Meta-promises: the new shape of Indigenous policy failure

                                                 

His promises fly so beyond his state

That what he speaks is all in debt; he owes

For every word...

Timon of Athens, Act one, Scene two

 

Following my previous post on ‘Unattainable expectations’ (link here), I received a number of comments from readers that raised issues that I had overlooked, or under-emphasised (though in my defence, I would state that I try to keep this blog focused on policy rather than politics (noting that the distinction is arguably artificial at best).

 

I thought it might be useful to share the comments from two anonymous readers, lightly edited to remove gratuitous comments which might colloquially be described as ‘pissing in my pocket’ along with my response to reader #1. Among the takeouts from these comments are the intensity of the intertwining of politics and policy (something which I tend to under-emphasise) and secondly the explicit and implicit trade-offs and opportunity costs involved in policy development.  I urge readers to read the commentaries both literally, but also through an interpretive lens that points to the complexities inherent in both designing, implementing and (especially from an Indigenous perspective), influencing policy.

 

Reader #1:

Mike is always an incisive commentator, and this blog is no exception - and yet I confess to having some dissatisfaction with elements of it.  In trying to sift my own responses I've had to face the fact that my own strong opinions have to some extent hindered a ready embrace of all Mike's observations.  Strong opinions can often be the enemy of good judgment, but they are also inevitable when one has been so long engaged with these issues.

 

One of the great benefits of my recent overseas sojourn was the opportunity it afforded to escape the exhausting and dispiriting barrage of argument and conjecture that had become almost unbearable when the referendum reached its miserable crescendo.  But now that I am back I must again face up to the issues Mike raises.

 

The complicating opinions of mine that I refer to can be seen as twofold:

Firstly, I harbour a deep anger towards the Prime Minister for the way he conducted the referendum discussions and I hold him primarily responsible for its failure.  His messages were weak and disingenuous and his leadership was an abject failure.  He tried to be Whitlamesque in his election night commitment, but then seemed to think that if he hugged enough people at Garma and whined enough about it being 'a gracious offer from Indigenous people' (what rubbish!) we'd all follow.  It was a shambles and I find it hard to forgive him.

 

And yet I am less inclined than Mike to condemn him for not now rushing to articulate a bold Indigenous policy agenda.  Mike fears that it signifies "a deep-seated lack of  ambition", but I think it is not inappropriate to reflect for a while after the referendum disaster, and that having already significantly raised Indigenous expectations only to have them turn to ashes, he would do well to avoid doing so again without significant pause. As Shakespeare’s words would suggest, this is not a time for more promises. And, as Aunty Pat has said, perhaps the post-referendum wasteland affords opportunity for Indigenous agency to emerge and to flourish.

 

I was really surprised that Mike seemed to make no connection with the Voice in his comments about the problems inherent in suggestions that a particular section of the community might have excessive influence over the development of national policy that directly affects them.  That was precisely a key reason the referendum went down; a lack of clarity as to whether the Parliament would indeed have ultimate control of and responsibility for the policy settings in Indigenous affairs.  The PM did not help with his lame comments about "it would be a brave government that ignored the advice of  the Voice", which raised the obvious question about whether Albo's government would in fact have the bravery Mike and the nation would have wanted it to have.

 

Secondly, I have never been at all comfortable with "closing the gap" rhetoric, which Mike appears to accept without question - (along with Pat, although she, as head of "the Peaks", is structurally locked into accepting that rhetoric).  I find myself wishing that Nugget Coombs were still with us, as I have no doubt he would be calling all this stuff out as being essentially assimilationist.  As one who has had a long and ongoing involvement with remote communities, I find the whole closing the gap agenda to be objectionable - assimilationist, and continuously viewing Aboriginal people and their communities through a negative lens.  Will they never be acceptable until they live like us and think like us?  Perish the thought!

 

My experience of remote community life at its best is that it has a vitality, a joy, an intensity of relationship, and a general exuberance that our own atomised, disconnected, self-obsessed society can never know.  When I first went to [a remote community in the NT] at age 22 I was stunned and amazed that people could live with such laughter and intense connection; it was a revelation.

 

At the risk of appearing foolish, let me put it like this: Perhaps the gap that needs to be closed is that between a society in which loneliness, unhappiness and alienation is an increasing problem and societies in which vitality and connection are a daily reality (yes, along with poverty, boredom and outbursts of violence).  My point is that there is no real gap; it all depends on what we are measuring - and the measurements we currently use are ethnocentric and assimilationist.

 

I like the way Mike finishes his piece by suggesting what Albo might have said, and his penultimate paragraph, articulating a vision for what the referendum could have achieved.  His final paragraph, however, might have said a little more - might have suggested how we actually get beyond the dismal "bipartisan mediocrity' of the last decade.  I'm not sure myself, but I think it might start with a celebration of everything that sets Aboriginal society apart from ours - not its negatives, but its joyous and exuberant connection.

 

Reader #2 provided the following commentary in response to Reader #1: 

Thanks [Reader#1] for copying me into such a thoughtful and considered response. Herewith a few comments on the post and your response from my perspective.

 

Regarding the Prime Minister-in a broader context I believe the whole referendum  campaign was misconceived from the outset. It’s death knell rang from the moment the PM was reduced to tears at its initial launch-political campaigns are only won when strategies are hard headed and identify and manage the risks - neither occurred in this context and wishful thinking abounded. Albanese needs to wear a fair proportion of the blame but when the true story ultimately emerges  there are a number of others who refused to accept,  let alone countenance considered advice.

