculture (3.6%), mining (1.1%), industry (20.2%), services (75.1%) (May 2005 est.)
we can see that the Australian economy is over 95% services and industry based and I think it’s safe to say those services and industry aren’t rural based by any measure.
BTW, I was offered a job as an engineer in Newman last week. How did you find working there? Did you live there or FIFO? With family or without?
One of the major problems is that while there are many many persons (of all political leanings) who will snipe and carp and criticise at any attempts to redress the situation of aboriginal Australians, there are very few who are prepared to actually do anything.
Oh, a Sunday walk across a bridge, or an earnest discussion over a glass of something or other, or an apology (as long as it is not too expensive) is ok, but actually doing something is another matter.
The reason for this is simple – the minute anybody (of any political leaning) does something, there is a host of people telling them that they are doing the wrong thing. It becomes a gordian knot of competing interests so complex that actually determining what should be done and by whom takes years…during which time another generation of indigenous Australians is disadvantaged to the detriment of us all. I wonder how many people of talent and with much to offer the community and the world have been smothered by the disadvantage existing now.
Yet it is just so hard to get anything done, that most people who are capable of doing anything walk away rather than waste their lives trying – and getting abused for trying. This is part of the problem with SIHIP for example – plenty of money, but herding the various cats to get agreement on anything is just sucking the life out of the program. In the end, I wonder how many houses will actually get built to relieve indigenous housing issues?
Michael please try to understand this: equal treatment is not equity.
Your example is abstracted in such a way that it erases the material issue: By stating in your premise that “two Australians can be in equivalent circumstances” you are engaging in the basic logical fallacy of begging the question.
What do you mean by “equivalent circumstances”? If you mean that they are both Australians whose ancestors were forced off their land and then endured multi-generational persecution and entrenched disadvantage because of their race, then they are indeed in “equivalent circumstances”. And they’ll both be Aboriginal, too — so they won’t be put on different welfare programs; they’ll be put on the same program, as is proper to people in “equivalent circumstances”. There are circumstances that bring them there. The circumstances are relevant. Commencing your story at the time they walk through the Centrelink Office obscures very pertinent details…
…There was only one race of people on this continent that were moved off their ancestral lands, solely on the basis of their race, and because their continued presence there was a nuisance to the colonists. You seem to have forgotten that. They were singled out, on the basis of race, and persecuted almost to extinction for it.
Now, when they “present themselves”, as you put, for assistance, it is not too much to expect they get extra assistance in order to help overcome entrenched, multi-generational disadvantage that originates from earlier persecutions based on their race. We also give extra assistance in this society to people who have come here from other countries where they were persecuted on the basis of race. They’re called refugees and they get extra help too. As a proud Australian, perhaps you’ve heard of the “fair go”? It’s a mark of civilisation to greet the suffering of others with more than indifference.
You seem to be confusing equal treatment with equity. Do you object, on the same principle, to wheelchair ramps installed at great expense for amputees? Or curved gutters that allow wheelchairs and older people to step easily across the road? After all, we’re all Australians, aren’t we? Why should people in wheelchairs receive extra from my taxes just so they can roam nomadically across the land wherever they please? Equal treatment mandates staircases and nice neat high gutters for everybody. Anyone who asks for more than a regulation staircases is just looking for a handout: a welfare bludger who won’t take responsibility for themselves and expects the government to solve all their problems. /snark
Or, it could just be that you’re very one-eyed about who you consider to be “worthy” and “unworthy” recipients of a helping hand.
M.S.: take it from someone on the Left, the Nats have never been any kind of socialists. Shameless pork barrelers, maybe, but socialists, no.
I’m actually arguing that race shouldn’t be a factor in decisions to provide basic services – and obviously they have been if the same levels of service are not being provided to indigenous communities as non-indigenous ones.
If governments are only going to fund services in communities that are convenient and can “pay their way” we’ll have to relocate Tasmania. We pay a lot for defence housing in the NT, too.
And it’s always a good idea to take what you read in The Oz with a very large grain of salt.
…you’d have to relocate the whole of the NT, too (white and black). The whole place has operated on very large federal subsidies (from federal budget subsidies, to defence base relocations, to commonwealth finance for the Adelaide to Darwin railway). I think Territorians even get special tax concessions.
