Bennelong Society Conference 2003:
An Indigenous Future? Challenges and Opportunities

Problems In The Remote Communities Of Australia: An Overview

The Hon Peter Howson

Introduction

At long last it is being recognised that very serious social problems exist within many remote Aboriginal communities---problems that have in reality been there for many years but have hitherto largely been brushed aside. Despite this growing recognition there is, though, still only a limited appreciation of the most important underlying cause of these problems. I believe their origin is to be found in the pursuit since the early 1970s of policies based on the perception that Aborigines would have better lives segregated from the rest of society and that it was appropriate for white Australia to impose such a life on them.[1] This segregationist approach led, among other things, to support for land rights, a treaty, and the establishment in 1989 of ATSIC as an elected body with its own policy and spending powers.

A totally unrealistic and naive policy of separatism thus replaced the policy of integration pursued prior to the Whitlam Government, the reasons for which had been well enunciated by Paul Hasluck when Minister responsible for Aboriginal affairs in the Northern Territory.[2] At the same time the payment of the dole without strings (or sit down money as it became known) meant that Aborigines in remote communities became in effect mendicants and the gradual withdrawal of indigenous advisers and vocational training facilities reduced their opportunities for advancement and employment.

In reality, separatism has failed dismally because the majority of Aborigines has voluntarily pursued the course of integration. The present Commonwealth Government has also moved away from the pursuit of separatist policies by, for example, indicating that it will not consider any form of treaty and by substantially reducing ATSIC's powers and role. Prime Minister Howard and Minister Ruddock are to be congratulated on their renouncement of the previous politically correct view on these and other associated issues. The Prime Minister's recent "summit" on domestic violence, and his visit to Aboriginal communities in Cape York, were valuable in further exposing the problems and needs of communities that are relatively isolated geographically. Mr Howard indicated in the course of the visit that, while "maintaining the culture is fine but not the extent that you are really into a treaty situation", he wanted Aborigines to "enjoy the full benefits of society".[3]

Such eminently sensible changes in direction have, particularly in the past two years, helped turn around the views of the majority of Australians, including those of many Aborigines---apart, that is, from some misguided spokesmen who have continued to push the separatist approach. It is not going too far, I believe, to conclude that the misguided experiment with separation is over and has been replaced by a wide acceptance that the focus of attention should now be on practical steps---what the Government has called practical reconciliation---to encourage Aborigines to improve their own positions by becoming fuller members of Australian society.

However, there is still a good way to go before the errors of the past can be overcome and there is one major area where the Government's policies continue to encourage the separatism that has remained from old policies. I am referring here to the encouragement to maintain separation that comes from the provision and maintenance of infrastructure in remote communities in combination with the extensive provision of welfare. On the evidence available, this combination is having adverse (some would say deadly) effects for many Aborigines who choose the separatist course, it is sustaining ghetto-type communities---some describe them as communistic ghettos---based on mendicancy and that generate serious social problems, and unless changed it will give Australian governments an increasingly bad name internationally.

In short, my principal message today is to propose that the present Government institute a major change in its existing policies in regard to remote communities. While basic facilities naturally need to be provided for them, policies are also needed positively to encourage, though not force, the remaining residents of remote communities to integrate with society. There are many possible ways in which this might be pursued and I will examine those shortly.

Before doing so, it is desirable to set out the context by outlining the extent of the remote communities, the infrastructure established in them, and some of the social problems that have emerged.

The Extent and State of Remote Communities

Very few people are aware of either the extraordinary extent of remote Aboriginal communities or the smallness of the populations living in each of them. An ABS survey published earlier this year of Community Housing and Infrastructure Needs[4] revealed that 26 per cent of Aborigines (about 93,000) are scattered across no less than 1,139 remote or very remote communities, giving an average population per community of only about 80. While most of these people (over 70 per cent) lived with 200 or more others, there were less than 20 people in over half of such communities and only between 20 and 49 people in another 23 per cent. Indeed, three-quarters of all remote communities were accommodating only 14 per cent of all remote dwellers.

Unsurprisingly, the remote communities are heavily concentrated in the Northern Territory and Western Australia, but Queensland and South Australia also have a significant number. Well over a half of communities are located more than an hour's travel from the nearest town, with some communities requiring over five hours travel to reach a town.

