On 12 July 2019, The Australian ran two Indigenous
related stories on its front page. The most prominent related to the proposal
for an Indigenous Voice in the Constitution. The lesser story, which has
entirely disappeared from view in the week since, derived from comments made to
The Australian by the new Minister for Indigenous Australians, Ken Wyatt, and was
headlined: ‘Wyatt’s challenge to ‘disconnected’ urban activists’,
and the full story on page 6 was headed: ‘Get real, Wyatt tells urban
indigenous’. This story (link here
behind paywall) is the subject of this post.
The story is interesting for a range of reasons: it
reflects the reality that there is a large and growing divergence between the
economic and social status of remote and non-remote Indigenous citizens, with
remote citizens being amongst the most economically and socially disadvantaged
Australians, whereas non-remote Indigenous citizens, while clearly
disadvantaged, are much better positioned. The reasons are complex. They include
the demographic trends which involve an ongoing and significant increase in the
population of non-remote Indigenous citizens (driven in large measure by increases
in the numbers of citizens self-identifying as Indigenous citizens); the greater
access to a wide array of mainstream services in non-remote Australia; and the
less effective delivery of core services and programs in remote Australia.
The story is also interesting because it reports on the
breach of an implicit and widely accepted taboo against undermining the
ideological unity of fundamental Indigenous interests and aspirations
(notwithstanding the widespread recognition that within the Indigenous
community there are substantive linguistic, cultural and social differences).
The fact that the new Minister made these comments in a highly public forum makes
it even more intriguing. And of course, the fact that the Minister’s comments
appear to have been met with universal silence from non-remote Indigenous
commentators and leaders makes it triply intriguing (I should qualify this last
assertion my admitting that as I am not on social media, I may have missed some
reactions).
So why did the newly minted Cabinet Minister decide to open
up a new front in the Indigenous policy space, one that he had not mentioned
the day before in his major speech to the National Press Club? To seek an
answer, we have to take a few steps back.
On 10 July 2019, Minister Wyatt fronted the National Press
Club for his first major address since his appointment (link
here). The speech was notable mainly for the hares which were
set running on constitutional recognition and the proposals in the Uluru
Statement for a Voice to Parliament.
The Minister began his speech with the following
statements:
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.
The voice is multilayered and includes
voices of individuals, families, communities and Indigenous organisations who
want to be heard by those who make the decisions that impact on their lives of
Indigenous Australians at all levels…
…All they want is for governments to hear
their issues, stories and their matters associated with their land, their
history. They're asking the three tiers of government to stop and take the time
to listen to their voices.
The development of a local, regional and
national voice will be achieved…
It is my intention to work with state and
territory ministers to develop an approach underpinned with existing
jurisdictional organisations and advisory structures that they have established
to advise state and territory governments…
…I'll turn to the matters of Treaty and
constitutional recognition later.
Much later in the speech, he returned to the issue of
constitutional recognition, stating inter alia:
Constitutional recognition - as I mentioned
earlier, I will develop and forward a consensus option for constitutional
recognition to put to a referendum during the current parliamentary term. …
…I do not want to proceed if we are not
going to be successful. I have commenced the process of engaging and seeking
the counsel of Indigenous leaders on the best way forward.
We need to design the right model to
progress to a point of which the majority of Australians, the majority of
states and territories and Indigenous Australians support the model so that it
is successful.
The Morrison Government is committed to
recognising Indigenous Australians in the constitution and working to achieve
this through a process of true co-design. Constitutional recognition is too
important…
…I plan to establish a working group of
Parliamentary colleagues of all political persuasions to assist me in
considering the role of engaging on many levels to bring forward a community
model.
The Shadow Minister for Aboriginal Affairs,
Linda Burney, will be integral to that process.
The constitutional recognition work is
unfinished. It will take time. It will need to be measured… [some
less relevant text has been omitted from these quotes].
In retrospect, (and notwithstanding the rhetoric about co-design)
it is clear that the Minister was drawing a distinction between the proposal
for a Voice to Parliament and the proposal for constitutional recognition.
However this nuance was not picked up by the media covering his speech (see for
example this
report from the ABC which reported that the Prime Minister had
indicated a week earlier that he was prepared to work with Labor on
implementing the Voice proposal).
The following day, Thursday 11 July, the Australian
Financial Review ran a story that effectively obliterated the Minister’s
distinction and which was prominently headlined ‘Indigenous referendum in three
years’ (link not available). Other media commentators similarly, and
understandably, missed the distinction (see for example Eddie Synot in The
Conversation link
here). While the Minister was making a clear distinction
between the Voice and constitutional recognition, it is apparent that he was also
intent on maintaining a high degree of ambiguity. Unfortunately, this latter
aim backfired spectacularly.