If you mean that they are both Australians whose ancestors were forced off their land and then endured multi-generational persecution and entrenched disadvantage because of their race, then they are indeed in “equivalent circumstances”.
I personally don’t think the experiences of your ancestors should be a consideration in determining your welfare requirements.
You seem to be confusing equal treatment with equity. Do you object, on the same principle, to wheelchair ramps installed at great expense for amputees?
I think wheelchair ramps should be installed in government buildings. But to mandate wheelchair ramps everywhere without consideration to the cost would be destructive. For example, if we were to take the notion of ‘equity’ and keep pursuing it we would mandate wheelchair ramps into building codes for every building including private ones, install them on all existing buildings at great expense, redesign all footpaths and gutters and update the old ones etc. This wouldn’t be the best use of those resources and regardless, still wouldn’t achieve the theoretical concept of ‘equity’. Similarly funding indigenous people at great public expense to live in the remotest of areas won’t achieve ‘equity’, isn’t the best use of that money, and as has been proven time and time again, to not even deliver positive outcomes for the majority of the time.
Equity is a theoretical concept, unlike something like equality before the law which has a real meaning. (And strangely, some people’s definition of ‘equity’ would conflict with equality before the law!) It is dangerous to base government policy on a theoretical, loosely defined at best, type of concept. Welfare should be aimed at getting people a hand up so they can take advantage of opportunities of their own accord. Funding housing in the middle of nowhere seems antithetical to that purpose to me at least.
take it from someone on the Left, the Nats have never been any kind of socialists. Shameless pork barrelers, maybe, but socialists, no.
Well, I find a lot of socialists don’t seem to mind a bit of pork, and a lot of them don’t have much shame either! But I agree the Nats are not your typical left-wing socialist, more of the conservative type of socialists that believes they should be subsidised in the name of ‘fairness’, but still sees themselves as the upstanding, productive Australians who are the pillars of the community despite needing welfare to maintain their genteel rural lifestyles (in many rural cases)!
If governments are only going to fund services in communities that are convenient and can “pay their way” we’ll have to relocate Tasmania. We pay a lot for defence housing in the NT, too.
Perhaps, but I don’t feel government should seek to make the situation worse by choosing to not do things as efficiently and practically as possible. If this means remote communities must relocate then that’s probably fair considering the costs in the link above. Defence has chosen to fund housing in the NT for a strategic reason that some Defence bureaucrats have deemed worthy of the expense. The only reason I can see to fund remote communities is to keep them away from the rest of us, and I don’t think that’s a good reason myself.
Would this be Michael, the majestic equality to which Anatole France referred in the nineteenth century: “which equally prohibits the rich and the poor from begging in the streets, stealing a loaf of bread or sleeping under bridges.”?
Equity is not a theoretical concept, it is a society’s sense of fairness, which tempers the law so as to make it just.
Does that mean the law applies differently to different people, depending on the requirements of ‘equity’?
Of course it does. The laws passed by our Parliaments and applied by our courts have almost endless differentiations for circumstances, so as to achieve what the legislatures hope, and the judges intend, will be just outcomes.
M.S. Yep, there probably are good reasons for defence bases to be moved north. Just as there are good reasons for the government to fund indigenous communities where they are now – because indigenous people feel a strong connection to the land of their ancestors.
This stuff about moving communities just seems like a pipe dream. I mean we’re talking about some communites that put up with huge hardships – and turned down inducements – to get their land. They aren’t going anywhere.
And when we do re-locate, how do we do it? On an individual basis, or do we just plonk a whole community on a regional town? Either of those options would create serious problems of their own.
Many of these communities are of a reasonable size – hundreds of people. In the NT, that counts as a large town even for whites. With a little economic activity, some of these places would be desirable places to live.
Talk of relocation strikes me as half-baked at best.
Different circumstances can mean two things. There are relevant circumstances, and not relevant ones, which you haven’t defined in when you refer to different circumstances. For example, if a crime was premeditated that might be a different circumstance to a crime of passion and that should be considered in sentencing. But, for example, could equity mean that there should be different laws for indigenous Australians distinct from non-indigenous ones?
