The 2019 Federal election and Indigenous affairs: rough seas ahead

I have seen tempests, when the scolding winds
Have rived the knotty oaks, and I have seen
The ambitious ocean swell and rage and foam,
To be exalted with the threatening clouds…

Julius Caesar, Act One scene three.

Policy is never made in a vacuum, and Indigenous policy is no exception. While policy is normally driven by incremental developments, and the concerns and advocacy of interest groups, it is also heavily influenced by political issues and developments. Indeed, given the propensity of Indigenous issues to demarcate ideological divides in the community, we would be safe in concluding that Indigenous policy is even more political than most areas of policy concern.

To take just one example, eleven years ago, in the lead up to an election, the then Howard Government decided to instigate the NT National Emergency Response, usually known as the NT Intervention. The Labor Opposition was successfully wedged, having to decide between opposing an electorally popular policy and supporting a policy which was anathema, including as it did provisions which sidelined the operation of the Racial Discrimination Act, and the use of the Australian Defence Force (albeit in an unarmed capacity).

We currently have a set of similar political circumstances to 2007: an unpopular government, a Prime Minister with a proven capacity to impose robust and punitive policy measures in sectors where the electoral consequences will not be negative (think refugee policy), and an Opposition determined to maximise its chances of winning the coming election. Added to this are the internal politics of the LNP Government, with a strong internal conservative dynamic, plus a range of smaller conservative parties to its right prepared to play the ‘race card’, and who are a real threat to its primary vote count especially in regional and non-urban electorates.

It is therefore worth looking at recent policy initiatives to ascertain if they are signalling a potential return to a more interventionist and ‘political’ policy framework in Indigenous affairs. In short, there appears to be a number of developments which suggest the Government is putting in place the building blocks to make Indigenous policy a key plank in its electoral strategy, albeit a tactic which makes the states and territories alleged failures the primary target thus disguising the underlying targeting of Indigenous citizens. The fact that WA, the NT, and Queensland all have Labor Governments make this a viable electoral tactic.

So what are these policy building blocks for a potential political attack on the states and territory? The core policy arena is shaping up to be child protection. This is an area where the states and NT right across the nation have yet to get on top of. The statistics on out of home care, particularly for Indigenous children, are a national disgrace. And there are regular reports of individual cases which involved the death and serious abuse of young children, most recently in Tennant Creek. A second policy area is school attendance, which is often seen (erroneously in my view) as a proxy for poor educational outcomes. While attendance is important, it is just one of a number of necessary elements in the successful delivery of education to Indigenous children, particularly in remote regions. A third building block (which I have posted on at length previously) is the area of remote housing where the Government has effectively cut $3bn from the forward estimates for the next decade, on the spurious argument that provision of social hosing is a responsibility of the states and the NT.

The evidence that the Government is putting in place the building blocks for such an electoral strategy is set out below.

First child protection. In a press conference on 23 April 2018 in Darwin (link here), the then Treasurer Scott Morrison noted in relation to a question regarding the Commonwealth’s decision to establish a Royal Commission into Youth detention in the NT:

…when you look over Royal Commissions in the past you will find they are called for different reasons on an array of issues but I think the one here in the Northern territory was quite pointed. You couldn’t have the government here inquire into itself. Could you? That would be a nonsense when it came to this issue. It did require a step back and one removed to get into those issues. (emphasis added).

I am not suggesting that the decision to call a Royal Commission was not warranted, but merely point to these comments to highlight the Prime Minister’s preparedness to apply a different standard to the NT than to other jurisdictions including the Commonwealth itself in relation to contention and politically sensitive issues.

On 4 September 2018, the Prime Minister was reported as commenting that the sexual assault of another Tennant Creek toddler makes his heart cry (Morrison denounces ‘sickening’ NT assault: link here).

On 18 September, the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare released a report on Children’s Headline Indicators (link here) which included data on child abuse nationally by jurisdiction. On 19 September 2018, The Australian ran an article which reported the AIHW findings headed ‘NT indigenous child abuse rate rises 30 pc’ which indicated that in the NT an average of 33.7 cases of sexual, physical or emotional abuse or neglect per 1000 children in 2016-17 compared with 27.3 percent a year earlier, a rate three times higher than the next highest jurisdiction.

In response, the Prime Minister suggested he might intervene in child protection in the NT (‘Morrison puts NT on notice over baby’s death’: link here paywall). In turn, this engendered a response from the NT Government (‘Feds need to pay, not intervene: NT Government’: link here and here). The Australian reported:

Prime Minister Scott Morrison's suggestion he might intervene in child protection following a baby's death near Darwin has been rejected by the NT government who said he should instead provide them with more funds.

