|
June 23, 2007
It is true that state politicians have ignored the plight of Aborigines. The most recent example was NSW Premier Morris Iemma, who allowed last year's comprehensive Breaking the Silence report to vanish into a bureaucratic limbo of government inaction. In the NT, Chief Minister Clare Martin, seems so paralysed as to how to solve indigenous problems that we have a Commonwealth takeover in the Northern territory; one that pushes the rights of adult Indigenous people to one side in the name of a national emergency to protect the children.
Bill Leak
The absence of consultation with indigenous people, the NT Government, the medical community, the states and the police indicates that the changes appear to have been sprung on all of them. That is causing unease and qualification leading to a questioning.
Has there been a change in the mode of governing indigenous communities? My response is here at philosophy.com.
The judgement of Nicolas Rothwell, writing in The Australian, is that there has been a fundamental change in the mode of governance: self-determination has been dumped:
Let there be no mistake: yesterday's declaration of a national emergency by John Howard ranks with the referendum of 1967, or the passage of land rights in the Northern Territory, as a turning point in Australian history: in what direction remains to be seen. In sweeping measures, so astonishing to political veterans that their scope and feasibility were still being weighed up last night, Canberra tore up the long-established political compact in remote Australia: the unspoken deal whereby indigenous communities have broad freedom, a tithe of welfare, and substandard social services, almost imposed by their sheer remoteness from mainstream society. Now, in the wake of Howard's highly charged announcement of a 'national emergency', all is changed. The last vestiges of the rhetoric of self-determination have been tossed away.
The compulsory Commonwealth acquisition of Aboriginal townships and the compulsory transfer of them to five-year leases, (with compensation paid) is what was rejected by one indigenous community recently. It said it was concerned this was an attempt to remove people's right to land, something hugely important to traditional indigenous people. Now, it's happening by force.
However, few commentators are arguing that indigenous cultural self-determination is a reason to reject this level of intervention in indigenous communities.
Update: 26 June
Peter Balint writing in the Canberra Times highlights the ethical conflict between the two modes of governing.
Children are not viewed as fully formed autonomous citizens and therefore, unlike their adult parents, we see little problem with a paternalistic approach to children and their welfare.The Federal Government is morally justified in intervening in cases of child abuse. Indeed, it has a moral duty to do so the welfare of children, indigenous or otherwise, is their responsibility. But it is also their duty to not trample on the rights of adult citizens. The proposed intervention in NT Aboriginal communities highlights a clash of these duties..While the Federal Government must intervene to uphold the welfare of all Australian children, it must also do so with the minimal amount of paternalism towards its adult citizens.
Balint says that all acts of paternalism must be strictly necessary to protect the welfare of indigenous children.
|
Gary,
The new way of governing is what Tony Abbott, the Minister of Health, around a year ago, called the "new paternalism." You can find his speech here. In it the Minister says:
Self-determination means expecting small, remote communities to organise their own water supply, sanitation, home maintenance, road construction and retail services and laments that self-determination has required Aboriginal people to master skills that are a “cross between a hippie and an accountant”.
However, as Abbott points out Indigenous townships can rarely produce the kind of local leadership necessary for modern service delivery needs. Abbott says that that the rhetoric of self-determination has enabled officialdom to parade its concerns while evading its responsibilities.