 

One the key problems is that Labor came into office with only one discernible policy in Indigenous affairs that being the Voice as a miraculous instant cure all for all Indigenous and the nation’s ills. This was partly a product of their poor record in Opposition keeping the Coalition accountable over the past 10 years plus a chronic failure to develop any detailed in depth policies of their own.  As a result they assumed Office and merely maintained a business as usual approach consistent with the policies and structures adopted by the coalition via its 10 year program rather than pursue the necessary systemic reforms required. As Mike highlights this means Indigenous interests are still stuck with Coalition policies and its  government agency structures and the associated short term policy / reactive thinking - most of which continue to have proven disastrous for remote communities in particular.

 

I too have issues with the closing the gap assimilationist rhetoric but as it stands it remains the only remaining show in town- for remote communities it at least opens the door to press  governments to adopt an approach that commits priority resources to those areas of greatest need which are disproportionately in remote Australia -- as it stands the results of the virtual dismembering of programs by previous governments  such as CDEP, remote housing , outstation support and education have been a disaster for remote communities and are all currently on show by way of their virtual abandonment by government and the results and human suffering on display both in towns like Alice and so many remote communities. Other factors such as the negative impacts of social media, modernity and loss of agency in general are all adding other dimensions to this equation. When combined they act together effectively undermine and disrupt / displace traditional culture.

 

I responded to Reader #1 as follows (edited to remove less important points):

Thanks for your considered response!... One of the purposes of my blog is not so much to persuade people to my view, as to persuade them to think harder about the complexity of the policy issues involved, especially related to remote Australia.

 

I have set out some responses below. I do however feel that too much of the public discussion on Indigenous policy is undertaken within rather narrow and informal parameters, and often it is narrow cast to specific cohorts of recipients who do not speak to one another...hence my gratitude for receiving your own well informed and insightful views.

 

I don’t disagree with your assessment of Albanese, however I was pointing to this notion - that I consider to be deeply embedded in the way we think about these issues -  that the world can be split into two separate and cleanly divided parts, Indigenous and non-Indigenous, and hinting or suggesting that it is a key reason why mainstream Australians essentially decided that it was not their business, and they didn’t need to support it...

 

I agree that there shouldn’t be more promises that won’t be kept. And I see the logic in now taking stock following the defeat of a referendum without a plan B...When you are in a hole stop digging...My perspective however is that the whole policy edifice of the government should have been more than just one proposal, and secondly, they might have openly and actively engaged with the community (black and white) about what their policy approach beyond the Voice should be from the date of their election...in short, a smart government avoids the holes in the first place...

 

Your views about closing the gap are extraordinarily relevant, particularly for remote communities, and particularly in relation to the threat of imposed assimilation...moreover, the original closing the gap architecture was not well designed, and the Morrison refresh and current version (done supposedly in partnership with the Peaks) even less well designed...I agree that Nugget would likely be a vehement critic...and it seems that even on its own terms, the closing the gap process is unlikely to work...I do take a different view from you on the utility of a negative lens ... I agree wholeheartedly that Aboriginal communities can exude remarkable positives that are easily overlooked by outsiders and policymakers....unfortunately, a complex and insidious web of grog, drugs, anomie, the onset of modernity, coercive and at times racist policy assumptions, plus a deep-seated lack of inclusion and investment by mainstream institutions has taken a huge toll....many of my blog posts on remote Australia emphasise these negatives not because I see Indigenous society as innately negative or deficient but because a child suffering violent abuse or neglect or FASD or who cannot read and write will not have the opportunities she deserves (many of which include the positive experiences you refer to)...I see policymakers as responsible for these shortcomings, not Indigenous people...

 

[In relation to the suggestion that the gap does not exist] I disagree with you at the margin....there is a gap, but in remote communities it is qualitatively different than in non-remote, and requires different solutions, ideally which involve codesign and partnership with communities themselves....

[In relation to saying more about the policy solutions]...My intuition is that Indigenous interests have to develop an independent advocacy capability and capacity beyond the reach of government co-option.

  

Conclusion

It strikes me that the perspectives of the two readers, each of which have considerable merit, along with my response to reader #1, together demonstrate just how complicated it is to first reach a consensus on what are policy priorities, and second to determine appropriate policy responses across the breadth of the Indigenous policy domain. Yet our public discourse on Indigenous affairs generally, and Indigenous policy in particular, seems quite limited and narrow.

 

There is a deficit in the quality of public discourse on these issues, especially in relation to remote communities. This deficit is not without real world implications: it leads to deep-seated reluctance to address policy complexity in public discourse, and allows simplistic ideas and approaches to gain traction without serious public analysis and critique. This is the ecosystem in which promises are made, expectations raised, and re-raised , and re-raised again, without any government official ever taking responsibility for the absence of tangible action and the concomitant outcomes of legitimate expectations being left unaddressed, and promises breached.

 

While we all have a responsibility (at least in my view) to seek to improve the quality of public discourse on these issues, Ministers in particular have a responsibility to engage with the community at a level of sophistication that is almost entirely absent from public discussion. When was the last time we have seen a minister identify in a spirit of dialogue with the community, potential policy options, rather than making specific promises? We need more of the former and less of the latter. In turn, engaged advocates must increase the demand for greater policy sophistication (particularly in an age of codesign and partnership) if they expect the supply to increase. We have now reached a meta-state in which governments of all shades promise to have a policy, and then fail to deliver.

 

 9 January 2024

Unattainable expectations

 

Oft expectation fails, and most oft there

Where most it promises

All’s Well that Ends Well, Act two, Scene one.

