Bennelong Society Conference 2002: Celebrating Integration

Exploring the Meaning of Integration

Wesley Aird

There are instances in my talk where I refer to Aboriginal rather than indigenous or Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander. This is not to take anything away from the people of the Torres Strait. However, certain references I make are specific to mainland Australia places or circumstances.

My first full-time adult job was in the Army and it lasted for ten years and seven days. First, at the Royal Military College Duntroon, then some seven years as an officer. Without a doubt, there was a lot of good that came from that experience.

What now fascinates me about those ten years is that soldiers (especially in the infantry where I was) are susceptible to conditioning to dislike people that don't have the same physical appearance as your average Australian and don't live according to the same belief systems as your average Australian. That as a race or as a culture, we were somehow better.

Another aspect of note is the school of thought that suggests that, as a sub-set of society, the Army is historically very, very slow to adapt to the changes in broader society. This is highlighted in a number of debates over issues accepted some years before by the broader Australian community. For instance, at around the time of robust discussion in mainstream society, certain progressive legislation can be introduced, then the concept becomes defence policy and this can be quite some way ahead of acceptance by the RSL.

A big part of being a soldier is the maintenance of an 'us and them' attitude. In this case, the 'us' was defined by membership, and usually it was a small team. For those on our team, a very strong meritocracy existed. If a person was able to contribute to the team, they would be accepted not on what they looked like or what they believed, but instead on how well they performed their designated tasks.

In hindsight, it seems a bit confusing. We disliked all those of different appearance and from different cultures, except the ones we worked with and liked. And being so macho we didn't think much of women except the ones we knew were good value.

To my way of thinking, these experiences highlight a really big paradox. Even as an Aboriginal person that looked a little bit different to everyone else I got along absolutely fine with a bunch of xenophobic, homophobic misogynists.

In the Army, I had a normal job. It wasn't a liaison position. There was no special treatment, no special selection criteria. I had applied and won each position against all the other candidates across the country. It's a good feeling to have achieved something on a level playing field.

My first job after the Army was as the Aboriginal liaison officer with the New South Wales Ombudsman, initially knowing very little about the big government mechanism. I think I could liken these years to a sort of apprenticeship. Over time I came to know a bit more about how things work.

As I mentioned, I won my position at Duntroon competing against the rest of the country. Sadly, the first job outside the Army I won in a competition against about 2 per cent of the population and so I wasn't too proud of the manner of appointment.

I don't mean to be too harsh on 'identified positions'. I admit they can serve a very positive and genuine role in certain circumstances. Often, through identified positions Aboriginal people are held up as role models and their image and their work can add real value to a community. Also, in a departmental environment, identified positions can help non-Aboriginal staff and decision makers by giving them an obvious point of contact.

Over the ensuing years I had appointments with a handful of government departments and each one had a focus on indigenous affairs and service delivery.

Looking back on my years in the Army and comparing these with the years since, there is one big difference that really stands out. Many defence individuals and units have as their motto, 'Go hard or go home'. In the Army, if you are a below-average or even average performer, both promotions and good jobs are harder to come by.

By contrast, in Aboriginal affairs, whilst some people do very well, every now and again the career path may not exactly be indicative of the person's ability. In fact, there are a select few that wield enormous influence and what they lack in skills they more than compensate for in arrogance.

These are people that are effectively competing against only 2 per cent of the population. However, by clever use of the media, perception can be turned into reality. And, as a result, national importance can be bestowed on people that may, in certain circumstances, have very little local support from indigenous members of their community.

As the years pass, faces come and go as elections are held at all sorts of levels---both government and non-government. And policies change and then change back again. Through all of this the lives of the majority of indigenous people are getting no better.

For the last five or so years, I have been on the other side of the fence working for private enterprise, and have retained my primary focus on indigenous communities and service delivery. I continue to learn how many aspects of government policy work and in some cases how they don't work.