How well are people in these remote communities looked after by government? Many will be rather surprised to learn that, notwithstanding the much higher costs of supplying facilities and services on a small scale, extensive relatively modern facilities are being provided to them by the taxpayer. In a sense, rather than Aborigines having to move to Western civilization, a form of it has moved to them in Australia's outback.

Indeed, the ABS survey already mentioned shows that the remote communities generally have access to public facilities not dissimilar in extent to those elsewhere. Over 90 per cent of remote communities have organized water and electricity supplies, with only 6 or 7 per cent of permanent dwellings in such communities not connected. Over 90 per cent also have some form of organized sewerage and rubbish disposal, with some even having rubbish collections. Although public phones are mainly available only in larger communities, over 90 per cent of communities receive radio and TV broadcasts---especially of course from "your ABC"---and a substantial proportion have mail delivered to the communities. The fact that some 85 per cent of the residents of such communities are within 10 kilometres of either a hospital or a community health centre suggests that the well-publicised Aboriginal health problems are not due to any major deficiency in the availability of health services.

An earlier ABS survey on Housing and Infrastructure[5] also showed that primary schools are less than 10 kilometres away for 87 per cent of the residents of these communities and that a high proportion of communities is provided with sporting facilities. Although permanent dwellings are also often more crowded than would generally be regarded as desirable for leading a peaceful and productive life,[6] the existence of a relatively high availability of such dwellings in most communities (some do not have sufficient) is in itself scarcely a disincentive to move elsewhere.

The unfortunate part of the remote communities story is that the establishment of some parts of Western civilization within them has not produced good results. The ABS surveys themselves reveal some of the poor outcomes. They show, for example, that more than 30 per cent of dwellings managed by indigenous housing organisations are in need of major repair each year; that annual maintenance expenditure per dwelling is high; that over a third of larger communities experience water restrictions each year and over 80 per cent experience electricity breakdowns, in each case mostly due to equipment breakdowns; and that nearly half of the larger communities experience annual overflows or leakages from sewerage systems due mainly to either blocked drains or equipment failure. In short, in circumstances where few privately owned dwellings exist and residents subsist largely on welfare, the publicly provided facilities are far from being well maintained by residents. Indeed, non-indigenous labour and managers undertake most of the maintenance of dwellings and public facilities.

It is little wonder that Prime Minister John Howard pointed out in May last year [7] that "the state of Aboriginal communities remained disgraceful". Or that an inquiry in Western Australia reported in August 2002 that the incidence of violence and child abuse in Aboriginal communities was "shocking and difficult to comprehend", leading Premier Gallop to declare the situation in his State's communities to be a human tragedy that was nothing short of a national disaster.[8] In comparing the experience of many indigenous people with the nation's success in absorbing migrants, the Prime Minister added at the time "There are plenty of Aborigines, indigenous Australians, who are fully integrated. But there still quite a lot who aren't..." and "... part of the problem was that many Aborigines were physically separated from the rest of society".

The exposure of the failure of remote communities to function effectively has not, of course, been confined to the Prime Minister or the Western Australian Premier. I mention briefly some other pertinent analyses:

• The Reverend Steve Etherington, who has lived in a traditional Aboriginal community for 23 years, probably best summarised the seriousness of the problem when he wrote two years ago that "tribal Aborigines in Australia are a 'kept' people: they are no longer required to grow or find their own food, are never required to become educated, never required to build their own homes or buy their own vehicles ... the vast majority are never required to learn anything or to do anything. Erosion of the capacity for initiative and self-help are virtually complete".[9]
  
• Three years ago, Richard Trudgen in his book Why Warriors lie down and die, concerning the Yolngu Clans in Arnhem land, suggested that "unless current policies among these communities is changed, the great warriors of Arnhem Land will just lie down and die." My recent check on the Yolgnu situation suggested that not dissimilar developments may be occurring there as those reported by an anthropologist researching conditions in the West Musgrave Ranges, where in one clan he found "No males between the age of 20 and 40".
  
• Nicholas Rothwell wrote in The Australian on 12 May that in a community in the east Kimberleys ' children ... were running without parental guidance, no rules, no controls, ... the fathers are often absent, drunk or dead. The kid money or family allowances ... for the upkeep of each child ... is not unusually ... claimed by mothers who drink it away far from their families'.
  
