home | news l

Australia's Indigenous Peoples Face On-going Crisis
After Election 2004

By David Cooper

15 October 2004 - The situation of Australia’s Indigenous peoples is desperate with no relief in sight. Unchecked social and economic disadvantage means that Indigenous life expectancy remains 20 years less than other Australians.

Australia stands alone amongst developed nations in failing to reduce the inequality gap between its Indigenous and other citizens.

Australia seems not to care, reflected in the fact that Indigenous issues barely rated a mention during the recent federal election. At only 2.7% of the Australian population Indigenous people have no electoral power. Worse still for Indigenous Australians, the conservative Coalition Government under Prime Minister John Howard has gained support through its negative stereotyping and scape-goating of Indigenous people. With this in mind, the Labor Party operates on the principle that there are ‘no votes in blacks’.

With symbolic irony, the recent election also saw the loss of the only Indigenous member of the Federal Parliament, Aden Ridgeway.

The situation for Indigenous Australians has deteriorated significantly since 1996 when the Howard Government was first elected. At that time a 10 year formal Reconciliation process was at its mid-way point, historic Native Title legislation had been enacted and an inquiry into the Stolen Generations (Aboriginal children removed from their families under government policies) was under way.

The Howard Government’s first term was one in which the rights and self-determination of Indigenous people became increasingly undermined. This was most evident in its divisive and discriminatory responses to native title, reconciliation and the issue of a national apology to the Stolen Generations.

On election night 1998, responding to criticism of the Government’s Indigenous policies, the Prime Minister promised to make Reconciliation a priority for the Government’s second term. Instead, public perception is that the Government has pushed reconciliation from the national agenda.

The Howard Government’s record after eight and a half years in government reveals an agenda hostile to long-held Indigenous aspirations for social justice. This is particularly evident in its rejection of the principles of self-determination and elected national Indigenous representation, and its refusal to engage with rights-based issues (pejoratively dubbed as merely ‘symbolic’).

Moreover, it’s preferred approach of ‘practical’ reconciliation has been conspicuous in its failure to improve Indigenous socioeconomic disadvantage, particularly in the area of health.

The 2003 Social Justice Report from the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner, Dr Bill Jonas, contains clear evidence of the deteriorating situation of Indigenous people in all key social indicators, including life expectancy.

The 2004 Federal budget contained only an extra $40 million over four years to improve Indigenous access to primary health care services. However, $10 million a year is grossly inadequate considering the Australian Medical Association has recently estimated that Indigenous health is under-funded by $425 million a year!

The following provides a summary of some of the main aspects of the Howard Government’s record over the past eight and a half years and the prospects for the coming three years.

Reconciliation

In December 2000 the Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation (CAR) presented its final recommendations to the Government after a decade-long formal process. At Corroboree 2000 and events like the Sydney Harbour Bridge walk and other similar ‘bridge walks’ around Australia, 1 million Australians turned out to show their support.

CAR’s recommendations included special legislation to unite all Australians and to establish a negotiation process to reach an agreement, or treaty, to deal with the ‘unfinished business’ of Reconciliation, and four strategies for future progress,

• to sustain the Reconciliation process,
• recognise Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander rights, · overcome disadvantage and
• develop economic independence.

In response, the Government has

• rejected most of the Council’s recommendations, · refused to consider the draft legislation recommended by CAR,
• ignored CAR’s strategies.

Moreover, its approach has been divisive, seeking to portray a false dichotomy between ‘practical’ and ‘symbolic’ (rights) issues in an attempt to undermine Indigenous aspirations to gain recognition and protection of their rights and identity as Indigenous peoples.

Instead of providing national leadership and adequate support to continue the Reconciliation process, the Howard Government has withdrawn a formal Commonwealth role. Its recent allocation of $15 million over four years to Reconciliation Australia, a private foundation set up to replace the Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation, is an inadequate response to an issue of major national significance.

The Abolition of ATSIC (and Self-determination)

The Howard Government ignored the findings of its own review of ATSIC and instead announced in April 2004 its intention to abolish ATSIC, return all funding and programs to mainstream departments, and to reduce Indigenous involvement to an appointed, advisory body. The move removes independent Indigenous involvement in decision-making affecting their lives – the very basis of self-determination – and breaches Australia’s international obligations.

As ANTaR National President, Phil Glendenning, said at the time, “The decision … would be a massive backward step. Today marks a return to the dead hand of paternalism under which Indigenous disadvantage and marginalisation has flourished … It has been widely acknowledged that ATSIC required reform, however the Government’s own review process did not recommend abolishing Indigenous representation.”

