Bennelong Society Conference 2006:
Leaving Remote Communities
The Case For and Against the Continued Funding of Remote Aboriginal Communities: Report from the West
Hon. Julian Grill
Early this year stories began surfacing of children as young as 3 years suffering from sexually transmitted diseases in Halls Creek in the WA Kimberley Region.
Halls Creek is a small, mainly indigenous town in the Central Kimberley. It is remote by any standard but events in Halls Creek seem to be symptomatic of what is going on elsewhere in the Kimberley and beyond.
In a story by Steve Pennells of The West Australian on 11 March 2006, it was revealed that the town's indigenous leaders were pushing for a series of drastic moves which he said would effectively take the theory of Aboriginal Welfare back decades. The indigenous leaders were calling for Aboriginal children to be forcibly removed from their parents in a desperate bid to stop community self-destruction, introducing curfews, payment of food vouchers instead of money, allowing parents to smack their children, and issuing court orders which would allow children to be taken from parents and placed in a boarding school out of town.
Pennells maintains that children as young as three and four are being treated for sexually transmitted diseases, eight year olds have schizophrenia and drug addictions and some estimate that as many as half the Aboriginal youth in the town have been sexually abused.
Pennells went on 'Now, marijuana is rife and children as young as seven roam the streets with joints. The pot is being driven in from Darwin, Kununurra and Broome and no one seems to be able to stop it'.
On 13 March, one of the State's staunchest supporters of Aboriginal rights, the WA Aboriginal Legal Service chief executive Dennis Eggington said 'that desperate times called for desperate measures' and backed the Halls Creek elders call for at-risk children to be forcibly removed from their parents. The proposal was also supported by parliamentarians on both sides of Parliament and Sue Gordon, head of the National Indigenous Council.
The sole public voice in opposition to the call was Labor MLA Carol Martin, the State's only female Aboriginal MP. She said 'I do not support the Halls Creek Indigenous leaders' call for the forcible removal of children but I can understand their frustrations'.
The West Australian editorialised in support of the proposal on 14 March. It became a very big issue in Western Australia.
And what was the Government's official response to the crisis?
Asked what he believed should be done, the Premier Alan Carpenter said 'If the indigenous community is putting forward ideas to deal with the issues, we need to listen; the wider community need to listen'. He did not offer any new initiatives to correct the problems.
The Minister for Indigenous Affairs, Sheila McHale, made a visit to the town with a retinue of senior bureaucrats on 29 March.
Ms McHale got a hot reception in Halls Creek. Prominent Kimberly elder David Skeahan told her---'you'll go back and you'll do nothing'. They were prophetic words.
Media reports say that the Minister left in her chartered jet well before dusk when the drunks and kids came out and cause havoc.
Her reported remarks were:
When pressed by the Opposition in Parliament on 30 March, on the question of action to be taken to remedy the situation, the Minister responded:
The process from here is that a lot of ideas, a lot of thoughts, were told to me. We will look at them, consider them, develop them into actions and draw up a practical response to issues that were raised---that what I am going to do.
Six months on, the WA public is still awaiting that 'formulated response'.
On 31 of March, the Aboriginal member for the Kimberley, Carol Martin, demanded that the Department of Indigenous Affairs be abolished.
As a result of the Halls Creek crisis, Minister Sheila McHale announced, that same day, that 'The function of the department is currently under review'. That review was commenced immediately and given the critical nature of the situation, there was an expectation that it would report quickly.
That review is still underway 5 months on, with no result in sight.
Are we to believe that the events of Halls Creek are isolated?
Not according to Tom Stephens, the Labor Member for East Pilbara and an ex-State Government Minister. 'My State Government has been and is aware of the high incidence of abuse in the Kimberley but suffered from 'policy paralysis'. At no point in our history have we ever been in a situation being as morally culpable as a government'.
Labor MLA Carol Martin on the same day described 'the rate of sexually transmitted diseases in Kimberley children as another form of genocide'. On 1 April 2006, prominent indigenous leader, Peter Yu, said 'Halls Creek is not an isolated example.... I think that it's highly shameful and really disgraceful'.
