The Destruction of Difference: Paternalistic Australian Policies

In 2015, former Prime Minister Tony Abbott, announced his support of Western Australian Premier Barnett’s plan to close nearly half of the state’s two hundred and seventy-four remote Indigenous communities.[1] This proposal, which spurred much public criticism and debate,[2] demonstrated that although there has been a great deal of talk about reconciliation and progress, but in reality, we have not strayed far from the assimilationist agenda of the 20^th Century. This essay will critically analyse the intentions underpinning this proposal, critiquing the appropriateness of the role that the state has assumed as a ‘protector’ of Indigenous people, and the underlying motive of facilitating the integration or ‘assimilation’ of Indigenous people into white society. This essay will explore these issues by drawing parallels between this recent decision and 20^th Century ‘protectionist’ legislation.[3] It concludes that we must move away from these paternalistic agendas, recognising the right of Indigenous people to meaningfully participate in the making of decisions that affect them.[4]

History of assimilation

At the start of the 20^th Century it became apparent that there was an increasing number of ‘mixed decent’[5] Indigenous people, an issue of great concern for the governments of the time, who were fearful of a disruption of western norms. In light of these concerns, government policy adapted to confront this ‘issue’ by encouraging the resettlement of Indigenous peoples in missions, where they could be ‘civilised’; taught to speak English, and follow western norms and customs.[6] During this period, now widely known as the Stolen Generation, Aboriginal children were separated permanently from their families, taught to despise their Aboriginal heritage as limiting and improper, sent to work as domestic servants and were eventually married out.[7]

The Aboriginal experience of the Stolen Generation was highlighted in the 1997 Bringing Them Home Report, a 700-page report of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission.[8] Though the report noted the difficulty of stating precisely how many children were forcibly removed, it concluded “with confidence that between one in three, and one in ten Indigenous children were forcibly removed from their families and communities in the period from approximately 1910 until 1970”.[9]

The post-colonial movement of the 1960s and 70s, as well as legal developments throughout this period and into the 1990s, began to challenge the sentiment underpinning these assimilation-based ideas, which had characterised Indigenous policy making since settlement. In line with these changes, and the increasing recognition of the rights of Indigenous people, the findings of the Bringing Them Home Report increased pressure in society to achieve reconciliation; inciting calls for an apology and reparations to be made to Indigenous people for the policies which created the Stolen generation.

In 2007, then-Prime Minister Kevin Rudd finally heeded these calls and apologised on behalf of the Australian public to the Stolen Generation. He apologised for “the laws and policies of successive Parliaments and governments that have inflicted profound grief, suffering and loss on these our fellow Australians … the indignity and degradation… inflicted on a proud people and a proud culture”.[10] This apology, in many ways was a sign of progress – a hope that moving forward, we as a nation would never repeat the mistakes of past governments, or inflict such pain and suffering on innocent lives. In the years following this apology, however, we have seen little evidence that these words were anything more than rhetoric. Indigenous policy continues to be dominated by the notion that Indigenous people should be integrated into white society, in their ‘best interests’.

Assimilation lives on

“What we can’t do is endlessly subsidise lifestyle choices if those lifestyle choices are not conducive to the kind of full participation in Australian society that everyone should have… If people choose to live miles away from where there’s a school, if people choose not to access the school of the air, if people choose to live where there’s no jobs, obviously it’s very, very difficult to close the gap”[11]

This statement, by former prime minister Tony Abbott, epitomises the role that state has claimed as the ‘protector’ of Indigenous people; an idea underpinned by the age-old notion that Indigenous people are not equal, that they need not participate in decision making that affects their lives as the state knows better what is in their ‘best interests’. Although Tony Abbott’s comments about the “life style choice” of Indigenous people in remote communities received a great deal of public criticism,[12] the reality is that, whether explicitly stated or not, this assimilationist notion – that is the idea that integrating Indigenous people into western society and teaching of western norms – is still inherent in Indigenous policy making, as it has been throughout history.

