Those of us who would like to live in a more just Australia have little reason for optimism. We endure the shame of continually failing to address the social disadvantage affecting Indigenous peoples. Demands for change will continue.
The Black Lives Matter movement, prominent in protests over the killing of George Floyd by a police officer in the USA, held demonstrations in Australia over the ‘Queen’s Birthday’ weekend. Reactions varied. Premiers advised people not to attend on health grounds. In a predictable rant the federal Minister for Finance condemned the marchers as selfish and irresponsible.
Members of the current government lack understanding of how people can be motivated strongly on grounds of principle. They usually appeal only to the baser instincts of self-interest and greed. The Minister forgot that as pandemic lockdowns eased people flocked to hotels and regional tourist destinations and that in a few days, crowds will attend football matches.
Some media pushed the line that the demonstrations were derivative and that the issue of Indigenous Australians dying in police custody was not raised until Mr Floyd’s death in the USA. Indigenous peoples are always judged in these paradoxical terms. If they campaign long and hard about issues of vital importance, they are labelled as perennial whingers and so ignored. If they take advantage when the world’s focus turns to an issue, they are condemned for opportunism.
Indigenous led initiatives are important for addressing Indigenous disadvantage. That is why the Uluru Statement was a source of hope. Realistically however, Black activists reflected that 50 years had passed since the 1967 Referendum. They feared that should the opportunities presented by the Uluru Statement be lost, another 50 years might pass before systemic change could be achieved.
The Statement was a carefully formulated expression of the consensus which had been developed by a commission looking at Constitutional inclusion. It has since been pointed out that its three main recommendations of Treaty, Truth and Voice did not necessarily depend on constitutional change. The Turnbull Government ‘s response was to claim that the recommendations relied on majority support in the community and that leadership would be needed. Turnbull’s approach to leadership, displayed in the slow reaction to demands for marriage equality legislation, saw the Uluru Statement languish.
Whether Turnbull’s failure to lead on Uluru was reluctant or otherwise, his successor Prime Minister Morrison immediately made his hostility to the recommendations plain. An Indigenous Voice in parliament would not be countenanced. This ‘third chamber’ notion was a controversial interpretation designed to maximise hostility to the Uluru Statement. Turnbull might have hoped that community support for inclusion of Indigenous people in the Constitution would miraculously materialise. Morrison’s attitude encouraged its opponents and strengthened their arguments. He might as well have been writing the ‘No’ case for a future referendum.
Morrison set up a new consultation about a voice to parliament, known as a ‘co-design’ process. He suggested that indigenous people had to be involved in the process, but ignored the very real involvement that had occurred in the formation of a consensus around the Uluru recommendations. While the Minister for Indigenous Australians secured positions on the committee for some outstanding individuals, the government’s sincerity is questionable. What seems clear is that the government will accept the recommendations of this group only if they find them convenient. Presumably it expects only outcomes consistent with its own philosophies. It is likely that the process and outcome will be divisive and delay progress even further. The term ‘hypocrisy’ suggests itself here.
Paternalism has characterised Indigenous policy for over 200 years. Its shape has varied, from denial of facts to denial of responsibility. It is consistent with a similar attitude to migrants especially those who wish to retain their own cultural identities, the disabled, the elderly and anyone who does not contribute to the bountiful economy so precious to conservatives.
The frustration of Indigenous people has been clear over the last few days. Increasingly those of us who believe that Australia cannot be a fair land until we address Indigenous dispossession and disadvantage are coming to share that frustration. Indigenous people have been incredibly patient as they wait for the rest of us to accept that our own integrity and survival is inextricably bound up with theirs. Perhaps protesting during a pandemic is a sign that Indigenous people are growing impatient and willing to take more risks to achieve their ends. After all, they do not have much to lose. They have tried our ways and found them totally inadequate. So many times, a revolution in Indigenous affairs seems to beckon, and nothing short of a revolution is required. Those who run our governments however, are adept at convincing us that reform is achievable. Yet again, the revolution is postponed.
Dr Tony Smith is a former political science academic with interests in elections, parliament and political ethics. He is privileged to live in Wiradjuri country.
Dr Tony Smith is a former political science academic with interests in elections, parliament and political ethics.
Comments
3 responses to “Poor prospects for Indigenous justice.”
Perhaps an issue here is that our concept of “racism” needs to be broadened beyond “racial prejudice” to include both “racial bias” and “racial disparity”.
It’s true that “racial prejudice” is more morally odious than “racial bias”, and “racial bias” is more morally odious than “racial disparity”. But to the extent we have the power to change racial bias and racial disparity in our societies, it is right that we view the persistence of “racial bias” and “racial disparity” in our societies as a moral failure.
Dr Smith you are too easy when you say that the talk of a third chamber of Parliament was an interpretation of the Statement from the Heart. It is not an interpretation but a bare-faced lie. aside from that quibble, what you say is spot on.
A very thoughtful analysis Tony.
While paternalism characterises Indigenous policy, assimilation is the more dangerous poison. It too has been relentless and it best explains why Australian government and society fails to truly listen and respond.
The disproportionate death, incarceration and other suffering is never elevated to the status of most important national challenge because the enduring belief in assimilation assuages white responsibility.
With eternal patience – and even forgiveness – the long suffering demand change, fully aware of the cost of their protest. Yet Governments cannot come down from their white privilege to listen and agree that there must be change. They can’t even agree on Voice.
Co-design is a good transformational approach but only if assimilation is abandoned.
As long as government and its agencies refuse to accept the principle of self-determination and constitutional enshrinement of Voice , any legislated body will be vulnerable to the whims of politicians.