Closer to Perth, at the Swan River Aboriginal Camp 2 or 3 years ago, a young indigenous early teenage girl, who had been the victim of serial sexual abuse, hung herself in the communal ablution facility. A subsequent enquiry by Aboriginal Magistrate Sue Gordon brought about the closure of the camp. Since then, the camp leader, Robert Bropho, has been charged with a number of sexual offences against minors.
At the National Press Club in June 2003, Mick Dodson stated publicly what everyone knew to be true: 'Aboriginal women and children generally are subject to devastating levels of violence and sexual assault at the hands of Aboriginal men'.
What of Aboriginal health and well being in the State generally? On the 15 April 2006, Mike Daube, the former Director-General of Health indicated '1001 regrets for having done so little for Aboriginal Health'.
Even in 'dry communities' there are profound problems. In an article in The West Australian of 3 June 2006, Jessica Strutt had this to say of Kalumburu:
Kalumburu, the most northerly established community in WA has a growing population but sexual abuse, cannabis, domestic violence, truancy and severe overcrowding have plagued it for decades.
It's a place where mobs of children roam the streets at night Kalumburu is a dry community and there are no problems with petrol sniffing. But cannabis abuse is rife and the resulting mental health problems are cause for alarm. That is according to police and Kalumburu Aboriginal Corporation chief executive Leonie Cameron.
Steve Pennells summed it up on the 3rd April 2006 when he said:
Communities in the Kimberley are raising their second and third generations of foetal alcohol syndrome babies. Sexual abuse is rife but rarely reported. There is an ingrained culture of welfare independence and an absence of hope for the future.
And had the Government been advised and warned of the problem? You bet it had. It was revealed in The West Australian on 5 April 2006 that
The Gallop government was warned explicitly three months after taking office in 2001 (February) that alcohol and sex abuse had reached crisis point in the Kimberley Aboriginal communities and urgent action was needed.
Jean Thornton a senior Health Department Official---produced an alarming report that was circulated around the government five years ago but it was shelved because of fears it was 'politically unpalatable'.
She said the majority of Aboriginal communities were 'terrible, broken places and education was the key to breaking the cycle.
The rate of school attendance in the majority of Aboriginal communities is less than 30% and most kids don't go to school at all after the age of 11.
So what has been done since Minister Sheila McHale's much publicised trip to Halls Creek in March? Well, $15 million has been earmarked for new housing, but that is all.
Concern about the State Government's lack of action since Sheila McHale's trip to Halls Creek in March boiled over last month.
On the 9 August 2006, The West Australian carried the following article by Jessica Strutt quoting Carol Martin:
The whole story is that they, being my Government, don't want to do anything right now simply because it's so big,' Ms Martin said. 'That's been the bullshit argument for the last 20 years.
On the 15 August 2006, the former head of the WA Aboriginal Affairs Planning Authority, Cedric Wyatt (himself an Aboriginal), currently the administrator of the Jigalong Remote Aboriginal Community and father of young newly elected MLA Ben Wyatt, who took Geoff Gallop's vacated seat, said:
I'm critical of Sheila McHale because there's nothing happening. The State Government does not appear to have a policy to address the issues in remote communities.
Three reasons for Government Inaction
The $64,000 question is about why the State Government is taking so long to move effectively to improve the social position in these remote Aboriginal communities and towns and not so remote camps and enclaves.
I suspect that the reasons are essentially three-fold.
First, philosophical conflict within the State Government.
Second, the need to act co-operatively with the Commonwealth in respect to nearly all of the essential questions.
Third, the problems of overcoming the vested interests in, and the inertia of, at least forty years of bad public policy on Indigenous Affairs.
In respect of the philosophical conflict, the WA Government has three Left-Faction Ministers in the 3 key portfolios. They are Sheila McHale in Indigenous Affairs, David Templeman in Community Welfare and Jim McGinty in Health. They are very decent people, but they and other Left-Faction members are wedded to the 'old' status quo welfarist policies. Carol Martin, the Member for Kimberley, although fiercely critical of the Government for not having a much more aggressive policy of prosecuting sexual offenders, is a member of this Left group, but opposes hostels or other radical moves. The Premier and others within the Government favour more radical policies and placing more responsibility on Aboriginal people to face up to, and participate in, solving their own problems. The Premier's attitude is summed up in his comments made on the 29 March 2006 and reported in The West Australian
Government efforts will come to nothing if there is not reciprocal effort on behalf of the community. The Government cannot force people to step forward and take responsibility for their lives.
