Queensland Indigenous Policy

Reading Rosalind Kidd's The Way We Civilise (UQP), on the history of indigenous policy in Queensland up till 1980, originally published in 1997, I am left with some lingering questions about current indigenous policy debates, particularly those initiated by Noel Pearson.

Much of his concern is focussed around issues to do with welfare and education, targetting policy initiatives over the past twenty years. Fair enough. a reasonable debate to have.

Yet I came away from Ros Kidd's book feeling that the debate between Pearson and his critics was being conducted in a historical vacuum, with scant reference to the history of a century of underfunding, neglect and lack of accountability of goverment administrators. It is an appalling story that has shaped indigenous communities across Queensland. The sheer survival of people and communities has been a triumph of resilience and of the human spirit in the face of betrayal, falure to provide basic amenities of health and housing, fraud and rip offs, not to mention virtual slavery.

Many of the policy debates always seem to assume that we are starting from scratch and that this time we, who is the we? - usually government and its administrators, are going to get things right. The truth of the past is rarely acknowledged and indigenous poeple become once again the subjects of policy, not the agents of change engaged in the process of shaping their future.

After examining a history of Queensland government policy, Kidd queries whether what we have is an "Aboriginal problem" - would not the history of the past hundred years suggest that what we have is a "government problem"?

What is policy for and why might indigenous Australians be rightly suspicious of policy made in Canberra?

Given the history of Australia, indigenous Australians have few reasons to trust Governments and their agents rocking up to announce trust us, we are here to help you.

Beyond that there are philosophical and theological reasons why there might be an intractable problem in assuming that there will be an easy transition for indigenous communities engaging with agents of modernity such as public servants.

The following quote from Stanley Hauerwas in The State of the University (p.37) gets us close to the heart of the matter.

Hauerwas points out that according to Charles Taylor ... the social imaginary that has shaped the world in which we now find ourselves "starts with individuals and conceives society as established for their sake. Political society is seen as an instrument for something pre-political." Political society is understood to be the instrument to help individuals serve each other for mutual benefit by providing security and by fostering exchange and prosperity. Such societies emphasize the importance of rights which "reflects the holders sense of their own agency and of the situation that agency normatively demands in the world, namely freedom."

Taylor, however suggests that the individual that enjoys such freedom is "disembodied." ... requiring that they choose to be who they want to be. ...modernity names the time when a people are produced that believe they should have no story except the story they choose when they had no story.

But if you do believe that you have a story that is not exhausted by the "disembodied" storyless individual of modernity, what then?

Stanner on indigenous policy

Rereading WEH Stanner's 1968 Boyer lectures "After the Dreaming" I came across the following comments that forty yeasr laer seem to be relevant to assessment of recent 'policy initiatives' by the howard government on indigenous affairs.

There is he observed "... a certain inability to grasp that on the evidence the aborigines have always been looking for two things: a decent union of their lives with ours but on terms that let them preserve teir own identity, not their inclusion willy-nilly in our scheme of things on a fake identity, but development within a new way of life that has the imprint of their own ideas." (pp.27-28)

Compassion in action

Evidence emerging of reports of abuse and violencein indigenous communities that have been ignored by governments at all levels over the past few years is a source of shame and should be a cause for repentance and confession "we have failed to do that which we ought to have done" as the Anglican Prayerbook puts it.

Selfrighteousness is not in order from anyone who has had responsibility in the development and implementation of government programs, from the Minister down.

The question then is - what works for human flourishing and builds community?

If there is one lesson from the frequent failures and multiple reviews, it is that successful programs require indigenous involvement and ownership.

The Productivity Commission in a recent report includes many examples of things that work and they all according to its Chair Gary Banks have these factors in common: co-operative approaches between indigenous people and government, community involvement in program design and decision-making, good governance and ongoing government human and financial support. The process of working together is a significant step in building community.

The goal is the way. We cannot separate the ends we seek from the way we seek to achieve those ends.

Indigenous policy from a development perspective.

Reflecting on the policy framework, style and language employed by the Australian Government in responding to what has been an on-going crisis in the lives of indigenous people and their communities I came across comments in a reflection on development that highlighted our unwillingness to face the realities of cultural difference and spell out the normative framework underlying Government policy.

We all know and agree what developpment is - well don't we?

IN Development to a Different Drummer the authors observe that:

"For persons to be subjects rather than objects of development all parties must willingly listen actively to each other. Active listening indicates the importance of all individual in a development process where people matter. ... For the development process to be people-centered everyone involved must be able to understand and appreciate the different culturesfrom which the various parties come. If some are from outside, they must appreciate and understand the local culture, just as the local parties must do the dame for cultures from outside.

People-centeredness means that development is not unilateral, but a collaborative effort by all parties. ... This will be reinforced by jointly created, culturally appropriate paarticipatory decision-making structures and systems." (p.229)

The discussion by the authors Yoder, Redekop and Jantzi highlight some of the questions that arise in any treatment of the connections between human values, dignity and wellbeing as unproblematic.

The reflexiveness and willingness to be self-critical in this treatment by one faith tradition (Anabaptist/Mennonite) of its engagement with development is revealing and to be commended in the light of the Australian Government's current adventure in militarising the development process with no willingness to be open and honest of its deep implication in the destruction of human community and individual wellbeing that it is now setting out to try and ameliorate.

Violence and Hope

There is an incipient violence and militarisation, lack of reflectiveness about ethical reason and a lack of hope in the current debate about the Australian Government's latest venture into indigenous public policy debate. The argument runs, "nothing elses has worked" so that something anything must be done to prevent further sexual violence against indigenous children.

No moral qualification is allowed. We must do something, anything ...

The value of human life is now sacred - it functions as an absolute in this argument and utilitarian arguments about effectiveness are pushed aside as mere quibbles.

Immauel Kant trumps Jeremy Bentham and J S Mill.

What about character ethics?

Should we trust a Government that has shown a willingness to be less than truthful on previous occasions about the fate of children to further its hold on political power?

So much for ethical reflection ...

The language of 'deployment" in support of a national emergency all in a militatry mode - has the creation of an atmosphere in which the agency of those whom we are supposed to be helping is denied - we are tackling a great evil so no limits can be placed on our action.

We are seeking to do good - so how can anyone question us so runs the government account.

A government which had said sorry for the violence and destruction of child hood innocence of a previous policy initiaitve that sought to do good might, just might have been in a stronger position to make a subtantial intervention to deal with real evils with indigenous suport and trust in their ability to learn from mistakes as they proceeded.