 

On 26 December 2023, The Australian ran a front page story headed ‘Voice “not my loss” Albanese declares’. 

 

In unscripted commentary made while serving lunch at a charity, the Prime Minister was apparently asked about his year and ‘some big losses’ such as the defeat of the Voice. According to The Australian, the Prime Minister replied:

Oh, no, no, no, no, very important to call that out. I am not Indigenous, so it wasn’t a loss for me. That stays exactly the same the way it is. I do think that it was disappointing for First Nations people but they’re used to you know, getting the, they’re used to hardship. It’s been the case for 200 years, and they are resilient and we will continue to do what we can to provide for closing the gap. But it’s one of the things about this debate, it was never about politicians, it was actually about the most disadvantaged people in our society.

 

On the Prime Minister’s media webpage (link here), there is an entry for the event, and a short transcript. However, it does not include these comments.

 

The Australian’s take on the comments was, in effect, to state the obvious: that the referendum defeat was a loss for him. Journalist Greg Brown commented that the PM’s claim ignored the enormous political capital he burned and ignored the fact that the referendum result ‘has left him without a policy agenda for Indigenous Australians more than halfway into a term of government’.

 

I raise the Prime Minister’s comments to focus not on the political jostling that is clearly occurring, but rather on some underlying implications for Indigenous policy. The first implication worth noting is his comment that ‘we will do what we can’ to close the gap. Embedded within this cautious phrasing is a deep-seated lack of ambition, and reluctance to ‘do what we must’ to close the gap. It may seem like semantic hair-splitting, but unfortunately the Prime Minister’s comments align exactly with the approach adopted by the Government.

 

If we take the view (as I do) that policy is what governments do, (not what they say they do), then clearly there is a government policy agenda. The problem is that they do not feel able to articulate it. They have no coherent narrative.

 

The core elements of the current Government’s Indigenous policy appear to be to keep their heads down, maintain a regular flow of small dollops of funding to a wide array of Indigenous groups (this was an underlying reason the previous government abolished multiple programs and merged them into the Indigenous Advancement Strategy), push financial responsibilities to the states and territories wherever they can (most notably under the rubric of the National Agreement on Closing the Gap, a holdover from the previous government), and when in a tight spot, to buy time through resort to more consultation. When cornered by a crisis, they will allocate extra funding, the quantum carefully calibrated to ensure it is modest but can’t be criticised as too parsimonious. We saw this approach in the response to the crisis in Alice Springs last year. A brief summary is provided in the NIAA 2023-24 Corporate plan (link here), See also this previous post (link here) which predated the Government’s response package.

 

Apart from its support for a Voice, it is difficult to see any substantive difference between the policy approach adopted by the current Government and the previous LNP Government. The past decade of Indigenous policy has overwhelmingly been characterised by the prioritisation of rhetoric over substantive action. In terms of policy ambition, we have had what might be called bipartisan mediocrity.

 

The absence of a narrative describing a substantive policy framework that the Government feels able to talk about openly and without resorting to doublespeak is a double tragedy. A tragedy for Indigenous Australia, but also a tragedy for all Australians (whatever their background) who are required to live in a nation that is prepared to leave a significant proportion of its population in significant physical, social and economic distress.

 

The second implication embedded in the Prime Minister’s comments is more abstract, and yet to my mind enormously important. I particularly focus on his comment that he is not Indigenous and thus not impacted. Taking the Prime Minister literally, he is saying that the Voice (and by implication all Indigenous policy including closing the gap) are matters solely for Indigenous people. Unsurprisingly, this is a widely accepted view amongst Indigenous people. It is also extremely prevalent amongst many of their allies and supporters with politically progressive inclinations. I take a different, and more nuanced, view.

 

Just as Indigenous policy should not be a matter left exclusively to non-Indigenous policy makers, nor should it be left exclusively to Indigenous people. In fact, if one thinks about it, government policies even when framed as being directed to a specific group (e.g. pensioners, or home-owners) necessarily impacts all citizens: those policies have financial costs which fall on taxpayers; those costs also have opportunity costs (ie the dollars for one policy might be better spent elsewhere); and they may expand the freedom of action of the intended beneficiaries, but limit the freedom of action of other groups, both in the present, but also in the future. For these reasons, the development of policies is subject to multiple process gateways, both within the bureaucracy and then in the parliament, all designed to ensure that policy design meets the needs of all interests affected by a proposed policy. Policy implementation is also oversighted by institutions such as the Auditor General and parliamentary estimates committees.

 

The same principles and constraints hold for the development and implementation of Indigenous policy. The wider and deeper the remit of any policy initiative, the more important these processes are, and the less likely that governments will give up their power to make final decisions.

 

Of course, the primary intended beneficiaries of a policy should have a strong involvement in the development of the policy, but in a well working (inclusive) system of governance it is impossible for any single interest group to have a monopoly over all aspects of shaping and determining policy.

 

In contrast, and unfortunately from my perspective, embedded within the Prime Minister’s comments on the loss of the referendum is a view that Indigenous policy is something that only concerns Indigenous people. It is not how our system should work, and nor is it how our system works most of the time. I should quickly add that while I am focussing on the Prime Minister’s comments, they are salient not only because he is the Prime Minister (though that is an element) but precisely because they are widely shared across the political spectrum and have deep penetration both within First Nations circles and the wider non-Indigenous community.