This philosophical divide is hamstringing Government decision-making.
The second problem is with the State's relationship with the Commonwealth Government and the Howard Government Ministers. The situation in WA is so bad that most Federal Ministers have no dialogue with their WA State Government counterparts.
The state of affairs is epitomised by the initial reaction of Ljiljanna Ravlich, the WA Minister for Education, when asked to support the Commonwealth's no school--no welfare scheme in Halls Creek, which had such promising results. On the 2 January 2006, Liljiana attacked the scheme and wouldn't support it as it 'punished people who were already disadvantaged'.
It is on the question of continued funding of small indigenous remote communities that the breakdown of communications between Commonwealth and State became quite apparent. The proposal came after a visit in 2005 by Minister for Aboriginal Affairs Amanda Vanstone to the community of Tjuntjuntjarra in my former electorate.
On the 7 December 2005, Amanda Vanstone, made some comment which opened up a debate on whether some remote communities should continue to receive government funding. After arguing that we need to treat large indigenous communities as small towns and to deal with them accordingly with respect to infrastructure etc, she turned to discussing 'the very small settlements or homelands':
There are around 1,000 communities with less than 100 people, and of those, more than eighty percent have less than 50 people.
Despite the higher rate of population growth of Aboriginal people, it is unlikely that many of these homelands will grow to become viable towns. We have started talking to the Northern Territory and other governments about these issues.
They raise some important issues for the future such as:
How viable are they really?
While some are doing OK and helping with drug rehabilitation and maintenance of culture, others may be risky environments particularly for women and children.
What level of amenity can be expected to be provided to small settlements in some cases hundreds of kilometres from each other?
Amanda Vanstone continued:
We need a wider debate about this. Good intentions are not good enough. Indigenous Australians must be able to expect the same range of opportunities as other Australians. No more cultural museums that might make some people feel good and leave Indigenous Australians without a viable future. Continuing cultural identity does not require poverty or isolation from mainstream Australian society. We are talking fundamental change, changing the way governments relate to Indigenous Australians.
There are arguments for and against continued funding of small remote indigenous communities. A brief summary of those arguments is set out below.
Arguments Against Continued Funding For Small Remote Indigenous Communities
1. Many of the outstations are only seasonal homes for people who dwell most of the time in larger centres, and it is not economically viable to support infrastructure in two locations for the same people.
2. Where the homeland community is more permanent, children are missing out on the educational opportunities afforded by the large centres and adults miss out on the employment opportunities.
3. Under the cover of their isolation---exacerbated by the permit system, women may be exposed to domestic violence and children to sexual marauders.
4. The populations of some communities are too small for effective governance and can become too dependent on Government.
Arguments For Continued Funding For Small Remote Indigenous Communities
1. Not all Aboriginal children in remote communities are in danger and life for outstation dwellers is sometimes healthier than for those in larger remote communities and in regional towns. Many outstation settlements actually came about from a desire to become distant from alcohol and substance abuse.
2. The homeland communities do not exist in isolation of the main bigger centres.
3. Outstations preserve Aboriginal culture, ceremonial knowledge, ecological management systems and hunter-gatherer ways which have otherwise been nearly lost.
4. There are non-mainstream economic opportunities in the homelands that are yet to be fully explored and which might offer the homeland dwellers a good livelihood in a 'hybrid economy'.
5. Most indigenous people in remote communities do not want to leave. They are close to graves of kinfolk, etc.
6. It cannot be automatically assumed that Aborigines will be better-off in urban areas.
7. A move to recentralisation might exacerbate housing and infrastructure shortfalls in the larger communities and re-ignite or heighten the social tension in townships.