The death of a six-month-old boy on Tuesday, which is being investigated by police, prompted the prime minister to say he would override Territory authorities if they did not meet their responsibilities as the former leader John Howard had done in the 2007 intervention.

NT Attorney General Natasha Fyles said the federal government should be contributing to the cost of fixing the youth justice and protection through the recommendations of last year's Royal Commission.

In relation to school attendance, the Prime Minister appointed Tony Abbott as a special envoy on Indigenous affairs, and his focus will be on remote education issues. He was quoted by the Guardian on 30 August 2018 (‘Tony Abbot accepts job as special envoy on Indigenous affairs’: link here) as describing his role as follows:

What I expect to be asked to do is to make recommendations on how we can improve remote area education, in particular, how we can improve attendance rates and school performance because this is the absolute key to a better future for Indigenous kids and this is the key to reconciliation,”

Upon coming into office in 2013, the Government initiated a major push on school attendance (which is the responsibility of the states) including the establishment of a new Commonwealth program, the Remote School Attendance Strategy (link here). Progress has largely stalled, and the Minister’s public statements on the issue have dropped off considerably. See previous posts on the issue here and here. In my March 2016 post, I concluded:

The Commonwealth’s current policy on remote school attendance appears to be fundamentally flawed. It bears all the hallmarks of a policy initiative designed to be seen to be doing something, yet runs the risk that it will actually allow the states and territories off the hook . 

The appointment of Tony Abbott appears to be setting the stage for a belated reversal of the Commonwealth’s policy position, where they will revert to blaming the states for poor progress. It is a pity that the Government didn’t work with the states rather than attempting to go it alone in 2014.

Third, in relation to remote housing, I merely refer readers to the multiple previous posts on this blog relating to the issue. The Government has gone out of its way to frame this issue as a Commonwealth / state dispute rather than what it is, a calculated decision to cut services to the most disadvantaged citizens in the country. The fact that this strategy has been largely successful and has had no discernible adverse electoral consequences will merely serve to encourage the hard heads within the Government to resort to a similar strategy on other issues.

Finally, the appointment of retired Vice Admiral Ray Griggs to the most senior position in the Indigenous affairs group within the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet is quite curious (link here). Griggs (who I don’t know) was before his recent ‘retirement’ one of three leading contenders for appointment to the position of Chief of the ADF, a position which went to Angus Campbell. He is clearly an effective and well regarded manager, albeit one with limited exposure to Indigenous policy. While there is likely to be some concern in relation to this latter point, the issue I wish to focus on is the potential for the Government to use Griggs’ defence background and experience as a cloak to avoid criticism for any interventionist policies and to signal to those more conservative voters that the Government is taking a tougher line with Indigenous issues.

While the likelihood of the Government resorting to the strategy outlined above seems high, and the portents are in plain view for those prepared to look, one change between 2007 and 2018 is the ubiquity of social media, thus creating the opportunity for highly targeted campaigning by political parties. This means that the Government will not necessarily adopt a high profile ‘intervention’ on a national basis, but has the option of pursuing a more low key approach, with selective messaging to its core constituency and key electorates. It does however suggest that the Government’s policy stance on Indigenous issues will harden up over the next half year, and if the opportunity presents itself it will do everything possible to wedge the Labor Opposition.

For its part, Labor is yet to lay out its policy platform on Indigenous affairs, and while this too involves electoral and political considerations, the delay in outlining its platform and commitments leaves open the possibility that Labor will be left flat footed, and subject to the threat of an electoral wedge in the lead up to the election.

Labor should seek to take the high ground on Indigenous policy, bearing in mind that it is a policy realm which impacts our national reputation, and which will face extremely high expectations form Indigenous interests, and will require significant focus and attention if they win office. Labor should confront the issue of child protection head on, and consider committing to establishing a royal commission or high level inquiry into the issue nationally. It should announce its plans for the Indigenous affairs portfolio, including whether it will establish a new agency or leave Indigenous affairs where it is. It should commit to establishing a Commonwealth / State taskforce to work with the states on reforming remote education, including investing the necessary resources to ensure the states and the NT can invest in raising the quality of teaching standards, and exploring the opportunities for strengthening non-school educational opportunities as is occurring in some parts of central Australia. And it should commit to reinstating the $3bn in cuts to remote housing over the coming decade.

While predicting the future is inherently fraught, particularly in relation to Indigenous policy, I am confident that the combined interactions of Minister Scullion, Minister Wyatt, special envoy Tony Abbott, the Prime Minister, Shadow Minister Pat Dodson, Opposition leader Bill Shorten, and the nation’s diverse Indigenous leadership will mean that the next six months will not be plain sailing. Perhaps appointing a Vice Admiral to head up Indigenous affairs wasn’t such a bad idea!