ANTaR Indigenous Reference Group member, Olga Havnen, has suggested that: “The beat up on ATSIC continues to be a convenient scapegoat and a sideshow! Essentially it [ATSIC] has never had responsibility for the key areas of health, education, housing etc. and it is high time the Commonwealth government agencies/departments and the state and territory governments were held to account. Strategic frameworks for health and housing have already been developed - what is lacking is the commitment of the resources to do something about the crisis.”

In effect, with breathtaking hypocrisy and deceitfulness the Government has sheeted blame for its own failure at addressing Indigenous disadvantage onto ATSIC and then used this as the justification for abandoning independent Indigenous representation.

Indigenous people have comprehensively rejected the Government’s proposed return to paternalism. The Labor Opposition provided a clear alternative to the Howard Government’s policies by pledging to replace ATSIC with a new Indigenous elected body with decision-making emphasis at a regional level, and to retain self-determination as the basis of Commonwealth policy in Indigenous affairs. The other major non-Government parties also oppose the Government’s proposals. However, with the Howard Government returned and likely to gain a majority in the Senate, the Opposition parties’ views will be disregarded.

The Senate initiated an inquiry on the Government’s bill to abolish ATSIC and return to mainstream service-delivery, however the inquiry was suspended pending the election and requires the Senate to reinstate it for it to proceed. At this stage it is uncertain if the inquiry will be continued.

“Practical reconciliation” and Indigenous disadvantage

With or without an Indigenous elected national body, Commonwealth and State governments will continue to carry heavy responsibilities for service delivery to Indigenous people. The Productivity Commission has said that monitoring governments and making them accountable for their performance in Indigenous Affairs is a first order issue. It becomes even more important with the Howard Government’s insistence on further “mainstreaming” of government services.

In 1996, one of the Howard Government’s first actions was to cut funding to Indigenous Affairs by $470 million. Some of this funding has been restored, but despite adopting an approach it calls ‘practical reconciliation’, the Government has failed to make an impact on Indigenous disadvantage.

‘Practical reconciliation’ is basically a welfare approach, aimed at ‘fixing’ disadvantage largely through existing mainstream programs. It’s an old approach that has been tried and failed: · There is inadequate additional funding to cover the extent of need.

• There is no appropriate accountability process for the performance of governments and their agencies in the provision of Indigenous services. · It doesn’t take a partnership approach with Indigenous people or respect Indigenous priorities and special needs – it takes a paternalistic ‘we know best’ attitude.

An equally serious concern is that ‘practical reconciliation’ undermines Indigenous aspirations for self determination and protection of their rights and identity as Indigenous peoples. The Government’s actions over ATSIC amplifies such concern.

‘Practical reconciliation’ ignores the experience gained over the past decade by bodies such as the Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation, the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (HREOC), the Productivity Commission, the Commonwealth Grants Commission and ATSIC.

Recent data and research clearly show that the government’s ‘practical reconciliation’ policies have been a disaster for Australia’s Indigenous people. The quality of life for many Indigenous Australians is getting worse. Indigenous people are severely disadvantaged on all social indicators including health, housing, education and employment.

“...there is no evidence that the Howard governments have delivered better outcomes for Indigenous Australians than their predecessors.”

Altman & Hunter, 2003. Centre for Aboriginal Economic Policy Research, Australian National University

“...it is…not possible to foresee a time when a continuation of the current approach [‘practical’ reconciliation] will result in significant improvements in the lives of Indigenous Australians.”

Dr Bill Jonas, Social Justice Report 2003.

Examples of such disadvantage include:

• Life expectancy: 20 years shorter than for non-Indigenous Australians and the gap is widening.
• Infant mortality: 3 times higher than for non-Indigenous Australians
• Diabetes: Death rate 8 times higher
• Heart disease: 3 times higher
• Respiratory: 9-11 times higher
• Health spending: Commonwealth spending 26% less per capita for Indigenous Australians.
• Unemployment: 23% in 2002. (compared with 6% for non-Indigenous Australians – the lowest since the 1960s).
• Education: Fewer than 36% of Indigenous youth completed all secondary schooling compared with 73% of all Australian youth in 1998.
• Housing: Only 30% of Indigenous families are buying their home compared to 70% of non-Indigenous families. $3 billion is needed for the back-log in community housing and infrastructure essential to improve Aboriginal health in remote and rural Australia.

After 8 years of ‘practical reconciliation’ a person from Nigeria or Bangladesh can expect to live about ten years longer than an Indigenous Australian. In Canada, New Zealand and the U.S., however, governments have all managed to significantly reduce the life expectancy gap between their Indigenous and non-Indigenous peoples. But not in Australia. In quality of life terms, UN data rates the life of Australian Aborigines as the second worst on the planet.