Equity is not a theoretical concept, it is a society’s sense of fairness, which tempers the law so as to make it just.
Give me an example of a ‘tempered’ law versus an ‘untempered’ one.
Michael,
Any minute now I’m expecting you to start talking up the Howard/Brough 99-year lease scam which was of course the whole basis of the military intervention.
Michael, it is not for me to define relevant circumstances or irrelevant circumstances. That’s what Parliaments, as the legislators for society, do.
And, yes, they could decide that equity means that there should be different laws for indigenous Australians distinct from non-indigenous ones. This is what they have done with native title, not a recent concept by the way, which recognises pre-existing unextinguished property rights, which by definition could only apply to indigenous people but which is compatible with the principle of no expropriation without just compensation, which i am sure you would be in favour of.
As to a “tempered law” versus an “untempered” up until the mid-nineteenth century the criminal law applied equally to minors as to adults (12 year olds were hanged for theft in the 18th century) but as our society evolved its sense of justice it evolved distinctions as to culpability, punishment and rehabilitation for minors so that they are treated significantly differently than adult offenders.
You may, of course, see this as a retrograde step.
Yep, there probably are good reasons for defence bases to be moved north. Just as there are good reasons for the government to fund indigenous communities where they are now – because indigenous people feel a strong connection to the land of their ancestors.
I think a lot of those people who vote for the Nats feel they should be subsidised because they feel a strong connection to the land of their ancestors, or farming is ‘in their blood’ or something like that. If you think that is a good reason I don’t think you should accuse them of being unreasonable and self-centred.
This stuff about moving communities just seems like a pipe dream. I mean we’re talking about some communites that put up with huge hardships – and turned down inducements – to get their land. They aren’t going anywhere.
Just because they own the land doesn’t mean they permanently have to live there. And if they do decide to do this, that’s fine, but they shouldn’t expect extra welfare consideration because of it.
And when we do re-locate, how do we do it? On an individual basis, or do we just plonk a whole community on a regional town? Either of those options would create serious problems of their own.
We already plonk whole communities on regional towns. Then we move them on when things get abrasive with the locals. It’s called being ‘on the circuit’. Between you and me I think this is one of the real reasons the government doesn’t mind paying for remote communities, it keeps them out of populated areas. But I don’t think it’s much of a long term solution, or even beneficial to this indigenous generation.
But we should do it individually, of course. Civilised people treat others as individuals, not as a tribe. If they choose to move as a community then that’s up to them.
With a little economic activity, some of these places would be desirable places to live.
When do you see this economic activity starting up in those towns that haven’t already got it i.e. the ones that exist on government funding and welfare?
Any minute now I’m expecting you to start talking up the Howard/Brough 99-year lease scam which was of course the whole basis of the military intervention.
To be honest I’m don’t know that much about it, sorry. I’m for giving indigenous people their land on a freehold basis.
And, yes, they could decide that equity means that there should be different laws for indigenous Australians distinct from non-indigenous ones.
Greg, this undermines the law and the fabric of society. The law is the basis by which we can all agree to deal with each other. If one group is given extra welfare, or lighter criminal sentences, because of different laws on the basis of ‘equity’ then they’re not going to get on very well with the next group who aren’t treated as well and could well be their neighbours and work colleagues. Hence we end up with things like violence, no social cohesion, no respect between people and no belief in the benefits of society. If you have different laws for indigenous people, and extra welfare for indigenous people, then you prevent them from integrating with the rest of society and undermine their own long-term progress.
As to a “tempered law” versus an “untempered” up until the mid-nineteenth century the criminal law applied equally to minors as to adults (12 year olds were hanged for theft in the 18th century) but as our society evolved its sense of justice it evolved distinctions as to culpability, punishment and rehabilitation for minors so that they are treated significantly differently than adult offenders.
And we used to hang people for horse stealing. Quite obviously the only people who can be held fully culpable under law are adults of sound mind, who can understand and apply the law. This is rationality. I still don’t understand where ‘equity’ fits in to make a law ‘tempered’?
