Category: Indigenous affairs

  • Vale Malcolm Fraser

    Repost from 21/03/2015

    I am sure that Malcolm Fraser’s concerns for human rights were always there. But as he grew and matured, that concern flourished and became obvious to all. He became our moral compass on human rights.

    I was first conscious of Malcolm’s concern for human rights when I listened to his speech in September 1975 at a luncheon in Parliament House Canberra to honour Helen Suzman. She was an anti-apartheid campaigner who for 13 years was the sole opponent of the apartheid regime in South Africa’s parliament. For the first time that I can recall, Malcolm Fraser spelled out his opposition to apartheid and white rule in Africa. It surprised me. But, I found it very encouraging. It was the beginning of my better understanding of Malcolm Fraser.

    Later he became a firm opponent of white rule, in Africa. Despite Maggie Thatcher he was determined to do what he could to end white rule in Southern Rhodesia.

    I next became aware of Malcolm Fraser’s concern for human rights in Africa in the first cabinet meeting of the Fraser government after the dismissal of the Whitlam government.

    There had been a lot of media reports in Australia that money raised by the World Council of Churches for humanitarian aid in Southern Rhodesia was being diverted to assist the underground political and military opposition to Ian Smith, the Prime Minister of Southern Rhodesia. In Cabinet the issue was raised by a senior NSW minister. I was really taken by surprise by Malcolm Fraser’s pungent response. He said that Ian Smith was not only politically culpable for racism in Southern Rhodesia, but that he was ‘mad’. To my knowledge this matter was never raised again in Cabinet, or at least while I was there. No Minister dared!

    In government from 1975 to 1983, Malcolm Fraser took up many of the human rights issues that Gough Whitlam had put on the agenda. Gough Whitlam started the process to establish land rights for indigenous Australians, but it was Malcolm Fraser who had the first legislation enacted.

    From his western Sydney electorate of Werriwa, with migrants from so many countries, Gough Whitlam laid the groundwork  for multiculturalism. The fundamental principle of multiculturalism was that all people deserve dignity and respect regardless of their background. In our white Anglo-Celtic community, that was something quite new. But it was Malcolm Fraser who expanded and entrenched multiculturalism. SBS was established and settlement programs for migrants and refugees were co-ordinated and then well-funded following the Galbally Report.

    Following piecemeal reform by Holt, Gorton and McMahon, Gough Whitlam ended White Australia by legislation. But under the Whitlam Government the abolition of White Australia was never put to the test in the community. Migrant and refugee intakes in the Whitlam period were the lowest since the Great Depression.

    Malcolm Fraser put the abolition of White Australia to the test by accepting tens of thousands of Indochinese refugees.  Through the policies and programs initiated by the Fraser Government, including later family reunion, we now have 250,000 persons of Indochinese background living in Australia. What a great credit they have been to Australia, to themselves and to Malcolm Fraser’s vision.

    He broke the back of White Australia and as an anti-White Australia activist since my university days in the 1950s it was wonderful to see what Malcolm Fraser had achieved. Racism and opposition to foreigners is often a dormant but potent factor in public life, but Malcolm Fraser determined that we had a humanitarian obligation to the people who had fled Indochina.

    He didn’t wait for opinion polling or focus groups to decide what we should do. He gave us leadership. It wasn’t easy given our history of White Australia and the knowledge that fear of the foreigner could be so easily exploited. But with leadership, Malcolm Fraser showed that we all have generous instincts and with his leadership we responded because we knew in our heart of hearts that he was right. If only we had that leadership today!.

    I am certain that my appointment as Secretary of the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs in 1980 stemmed from Malcolm Fraser’s lively concern about racism. In my posting in Japan, I spoke to scores of community groups about Australia. On almost every occasion I would be asked about White Australia. It irritated me, particularly given Japan’s exclusivist policies on race and migration. As I came to the end of my posting Malcolm Fraser was visiting Japan and he asked me what I wanted to do when I returned.  I mentioned to him how White Australia had followed me all round Japan, so I told him I would like on return to Australia to do what I could to help bury White Australia. His response was instantaneous and to the point – ‘You’re on’!.  Within three months I was back in Canberra as Secretary of the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs.

