This earthly world, where to
do harm
Is often laudable, to do good,
sometime
Accounted dangerous folly.
Macbeth, Act 4, scene 2
On 15 September 2020, the Minister for Indigenous
Australians, Ken Wyatt, delivered a speech that professed to outline the
Governments new approach to Indigenous affairs. Its title: Indigenous
Australia: A New Way of Working (link
here).
The speech should be welcomed both for its preparedness to
lay out the Government’s vision and approach in the Indigenous policy domain,
and because it is one of the few set piece speeches doing so in the seven years
since the Coalition came to office in Canberra.
Previous speeches by the Minister include an address to the
National Press Club in July 2019 titled Walking
in Partnership to Effect Change (link
here) and the August 2019 Lingiari Lecture (link
here).
In the Press Club address, less than three months into his
tenure as Minister, he stated:
The
concept of the voice in the Uluru Statement from the Heart is not just a
singular voice, and what I perceive it is - it is a cry to all tiers of
Government to stop and listen to the voices of Indigenous Australians at all
levels.
In relation to Closing the Gap, he stated:
I
will work in partnership with state and territory ministers of Indigenous
affairs to progress work on the Closing the Gap targets. And identify good
practice and to share and celebrate successful programs and jurisdictional
achievements.
As
ministers, collectively, we have an incredible opportunity to make a difference
as leaders of the nation if we work together on targeted priorities such as the
high incarceration rates. As I've said, the most important thing that I and the
agency will do is to listen - with our ears and our eyes.
He went on to make the rhetorically powerful, but somewhat
bizarre, statement of his approach going forward:
It's
not my intention to develop policy out of my office. But to implement a
co-designed process with my ministerial and parliamentary colleagues, relevant
departments and with Indigenous communities, organisations and leaders.
In the Lingiari Lecture, the Minister argued for truth
telling, for Constitutional recognition, and foreshadowed work to establish an
Indigenous Voice:
…let
me assure you that the Morrison Government is committed to a co-design process
so we ensure we have the best possible framework in place to hear those voices
at the local, regional and national level.
More
will be said in the months to come, and much like Constitutional Recognition,
it’s too important to rush, or to get wrong.
He also made the case for everyone, not just government, to
‘shift the pendulum’,
There
are things that we can be doing, as individuals, as parts of organisations and
as members of communities to positively shift the pendulum … We can all shift
the pendulum … We owe it to our children, and to future generations to come to
create an environment and culture of opportunity and of positivity…
The most recent speech, A
New Way of Working, starts from the present moment and looks forward. There
are few backward glances, let alone considered assessments of the Government’s
policy initiatives over its seven years in office.
There is no mention of Minister Scullion’s maladministered Indigenous
Advancement Strategy (link
here). No mention of his revamped and excessively punitive Community
Development Program (link
here), nor of his failed efforts to improve school attendance in remote
regions (link
here). Nor of the reasons for, and progress of, the allocation of extra
resources to program evaluation along with the ongoing Productivity Commission
Inquiry into Indigenous evaluation (link
here). No mention of the cuts and subsequent abolition of the
Commonwealth’s remote Indigenous housing program (link
here). No mention of the ongoing extraordinary incarceration rates
impacting Indigenous Australians (link
here), nor of the continuing disaster of out of home care for Indigenous
children (link
here). No mention of the Productivity Commission’s unimplemented
recommendations on funding of children’s services in the NT (link
here). No mention of the failure of the Government to initiate meaningful
reform in the area of native title (link
here). No mention of the Government’s failure to meaningfully fund the
entities established by the Native Title Act, Prescribed Bodies Corporate or PBCs,
to ensure that land management functions formerly undertaken by the Crown can
be undertaken by native title holders over vast swathes of the Australian
landmass (link
here). No mention of the failure of the Commonwealth to utilise its
Heritage Protection legislation to protect the Jukaan Cave from destruction (link
here). No mention of the failure of the Commonwealth to publish let alone implement
the still confidential recommendations of the Indigenous Reference Group
established to advance the Indigenous policy agenda of the Government’s 2015 White
Paper on Northern Development (link
here).
Nor is there mention of perhaps the most successful program
in remote Australia, the Indigenous Ranger Program that funds (as of 2018) 123
ranger groups and 839 (full time equivalent) locally engaged Indigenous rangers
to work on country (link
here). The Government announced earlier this year that it was committing
$102m per annum to extend this program through to 2028 (link
here). Perhaps the silence is because this is a program that deserves to be
expanded by a factor of ten.
But success is noted, indeed, celebrated. The passage of a
technical amendment to the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976
to fine-tune the arrangements made in 2013 for the return of the Jabiru
township to Aboriginal ownership is ‘real progress’ empowering the Mirarr
people to transform Jabiru from a mining town to a tourism destination.
I have focussed on the absence of retrospective appraisal
to make the point that the impetus for the ‘new way of working’ does not appear
to be due to a fundamental reassessment of the Government’s underlying policy
and program approaches over the past seven years.
