Friday, 10 March 2023

The structural underpinnings of the tragedy in Yuendumu


Some of you, with Pilate, wash your hands

Showing an outward pity.

Richard II, Act Four, scene 1.

 

The inquest into the death of Kumanjayi Walker in Yuendumu in November 2019 is ongoing (link here). The Wikipedia page titled Death of Kumanjayi Walker (link here) provides a high level list of the various legal and policy issues raised by the manner of the young man’s death. I previously discussed the case in a post dated May 2022 titled ‘The ongoing social and governance catastrophe in remote Australia’ (link here).

 

I have not been following the myriad issues raised by the Kumanjayi Walkers death closely, and don’t propose to seek to comment directly on the core issues under consideration in the current coronial inquiry. I am looking forward to reading the Coroner’s Report once finalised.

 

The purpose of this post is two-fold. The first purpose is to sharpen the focus on the links between on the one hand what transpired in Yuendumu in November 2019 and the concomitant political and legal ramifications and on the other hand the deeper contextual history of colonisation and the decisions and approaches adopted by governments more generally that shaped the social and economic environment which permeates Central Australia to this day.

 

The second (related) purpose is to provide readers with links to the insightful statements to the Coronial Inquiry of two academic experts with long involvement in remote communities. Those statements defy easy summary, but are worth close reading for their analysis of the realities daily life in Yuendumu and similar communities. These analyses flesh out the ways in which that quotidian experience is shaped and constrained by the evolved, and in many respects entrenched relationships between the organic cultural rules and norms governing Aboriginal life in the central desert, and the wider imposed mainstream rules, norms and laws that ostensibly govern Aboriginal lives, but in reality ebb and flow in short and longer term cycles. The interplay between these two ways of living and of being ‘governed’ are in constant tension, and as we have seen in this case, lead to unpredictable and arguably incoherent outcomes for all involved. Intercultural relations are ubiquitous, but they don’t always exist in parallel, or in some logical and rational relationship, but are entwined through the lives of individuals and families in ways which are impossible to disentangle.  Moreover, as was the case in the Kumanjayi Walker case, these intercultural tensions can and do play out with extraordinarily unsettling consequences.

 

The first statement was authored by Dr Melinda Hinkson and is available (link here) on the Inquiry website as a tabled document dated 8 March 2023. Dr Hinkson’s statement covers the following issues:

Governance structures in Yuendumu over time, specifically the 2007 Northern Territory Intervention; Impact of these structures on Warlpiri i.e. disempowerment; Lack of infrastructure in Yuendumu and a corresponding atrophy of skills; Contributors to youth offending in Yuendumu; Community control over youth services; Empowerment of Warlpiri Elders in social structures; [and the] Contrast between Warlpiri and Kardiya notions of justice [para 1].

 

The statement provides a revealing and insightful administrative and policy history of the interaction between mainstream / colonial Australia and the Warlpiri who settled in Yuendumu and surrounding communities and outstations. I previously posted a review of her book See How We Roll (link here). As I said in the conclusion of that review post, Hinkson’s eloquent articulation of the realities of life as a modern Warlpiri person, whether in Yuendumu or Adelaide,

challenges policymakers, and the nation generally, to look harder at the underlying constraints on Indigenous lives, and our own responses to Indigenous life choices, and to truly ‘see’ how ‘we’ roll.

 

The second statement published on the Inquiry website on 9 March 2023 is by a medical doctor and academic Simon Quilty (link here). The most valuable part of Quilty’s statement, at least from my perspective, was the detailed elaboration of the significance of housing quality (or lack of it) for health and other social outcomes in the lives of Warlpiri people, and by extension, the majority of discrete community members across remote Australia. The import of these observations arises in large part form the reality that fixing housing stress, whether it is homelessness, or overcrowding, is in large measure a function of adequate funding and competent administration: that is , it is a largely technical issue.

 

In recent times, Quilty has been part of a research team focussed on energy insecurity in remote communities and houses. Their research has documented the extraordinary numbers of power cessations in remote houses across the NT, and pointed to the potential implications of this precariousness in the context of rising temperatures and climate variability. He attaches a copy of an article detailing these issues to his statement. I published a post about this article and the wider policy implications in January last year (link here). In that post, I concluded with the following recommendations:

Over and above these substantive policy responsibilities, the Australian Government has a national responsibility to oversight the complex Indigenous policy domain. The fact that the current Government resists this framing does not weaken its logical and political force. Why else did the Australian electorate vote in 1967 to give the Australian Government legislative responsibility for Indigenous affairs under the constitution? Such a national perspective is important because while the NatureEnergy article relates only to the NT, it seems likely that similar systemic energy security issues will apply in other parts of remote Australia, albeit perhaps with differing characteristics depending upon the extent to which remote communities elsewhere utilise prepaid energy systems.

One obvious step would be to commission the CSIRO to undertake a more policy oriented status report on the current state of play nationally. Another would be to substantially increase the investment in remote housing, including in ancillary infrastructure such as solar power systems. A third would be to expedite the work on redesigning the remote income support systems.

 

The micro story of what transpired in Yuendumu is not unrelated to what has been occurring across the board in remote Australia (link here), and most recently in the headlines with the events in Alice Springs (link here). Indeed, I suggest that the micro Yuendumu events are yet another manifestation of the complex macro issues that are laying waste to the lives of innumerable individuals and the ongoing viability of thousands of remote community families.

 

Yes, at the micro level, individuals on both sides of the cultural divide, Indigenous and non-Indigenous, have and had agency. But they were and are operating within an overarching set of institutional structures which have been in place for decades and were either explicitly designed to constrain and control Aboriginal people’s lives, or reflect longstanding and entrenched structures of underfunding that were oblivious to, and independent of the level of need. If we wish to prevent further micro level tragedies, we as a nation must move beyond allocating blame or responsibility at the micro level and also address the macro level issues. Micro and macro are both part of a single social system, one that is responsible for both extensive social and cultural harm, and ongoing mainstream governance failure.

 

To its credit, the coronial inquiry appears to at least be considering both micro and macro level issues. Yet there is a risk that once the Coroner reports, the political process will focus its attention on the narrow facts and causes of the tragedy, and not the wider systemic issues. To be meaningful, policy reform (which does not need to wait for the Coroner’s Report) must focus on removing the structural impediments to Indigenous life-possibilities, as well as expanding the structural opportunities available to individuals and communities in remote communities. Anything less is merely useless hand wringing.

No comments:

Post a Comment