    In that role I was able to continue to help expand the Indochina program. But In the department I encountered programs, staff attitudes and a culture  that reflected the old days of White Australia. I set about changing it and was quite public in what I was doing. I know that Liberal Party backbenchers were concerned about my activities. But never did Ian Macphee, my minister, or Prime Minister Malcolm Fraser, criticise or ask me to desist. We were all on the same page.

    Almost to the day of his death, Malcolm Fraser was in the front line to support asylum seekers and those whose human rights were being attacked. One of his latest projects was  how the community could be galvanised to support Gillian Triggs the President of the Australian Human Rights Commission who had been so unfairly attacked by our Prime Minister and the Attorney General.

    He took to twitter with enthusiasm to shed light on dark places in our public life.

    It turned out that he and Gough Whitlam had more in common than they knew in those turbulent days of 1975. They were both badly bruised but their personal relations mellowed and healed. The two political titans of our era came to terms.

    Gough Whitlam often said that he hadn’t disagreed with Malcolm Fraser for 20 years! Malcolm Fraser delivered the Whitlam Oration in 2012. He opened the oration with ‘Men and Women of Australia’.

    At the Sorry Day in Parliament House in 2008, most former Prime Ministers were photographed. together. With a walking stick, or ‘cane’ as Gough would have called it, in one hand – he put his other hand on Malcolm Fraser’s shoulder for support. It was quite moving to see the old combatants so close.

    About three months before Gough Whitlam died, Malcolm Fraser called to see him in his Sydney office. He presented Gough  with his latest book ‘Dangerous Allies’. He had inscribed in the book –

    “Dear Gough, with great respect and great affection, Malcolm.”

    It had been a long and colourful journey for both of them, but there was clear respect and affection at the end.

    We will miss Malcolm Fraser’s steadfastness on human rights.

    A light has gone out.

  • Tony Smith. There is a hole in my heart where NITV News used to be

    There are times when the rhetoric about ‘closing the gap’ between
    Indigenous Australians and the rest of the population sticks in the
    throat. This week I turned on my preferred television news source – the
    5.30 bulletin on National Indigenous TeleVision (SBS4) – and found that it
    had disappeared.

    The ‘gap’ refers to the statistics showing the disadvantages suffered by
    the Indigenous peoples relative to other Australians. In fact, there are
    numerous gaps, in almost every social indicator: employment, income,
    housing, incarceration, violence, kidney and heart disease, literacy,
    education, infant mortality and life expectancy. At times, governments
    seem committed to finding solutions to these problems. At others, they
    seem to do little more than go through the motions while tacitly endorsing
    processes of assimilation. But any realistic solutions must acknowledge
    the ravages of dispossession and make urgent attempts to allow Indigenous
    people to regain their unique identities, something they will surely do if
    the broader Australian society avoids the kind of discrimination we have
    hitherto practised.

    NITV News had the motto ‘our stories, our way’ and was faithful to this
    aim. Here were stories that were not reported on mainstream channels and
    were generally ignored by media with a few exceptions. There were reports
    about threats to sacred sites, potential damage to fragile environment,
    overt and covert racism, government policies, bureaucratic bungling and
    proposed legislation. But the reports were always presented in a humble
    fashion without the pontification customary on other news sources.
    Relevant Ministers were approached often and whenever they appeared, were
    given generous time to put the government side. Again, this is unusual in
    television today when reporters seek to provide their own context, so
    skewing stories to their own views.

    Very importantly, NITV News carried positive stories about Indigenous
    people and their achievements: positive developments in health, justice
    and employment and stories about members of the community supporting one
    another.

    NITV News provided many positive spinoffs. As a result of turning to NITV,
    I discovered programs about Indigenous cooking, traditional culture,
    dancing and music among the young, grassroots sports action, classic
    movies and even found the Maori news report on weekends.

    Successive governments have found Aboriginal affairs a difficult policy
    area. They have thrown money at Indigenous ‘problems’ but the problems
    remain. They have devised slogans such as Reconciliation. They have
    advanced a woolly idea about Constitutional recognition. But they have
    failed to create mechanisms whereby diverse Indigenous voices could be
    heard. Indigenous leaders have continually appealed for genuine
    consultation but these appeals have not been heard.