I shall not fully debate the pros and cons of these two sets of arguments here and shall allow you to come to your own conclusions. Viewed through the prism of the now documented experience in Halls Creek and by analogy in other smaller settlements, some of these arguments can be put into better perspective. Certainly, given this experience, there is no credible argument for continuing the status quo, and it is readily apparent that these communities do not offer safe or adequate environments in which to raise children. The one argument for continued funding of these remote communities in the short to medium term is the last (number 7) argument. That is 'a move to recentralisation might exacerbate housing and infrastructure shortfalls in larger communities and re-ignite or heighten the social tension in towns'. There is no doubt in my mind that even if all of the WA Central Desert communities focused on Warburton were closed down and the 3,000 or so people were moved to even a bigger city like Kalgoorlie, the infrastructure would not cope for some considerable time and the social consequences would be intolerable.
Also, very saliently, it needs to be born in mind that no matter what the validity is of these for-and-against arguments---the truth is that so intertwined are Commonwealth and State funding arrangements and responsibilities that the Commonwealth could not stop supporting the funding of education, housing and infrastructure in any community unless the relevant State authorities also made the decision to completely stop such funding. It is also the case that it would not be possible for the Commonwealth to cut off all Social Security payments to an individual on the basis of their place of abode.
I would comment that as far as WA is concerned, there is no evidence of State/Commonwealth dialogue, let alone co-operation.
The third reason for Government inaction on the Halls Creek problem is the shear enormity of the task of turning around half a century of bad, but deeply entrenched Government (State and Federal) 'welfarist' policy. That is, well meaning but deeply flawed policy settings which have ensured that many Aboriginals have no ambition, do not want to work, abuse drugs and alcohol and lead empty and directionless lives, dependent entirely on welfare.
This state of affairs commenced with the removal of Aboriginal communities from pastoral properties and the depositing of them on the edge of towns in squalid reserves. On the stations, at least, they had structure and discipline in their lives and work that they were proud of. In the reserves they had nothing. Later, station properties were purchased and given to Aboriginal groups. I was part of this process as the relevant Government Minister for WA---huge amounts of money have been put into these programs. Overwhelmingly this experiment has failed and once productive properties no longer turn off any stock.
The missions and mission properties were progressively closed down. I personally witnessed this too. Whatever else we may say about the missions, they put a sense of purpose and discipline into the lives of young Aboriginals. Predominantly the church-run establishments turned out children with excellent basic educations and a work ethic.
Following that we embarked upon the 'Homeland movement' as though it was the solution to remote area Aboriginal problems. Whatever it has been, it has not been that.
Next was the 'Stolen Generation' enquiry. That enquiry perpetrated an unfortunate impression. That was, that the group of Aboriginals that were removed from their parents were somehow massively disadvantaged. Of course it is morally questionable to take children away from their parents. What Mr Justice Wilson and co-commissioners refused to do, however, was to make comparison between outcomes in respect to the 'Stolen Generation' and those that remained. I personally know tens if not hundreds of the so-called 'Stolen Generation' who received a good education, attained academic and professional qualifications and made a real success of their lives. I know few, who have made such a success, from the other group. The spectre of creating the impression of another 'Stolen Generation' is the single most potent reason why the Carpenter Government has not removed abused Aboriginal children from the dangerous environment in which they live in Halls Creek.
The other silver bullet is Native Title.
In the 1980s and 1990s, a syndrome was apparent in some circles which indicated that the granting of Native Title would substantially solve the problems of Aboriginal welfare in indigenous communities. Take, for instance, Paul Keating's 1993 Redfern Park speech where such an assertion was made by an Australian Prime Minister.
Native Title has not proved to be such a panacea. In fact where such title has been in existence longest, one finds some of the most profound instances of Aboriginal deprivations. Reliance on such silver bullets has proved to be counterproductive and divisive.
There are lots of other silver bullets out there.
Cheryl Martin's mantra is to make the reporting of sexually transmitted diseases mandatory and to vigorously prosecute the offenders. Not a bad idea, but it shall hardly solve the more profound social problems of remote area Aboriginals.
Others want all such communities to be dry. That may save some alcohol-induced violence and other associated problems, but as we have seen in Kalumburu, the population switches to cannabis and other drugs. In the dry Central Desert communities in WA and across the border in NT, the young have turned to petrol sniffing. Additionally, a majority of Aboriginals in a heavy drinking town of Kalgoorlie do not drink. If you examine their backgrounds, the non-drinkers are invariably a product of the mission system.