More and more companies in the natural resource sector are seeking to engage effectively with their neighbours and to pay something back to the community. As it turns out, this is most common in rural and remote Australia where the population has a disproportionately high level of indigenous people.

If the corporate will is there, a decent sized company can bring about substantial and sustainable improvements in the livelihoods of indigenous people. This can be achieved without being limited by government policy. And even better, in private enterprise you can make things happen in a time-frame that is considerably shorter than any government can achieve.

However, there is a catch. Numerous shareholders would prefer that their company did not deliver services as a form of de facto government. The shareholders could quite rightly argue that in Australia it is the role of government to provide such services as education, health and capacity building. And so some companies have found themselves faced with the perplexing question of what to do when governments aren't delivering effective basic services.

It is reasonable to ask why private sector companies would embark on social programmes that effect their bottom line. Perhaps there are three main reasons.

Firstly, because it is the right thing to do. Some companies may embark on a programme they perceive to be aligned with the intentions of practical reconciliation.

Secondly, because it is required by law. Often environmental safeguards and negotiations over native title are required by law. Only in rare instances are they a luxury entered into for the purpose of making everybody feel good.

Regardless of the influence of the first two, the third and possibly strongest reason is because it makes good business sense to involve the neighbours. For example, it is in the best financial interests of a remote mining venture to employ the workforce from as close as possible to the mine site. In the bigger picture, the company that has genuine and positive relationships with its neighbours will usually have a better chance of achieving land access for other exploration and development projects even though these may be across the country or indeed on the other side of the world.

Even though there are companies willing to enter into genuine and positive relationships with their neighbours, many local indigenous communities are people affected by some genuine obstacles.

This leads me to comments on some broader issues.

I have a number of theories relating to various aspects of life. For many of my theories there is absolutely no academic backing whatsoever, I simply believe them to be true. For the sake of our discussion today, I would like to suggest there are three main categories of indigenous Australians.

First, the genuinely disadvantaged people that have no obvious or accessible solutions to poverty and dispossession.

Second, those that just get on with their lives and earn a living. Whether or not these people work within or outside indigenous policy or businesses, these are the ones that make a living for themselves and, in doing so, add value to society.

Third, and thankfully only a small minority, are those that trade off being black either socially and or economically. By this I refer to literate, numerate indigenous people who choose to 'use' the system. For those not weighed down by ethics or accountability, being black can provide a living for doing not much in return.

People in each of the above three categories can be found at all points along the spectrum from traditional to modern integrated indigenous Australians.

In terms of the people that are genuinely disadvantaged or the ones that are just getting on with their lives, these are the people that make up the vast majority of indigenous people. You have probably met them anywhere around the country. Yet these are people who often have a diminished understanding of the systems of governance and representation put in place over and above normal Australian governance. The systems to which I refer are land councils, community councils, corporations, committees and so on in the thousands around the country.

Most Aboriginal people don't understand the system of black politics as it relates to them in a community setting. Granted, many will have a rudimentary understanding of the land council or community council system, but when it comes to state or national organisations, there would most likely be an enormous drop-off in comprehension.

I would suggest that in many instances the Aboriginal systems are not intended to be understood by grass-roots Aboriginal people.

Unfortunately, systems have evolved to give pre-eminence to the third category, the indigenous self-servers. And many government services conduct their business in a way that would have me believe that research and consultation is an end in itself.

Any observer of indigenous news across the country will be familiar with the all-too-regular media release of a new study into one thing or another or a new funding initiative to solve yet another high-priority crisis. Sadly, it is rare to read about any genuine or sustainable results from such studies or funds. Equally sadly, numerous studies are either conducted in isolation of other directly related factors, or they are conducted for political purposes. To highlight this one only has to look at the extra-ordinary cost of government-funded studies and research and compare this against the inexcusably poor livelihoods of indigenous Australians.

Assuming most people accept the socio-economic divide between indigenous and non-indigenous Australians, I believe there is another social divide. This one is within the indigenous sub-cultures and it is between those that exploit the system and those that need assistance but are unable to access it.