 

One consequence of the Prime Minister’s perspective (which conservatives would describe as ‘woke’) is that it raises Indigenous expectations beyond the point that the system can or will deliver. This process of raising expectations rather than being honest with Indigenous people has been going on for decades. It is built into the DNA of our political system. The reality, however, is that the myriad interests and interest groups that inhabit our political and policy ecosystem will not willingly allow one interest group unfettered influence over policy, because that would have the consequence of opening the door to future adverse decisions against those interests acceding to the change. The Prime Minister knows this too, in his head, in his heart, and in his bootstraps.

 

The promulgation of a narrative that the Voice was solely for, or about, Indigenous Australians, or that Closing the Gap is solely about Indigenous Australians, is both incorrect, but also insidiously destructive as it involves a deliberate disjunction between rhetoric and underlying substantive intent. It is also destructive, because it gives non-Indigenous citizens permission to avert their gaze, to take no notice and to not give a fig about the state of Indigenous Australia. To have the Prime Minister effectively reinforce these propensities is immensely retrograde. It places a question mark over the extent of the Prime Minister’s personal commitment to closing the gap.

 

It is very easy (and unfortunately commonplace) for politicians to promise one thing and deliver less. However, it is in my view egregiously short-sighted and destructive of trust in our system of government for politicians to implicitly promise degrees of influence and engagement over policy development to any segment of the community that they know will not be met, not now, not in the future, never.

 

Unfortunately, from time to time, democratic governments do succumb to granting special interests extraordinary or near total influence over policy development. It happens because powerful interests find ways to insinuate themselves into the political system. When this occurs, it is termed ‘state capture’ and once uncovered (it invariably operates in secrecy) it is widely condemned. While he most extraordinary example of this in recent times is in South Africa (link here and link here), Australia is not immune (link here and link here). The reality is, however, that Indigenous interests do not posses the power and resources to even come close to capturing the state, notwithstanding the extravagant apoplexy which emanates from some quarters of the public sphere whenever there is talk of advancing the inclusion of Indigenous interests. Any greater inclusion of Indigenous interests will inevitably require the implicit agreement of a broad consensus of other interests within the Australian political settlement.

 

Conclusion

To sum up, I accept that I am making a somewhat nuanced argument. To make it more real, what would I have had the Prime Minister say?

 

First, given the political capital he invested in supporting the Voice, it does not ring true to say that he did not lose the political debate. But democracy is built on dialogue and debate, and ideally on reaching consensus. But when consensus doesn’t emerge, it is inevitable that there are people whose views are set aside. Losing is an essential element of a democratic system and is not any less honourable than winning. More importantly though, he should have stated that the Voice was an important initiative to improve our democratic system, that First Nations people were (and still are) structurally silenced in various ways and the Voice would have ensured that First Nations had the opportunity to formally express their views on major policy, and Parliament and the Executive would have had the opportunity to hear their views and concerns. Our democratic system, and thus all citizens, would have benefitted, not just First Nations. 

 

Of course, the significant policy implication embedded in this conclusion is that the structural silencing of Indigenous interests continues. This too should be a matter of concern for all Australians, not just First Nations. It is an outcome that is not assisted by adopting slick approaches based on rhetorical ambition and substantive policy mediocrity. Fixing that is an attainable expectation!

 

 

03 January 2024

Post referendum policy options: perhaps we should blame ourselves

This earthly world, where, to do harm

Is often laudable; to do good, sometime

Accounted dangerous folly

Macbeth, Act four, Scene two.

 

In the wake of last week’s referendum defeat, Queensland Opposition Leader David Crisafulli announced via an op ed in the Courier Mail last Thursday that he was withdrawing his support for a treaty in Queensland (link here) and if returned to government would repeal the Path to Treaty Act 2023 (link here) legislation which the Opposition had previously supported. That legislation establishes a pathway to a treaty or treaties. Section 5 of the Act sets down the main purposes of the Act:

The main purposes of this Act are to—

(a) establish the First Nations Treaty Institute to— (i) develop and provide a framework for Aboriginal peoples, Torres Strait Islander peoples and the State to enter into treaty negotiations; and (ii) support Aboriginal peoples and Torres Strait Islander peoples to participate in treaty negotiations; and

(b) provide for the establishment of the Truth-telling and Healing Inquiry to inquire into, and report on, the impacts of colonisation on Aboriginal peoples, Torres Strait Islander peoples and the history of Queensland.

 

Following the passage of the legislation, the Queensland Labor Government issued a statement (link here) where the Premier stated:

“[This legislation] furthers the commitment made between the Queensland Government, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, and non-Indigenous Queenslanders on 16 August 2022, and paves the way for truth-telling and healing, and treaty preparations to begin… All Queenslanders will benefit from a reconciled Queensland, and we are committed to working with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples towards reconciliation, truth-telling and healing, and reframing the relationship.” [Emphasis added]

 

In the period since the Act was passed, there has to date been no indication of substantive progress in appointing the Institute members. Meanwhile an interim body continues to operate (link here and link here).

 

According to Opposition Leader David Crisafulli, a treaty would only create further division. Within 24 hours, the Queensland Premier was expressing her own reservations regarding her Government’s legislation establishing a path towards a treaty, stating that a treaty would require bipartisan support (link here). The Australian (link here $) in an article headed ‘Palaszczuk to give up on treaty’, reports that the Government had ‘moved to abandon laws – passed this year with the support of the LNP – enabling treaty deals and reparations for up to 150 groups…. [at a press conference] Ms Palaszczuk would only commit to going ahead with truth-telling hearings, due to begin early next year’. In an article in today’s Australian (Local voice on cards for remote island; Link here $) the Premier is quoted as stating that she personally supported treaty deals but they would not progress without bipartisan support:

It’s a long process, so the truth-telling is three to five years. The treaties will come afterwards and that is for subsequent governments.