• During the Prime Minister's visit to Cape York he was told by ATSIC regional councilor, Tania Major, that she had been the only one of 15 pupils to finish school, that all the other girls in her class were pregnant at 15 and that seven of the boys had been incarcerated and four had committed suicide. [10]
  
• Dr Stephanie Jarrett, who spent three years researching in a country town in South Australia, presented an analysis to the last Bennelong conference suggesting that in an urban environment the extent of violence amongst Aborigines seems to be less while the extent of Aboriginal employment seems higher.
  
• Michael McKinnon wrote in The Australian on 6 June that on Mornington Island "there is a permanent cycle of despair created as children ... grow up with drug abuse and domestic violence as part of the normal family environment".
  
• In 1999, a report was presented to the Queensland Government by a Women's task force,[11] chaired by Boni Robertson, detailing horrific acts of violence and child abuse in the State's communities. (At the 2002 Bennelong meeting Boni received the Society's inaugural medal and was elected to the board.) This was followed by the Fitzgerald report, commissioned by Premier Beattie and effectively confirming the Robertson report. At the 2002 meeting, a former Queensland health worker also detailed research he had undertaken amongst communities in Cape York, concluding that the rate of head injury experienced there was the highest in the world and attributing the cause to the "loss of the role of the male in these remoter communities".
  
• The annual reports on Child Protection by the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare have shown for some years now that the rates of children on care and protection orders, or on out-of-home care, are much higher for Aboriginal children than in the rest of the community.

On the basis of these and other analyses, and after discussions with various people who have recent experience in Aboriginal administration, I find it difficult to avoid the conclusion that the social situation within most of the remote communities is deteriorating and, absent changed policies, is likely to continue to do so. Certainly, separatism is clearly not benefiting Aborigines and the advice I have received from those working in these communities is that, far from encouraging the preservation of traditional Aboriginal culture, the younger Aborigines there are tending to neglect it. Indeed, there appears to have been an almost complete breakdown of civil society in many communities stretching from the Pilbara and the Gascoigne in the West to the Kimberleys, the Northern Territory and the Gulf and Cape York. The children especially are living in miserable surroundings. A fundamental change of policy is needed to rescue them.

What Needs to be Done

In considering what might be done to improve the situation in remote communities, we should first recognise that the majority of Aborigines has in fact been moving progressively closer to the broader community. Thus, not only are more than 70 per cent living in urban communities and professing Christianity but the proportion of indigenous adults married (de fact or de jure) to non-indigenous spouses has also increased from 46 per cent in 1986 to 69 per cent in 2001 (in the capital cities it was then 87 per cent). Indeed, the majority of Aborigines are now of mixed descent. Such developments are clear indications of the comparative success of integrationist moves by Aborigines themselves to more urban communities, as are the fact that their health and employment levels appear to be considerably better than amongst those who live in remote areas.

Against this background, one policy change the Government might consider is to aim to reduce the number of remote communities by concentrating the provision of services, including housing, in the larger communities, thereby encouraging Aborigines to overcome tribal differences and move from the outstations either into the larger communities or into more urbanized areas. It is relevant that, in Canada, infrastructure is only provided to the major 600 communities of Indians.

There is also a need in this context to improve the existing division of administrative responsibilities between the Commonwealth and the States.[12]

However, the most important policy change required is to positively encourage the residents of remote communities to make the integrationist moves that will provide the basis for an improved life style and, most importantly, help secure real employment. At his meeting earlier this month with indigenous workers employed on the Alice Springs-Darwin railway, the Prime Minister noted that "real jobs" is "what helping indigenous people ought to be about". It cannot be said that the Federal Government is doing this despite the basic employment already provided on community projects under the Community Development Employment Program public works scheme and despite its recent adoption, on a trial basis, of a whole-of-government approach in up to 10 communities or regions "to improve the way governments interact with each other and with communities to deliver more effective responses to the needs of indigenous Australians".[13]