On Friday 12 July, The Australian’s front page
headline was “PM to veto ‘voice’ in the Constitution’ (link
here; see also this
link). The story underneath stated ‘that Minister Wyatt had
declared in his speech that ‘the government would consider creating a voice to
parliament through legislation and left the door open to enshrining it in the
Constitution’. The story went on to state ‘senior government sources [ie the
Prime Minister’s Office] said yesterday Mr Morrison would not support a
constitutionally enshrined Indigenous advisory body’.
This was the very same day that the Minister made his
comments regarding ‘disconnected’ urban Indigenous leaders.
It seems to me that there are at least three potential
explanations for the Minister’s uncharacteristic and arguably unwise public
bluntness directed at his own natural constituency. After all, one of the universal
descriptions of him (a perspective that I share) is that he is a thoroughly
decent bloke not prone to giving offence.
The first possible explanation is that the Minister is
aware of particular Indigenous leaders who are abusing their positions of
leadership and failing to represent their broader constituency. According to
the article, he did claim to have spoken to some leaders ‘about their
connections to the people they represented’. While such unrepresentative
leaders may exist, one wonders whether taking this issue into the public domain
without sustained backup such as including it in his speech, issuing a media
statement, and outlining a strategy to improve governance capabilities, would
have much influence on such recalcitrants.
The second possible explanation is that he was in fact
sending a coded message to his Cabinet colleagues that he was prepared to be
tough on the Indigenous community where necessary, and / or that there are very
high levels of need in remote Australia which will need greater investment. Of
course, as a former Minister (for Aged Care) in the Government, he will be
highly conscious of the Government’s record to date in cutting expenditure outlays
in the Indigenous policy sector. See for example the discussion on expenditure
in the Parliamentary Library’s recent Briefing Book publication, and in
particular the commentary on cessation of National Partnership Agreements (link
here). I note in passing that this publication does not include
mention of the significant cuts to the National Partnership on Remote Housing
(previously discussed in this blog here
and here
as well as here). The
Minister is too experienced not to understand the dire needs across remote
Australia, and may well be laying the groundwork for some greater investment in
remote communities, perhaps at the expense of non-remote expenditure.
A third possible explanation is that the Minister may have
feared that the media would interpret the Prime Minister’s intervention as
constituting an implied criticism or an undermining of his authority just weeks
into his tenure. Or he may have feared that a consensus would emerge amongst
stakeholders that he was irrelevant to the underlying decision-making on the
Voice proposal. Some tough talking might have been seen as one way to diffuse
any such criticism. In the event, it seems that neither of these eventualities
occurred, and the Minister appears to continue to enjoy a honeymoon that insulates
him from receiving realistic feedback. Nevertheless, the synchronicity of the
two stories suggests that there was likely some linkage.
I don’t propose to attempt to choose between these potential
explanations; I am happy for readers to make their own minds up. What is
apparent however is the extent to which a complex web of political
considerations (and players) infuse and shape what are ostensibly neutral
policy pronouncements in the Indigenous Australians portfolio.
Conclusion
There are clearly substantial opportunities for both the
nation as a whole, and the Government, in having a respected Indigenous person
such as Ken Wyatt in charge of the portfolio. This opportunity is magnified by
the fact that the Opposition has two Indigenous shadow ministers in Linda
Burney and Patrick Dodson. However, there are also considerable risks, for the
nation and for Ken Wyatt himself, that the Government will see the appointment
of an Indigenous person as minister as a ticket of leave not to expand the
policy envelope, but to continue ‘business as usual’ and perhaps to make further
expenditure cuts to Indigenous programs. I hope that this rather cynical
interpretation is not the case, but one would have to be naïve to believe that
it is not one potential outcome.
Only time will tell whether the opportunities or the risks eventuate.
In the meantime, to maximise Minister Wyatt’s leverage and influence within the
government and thus his eventual success in the portfolio it will be imperative
that he is publicly pushed by key Indigenous peak bodies and by the media and
the community at large to deliver tangible policy and program outcomes for
Indigenous citizens. In particular, the needs and aspirations of remote Indigenous
communities, who comprise the most disadvantaged citizens in the nation,
require ongoing advocacy and policy attention. The Minister was absolutely correct
in pointing to the importance of policy focussing on remote opportunities and
disadvantage.
Also implicit in the Ministers comments is the reality that
individual Ministers have finite levels of influence, and power. They rely on the
community at large to signal to the Government when policies are inadequate or
not hitting the mark. Without this pressure, Governments will take the path of
least resistance. In the Indigenous policy space, the political influence of
the Indigenous community is severely circumscribed by its low population base.
In remote Australia, Indigenous political influence approaches zero (and this
is the challenge to which the Minister appeared to be pointing).
The larger issue, not addressed by the Minister, is how to
engage the wider community in supporting better policy responses by governments
in the Indigenous policy domain. Without a broader support base, Indigenous
interests will continue to be marginalised by the Australian political system. All
of us, whether Indigenous or not, have a role in keeping the Government up to
the mark in advancing good policy for the Indigenous Australians portfolio.
No comments:
Post a Comment