    Perhaps we really do not want to listen to what Indigenous people have to
    say. Apparently we doubt that the people who preserved the fragile
    Australian ecosystem for hundreds of bicentenaries have anything to teach
    us. Perhaps it is part of a broader re-focussing of our listening away
    from small, local communities on the ground towards what big business says
    through its mouthpieces in politics. Generally, the propaganda is about
    job creation and being able to ‘afford’ environmental concerns. We can’t
    dig up the Hunter Valley, the Liverpool Plains, the Pillaga Scrub to
    export if we listen to grassroots voices like those on NITV News, can we?

    Tony Smith is a former academic living in Wiradjuri country.

  • Sean Gorman. Goodes is gone but the confronting truth remains.

    For many AFL fans, the last week in September is the time of the year where we reflect on a season that could have been and dream of next year.

    One thing we can be sure of is that we won’t see Sydney Swans champion Adam Goodes on a football field again. This saddens me. I think the reason for this is the sense of unfinished business. What should have been the rounding out of a great career or even the saddling up for one last crack in 2016 now has a full stop on it. But even in retirement, questions about Goodes’ legacy and actions remain.

    How the debate evolved

    It has been a long and arduous journey since that fateful night in May 2013. Late in a game between Sydney and Collingwood, Goodes requested the removal of a girl from the stands for calling him an ape. A few days later, AFL powerbroker and Collingwood president Eddie McGuiure made gags about Goodes and King Kong. McGuire later admitted this amounted to racial vilification.

    These incidents polarised people. They were forced to pick sides, as opposed to participating in a more sophisticated unpacking of an issue about societal vagaries regarding race politics in Australia as seen through the prism of sport.

    But the heat really came on Goodes when he talked about race and prejudice in his 2014 Australian of the Year acceptance speech, and then again when he spoke of racism and invited Australians to see John Pilger’s film Utopia.

    Australians did not like hearing this. Goodes began to be loudly booed at some games. Talkback and tabloid news fed on it and the white noise became amplified. Outrage grew.

    Indigenous war cries became a “threat” as misinformation swirled. People were beyond angered. They were sick of the sight of Goodes. He played on.

    Even the AFL’s commissioners were reportedly divided over Goodes. This perplexed me. Whenever race issues surfaced in the past, former CEO Andrew Demetriou was not just strident in denouncing them – his message was clear.

    Goodes remained stoic as debate around him grew. Then came Round 17, 2015, and a game against West Coast at Subiaco. The booing was as loud as it has been. For Goodes it was too much. He retreated to family and friends. But not once did he complain.

    Goodes returned and treated us to some great football. And in his last game against North Melbourne he made his teammate Rhyce Shaw the story as he too retired. Shaw was chaired off, but despite Goodes having made his mind up to retire he kept it quiet. He did not need the fuss made.

    What now?

    Goodes resisted overtures to attend Monday night’s Brownlow Medal ceremony and to have one last lap on the MCG on Grand Final day.

    Some may have been happy that this uppity blackfella had left through the gift shop. Maybe some felt ripped off that they would not be able to give him one more razz as he went around the MCG in an open-top car. Maybe some felt saddened that they could not show their gratitude for all he gave to the game. Maybe some just felt indifference, believing that the bloke was just a whinger and a cheat and that they would not dignify that with anything.

    But what cannot be in dispute is Goodes’ dignified resistance. What he would do and when he would do it goes to the heart of his agency as a player, and his retirement would not be influenced by a team edict that he had adhered to for 16 seasons. Despite all the barbs and the bon mots, the decision to decline an invitation to the Brownlow – an award he won twice – was his and his alone.

    If we can do anything that is remotely respectful it is to see Goodes’ class not just as an Aboriginal or a man, but as an Australian. Don’t think so? Just as Goodes allowed Shaw’s retirement to take place by sacrificing his own, can you imagine for a moment what it would be like if, as he was being chaired off, the booing was as loud as at Subiaco?

    People in sports bars around the world would have turned to their Australian friends and said, “Why are they doing that?” The discussion would have to start again about the girl, about McGuire, about King Kong, about the war cry.

    But the subtext and reality would be that Australians can’t handle Goodes or his message because that message is too real for many of us. As a consequence we would prefer to simply look away or tell the TV image of Goodes to “piss off”, as the stories we know align more with Bradman, Bondi and Beersheba.