If employment on the make-work CDEP projects is not counted, a total of only about 30 per cent of Aborigines is actually employed outside capital cities despite the availability of Commonwealth wage subsidies to employers of up to $4,400 for six months' employment. In reality, employment policies that are being pursued within or close to existing remote communities are likely provide only a small number of "real jobs" because there are only limited private sector job opportunities available in those areas on a sustainable basis and because many Aborigines are reluctant to seek employment in circumstances where unemployment benefits are made available without having to meet the work test. Given that the lack of job opportunities in or close to remote communities would make it unrealistic to reintroduce the work test and remove the work disincentive provided by the "sit down" money instituted under the Whitlam Government, the more appropriate course would seem to be to examine ways of helping the residents of these communities to move to areas where employment is more likely to be obtained and where small businesses would find a broader market for their services.[14]

Possible courses of action might include the provision of larger housing and employment subsidies for those prepared to move to more populated areas, as well as higher subsidies for educating children outside remote areas.[15] The cost of providing such assistance with employment, housing, and education would be at least partly offset by savings from the reduction in costs of servicing (including on health services) and generally assisting existing remote communities.

It is also especially important to try to ensure as many children as possible become educated sufficiently---particularly in the English language---to allow them to find useful employment. The relatively low standards reached by most Aboriginal children does not appear to be due to any shortage of schools or even teachers but is more a reflection of the effects of the paucity of parental supervision and guidance resulting from the deterioration of civil society. This was illustrated, for example, in the report in 1999 by the former Senator Bob Collins on the education of children in the Northern Territory,[16] which showed the high level of truancy and the accompanying relatively low standard of education of Aboriginal children throughout the Territory. As Nicholas Rothwell of The Australian has pointed out, the children in some communities are virtual orphans.

This suggests that the need to examine the practicality of having Aboriginal parents meet the compulsory education requirement by providing sufficient subsidies to enable children to attend boarding schools outside the remote communities. Given that the establishment of secondary institutions could not be justified in the great majority of such communities, there is a particularly strong case for such subsidies for vocational and secondary education but the importance to children of having a good start means that the issue should be addressed at the primary level too.

It is important also that the economic activities of Aborigines should not be confined to communal land. Since 1976, Aboriginal communities have held a large proportion of land in the Northern Territory but, as the 10th anniversary of Mabo reminded us, their holdings of such land have done little or nothing to advance Aboriginal progress---and may indeed have retarded it. When in nomadic life most male Aborigines were predominantly occupied as hunter- gatherers, the availability of communal access to land was doubtless of some significance. But the rapidly diminishing importance of nomadic pursuits from the 1950s has greatly reduced, if not eliminated, the need for such access and individual Aborigines should increasingly have been given the capacity to manage their own land.

The time has surely come now to institute a major reform of the legal basis on which land can be used for economic purposes by providing opportunities for individual Aborigines to hold and use land, at least under leasehold. There is also a good case for allowing non-indigenes to operate small businesses by leasing land in areas that are "reserved" for Aborigines.

Conclusion

The more housing and infrastructure that has been constructed in the remote communities the less incentive there is for the occupants to move out into new useful occupations and the more the life-style discourages the preservation of Aboriginal culture. It has been observed, for example, that the old men are not passing onto the young men their knowledge of the dreaming because many of the young who remain alive have little capacity or interest in absorbing it. There has, in effect, been a complete breakdown of society in many of the remote communities.

In an important paper he gave recently at a conference in Chile, Gary Johns quoted a medical doctor Paul Rivvaland, who treats remote Aborigines dying from all too common renal diseases, as follows

what's happening with the senior Aboriginal men and women of the desert is clear. Finally they are understanding the extent of the passing of their traditional roles, and the critical problem of where exactly they fit in our wider society---this is what underlies their health collapse.[17]

Such adverse effects experienced by the older generation underline the seriousness of the problem in remote communities, a problem that the present Government has inherited from the separatist and welfare policies started during the Whitlam-Coombs regimes that effectively imposed a self-destructive life style on some Aborigines. Governments, both Federal and State, need now to do as much as they can to encourage the movement out into society of the minority who continue to live in comparative isolation. For some this is going to be difficult and it will take time, but a start has to be made in restoring the capacity of Aborigines to live a happier and useful life within a civil society. We had a government policy for 30 years that must share the responsibility for the present disaster and government must now accept responsibility for retracing our steps and doing as much we can, in the interests of the Aboriginal people, to salvage the situation.