Many see Aboriginal youth education hostels as essential tools for removing at-risk children from close contact with predatory adults and bringing some structure and discipline into the young peoples' lives, as they did in mission days. According to polling, 4 out of 5 Western Australians support such a plan, as do many prominent Aboriginal activists. I have no doubt that it would improve the situation and give young Aboriginals a chance. In isolation, however, it shall not solve the problems.
Others say that the situation shall be solved by more and better housing. However, money is not the problem in this arena. Billions of dollars have been spent without producing better results. As Cedric Wyatt has said, many people are unaware of, or have conveniently forgotten, the fact that most remote Aboriginal adults are on their second or third free house.
Having lived and worked closely with Aboriginal people for many years, I am of the view that more radical policy changes are necessary.
Alan Carpenter may have closed down the Department of Indigenous Affairs office in Halls Creek when he was the Minister. He has received criticism for that, but he does seem to have understood that we are fighting a losing battle unless Aboriginal people are prepared to take some individual responsibility for their social and economic outcomes.
All of the chief markers and supporting statistics in relation to indigenous welfare are massively negative and represent a decisive condemnation of Aboriginal policy at a State and Federal level. Relative and absolute outcomes for Indigenous people, in any relevant area of well-being, expose a situation of lamentable deficiency. Educational outcomes, health standards, longevity, incarceration rates, crime statistics, unemployment rates, substance abuse and welfare dependency, indicate the lowest of a Third World status for a large number of Aboriginal people.
We do not have the luxury of ignoring these problems. Morally it is not acceptable. But on a practical basis it just won't work. The impact on white society and on indigenous communities is too great. Aboriginals in WA represent 3.5 per cent of the population but account for nearly 40 per cent of serious crime. Young Aboriginals represent 4.5 per cent of the juvenile population but account for 60 per cent of serious juvenile crime.
The question is whether these failed policies should be persevered with or as to whether, in view of the outcomes, there needs to be a fundamental rethink of their basis and application.
It is the basis of this paper, that it is how indigenous people think of and view themselves, personally, that is the key to successful or failed outcomes. It is a further tenet of this brief that most government policy settings in recent decades have been based on the overt assertion that Aboriginal people have been the 'victims' of European invasion, dispossession and deprivation.
Whether this is true or not is immaterial, as the message in itself is inherently destructive of the human spirit. A 'victim' mentality stems from and at the same time reinforces a sense of injustice. That leads inevitably to bitterness, a seeking of redress and a sense of being 'owed' by a society in which the 'victim' lives. In these circumstances the 'victim' is hardly likely to take responsibility for him or herself.
The great tragedy of many Aboriginal people is that they are unable to accept personal responsibility for their own situation and in turn are prevented from taking responsibility for their parents, their children, their broader family, let alone their communities. Instead the 'victim,' deprived of the sense or need to take responsible decisions and positions, become dependent upon others. That is the State, the Government, the broader community and on welfare. Aboriginal lawyer Noel Pearson has written and lectured on this subject.
By responsibility I do not mean it in the way that my well-meaning left-wing colleagues do. I have seen too many Aboriginal people prematurely thrust into commercial directorship roles or Community Governance positions. In many cases it is just too much, too soon for people who do not have the qualification or experience to properly fulfil their duties. It is a recipe for disaster, and it is simply setting up people to fail. Speaking personally, I have been requested to help many indigenous organisations in the Eastern Goldfields that have fallen into difficulty, usually financial and governance difficulties. Also, there are many situations where some unscrupulous white advisors have ripped-off the organisations and communities. I cannot think of one Eastern Goldfields indigenous organisation that has been free of these problems. The 'politically correct' are mistaken in thrusting this type of responsibility onto inexperienced and untrained Aboriginals too quickly.
The first step to recovery is to reverse the 'acid rain' of the currently prevailing policies which, by word and by deed, preach a debilitating 'victim' creed.
The main guiding principle is for indigenous people to take responsibility for themselves and their actions.
Unless we are strong about making people responsible for their actions the same mendicant malaise will continue in many Aboriginal lifestyles. We should not reward people who fail to take responsibility for their actions; rather we should provide programs that help them to take such responsibility.
|