Y’know MS you’d been doing OK until now but to suggest that we impose freehold title – about as quintessentially Anglo-Saxon a CULTURAL artefact as it’s possible to imagine – on indigenous people; and not only that but we GIVE it to them as if we already own it … well it demonstrates you haven’t a clue WTF you are talking about, just as I suspected.
And no don’t bother responding with your Perry Mason interrogations, I’m not as indulgent as some other commenters.
Michael, it is not for me to define relevant circumstances or irrelevant circumstances. That’s what Parliaments, as the legislators for society, do.
Well, you’ve got to vote for them and I’d expect you to do it on some sort of basis. I don’t think it’s wise to just expect them to legislate without our approval or according to values that aren’t reflective of society. That might be a bit authoritarian.
Ken, you don’t feel indigenous people are worthy of owning property? I know people such as yourself need to keep them as a disadvantaged group to justify collectivist policy, but really, I think it’s time you offered them a little more respect and stopped treating them differently on the basis of their race. They have a word for doing that, y’know, but I shan’t openly accuse you of it.
Mercurius
And war is peace, freedom is slavery, etc.
Don’t you think that basing an assessment on genetics might just obsure a few pertinent details too? For example those with irish heritage would likely have ancestors imprisoned and shipped to the otherside of the world for minor crimes, and then being discriminated against further once they got here. Should these people receive a little extra in welfare because of their family history?
MS and desipsis have pretty comprehensively demonstrated that they either don’t get it, or don’t want to get it.
OK desipsis, let me type it slowly for you and put in a different word to more clearly illustrate the meaning: identical treatment is not equity. That’s why classrooms have graded readers for the kids whose reading is at different levels, and why we offer subject choices at schools so kids can pursue their aptitudes, and why sensible building codes include more toilets in the ladies’ than the men’s, etc.
I don’t know why this concept is proving so difficult for you to grasp. Bad laws treat people identically. Good laws treat them fairly. I haven’t the patience to reiterate this, so I’ll just leave this here and see if you demonstrate any capacity to comprehend it.
And the law is way ahead of Michael Sutcliffe in already requiring private buildings to be built to codes which includes wheelchair ramps. Because it’s equitable (not identical) treatment. You can wilfully and obtusely try to avoid understanding the difference if you like but fortunately you don’t seem to be in a position where your attitude can actively cause any harm.
Meeting someones educational needs in the best way possible is not relevant to an argument about providing a legal system that allows a society to function with different people dealing with each other in different ways. I agree in education that we should treat people differently, and providing people choices by not having nationalised curricula and providing options like private schooling are the best ways to ensure that people can choose the education that best suits them from a good range of options. But it is rather stupid to suggest people should be able to choose laws that best suit them from a good range of options. In fact, I don’t think a society could function like this.
So, if two people committed the same crime, with the same motivations, it would be fine if they were given different sentences on the basis of one being black and one being white, or one being female and one being make, or one being rich and one being poor?
Mecurius,
Your other examples, such as graded reading classes, wheelchair access, are all about practical differentiation. For example, I don’t object to remote communities receiving extra funding as long as all remote communities have access to that same funding. I don’t object to extra funds being put forward to try to break the multi-generational welfare cycle.
I do object to people of aboriginal decent receiving extra funding because they are assumed to be less able that people of other races/cultures of making their own way. A system that focuses on the practical differentiation will inheritly provide more support (on average) to aboriginals as long as they remain more disadvantaged (on average). It will also acheive this in a way that doesn’t rely on racist policies or providing the opportunities for corruption that a monolithic top-down aboriginial service provider would.
Mercurius, let’s consider Ken’s example above. Indigenous people haven’t had property rights for as long as the western world, so should they be exempt from theft laws? How do you think that would work in some of these rural communities? (I’ll give you a hint, it ain’t pretty). We need to be all held to the same standard with regards to each other’s property if we’re going to have a peaceful society.
And the law is way ahead of Michael Sutcliffe in already requiring private buildings to be built to codes which includes wheelchair ramps. Because it’s equitable (not identical) treatment.