References

[1] Of course, the separatist idea originated much earlier than the 1970s, as Keith Windschuttle shows in his book 'the Fabrication of Aboriginal History' (Volume One, Van Diemen's Land 1803-1847, Macleay Press 2002). He points out that, in the early 1830s in Tasmania, Lieutenant Governor Arthur was persuaded to establish a community of Aborigines on Flinders Island by George Augustus Robinson, who portrayed the separation as a means of protecting and at the same time civilising the Aborigines. In 1837 Robinson produced a glowing report claiming the settlement was a great success. This so impressed Lieutenant Arthur that he forwarded it to London and that led to Robinson achieving notoriety throughout the British Empire for (apparently) having established a way for British colonies to deal with native populations. But the succeeding governor, Franklin, appointed a board in 1839 to enquire into the conditions at the Flinders Island settlement. This rejected most of the claims made by Robinson and showed that the experiment that provided sanctuary for the natives was a failure, with all the Aborigines dying. Unfortunately, that report was never released and the myth created by Robinson continued to influence policy in Australia and elsewhere.

[2] Hasluck argued that the only possible future for the Aboriginal people in remote communities was for them to merge into and become full members of the European community. He saw the purpose of settlements and the missions as being to move the nomadic people through various staging camps that would serve as training centres in social change and help move them towards economic self- sufficiency. Settlements and missions were not seen as an end in themselves and it was not the policy of government to isolate Aborigines in reserves. Hasluck also emphasized that settlements must not lead to the establishment of mendicant groups distinguishable purely by race or by colour and for whom special protection has to be provided. On the issue of the preservation of languages and culture, he said 'I think we must recognise in these matters we will not be able to have it both ways. If the reality is that Aborigines will remain a segregated and oppressed group, until they are able to meet the members of the wider Australian community on equal terms, then priority must be given to providing them with the opportunities they require to reach those standards, however we might wish it otherwise. The reality is that this is incompatible with full and active preservation of their language and culture.' (quoted by D Meagher in his final submission to the Cubillo-Gunner case in relation to Northern Territory Welfare Policies, page 111, 2000).

[3] Quote from "Visions in Black and White", The Age, 9 August 2003.

[4] This was published in Australian Social Trends (ABS 4102.0) and was based on information from surveys conducted in 1999 and 2001 on behalf of ATSIC. Only 2 per cent of non-indigenous Australians live in such communities.

[5] Housing and Infrastructure in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Communities, ABS 4710.0 2001.

[6] Although there is an average of around 6.4 residents per dwelling, compared with 2.6 elsewhere, for one reason or another many dwellings have considerable above-average occupancy rates.

[7] "PM's Reconciliation Hopes", The Australian, 6 May 2002.

[8] "Aboriginal Violence, Abuse 'Shocking' ", The Age, 16 August 2002.

[9] "The Most Threatened People in Australia: the Remote Aboriginal Minority" on page 77 in Waking Up To Dreamtime The Illusion of Aboriginal Self Determination, 2001, Edited By Gary Johns.

[10] See "Visions in Black and White", Michael Gordon, The Age, 9 August 2003.

[11] The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Women'sTask Force on Violence Report.

[12] For instance, it seems anomalous that the 63 major communities in the Northern Territory are administered by the N T Department of Local Government whereas the 15-20 outstations surrounding each of those communities are under the control of ATSIC.

[13] Council of Australian Governments---Communique, 5 April 2002. Under this scheme the Government has moved, for example, to a more holistic approach to the problems of communities in Cape York, including an attempt to develop greater employment opportunities through business hubs, an outback digital network and fishing activities.

[14] Attention has been drawn to the apparent success of "a handful of Native American tribes" in generating employment as a result of being given the capacity to make "their own decisions" and to establish governing institutions conducive to attracting private sector investment ("After ATSIC", Nicholas Rothwell, The Australian, 5 July 2003). However, it seems unlikely that such an approach would have more than a limited chance of success within remote communities in Australia.

[15] An ATSIC regional councilor, Tania Major, wrote in The Age on 6 August that when she moved to Brisbane she got C's and D's compared with A's at a Kowanyama school in Cape York, adding that there is "something seriously wrong with the education system in our communities".

[16] "Learning Lessons An Independent Review of Indigenous Education in the Northern Territory", 1999.

[17] The Weekend Australian, March 29-30 2003.