Government policies over the years have a lot to answer for, but another big obstacle to advancement of Aboriginal people is ourselves. Specifically, indigenous leaders.

When I refer to indigenous leaders I refer to people holding office in a range of organisations, not just the handful of obvious people in the paper, or on the wireless or television. The organisations might be land councils, ATSIC or any number of government-created indigenous organisations.

I must point out that I refer to two levels of black politics. First, there are politics within communities. For instance, where a family group may enjoy particular control for a period of time. Second, there are politics at the state or national level, when individuals purport to represent the rest of an indigenous community.

My criticism of the second group is because many so-called leaders do not have a strong standing in their own community and they can sometimes suffer from poor performance in the Western system imposed by mainstream Australia.

Office-holders on councils, boards and committees must have support from their community or membership. This is the same for indigenous and non-indigenous people and it applies to those both in business and in service of the common good.

There are some politicians that would have us believe the ATSIC elections provide to a handful of people the legitimate authority to speak on behalf of all other indigenous Australians. My personal response is that this is both illogical and offensive. However, it is also very convenient for those involved---both indigenous and non-indigenous. As a result, the current system goes largely unchallenged. Indeed, by the time a territorial claim has been pegged out by each of the government, the high-profile indigenous people and the media, there is not a lot of room to manoeuvre for any new approach.

It is the media which give many self-appointed indigenous leaders their reason for being in office. And it is the government that gives them the means to remain in office. Worse, the self-appointed indigenous leaders give bureaucrats an easy point of contact for the conduct of consultation. So each one supports the other in a costly and ongoing but otherwise mutually useless relationship.

If ATSIC were a listed company, I would have sold my shares years ago.

On the other hand, perhaps I have got this all wrong and I am being too negative. If so, then I welcome someone to present to me some solid evidence suggesting that the billions of dollars spent on the Aboriginal industry have resulted in 'value-for-money' sustainable improvements in the livelihoods of indigenous Australians.

Luckily for both government and indigenous office-bearers there is respite in the form of consultation. An organisation (be it government or otherwise) can get away with gross inaction and wasted funds so long as the very first thing they do is publicly announce a programme of consultation.

Consultation is important and it has a place. However, progress can be hindered by an over-reliance on consultation or where it becomes an end in itself. Whilst some Aboriginal people make an art form out of attending meetings, most government people have got no idea about the disruption they cause by so many meetings. To make matters worse meetings can be randomly spaced or rarely coincide with any other portfolio regardless of any direct relationship that may exist.

Consultation is important but it can be costly if not done properly. Whether such a cost is sustainable has more to do with political will than it does with outcomes.

By now, you might have picked up that I am somewhat under-whelmed by the current system of indigenous representation and policy formation.

Whilst being of indigenous descent is an advantage, it is not a qualification in its own right to develop policy or negotiate legislation. It is indefensible for ATSIC to claim to represent and to know what is right for all Aboriginal people. In support of my claim, I would use the ATSIC election turnout figures as against recent census figures for indigenous populations.

I believe it is time for a change of direction. In my estimation, the change required is substantial. It is also unlikely to occur any time soon.

Change must come from the ministers and directors-general of the numerous government departments that have a portfolio interest in the lives of Aboriginal people.

Change must also come from indigenous people. However, I assume that many indigenous gatekeepers are unlikely to support the erosion of their personal influence and revenue base.

At the risk of too big an ask, I believe change must also come from within the mainstream population. Mainstream Australians need to be presented with good information, they need to make sound decisions and convey these to their representatives in parliament. In this manner, and over time, the lives of indigenous Australians will improve. Change will not come from blind support of whichever Aboriginal person makes it onto television. Nor will change come from barracking for indigenous Olympians, nor will it come from planting coloured hands on expanses of public grass.