 

Ben Smee’s analysis in the Guardian (link here) points to the political calculus behind the Opposition’s policy shift, and the Government’s response, and observes how the Government’s preparedness to buckle to pressure both diminishes trust and encourages further provocation. What he doesn’t emphasise however is the deeper and longstanding reinforcement of distrust and disenchantment amongst Indigenous Queenslanders that will inevitably follow.

 

In NSW, the Labor Government is reassessing its own policy settings in relation to establishing a state wide Voice (link here). The Australian today (link here $) is citing the NSW Premier as indicating his government was not planning to take a position on a possible treaty before the next state election:

All we’re promising is to start that dialogue…I can’t promise quick changes, but I have promised dialogue.

 

In The Conversation Michelle Grattan laid out a succinct assessment, arguing that despite the Government’s good intentions, the pursuit of the perfect over the good has delivered nothing:

…the Voice is dead and reconciliation is, at least for the moment, a wasteland …. Albanese was well motivated, but a great deal of harm has been done. (link here)

 

In the light of the developments in Queensland and perhaps NSW, this assessment is looking accurate.

 

Grattan goes on to say:

Albanese says he is waiting to be advised by Indigenous people on where to from now. When the government said in the campaign it had no plan B, that seems to have been the case. It has not yet clarified its post-referendum position on treaty and truth telling.

 

The Deputy Prime Minister, Richard Marles did state on the ABC Insiders program the day after the referendum that the Uluru Statement for the Heart (which addresses treaty and truth telling) continues to be part of the Government’s agenda. I subsequently saw reports that these comments were being tracked back and downplayed. The Government is now stating that it is waiting to hear from Indigenous people on their views on how to proceed before outlining its position. Grattan’s assessment is likely correct.

 

The referendum campaign, and in particular its result, were clearly epic failures; and since he came to office, the Prime Minister had been central to each of the strategic and tactical decisions taken along the pathway to that result. Implicit in Michelle Grattan’s critique is to lay responsibility for the consequences of the outcome with the Government and in particular the Prime Minister, and clearly, in terms of day-to-day politics in Australia, that is where accountability must reside.

 

Yet an analytic focus that sees the world purely through the lens of its impact on quotidian politics is to my mind fundamentally inadequate. Such a focus is infused with an innate contemporaneousness that over-emphasises what politicians and political actors say rather than what they do, and adopts the perspective promulgated by political actors across the political spectrum that implicitly frames political and policy debate and discussion as ephemeral and never final. This is particularly the case in relation to Indigenous policy, because Indigenous interests lack the innate influence of more powerful interest groups and tend to focus on the perfect over the good (perhaps because that is how to best obtain and sustain support within extremely heterogeneous Indigenous constituencies). The result is that there is a dearth of sustained focus on specific policy proposals in public policy discourse on First Nations related issues, and instead an over-emphasis on vague and inchoate high level aspirations such as ‘treaty’ or ‘truth-telling’. These are perfectly legitimate and adequate political tactics, but entirely inadequate as a guide to policy development.

 

To take a random example, the absence of sustained pressure for the provision of core funding for PBCs in the native title space astounds me (link here).  Both governments and First Nations advocacy groups are happy to engage in policy discussions about complex and high level issues that are continuously swathed in process, discussion and review, but never lead to final decisions or progress. Yet simple and comparatively inexpensive reforms that would make an appreciable difference to First Nations negotiating power are ignored by both governments and First Nations advocates.

 

In the case of the Voice, this presentism in most public discourse ignores the history and wider factors that led to the referendum result, and under-values the consequences and implications for the future of today’s decisions and actions by actors on all sides of the debate. At the risk of over-simplifying my argument, the public debate leading to, and beyond the referendum is taking place in the realm of ideology and ‘the vibe’ rather than in terms of substantive argument and exchange of views designed to persuade. The processes established by governments over the past six years have been consistent with the longstanding approach by governments of promising the world, raising expectations, but failing to deliver. This is essentially Michelle Grattan’s argument. Going forward, there is every likelihood of more of the same.

 

In these circumstances, we can blame governments. The Queensland Government’s ‘commitments’ on Treaty appear to be not worth the paper a treaty would be written on. Both the Queensland and NSWE Governments appear determined to kick the treaty can down the road, again. Federally, the previous LNP Government established a seemingly never-ending set of slow moving processes and reviews to ‘develop’ a Voice, along with a series of shifting and politically convenient policy rationales (e.g. support for regional voices) yet never took action to either legislate the Voice or to put it to a referendum. The Albanese Government pursued the ‘perfect’, a high risk all or nothing strategy without a ‘plan B’, hiding behind the rationale that this is what First Nations wanted — a rationale it has doubled down on post referendum.

 

This is not the first time that the expectations of First Nations have been raised and then razed, although in this case it was the Australian electorate that delivered the coup de grace, and not the executive government. Governments deserve enormous criticism for raising expectations time after time, year after year, and when they change policy direction, for razing whatever institutional infrastructure exists to the ground, and forcing Indigenous citizens to start afresh. The sorry history of Indigenous advisory bodies to Commonwealth governments are just one case in point.

 

However, perhaps those who make it their business to criticise governments for their poor or non-existent performance (for example bloggers such as myself) and policy think tanks, leaders and advocates, both Indigenous and non-Indigenous, should look more carefully at their own complicity in this all so predictable danse macabre. A dance which involves governments and oppositions alike, avowing, pledging, promising, making commitments, raising expectations, baulking, shifting course, penultimately ‘kicking decisions down the road’, and only when cornered, coming clean and announcing that what had been a commitment was in fact just an ephemeral thought bubble. We know what politicians are like. We know they are prone when deemed necessary to deceive, delude, dissemble and divert. Yet how is it that we fail to call governments out when they are so clearly focussed more on raising expectations than on delivering. Perhaps it is time to blame ourselves?