    Disagree? Then ask yourself this: how many of you took up Goodes’ invitation to see the Pilger documentary?

    We should be thankful that Goodes played and that we were able to watch him. The question now is: who will step in to fill his shoes? And will we boo that person when their message contains something that we don’t want to hear?

    Sean Gorman is Senior Research Fellow, Centre for Aboriginal Studies, Curtin University. This article first appeared in The Conversation on 30 September 2015.

     

  • Andrew Pridham. Adam Goodes and Rosa Parks.

    Before last weekend’s match between the Sydney Swans and the Adelaide Crows, the Chairman of the Sydney Swans, Andrew Pridham, gave a very challenging speech about Adam Goodes and racism in Australia.  He said that recent events are a seminal moment in our history. He commented that Adam Goodes ‘has shaken the nation’s conscience‘.

    He added ‘Change only occurs when someone takes a stand.  Rosa Parks, who in 1955 in Montgomery, Alabama, refused to stand for a white person in the coloured section of a bus. She was arrested. She was later to become the face of the civil rights movement and heralded for her actions. Despite this, she faced massive discrimination – she was fired from her job, she regularly received threats … media of the day claimed it was her own fault, she was divisive. She was uppity and she was refusing to conform to the good ways of society. Does that sound familiar?It does to me.’

    For full text of speech see link below.

    https://shar.es/1tartl

  • Marcus Woolombi Waters. We all know and admire the Haka … so why not one of our own?

    The first I heard of the Adam Goodes Bumala-y Yuurrama-y (war dance) I was in Aotearoa/New Zealand. I had been watching my son play rugby. It was a carnival (under 12s) and they had just lost the grand final. After leading for the entire game, players and parents alike watched helplessly as the opposing team swept down the field from sideline to sideline, much like the legendary Mark Coyne try in State of Origin.

    Every tackle was made but players kept offloading the ball and passes were sticking until a boy went over the try line, taking the corner post with him. We all paused, waiting, before the referee blew the whistle and raised his hand – the try had been scored.

    Our players slumped to the ground as whānau (family) and teachers alike from the opposition ran onto the field to celebrate.

    An inclusive cultural identity

    A young man then screamed a war cry in Māori. That was the signal for parents and teachers to separate in preparation for the children to perform a Haka. As the winners approached our boys, slapping their chests and screaming to their ancestors, our boys raised to take on this second challenge.

    The game was over; now it was about “Te Reo Māori”, each school’s representation of the local Iwi (tribe).

    Each school has its own Haka and our boys rose to the occasion. Supported by our whānau and teachers as mobile phones immediately uploaded images to Instagram and Facebook, I watched with mana (pride) as my Kamilaroi First Nation Aboriginal Australian boy participated in a celebration of Indigenous culture denied back in his homeland.

    These were Pākehā (European), Samoan, Tongan, Cook Island, Indian, Chinese and Māori expressing the culture of Aotearoa as one inclusive cultural identity. It was inspiring and heartbreaking. As a Kamilaroi Aboriginal father, I was left wondering if we will ever see such inclusive cultural practice back in my own traditional homelands.

    We drove home and I jumped on Facebook to discover the reaction to Adam Goodes’ Bumala-y Yuurrama-y. That was almost two months ago … but it’s still making headlines around Australia while the celebration of Te Reo Māori by 12-year-old schoolchildren has faded into the cultural landscape of Aotearoa.

    Richer for embracing Indigenous culture

    Māori culture is embedded in the cultural fabric of New Zealand – it is in evidence everywhere you look, 24 hours a day. Yet, in Australia, no matter what side of the political or culture divide you sit, we all have to admit one thing – ours is a divided nation.

    In Aotearoa, presenters, no matter what colour, continually introduce and close shows in the Māori language. My Aboriginal boys think they are in an Indigenous Heaven … or should I say an Indigenous Dreaming. The school handbooks are written in both English and Māori and “Te Reo Māori” is taught in both schools my boys attend.

    In Australia, we often hear that Māori speak only one language and that it would be too difficult to implement Aboriginal languages throughout Australia. That is simply not true – Māori has a number of dialects associated with various regions. The differences are overcome with the introduction of a pan-Māori that is spoken and understood throughout the country.