Indeed, many of the themes in the Minister’s latest speech
replicate themes included in his earlier speeches summarised above. The Minister
emphasises the overarching importance of hearing Indigenous voices at all
levels. He talks again about codesign of policies and programs. He reasserts
his intention not to make policy unilaterally (although the fact that he hasn’t
shared publicly the Cabinet submissions he considers each week as a Cabinet Minister
in the Government suggest we shouldn’t take the assertion too literally):
I
said when I took on this portfolio that policy would not be made in my office.
But it would be made with Indigenous Australians right across the country. And
we are staying true to this commitment … we are partnering with Indigenous
Australians and giving them an opportunity to inform and shape their own
future.
But he isn’t prepared to rush reform, and emphasises twice
the need for Indigenous citizens to be patient:
Genuine
co-design takes time, trust and respect.
And
If
we want to empower through shared decision making, if we want to ensure joint accountability
and equal responsibility for outcomes we need to challenge the structures and
institutions that have prevailed in our way of thinking for so long. This is a
fundamental shift that will take time and require courage.
This policy of hastening slowly mirrors the arguments in
his Press Club speech that constitutional recognition would take time and
should not be rushed, and in his Lingiari Address that both constitutional
recognition and the Indigenous Voice are too important to be rushed.
The core message in A
New Way of Working is laid out early in the speech:
For
decades we have strived to close the gap – to banish Indigenous disadvantage to
the history books. We have made modest gains in some areas, but for far too
many Indigenous Australians we have fallen behind.
This
isn’t through lack of good will and intention. This isn’t through lack of
funding and programmes. I would argue that many of the resources are there –
but what we have always struggled with is the failure to realise sustained and
improved change.
Therefore,
what is the most pressing issue before us when we look at how to approach
Indigenous affairs? For me, it’s ensuring that the next generation of
Indigenous Australians aren’t framed by disadvantage – but by opportunity.
Social
opportunity. Economic opportunity. Corporate Opportunity.
This
is why we need a new way of working with Indigenous Australians.
This focus on pursuing and grasping opportunity is framed
as an objective that is the responsibility of individuals and that governments
can only facilitate.
The sleight of hand here is to create a false binary
between government policy and programs and individual responsibility. The
Minister is making the case for less government, less policy, and less funding.
The mechanism that he is constructing to mediate individual aspirations and
responsibility is a notional, all-encompassing, heterogeneous, and innately
diffuse Indigenous Voice:
If
we are failing to ensure adequate living conditions for some of our most
vulnerable Australians then simply put – we are failing to hear their voices. That’s
why we are developing an Indigenous voice.
It’s
more than a voice to Parliament, and more than a voice to government. [emphasis added]
It
is an acknowledgment that at a local level right through to our nation’s
capital - the views of Indigenous Australians matter. It will be a voice for
the youngest Indigenous Australian through to our Elders, Traditional Owners
and Leaders. It is empowerment.
Two pillars support this framing. First is an impassioned
plea for Indigenous economic development:
We
need to continue to unlock the economic potential right across this nation ….This
is key to ensuring lasting prosperity, and key to transforming communities and
ensuring that they are able to take advantage of emerging opportunities in
industry to create meaningful long-term jobs …. Empowering them to realise
their economic potential.
The second pillar is an argument that conceptualises the
role of government — in this new world of ‘shared responsibility’ that extends
beyond governments to all Indigenous citizens — as not being to increase
current efforts to directly engage in improving economic status, or reducing
disadvantage, or addressing the social determinants of poor health. After all,
as the Minister asserts, lack of progress ‘isn’t through lack of funding and
programmes’. Rather, the role of government is to create opportunity:
…it’s
our task to create the environment to realise their dreams and ambitions. That
is the role of government – one that empowers, allows self-determination and
supports enterprise. This is government saying we trust Indigenous Australians
to make decisions that will lead to improved outcomes.
Of course, there is a place for governments to facilitate
opportunity, but not to the exclusion of the core tasks of government: funding
and delivering basic services; responding to the legitimate aspirations of
citizens, and working to create a society built on institutions and social
structures that are in the public interest.
If my reading of the Ministers speech is correct, this is
indeed a far-reaching policy agenda. It is not new, but is arguably a sharper
and more overt justification and rationale for what has effectively been the
Coalition Government Indigenous policy settings since it came to office. It
implicitly seeks to justify policy inaction, shifting policy and funding
responsibilities to the states and territories wherever possible, the substantial
budget reductions and policy reversals since 2013, and the failure to step up
and substantively address the investment implications of sustained
disadvantage. Most importantly, it appears to implicitly seek to justify ongoing
social and political structural exclusion through the use of rhetorical tropes
designed to resonate with Indigenous citizens: self-determination, empowerment,
and listening to as yet unheard voices.
Governments are elected to govern, and they should be
prepared to provide open and transparent explanations of their policies.
When governments claim everyone is responsible, or
accountable, or to be heard, then no-one is responsible, accountable or heard.