Native Title

The Native Title Act 1993 was passed in response to the Mabo decision of the High Court in 1992, after extensive negotiation with Indigenous representatives.

The Howard Government came to power in 1996, at the time of the High Court’s Wik decision which established that native title could potentially coexist with leaseholders’ rights on some leasehold lands, including pastoral lands.

The new Howard Government triggered an alarmist and divisive debate over the Wik decision and refused to negotiate with Indigenous representatives. Indigenous representatives had sought to put forward constructive proposals based on the coexistence of Indigenous and non-Indigenous interests and recognising the rights of all parties.

The Government instead introduced the 1998 Amendments (based on Howard’s 10 Point Plan), significantly increasing the extinguishment of native title and winding back of Indigenous rights applicable under the Native Title Act, while enhancing the rights of other landholders, governments and developers.

The Australian Law Reform Commission and other bodies, such as the United Nations Committee for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD), found the amendments racially discriminatory and in breach of Australia’s international obligations. The Government rejected the Committees’ findings.

Native Title Representative Bodies (which have responsibility under the Native Title Act to represent the Native Title claimants) have been faced with ever-increasing demands on their limited resources as a result of the Native Title amendments. These bodies are seriously under-funded. The result has been extinguishment by default, as NTRBs find they are unable to properly respond to land applications with Native Title implications.

HREOC

The Howard Government has repeatedly tried to abolish the position of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner within the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (HREOC). The Commissioner performs an essential role, releasing comprehensive, independent reports on Social Justice and Native Title each year.

Following strong support for the retention of the position, the Government was forced recently to appoint a new Social Justice Commissioner.

However, in practice the Government has ignored the Commissioner’s reports. The Minister for Indigenous Affairs has not responded to the 2001, 2002 and 2003 Reports and the Government has generally ignored the Commissioner’s recommendations.

Aboriginal Legal Services

The Federal Government plans to “mainstream” Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Legal Services by calling for tenders to provide legal services for Indigenous people, have had to be wound back following serious criticism of the effects of the proposed tender documents. This included breaching the Racial Discrimination ACT 1975, and omitting key priorities, such as reducing Indigenous incarceration and the need for culturally-sensitive delivery of services. The Government back down does not end the issue as there is no guarantee that current Indigenous Legal Services will not be disadvantaged or overlooked during the tendering process.

Stolen Generations

The Bringing Them Home Report of 1997 focused national attention on the devastating impact of past Government policies to remove Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children from their families. The report made extensive recommendations such as programs to enable removed children to locate and re-unite with their families, the provision of counselling services, the issuing of a national apology to those affected by the policies, and the provision of compensation measures.

In response, the Howard Government:

• refused to offer a formal apology, claiming an apology would imply guilt on the part of people who were not responsible and would leave the Government open to compensation claims
• offered a package of $63 million over four years for counselling, family services and ‘link up’ assistance (to date only a small amount of this money has been spent). · spent an estimated $11 million to oppose just two ‘Stolen Generation’ cases in the courts (the Gunner-Cubillo and Williams cases)
• questioned whether there was a ‘Stolen Generation’.

These responses have politicised and trivialised the trauma suffered by those affected by removal policies.

In contrast, the Canadian Government made a formal national apology and committed $600 million to native communities for counselling, healing centres, language training and economic development in response to similar findings in the report of Canada’s Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples.

Stolen Wages

Between the years of 1900 and 1970, wages and other entitlements earned by Indigenous Australians were placed in trust accounts administered by state and commonwealth authorities. Much of these funds “disappeared”, diverted to government programs or otherwise misappropriated by government agents.

In Queensland it is estimated that over $500million is owed to Aboriginal workers. In NSW a similarly large amount is estimated to be owed. Both the Queensland and NSW Governments have commenced schemes to compensate Aboriginal people for their losses.

Although similar practices occurred throughout Australia other governments have been slow to respond to the issue. The Prime Minister has sought to distance the Federal Government from any responsibility even though it administered the Northern Territory during the period in question.

Treaty

Recommendation 6 of CAR’s final report in 2000 states: "That the Commonwealth Parliament enact legislation (for which the Council has provided a draft in this Report) to put in place a process which will unite all Australians by way of an agreement or treaty through which unresolved issues of reconciliation can be resolved."

This was accompanied by calls from many Indigenous leaders for a treaty process, and the establishment of an Indigenous steering committee (the National Treaty Support Group) to coordinate a consultation and education program within Indigenous communities about a treaty. The Howard Government has rejected the idea of a treaty or agreements process out of hand and has refused to facilitate community education and measured national debate on the issue.

Dr David Cooper is the National Coordinator of Australians for Native Title and Reconciliation (ANTaR)

Further information: human rights issues page - includes news index and external links