 

Why might we deserve to be blamed?

 

Reasons abound. For allowing debates to proceed untethered to reality. For allowing ideology to permeate our thinking, marginalising pragmatic incremental gains. For allowing political actors — whether politicians or advocates — to commit to or support outcomes (or targets, or processes) without undertaking the requisite intellectual work to specify the strategy, and without articulating how policy proposals and promises will be funded and by whom. For readers who would like an extended list (focussed on the vexed issue of closing the gap), I refer you to my submissions to the current Productivity Commission review of the National Agreement on Closing the Gap (link here).

 

My fundamental point is that the threat of political accountability is patently ineffective, and —even when delivered decisively at an election — is not adequate to ensure constructive policy outcomes in the Indigenous policy domain. Power — its necessity, its benefits and uses, its excesses, and its costs — pervades our systems of democratic policymaking. Yet left unchecked, power degrades and corrupts our institutions, our systems of governance, and ultimately our way of life. The paradox we confront is that power is both necessary and ubiquitous, and insidiously avoids all attempts at constraint and regulation. It flows through our institutions like water through rubble. The challenge is to devise ways to check its most egregious excesses. One obvious way is to build and sustain a robust culture of ‘speaking truth to power’, where debate is welcomed, and the contest of rigorous argument between alternative views is valued. Promoting and engaging in constructive debate is a responsibility that falls on us all; but is easier said than done.

 

Too often we baulk at the threshold, as engagement is hard work. The Indigenous policy domain is not just about policies that impact First Nations citizens. It is also about the sort of nation we wish to be, and this requires all Australians to develop and express ideas (which flow into actions) about the place of Indigenous citizens within our nation’s fabric and institutions. To my mind, it is a mistake to think that non-Indigenous citizens have no role to play in shaping our nations policies in relation to the place of First Nations citizens within our polity. Bernard Keane in Crikey adopts the diametrically oppositive view in his article titled The job of non-Indigenous Australians now is to… shut up (link here).

 

It is particularly a mistake for governments to abandon the responsibilities they took on upon being elected, namely to make decisions in the general public interest, and to implicitly claim that it is for First Nations interests to set out the policy agenda to be pursued. The obverse of this assertion is that it would also be a mistake for Indigenous leaders and advocates to be taken in by such rhetoric, and to allow themselves to once again be misled and ultimately to be disappointed. To be clear, it is both necessary and important that governments and policymakers listen to, consider, and hopefully take on board where they can Indigenous views; but this does not justify governments abandoning their overarching responsibilities for the policy choices necessary to advance the public interest, and it certainly does not justify governments hiding behind rhetorical nonsense — views that they do not in fact believe — in order to avoid making difficult policy decisions.

 

Creating a culture of robust and respectful debate on public policy, and particularly Indigenous policy, where different views can be raised and discussed is an important task that we as a nation appear to have allowed to lapse. The restitution of such a broad-based culture of debate and discussion is important if we value a free and fair future for our children and their children. Unfortunately, for too many of us (including me), taking concrete steps towards the establishment of such a culture too often seems like dangerous folly

 

24 October 2023

 

 

The Voice result will be seen as an inflection point for Indigenous policy

 

I am amazed, methinks and lose my way

Among the thorns and dangers of this world.

King John, Act four, scene three.

 

Following the defeat of the Voice referendum, I published a short article in Inside Story (link here) arguing that the referendum will come to be seen as an inflection point in Indigenous policy: no longer will it be tenable to conceptualise the policy domain as involving a single Indigenous interest that must be weighed and factored into the public interest. Instead, policymakers will increasingly deal with Indigenous issues on the basis of particular Indigenous interests, and these will be advocated and articulated against the countervailing pressure of other interests, Indigenous and non-Indigenous.

 

In my view, this is increasingly how public policy is made — the current reality — albeit it has not been widely recognised. Instead, the virtually ubiquitous perspective, including amongst the advocates for the Voice, has been that it remains possible to span the competing Indigenous sub-voices, and conjure up a single national First Nations Voice which represents or speaks on behalf of all Indigenous nations, communities and people on all major issues of concern to First Nations. I too have, until comparatively recently, unthinkingly shared this view.

 

To be clear, while it is possible to argue that the multiplicity of Indigenous views (reflecting different yet cogent perspectives and interests) contributed to the defeat of the referendum, I am not seeking to engage with why the referendum failed. Instead, I am seeking to look forward, and make a hard-headed assessment of how mainstream policymakers will increasingly engage with policy issues involving Indigenous interests into the future.

 

Nor am I seeking to deny the existence and importance of shared histories, shared cultures and shared identity amongst First Nations people. My point is merely that in policy contexts, interests and interest group competition will increasingly come to dominate decision making processes. I am not arguing in favour of this, merely making an assessment that this is what is happening.

 

An aspect not directly addressed in my article, but of increasing significance, are two trends: the first is the inexorable shift by governments to utilise mainstream policies and programs rather than Indigenous specific programs and policies combined with greater policy reliance on, and deference to, the states and territories rather than the Commonwealth, and the second is the trend in mainstream policy and political decision-making forums to give increasing profile and attention to special interests (link here). Both trends reinforce the argument I am making; both can be persuasively criticised, but they are nevertheless happening. One implication is that when interest group influence is pervasive, governments are not as focussed on ensuring that the public interest is protected.