Governments are elected to make choices — that is what policy is all about —
not to invent and promulgate rhetorical rationales for not making them.
Accordingly, rhetoric such as this:
From
the Prime Minister, through to all of my Cabinet Colleagues, we all share the
responsibility to realise a better future for Indigenous Australians – we are
all Ministers for Indigenous Australians – and through our new approach we will
realise improved employment, education and health outcomes.
And
we share this responsibility with every Indigenous Australian – we welcome
their input, ideas and visions...
should be seen for what it is: an abrogation of
responsibility, and a cynical exercise in raising expectations that will
inevitably be dashed.
Finally, the Minister’s recent speech descends into a
vortex of seemingly politically inspired inconsistency, defending public
debate, but criticising those who protest; criticising lateral violence (which
I take to mean ad hominem criticism
of Indigenous citizens by other indigenous citizens), but then criticising ‘the
left’ :
To
achieve real progress we also need honest debate. Debate that is unencumbered
by partisan positions that show little respect for the matter at hand.
For
far too long our people have been subject to lateral violence, which compounds
systemic racism experienced by some in our community. Perpetrated from within. Perpetrated
by those claiming to help our people. And most viciously by those on the Left.
It is not clear what the Minister is seeking to achieve
with these comments, and by also citing (in text I have not included here) an
associated list of epithets thrown at him by unnamed Indigenous critics. It
reads as an attempt to pre-emptively take out insurance against potential
critics. And seems to suggest an overly partisan perspective on the world.
There is a place for partisan politics, but in my (perhaps
old fashioned) view, not in a major policy speech which normally seeks to make
a persuasive case that the Government’s policy approach is directed to
advancing the broader public interest.
The bottom line is that the Government is seven years into
its tenure, and may well be on track to stay in office for another seven years.
My summary analysis is that under the previous Minister (Scullion),
the policy framework in Indigenous affairs was essentially to reverse pre-existing
policies that challenged the Government’s ideological perspectives, but resist
or defer any proposals for institutional change, particularly if they involve
new expenditure. But most importantly, the core tactic was to keep shifting
position on the cynical but largely correct assumption that a moving target
will avoid the day of reckoning. There is no better example of this than the
myriad obfuscations and shifting stances by Minister Scullion on the question
of renewing the national partnership on remote housing, documented extensively
in previous posts on this Blog (link
here).
The current Minister, 16 months into his tenure, appears to
be adopting a similar policy approach. It will not work at a substantive level
to improve the wellbeing of disadvantaged Indigenous citizens. And the longer
the Government is in office, the ploy of presenting a moving target will become
less effective.
Consider the two most salient examples: the recent National Agreement on Closing the Gap (link here) and the proposed Indigenous
Voice (link here).
The recent National Agreement on Closing the Gap reflects a
determined and arguably successful push by the Commonwealth (link
here) to reframe the narrative on Closing the Gap from one of Commonwealth failure
to one where the states are primarily responsible for meeting renewed targets.
The Commonwealth and the states have committed to an ambitious structural reform
agenda built around ongoing policy engagement with the Coalition of Peaks, but
the hard work both on targets and on structural reform has been pushed into the
future, while the political narrative for the Government will change
immediately. And so far at least, all without the necessary extra investment towards
meeting those less than ambitious targets.
The proposed Indigenous Voice, since 2017 when the Uluru
Statement for the Heart put forward an Indigenous initiated proposal for a Voice
to Parliament to be entrenched in the Constitution, the Government’s public
stance has meandered through three manifestations. First, it was a straight-out
‘no’ to a voice to parliament, and a ‘no’ to constitutional entrenchment. Then it
shifted to acceptance of a voice to government (not parliament), but not to entrenchment.
And finally to the latest formulation, a voice that ‘is more than a voice to parliament
and a voice to government’, based on a process of ‘codesign’ involving three committees, government
appointed members, an opaque process, limited terms of reference, and no
apparent timeline for a final government decision.
There is something Orwellian about a new way of working
that revolves around the assertion that the views of Indigenous citizens at all
levels matter, but that refuses — under the guise of running a flawed and convoluted
codesign process — to implement a proposal for an Indigenous Voice with extensive
Indigenous input and wide support. A way of working that actively seeks to
shift policy and funding responsibilities to the states and territories, as if
the 1967 referendum allocating legislative powers to the Commonwealth is a dead
letter. A way of working that seeks to persuade Indigenous Australians that the
primary role of government is to create opportunity, with the unstated implication
that continuing Indigenous disadvantage or exclusion is a failure by Indigenous
citizens to grasp the opportunities provided. A way of working that purports to
take responsibility (‘we are all Ministers for Indigenous Australians’) but in reality
avoids the admittedly hard decisions required to address ongoing Indigenous
exclusion.
Disclosure:
Given the topic of this post, it is appropriate that I remind readers that while
I have never been a member of a political party, I was a former adviser to
Minister Jenny Macklin from 2008 to 2010.