    As Aboriginal children, we are taught that when on other people’s land you respect the local culture. Therefore, the fact that many Aboriginal languages are spoken is not problematic; you teach the local language of the region. And with language comes history and place – not just for Aboriginal people but for non-Aboriginal too. Rather than divide the culture, you all become richer.

    It’s this easy … having returned from Aotearoa, I have made a conscious decision to speak an Indigenous language as often as I could. I end emails with many Kamilaroi terms and begin with Yammaa, which in my language means welcome. I do this with a translation after these words in English.

    Work colleagues return in kind. I now have a collection of phrases in German, Greek, Italian and many other languages from colleagues. This builds solidarity and respect, thereby furthering understanding in the workplace.

    Rather than Brisbane I now say Meanjin and instead of Sydney I say Warrang. Melbourne isNarrm and Perth is Boorloo. How and why is becoming educated within the local Indigenous culture so threatening?

    Ancient culture can find new expressions

    To return to Adam Goodes and that contentious dance of pride and defiance, there is a final important point to be made. Some argue that a major difference between the Haka and the Bumala-y Yuurrama-y is that the Haka has a long history and that the Bumala-y Yuurrama-y is a recent invention.

    It was only ten years ago that senior All Blacks voiced serious reservations about whether the Haka was a tradition worth preserving. The issue was that some felt the Haka had become divorced from its original significance and meaning in the 21st century as Aotearoa had so many cultures represented within the All Blacks.

    All Blacks management and the senior leaders, led by team captain Tana Umaga, held a series of discussions on how the Haka could be maintained and kept relevant. Consultations were held with the Ngāti Toa tribe to whom Ka Mate Ka Mate, the older Haka, belongs. It was decided to commission Derek Lardelli, an expert in Māori customs, to compose a new Haka tailored specifically for the All Blacks.

    And so Kapa o Pango was born. This was less than ten years ago.

    The Aboriginal Bumala-y Yuurrama-y went through this exact some process, so why is it being dismissed as not having the same cultural standing? The bottom line is that when the All Blacks do the Haka it is as an entire country: Black, White, Polynesian, Māori and Asian all standing together as one. The one time we do our Bumala-y Yuurrama-y, it is in the Aboriginal All Star games of AFL and NRL and it’s our mob against the rest.

    Cultures, no matter how ancient, are allowed to adapt and evolve, but that will not happen in Australia while we remain so divided and our Aboriginal culture excluded from mainstream education and popular culture. All Australians have a right to engage in informed discussion, but this opportunity is denied to people when the 60,000-plus years of Aboriginal occupation and culture was excluded from their formal education.

    In finishing, I just received a phone call informing me that NRL stars Johnathan Thurston and Greg Inglis will perform a traditional Aboriginal Bumala-y Yuurrama-y at matches this weekend in a rally cry of support for Adam Goodes. Now that is culture!

    Marcus Woolombi Waters, Lecturer, School of Humanities at Griffith University. This article first appeared in The Conversation on 31 July 2015.

  • Tributes to Malcolm Fraser.

    See below, tributes from Fred Chaney and Robert Manne on Malcolm Fraser’s achievements in public life. John Mendue.

    Fred Chaney in The Guardian.

    http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/mar/20/malcolm-fraser-a-leader-who-believed-there-is-a-moral-compass-in-our-nations-life

    Robert Manne in The Guardian.

    http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/mar/20/frasers-great-conservative-achievement-cementing-whitlams-progress-on-race

  • Michael Gracey. Risks of Closing Remote Aboriginal Communities.

    Forced dislocation from traditional homelands in the late 1960s and early 1970s made many Aboriginal families and groups move, for the first time, to small towns in the north and north-west of WA. This drift to strange environments with access to alcohol and living close to people from different backgrounds, languages and alien beliefs and behaviours, had dire and long-lasting social consequences as well as negative impacts on health and well-being and contact with the police. This came with a price to the general community as well as to those who were displaced.