Indeed, from the time of settlement, the British established a racial discourse, which set up a distinction between ‘aboriginal’ and ‘white’.[13] According to this discourse, the ‘Aboriginal’ was everything the ‘white’ was not: irrational, irresponsible, unable to determine their own lives and incapable of participation in the making of decisions that affect them.[14] Essentially these discourses established the (white) State as the adult, the protector, who knows best, and the aboriginal as the child. Throughout history this narrative of paternalism has legitimated the State making decisions and taking action unilaterally affecting the rights of Indigenous Australians.[15] Larissa Behrendt emphasises the continuation of this narrative from invasion to present day Australia, noting that the contemporary imagination of Indigenous people as an ‘Other’ ‘finds its genesis in the once orthodox account of Australia’s peaceful settlement, where Aboriginal people naturally gave way to the superiorities (so the story would be told) of British civilization’.[16] She asserts that the consequence of this history is:

to exclude us [Indigenous Australians] from participating in civic life in a meaningful way. This is true in relation to nation building activities such as drafting the Constitution…and participating in policy making.[17]

The 20^th Century ‘protectionist’ policies embodied this notion. By 1911 protectionist legislation in all states and territories, except Tasmania, gave the ‘Chief Protector’ or the ‘Protection Board’ a wide grant of power to control Indigenous people.[18] The legislation empowered policemen or other agents of the states to locate and transfer babies and children of mixed decent, to white families or missions.[19] In the Northern Territory the Chief Protector was appointed the legal guardian of all Aboriginal children, displacing the rights of their birth parents.[20] The same was true of the Chief Protector in Western Australia, who was also empowered to manage the property of Indigenous people either with or without their permission if ‘he deemed it necessary.’[21] These policies demonstrated the commonly held assumption that Indigenous people were incapable of parenting, making decisions for themselves, or acting as rational agents.[22]

Arguably, the proposed forced closure of Indigenous communities demonstrates the continuation of this same sentiment. It shows the lack of appreciation of the fact that the serious and complex issues facing Indigenous people – namely drug and alcohol abuse, gap in life expectancy and higher rates of incarceration[23] – are the direct result of the processes of colonisation and assimilation.[24] As Irene Watson asks; ‘why blame Aboriginal culture in isolation of the impact of colonialism and the socio-economic effect of displacement and dispossession?’[25]

The difficulty in the policy-making sphere is that it is undeniable that Indigenous communities are suffering. For the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander population born in 2010–2012, their life expectancy is estimated to be 10.6 years lower than that of the non-Indigenous population for males and 9.5 years for females.[26] Indigenous people living in the NT are 17 times more likely than non-Indigenous people to develop kidney diseases,[27] and in the NT in 2007-2012, two-in-three Indigenous children who had child health checks had at least one ear or hearing condition.[28] However, the closure of these communities that will result in the further devastation of culture, language and kinship groups is not the right solution.

The way forward

So the question remains: what is the way forward?

The Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous People (‘DRIP’) is an instrument of international law which requires States to consult with Indigenous peoples before implementing measures that may affect them.[29] Indigenous people also have the right to ‘meaningfully participate’ in the process of making these decisions.[30]

In line with this, it follows that the issues facing Indigenous people can only be properly addressed if Indigenous people are meaningfully involved in process of policy development. Terry Libesman, a professor and researcher at the University of Sydney, discusses this issue, concluding that the ‘culture, laws and traditions which nurture and provide order and stability’ in Indigenous communities must be acknowledged and incorporated into policy making.[31] Ultimately, what is required is the integration of principles of self-determination, collaboration and participation of Indigenous people.[32]

In April 2015, just after Colin Barnett’s announcement about the closure of Indigenous communities, a $15 million deal was signed between the federal government and the South Australian government which would see the state funding municipal and essential services in the remote Anangu Pitjantjatjara Yankunytjatjara (APY) lands from July 1. This proposal was developed through negotiation and consultation with the elders and leaders in community. It is only through processes like this that we can hope to see the enrichment and preservation of the beauty of Indigenous culture, and traditions. It is clear that policies created with true consultation encourage self determination and promote the advancement of Indigenous communities. It is time to change Australia’s long history of the exclusion of Indigenous voices from the policy-making sphere, which has perpetuated the process of “assimilation” for far too long.