Strange, all of the houses in my street are privately owned and were built in the last couple of years, but I don’t believe any of them have wheelchair ramps. This must be a very inequitable street – disabled people would be in a world of trouble! I suppose you could extend that building code to ensure all these houses were included. But then that might drive up the cost and I’ll have a guess that some of these families mightn’t be able to afford a house at that price. But I guess that’s an outcome of ‘equity’, at least they can take comfort in knowing that if they could afford it then it would be ‘equitable’ to any disabled people who owned it after them.
joe2 @ 18 – Sorry. been away from my computer. This is one link to reports about compulsory income management in some Perth suburbs:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/11/18/2423075.htm?site=perth
If you were to ask me what I would wish for my aboriginal friends my answer would be “choice”. In this context, choice means being able to choose the extent to which they live in their old culture, our culture or a culture that they decide is in their long term interests. Choice also means being able to chose where they live.
In theory, the people I am thinking of do have these choices. However, the reality is that the only choices most of them have is to stay within their community culture, move to something like the Alice Springs fringe camp, move to some community set up for the convenience of administrators or possibly join the ranks of the chronically unemployed in our society.
Part of the problem is that people haven’t been prepared to move successfully into our society. In this context preparation means giving families (not just children) the skills and information to have some chance of getting work and avoiding cultural bloopers if they try the move to the mainstream society. Perhaps too it might include helping aborigines understand how our culture limits the damage done by booze.
Part of the problem is also collective land ownership. It means that people cannot cash in their land rights to help set up somewhere else. Land rights are only worth something if you are willing to continue living on the land to which they have allocated rights.
The converse problem is the difficulty for individuals to live on their land without they and their family being swamped by community disfunction. There are a number of problems here but the collective nature of land rights, the unusual authority enjoyed by comunity councils and the unwillingness of governments to give aborigines of both sexes the protection of the law that the rest of us enjoy make it harder fo raborigines living in their communities to have the freedom of choice the rest of us take for granted.
I mentioned @25 that there is a real need to review the current batch of special laws and treatments that are supposed to be helping aborigines. However, this doesn’t that special treatment should not be considered if we are convinced that these are necessary. However, it is crucial that this special treatment is seen as something to help the transition to a better life. there must be sunset clauses and periodic reviews to ensure that there is a real need for special treatment.
MS @40: A labour breakdown is not the same as a tax and royalties breakdown let alone a breakdown of contribution to export earnings. I haven’t got hard figures but I am sure that Perth is bludging on the Pilbara if not the whole of outback WA.
John, all hostility and cheap shots aside, I think that’s a refreshingly reasonable and accurate summary.
Chris@65 no probs. I am just back, as well. From your link is the following quote which I think makes this plan different from the original N.T. intervention.
“This is targeted at people who are already in the child protection system – people who the WA child protection authorities view as people who would benefit from the introduction of income management.”
From what I understood, all on welfare were subject to income quarantining whether they had a reputation for child neglect or not. A most unfair and clumsy approach seems, at least, to have given way to the targeting of some known abusers.
joe2,
That’s a pretty fair comment about the “approach”.
Some elements of the intervention would have been happily accepted by some people, but making them mandatory virtually guaranteed opposition. The income ‘quaratining’ (who on earth came up with that term??) being a very clear case. I think there would have been plenty of takers if it was a voluntary scheme and had more support for it in general if it was a targeted scheme. However the pople behind it seemed much more interested in striking heroic poses than actually finding workable solutions.
joe2 @ 68 – I agree there are differences in the approach, but for the non indigenous communities I think its a starting point rather than where the government wants to end up. For example, eventually it may just be applied to anyone who is reported for sending their kid to school consistently without food.
It may also not be your intent to imply it was only for abusers, but I think there is quite a difference between neglect and abuse, especially when neglect is due to a lack of skills rather than intentional. And income quarantining may actually help. Its perhaps heavy handed, but less so than removing children.
Yes, Michael@69, many aspects of the approach used in the original intervention are just wrong and are proving, as Chris Graham over at Crikey bluntly points out, “not working”.
http://www.crikey.com.au/2009/08/28/racist-and-not-working-un-calls-us-on-our-intervention/
Chris, nothing good comes from entrenching racism or the “heavy handed” distibution of welfare to all disadvantaged communities in order to try and hide it. You only need to remember the feelings of injustice and disrespect for the system that came from one size fits all punishments, administered in ones schooldays for matters one was not involved, to understand how responsible adults must have felt when the government came in to micro-manage their spending.