    The controversial proposal by the Federal and WA governments to close or remove essential services from dozens of small Aboriginal communities in WA’s remote north runs a real risk of repeating the mistakes made 40 years ago. Some Indigenous people in such communities have not experienced life beyond their traditional homelands, some of these people have limited English language skills, maintain their ancient customs, beliefs and rituals, and many have never been exposed to alcohol. The inevitable drift to towns or their fringes that would follow this forced, abrupt change to their way of life will bring immense pressures on them. This will expose these internal refugees to the real risks of an alien environment and almost certainly bring harmful impacts to their well-being in social, emotional and health terms. As with the disaster of 40 years before there would be real costs to the governments and a need for public services to manage the mess.

    If the governments’ proposal goes ahead, these risks and their consequential costs must be assessed very carefully beforehand in an open, consultative process. If this does not occur, the harm that follows will undoubtedly bring a savage and long-lasting backlash. It could also further tarnish Australia’s reputation wider afield in its record of handling issues affecting the First Australians.

    Michael Gracey AO is a Paediatrician who has worked with indigenous people, communities and organisations for over 40 years, particularly in the far north of WA. He was Principal Medical Adviser on Aboriginal Health in the Department of Health in WA for more than a decade and was Australia’s first Professor of Aboriginal Health at Curtin University in Perth. He has also been President of the International Paediatric Association.

  • The frontier wars – best we forget.

     

    I have posted many blogs about our refusal to acknowledge the frontier wars,  when we suffered the largest death toll in war in our history in relation to our population at the time. In the SMH on February 12, see link below, Tim Flannery draws our attention to the valour of 52 indigenous people who were killed near Casterton, Victoria, in the 1840s. The victors write history! These heroes have been largely expunged from our history. There were no rewards for those who were defending their homelands in the battle known as ‘Fighting Hills’. John Menadue

    http://www.smh.com.au/comment/we-shouldn8217t-forget-the-sacrifice-of-our-aboriginal-warriors-20150212-13bzib.html

  • Michael Gracey. Why is closing the aboriginal health gap failing so badly?

    The disparity between the health of Aboriginal people and other Australians first drew wide public attention In the 1960s; it became known as “The Aboriginal Health Problem”. This awareness came from reports of widespread and severe malnutrition in Aboriginal infants and young children, high rates of infections and gut parasites, high infant mortality, and reduced life expectancy.

    This wasn’t good enough for a wealthy nation like Australia, the “Lucky Country” if you like, where the luck seemed to not extend to the First Australians. There was a public outcry at the time, followed by almost predictable political reactions aimed at correcting the inequity.

    Strategies were devised, programs planned, health professionals were employed, and huge sums of taxpayers’ dollars were allocated and spent over the next half century. So we are entitled to ask “what happened?”

    There were some gains. Aboriginal infant mortality rates fell, their average birth weights increased, rates of malnutrition dropped, vaccine-preventable infections receded, rates of severe child infections declined and deaths from childhood gastroenteritis plummeted. These encouraging improvements were mostly due to conventional public health measures including childhood vaccination, better hygiene, and earlier referral for treatment of illnesses, greatly improved treatment for childhood diarrhoea and dehydration, and employment of skilled clinical personnel. But over the past thirty or so years many aspects of the health of Indigenous people have deteriorated. Why?

    Since the 1970s there have been substantial changes in the living patterns of Aboriginal Australians, particularly in rural and remote areas. Political, legal and administrative changes occurred from the late 1960s that had profound effects on Aboriginal people and communities. Examples include the introduction of equal pay for equal work, the granting of drinking rights to Indigenous persons, various systems of welfare support and payments, increased reliance on the welfare system, and a rapid shift from traditional lifestyles to that of a typical Westernised contemporary society. This all occurred on an entrenched system where Indigenous people were disadvantaged in almost all aspects of their lives from the rest of the wider Australian society.

    Indigenous people went through a swift lifestyle shift and became less physically active, more sedentary, and consumed modern foods and drinks that were more calorie-dense, contained much more fat and salt and less fibre than in previous times. The stage was being prepared for a tidal wave of chronic so-called “lifestyle” diseases which threatened their survival. The Tsunami of obesity, diabetes, high blood pressure, heart disease, stroke, chronic kidney disease and renal failure descended on them with a vengeance. Not only that, the stresses associated with maladjustment to these changes, socio-political disadvantage, under-education, unemployment and racial prejudice combined to make them a sub-group that was vulnerable to a heavy burden of disease, disability and excessively high mortality.