 

The bottom line for First Nations is that if they desire to shape policy, they will increasingly need to engage in the struggle for influence with competing interests, both Indigenous and non-Indigenous. See this earlier post on similar development in the US (link here). Of course, there is enormous scope to critique such an outcome, and it is important in democratic polities that such critiques exist. But such critiques (however persuasive) are normative and conceptually distinct from the ways and processes that apply to the of making of policy impacting and affecting First Nations. Reliance on mere rhetoric, or an implicit assumption that democracy (where voters are properly informed) will always deliver just outcomes aligned with the general public interest will not be enough to shape policy. The outcome of the Voice referendum provides a clear cut demonstration of this point.

 

I recommend the Inside Story article to interested readers.

The semiotics of the 2023 Intergenerational Report

 

But thou didst understand me by my signs,

And dids’t in signs again parley with sin…

King John, Act four, Scene two.

 

The Commonwealth recently published the 2023 Intergenerational Report (link here). The thumbnail description on the Treasury website states:

The 2023 Intergenerational Report projects the outlook of the economy and the Australian Government’s budget to 2062-63. This is the sixth report. Its analysis and projections of the key drivers of economic growth will help inform and improve public policy settings to better position Australia for the next 40 years. The report considers 5 major forces affecting the coming decades:

·         population ageing

·         technological and digital transformation

·         climate change and the net zero transformation

·         rising demand for care and support services

·         geopolitical risk and fragmentation.

 

The Treasurer’s Foreword states (inter alia):

The Albanese Government’s first Intergenerational Report provides a big picture view of the forces that will shape our economy and fiscal position over the next 40 years as we work to create prosperity, expand opportunity, and build a stronger, more sustainable and more inclusive nation. Digitalisation and the adoption of new technologies, shifts in our industrial base, the energy transformation, demographic change, and serious geopolitical uncertainty are already changing the shape of our economy and this will continue over the coming decades. 

 

There has been a plethora of commentary over the past week which I do not propose to replicate. Instead, this post will focus on what the Report says (or does not say) regarding Indigenous people, and what this means for future policy directions.

 

The Report makes a series of passing mentions of Indigenous policy issues: life expectancy at birth for First Nations people are about 8 years lower than the mainstream population (p. 43); First Nations people have a ‘significantly younger’ age profile than the general population (p. 49); and participation rates for First Nations people are low:

The share of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in employment remains lower than for other Australians. Census data suggest that the gap in employment rates has narrowed slightly from 25 percentage points in 1991 to 22 percentage points in 2021 (Chart 3.11). The employment rate of First Nations people is lower in more rural and remote areas (pp.72-3).

 

It seems likely however that the uptick in participation rates noted above are the result of higher levels of identification rather than any underlying policy response. Even so more than four in ten Indigenous persons between ages 25 to 64 are unemployed, a level of under-participation that has existed for over thirty years.

 

The Report asserts the Commonwealth ‘is making significant investments in closing the gap’ (p. xvii). In this statement, the word ‘significant’ is bearing all the weight, and is open to varying interpretations. An amended version, stating the Commonwealth is making ‘significant but not adequate’ investments would perhaps better reflect the reality.

 

In a discussion of critical minerals, the Report notes that 80 percent of the continental land mass is under-explored for critical minerals and that this might offer ‘opportunities’. There is no mention of the fact that the Indigenous estate comprises around 57% of the continental land mass (not all in direct Indigenous ownership: link here), and thus there is no discussion of the implications either for the supply of critical minerals nor for the economic and other impacts on First Nations communities of this sui generis institutional framework.

 

In relation to pre-school enrolment, the report notes (p. 181) that 99% of First Nations children in the year before school age cohort are enrolled in preschool, a 225 increase since the 2016 census. The report also reports encouraging school retention rates for all Australian students including First Nations of 97 percent (p. 182) but falling mainstream and First Nations attendance rates since 2015, with First Nation student’s attendance being some 12 percent below mainstream rates (p.182). Not mentioned are the geographic differences, with remote attendance rates and levels being much lower than the national figures. For example, the most recent ACARA national report on schooling in Australia (link here) contains data suggesting in very remote regions, Indigenous attendance levels (ie the proportion of students who attend more than 90 percent of available school days) is only 8.7 percent nationally and drops to only 4.4 percent in the NT. The gap between very remote non-Indigenous students and Indigenous students’ attendance levels is 33 percent. Unsurprisingly, Indigenous educational outcomes are sub-optimal. Along with the recently released NAPLAN figures, ACARA (the Australian Curriculum Assessment and Reporting Authority) released a two page short commentary on the results for each of the years 3, 5, 7, and 9 (link here). Each commentary included the same text:

Non-Indigenous students’ average NAPLAN scores are substantially above and significantly different from those of Indigenous students in all 5 testing domains.

 

The most consequential mention of First Nations in the Intergenerational Report comes in the very last paragraph of Chapter Seven on Government Spending. The Chapters major points are summarised at the front of the chapter (p. 143):

Total Government spending is projected to increase by 3.8 percentage points over the next 40 years, rising from 24.8 per cent of GDP today to 28.6 per cent in 2062–63.  Major spending pressures include health and aged care, the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS), defence and interest payments on Government debt. These are projected to rise from 8.8 per cent of GDP today to around 14.4 per cent in 2062–63.  Demographic ageing alone is estimated to account for around 40 per cent of the increase in Government spending over the next 40 years.