I don't want to do a baby-and-bathwater trick. So I acknowledge that broad public support for indigenous issues is very important. I just hope that as well as collective public displays people also make it very clear with their local politician that they expect to see improved livelihoods for indigenous people through well-considered and progressive policies.

The observations of an Aboriginal person don't count for much if they are not backed up by local experience. To provide a bit of perspective I would like to give some background to the area where I come from. My local area is the Gold Coast region and we are not without our problems.

The local black politics are similar to those experienced in many other parts of the country. It is wrong to accept someone using the system unfairly for the benefit of a small handful. So sadly, like many other parts of the country we have an internal struggle against a local self-appointed gatekeeper and the organisations that support his regime.

Frankly, it would be more fun to spend my spare time engaged in my favourite pastimes---just like a normal person. However, I continue to give up weekends and evenings for native title and other cultural processes because I owe it to the people before me that over the years have collated so much knowledge and those that have already put in an enormous effort.

By my reckoning there are perhaps up to 1,000 descendants of the original inhabitants of the Gold Coast. And of the 1,000 genuine locals there are perhaps about 30 that are dependent on their local Aboriginal organisations. The other 970 went out and got a job. They have made a life for themselves in their own right. They are proud to identify as Aboriginal, and are part of an active native title network. But on the Gold Coast, being Aboriginal does not have the same socio-economic connotation as it does in other parts of the country.

South east Queensland has one of the lowest ATSIC voter turn-outs in the whole country. So, here's another one of my theories.

Where people have the skills and the 'get up and go' to make a living for themselves the role of ATSIC and indigenous-specific funding becomes less important. Successful Aboriginal people don't become any less Aboriginal, they just don't access hand-outs to the same degree as others.

At the risk of stretching it, perhaps if indigenous-specific funding was withdrawn and people had to access mainstream services, it is most likely that life would go on appearing much like what it is now.

I suppose I am no better than the rest unless I can come up with a suggestion for a better way of doing things.

There is a need to do away with systems that have evolved to serve gatekeepers and individuals. Resistance to change will be strongest from those in most need of change.

For what it's worth, here's a free tip for any politicians in the room. When it comes time to review the existing system of indigenous representation and governance, don't bother asking the current set of indigenous office-holders.

There are other ways to bring about positive change. For some months the company with whom I work, GRM International, have been talking to various government and private-sector people with a view to implementing a capacity-building model based on participatory methodology. At GRM we believe this model is capable of delivering genuine and sustainable improvements if driven from the bottom up and supported by government.

Briefly, the GRM participatory model advocates the following components.

Initially, improved awareness and sense of community. The objective is for indigenous communities in partnership with the public and private sectors to acknowledge the need for, and contribute to, self-driven positive change.

Work must be conducted to enhance the skills of the community council in whatever form that may be. The community would develop its capacity, its revenue base and also its development priorities. The council would then implement them in partnership with the community.

It is not just the indigenous community that must change. Service providers such as various government departments must be open to change. There needs to be improvement in the capacity and skills of service providers to participate in partnership in the provision of services to Indigenous communities.

If the above components work, then hopefully the result will be sustainable livelihoods, and communities will develop local business skills in order to develop local businesses generating money in the community for the community.

This is a model that has worked in innumerable 'down and out' communities around the world. There is no reason why it can't work in Australia. However, to work and to be sustainable it must come from the bottom up. It must be driven by the community members themselves.

From our analysis of the model, improved service delivery can save millions of dollars. That must make me one of the very few Aboriginal people in the entire country that wants better services and not more money.

If implemented properly, the model would put hundreds of bureaucrats out of work. Come to think of it, maybe that's why some people in government don't like it.

We're not there yet. Even though we think we have developed a workable framework that can deliver sustainable and improved livelihoods, we have had plenty of knock-backs, but not enough to give up.

In closing, I don't claim to have a monopoly on good ideas (and I would caution you against trusting anyone that claims they do). But I'm doing my bit and eventually we will get there and we hope to make a difference.