    However, increasing numbers of Indigenous Australians are not trapped in this unfavourable vortex of negative factors. Many are being well-educated, achieving high levels of competence and success in their daily lives, in business, the professions, and academia, and are becoming leaders in Australian society. These people provide encouragement towards future successes and recognition of Indigenous people as exemplars.

    But the negative impacts of various factors on the health statistics of Indigenous people over the past 30 years are a cause for serious concern.

    The persisting, yawning divide between the health statistics of Aboriginal people and other Australians has become known as “The Aboriginal Health Gap” which is one of this country’s worst embarrassments. In 2008 the then Labor government committed to “close the gap”, a phrase which in my view has been overstated. That commitment was to make the health, disease and death statistics, as well as other markers of Aboriginal well-being, match those of other Australians by the year 2030. This is not achievable. Apart from the vast discrepancies that are so entrenched in the lives of most Indigenous Australians, such as poor educational standards, high unemployment, lower per capita incomes, and unsatisfactory housing and access to services, there are many biological factors that contribute to ill-health that have strong components that persist for more than one generation. This means that issues that affect future generations, such as the health and nutrition of pregnant Aboriginal women and breast-feeding mothers, must be corrected before improvements can occur for the following generation or more. This simply cannot be done within 20 or 30 years. Similarly, the heavy chronic disease burden of, for example, diabetes and its long-term complications, chronic kidney disease and kidney failure that are so prevalent in young Aboriginal people, cannot be fully eliminated within one generation.

    Reviewing the official annual reports about progress over the past seven years is a disheartening exercise. Many of the stated targets have not been reached and, in some areas, things have deteriorated despite the immense amounts of public funds which have been used in “close the gap” programs. This was admitted in February 2015 by the Prime Minister when commenting on the seventh annual report; senior Indigenous spokespersons agreed that the findings were very disappointing. What’s gone wrong?

    Looking objectively at the situation it must be admitted that the federal government commitment in 2008 was: (a) well-intentioned; (b) ill-informed; (c) not adequately thought through; (d) bureaucratically top-heavy and clumsy; (e) naïvely optimistic; (f) culturally insensitive; (g) rhetorical rather than realistic; and (h) ignored the biological restrictions imposed by previous generations on altering health outcomes in subsequent generations of children.

    Why shouldn’t the government admit that the commitment made in 2008 was not feasible and start again? A serious problem with a failing program is that many people feel let down, disheartened and frustrated because the expectations are not being realised. This is particularly so for those who have the most to gain or lose – the Indigenous people. This won’t change until a more realistic strategy and timetable are devised, perhaps with a new name.

    Government must accept that approaches used over the past 30 years or so have, with few exceptions, like those already mentioned, not worked. This applies to different levels of service delivery; government, the private sector, and Aboriginal-controlled medical services.

    A fresh approach is needed. To date governments have given little encouragement to Indigenous people to become agents of change for their own health. Community engagement, commitment, and acceptance of responsibility must occur at the local level if real change is to be achieved. This will provide opportunities, previously denied to Indigenous communities and their members, to learn at first-hand: (1) the determinants of health; (2) what causes illness; (3) how diseases can be prevented; and (4) how health service systems operate and can be modified as required. Community involvement in these matters will provide, perhaps for the first time, a new deal with local people being real partners in programs to improve their own health. This will require collaborative teams with long experience in health and health services, community development, cross-cultural knowledge, empathy, patience, and inter-personal skills to work in small groups around Australia. This strategy uses a previously untapped resource, local Indigenous people and communities, to help “close the gap”. Governments will have to commit to radical changes in order to achieve this.

    Meanwhile, all the other social, economic and environmental factors that affect health outcomes will need to be addressed vigorously. Without such changes, for example in education and employment opportunities, the failures of the past will continue.

    Michael Gracey AO MD PhD FRACP FAAP

    Professor Gracey is a paediatrician who has worked with Aboriginal people, families, communities and organisations for more than 40 years. He was Principal Medical Adviser on Aboriginal Health in the West Australian Department of Health and was Australia’s first Professor of Aboriginal Health. He has also served as President of the International Paediatric Association.