In a discussion of non-modelled ‘other payments’, the report notes (p. 187; emphasis added):

Non-modelled payments includes spending on all other areas not elsewhere included in this chapter, including environmental protection and conservation, national parks and world heritage area management, supporting First Nations people and communities, the arts and the film industry, and the Australian Public Service. Payments that are not modelled are assumed to grow in line with GDP so are held as a constant share of GDP over the projection period.

 

Of course, in the scheme of things, these payments are comparatively minor, and arguably any variations will not be statistically significant. Yet there is also an inference here that notwithstanding the significant shortfalls in health, education, infrastructure, housing, and justice outcomes, and the consistent failure to make a dent in closing the gap, that there is no substantive pressure to increase the proportion of GDP that is allocated to these issues.

 

Moreover, notwithstanding the Report’s silence, the salience of mainstream programs in addressing (or not addressing) Indigenous disadvantage is increasingly acknowledged in policy circles, not least in the National Agreement on Closing the Gap, and in particular in its Priority Reforms. Considering the five major forces shaping the future, it is worth considering how those forces might impact Indigenous interests and communities.

 

An ageing mainstream population is not aligned with the current and likely continuing youthfulness of the Indigenous population, and will likely engender a shift in the political pressures shaping governments’ policy priorities towards the concerns of an older mainstream community, and at the expense of younger cohorts. This is a potential risk for Indigenous interests that is rarely mentioned let alone considered in depth. There is a related issue of the surging growth in the national Indigenous population, driven by increasing self-identification. The report makes a glancing reference to ‘changing First Nation identification rates’ in a footnote (p.49), but does not consider whether the recent trends will continue into the medium term, nor what the implications then might be.

 

The coming technological and digital transformation will adversely impact the least educationally qualified segments of the Australian population, and Indigenous interests are over-represented in that cohort.

 

The accelerating impact and risks of climate change and the potential of the net zero transformation will impact remote and regional Indigenous interests significantly. The increasing salience of energy insecurity in remote communities is just one example (link here). The commercial and economic opportunities are significant, but rely on the development of widespread (not isolated pockets) commercial and economic expertise amongst Indigenous communities as well as the structural and systemic changes to the institutional frameworks designed to facilitate the taking up of those opportunities. The existence of the potential will require sustained and complex policy engagement by all governments, but particularly the Commonwealth. Unfortunately I see little evidence that policymakers are prepared (in both senses of the word) to focus on making these opportunities realities. Moreover, the risks of climate change, especially if global temperatures rise to 3 degrees or above (as the Report canvasses and as many scientists are predicting) will have huge and adverse consequences for the viability of many First Nation communities across remote and regional Australia, and perhaps for the medium to long term viability of human habitation in these areas.

 

The rising demand for care and support services will impact Indigenous interests severely given their existing vulnerabilities in the health, mental health, disability and other sectors. There may be a silver lining in terms of increasing employment opportunities for Indigenous people in these sectors, but it is difficult to suggest that the net impact will be unequivocally positive.

 

Finally, the increasing strains of geopolitical risk and fragmentation will impact Indigenous interests in variable ways. The biggest risk of rising international tension will be to distract policymakers from focussing on the needs of the most disadvantaged and to divert funding away from social and ‘soft’ priorities towards military spending aimed at enhancing our strategic priorities. While there may be opportunities for Indigenous interests in some of this activity, the risks are considerable and the shift towards sophisticated and technologically complex military systems (including support systems) does not bode well for the least educationally qualified members of society, a segment where Indigenous interests are over-represented.

 

Conclusion

The Intergenerational Report is designed not as a definitive prediction of the future, but as a mechanism for building support for the policy reforms required to address the challenges the nation faces over the coming forty years. It is also deliberately framed so as to lay out a narrative that makes the Government’s current policy priorities appear rational and necessary. In doing so, it is inevitable that it unintentionally provides signposts to the Government’s underlying priorities, and to the pace at which it wishes to prosecute those policy agendas.

 

In terms of the Indigenous policy domain, the Intergenerational Report appears to signify a deep-seated complacency, and preparedness to merely keep kicking issues down the road. There are a plethora of systemic policy challenges that have been around for decades and continue to remain under-addressed and under-acknowledged. Moreover, the future trends identified by the Report are (on the whole) going to impact far more seriously and more adversely on First Nations than on the mainstream community. In other words, without systemic reform, the trends identified will contribute to greater social and economic inequality between First Nations and the mainstream community.

 

Implicitly, the policy settings of the current Governments appear to signify a commitment to business as usual. Clearly, the efforts to establish an Indigenous Voice is the major exception to that assessment. The proposed Voice is clearly important and would be a major institutional reform if the referendum succeeds. Yet notwithstanding the merits, importance and potential of the Voice, there remains a responsibility on governments to govern and to invest in desperately needed infrastructure and services.

 

The deep-seated comparative shortfalls in First Nations lifespans, education outcomes, in First Nations incarceration levels, in remote housing, in health issues such as FASD and suicide and mental illness, in alcohol and drug abuse, in domestic violence and the extraordinary levels of First Nations children in out of home care are all scandals in their own right. Taken together, they represent a human catastrophe which will endure well beyond the timeframe covered by the Intergenerational Report. In these circumstances, the inaction and lack of substantive policy focus by governments appears incompetent at best and malign at worst.  It is incomprehensible that any government focussed on advancing the public interest could in good faith merely assert these issues must wait while a mechanism is put in place that will itself inevitably call on governments to act on these very issues. Yet this is the underlying signal that the Intergenerational Report sends First Nations, and the wider community.

 

1 September 2023