The majority of people on welfare are good parents and should not be treated as neglectful by default. If children are not being cared for properly because of careless or addiction fueled spending there is obviously a case for various interventions depending on the circumstances. And more funding for this is desperately needed.
Most important is also the provision of drug and alcohol addiction services for the whole community along with adequate mental health backup to deal with the underlying problems. Still there is no point making scapegoats of the poor and the dark skinned because what we have are unresolved issues that are universal.
M.S.: that was exactly my point! Some people might view indigenous Australians wanting to remain on their land as irrational, but that isn’t going to change the opinion of indigenous people. People can be stubborn. I can’t see even the most callous Coaltion Government forcing them off their land with financial coercion.
I wasn’t arguing that Aboriginals receive “extra welfare consideration” (assuming by “welfare” you mean essentially Centrelink payments). What I was arguing was that services that would be considered basic in any other community – functioning sewage, amenities like libraries – should be operating in indigenous communities just as they are in non-indigenous ones. And as I said, the whole of the NT operates on very large Commonwealth subsidies.
The most serious kind of racism that Aboriginals face is not the overt kind, but the fact that they’re too often invisible, that it doesn’t occur to those in government that Aboriginal communities should receive – as a matter of course – the same basic utilities and services that other communities enjoy.
And Noel Pearson seems to think that there are economic opportunities in his community – that’s what his fight with the Wilderness Society is all about.
Seems to me that Anaya only writes about the obvious. Entrenched Racism in Australia is an under statement. ‘White Australia’ continues to flourish in this nation. Racism unfortunately exists not only towards the indigenous peoples but extends towards dark-skinned persons who perhaps are born in Australia and are decendant from immigrants from Asia, Southern Europe and island nations.
This deepset, unmentioned racism is evident all around us. Opportunites do not present themselves to dark-skinned persons as it would white Australia. Daily, television and the media tell us we are a totally a ‘white’ population – ask yourself why we do not see darker skinned asian or european people appearing in our soaps, hosting current affair programs etc. Why aren’t there darker skinned people in senior executive positions of Industry or even Govt departments?
Australia is not just inhabited by Anglo or Celt decendants – there is a growing population of decendants from these other nations (incl indigenous people), how about showing the world that we are truely multicultural. Will Australia ever have a ‘dark-skinned’ person as Prime Minster? Unfortunately, not in my lifetime.
Part of the problem with the broader public’s assessment of Aborigines is that too many of the best and brightest go to work in jobs that are all about helping aborigines. As a result it is unusual to see aborigines teaching at a normal school, working as a bank manager, dept head etc. Even when we see aborigines such as Charlie Perkins running the Aboriginal Affairs dept. this can be dismissed on the suspicion that he only got the job because of his aboriginality. I suspect that this suspicion would be shared by young aborigines who are looking for proof that aborigines really can make a go of things.
In some ways aborigines who succeed in mainstream employment, politics or business is making just as big a contribution to his community as someone who serves more directly.
JohnD @ 66: “If you were to ask me what I would wish for my aboriginal friends my answer would be “choice”.”
JohnD @ 74: “[...] too many of the best and brightest go to work in jobs that are all about helping aborigines. As a result it is unusual to see aborigines teaching at a normal school, working as a bank manager, dept head etc. ”
I’d like to see indigenous Australians have the “choice” to become bank managers, department heads, and teach in ‘normal’ schools.
Then, JohnD, you can be as critical, dismissive and suspicious of their best and brightest as you like.
I’d add that Aboriginals aren’t the only group who suffer from being invisible. The white working class are also pretty invisible nowadays – witness how the media was caught unaware that IR could be the big issue in the last election.
P.S. Nos, I couldn’t care less if we have a “dark-skinned” PM. What we should care about is that all aboriginals can have a decent standard of living. There is a small elite of upper-middle-class Aboriginals right now. That doesn’t make any difference to Aboriginals living in abject poverty.