June 23, 2006
Tony Abbott, Australia's federal Minister of Health, has intervened into the debate about the governance of indigneous communities in Australia. In a speech to the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare one-day conference held in Canberra, Abbott argues for a new paternalism. Here we have the new face of Australian conservatism.
This counters the view that Aboriginal people need to take responsibility for their own lives. This self-determination position is understood in terms Australians' sense of guilt about the past and naive idealisation of communal life may now be the biggest single obstacle to the betterment of Aboriginal people. This is one sided. Did not the aboriginal people desire to return to their country after living in the mission stations?
Abbott says that a:
form of paternalism---based on competence rather than race ---is really unavoidable if these places [remote indigenous communities] are to be well run.The Pitjantjatjara Lands of northern South Australia are home to 2500 people spread across eight significant settlements in an area half the size of France. Almost none of the Aboriginal people has a job other than in various work-for-the-dole schemes. The median age of death is 49. Petrol sniffing and binge drinking are rampant. There is one police station. Attendance at school and at work projects is desultory but attendance records for each settlement are not published, presumably because this might reinforce stereotypes about Aboriginal people.
A fair description. So where to from here? To governance.
Abbottsays that:
Normally, dysfunctional local government would mean sacking the particular council concerned and imposing an administrator to sort out the mess. Something like this was attempted in the lands with the (short-lived) appointment in early 2004 of former senator Bob Collins. Vesting authority in an administrator makes sense but only when combined with the power to make decisions and make them stick. Someone has to be in charge. These days, such authority as exists rests with local "big men" often in conflict with each other and white managers usually dependent on unstable alliances in the local council. Indigenous townships can rarely produce the kind of leadership necessary for modern service delivery needs.
That is true. But not all are in that state. Some work very well.
What Abbott then says is suprising: aboriginal self-determination has failed. He adds that the challenge now faced by all levels of government is to go beyond acknowledging that a decades-old policy has largely failed and to build workable governance structures against the pressure of vested interests and the inevitable cries of racism. His solution is outlined thus:
Obviously, health services have to be sensitive to Aboriginal needs but that doesn’t mean they have to be managed by Aboriginal people. It’s important that Aboriginal people feel that health services are relevant to their lives, not an alien intrusion into them, but it’s equally important that those services are fully professionally run. There are many well-run Aboriginal-controlled community health organisations. Equally, there are some that are consistently poorly managed and others where an Aboriginal governing board seems to have made little impact on local people’s use of the service.
Most would agree that the federal and state government should assume responsibility for delivering essential services to Aboriginal Australians, just like other Australians.But Abbott leaves us with a conception of Aboriginal incompetence---that Aboriginal people are hopeless and incapable. Hence the need for the new white paternalism.
|
Abbott seems too want what many aboriginals call coconuts as leaders. They have black skins but white souls.
For the past 220 year, Australia has pursued simplistic aboriginal policies. When they have been successful (like shot the buggers) they are called genocide. When they have been unsuccessful (like paternalism), the have gutted the Aboriginals of any leaders.
Leaders do not grow on trees. Leaders take time to develop. For aboriginals, leaders will differ from ane area to another. This reflects that aboriginals not one enthic group but differ culturally from area to area. The real problem with this sought of Aboriginal policy is that it is messy, complicated and will take years. In the end, it will provide aboriginals something they want, not what some neo-conservative thinks is appropriate.
It is going to take aboriginals years to re-develop the leaders they have lost. I have been impressed with the range of competent leaders they now have. Men and women who have both aboriginal skins and soulds, who have taken control, criticising us and there own communities. I have not always agreed with them but why should they look for my approval?
Yes, they are some incompetent aboriginal leaders too. But since we spent over a 180 years trying to destroy aboriginal society, should we be surprised. Self determination means allowing Aboriginals to develop. Like evolution, there are going to be some cock ups but unlike evolution they will become less and less as time progresses.
Interestingly, Abbott notes, "There are many well-run Aboriginal-controlled community health organisations." Why not study their success and apply the lessons to future government funding?