It seems that in my absence nothing has changed, and Howard continues to advocate 'reform' in relation to the woeful state of Aboriginal lives. And once again I see that what really marks Howard's coalition and its approach to difference is a complete unwillingness to adhere to abstract diversity. Oh, and a willingness to do complete backflips on election promises, time and time again. Why in the hell people vote for this bloke is beyond me.
The latest target for change is the issue of Aboriginal land rights and the current drive to find ways to for Aboriginal people out in the Styx to lease individual plots of land, and thereby participate in good old fashioned consumer society. At present, large parts of those lands returned to Aboriginal people since 1971 are managed by various Aboriginal land councils, which are characteristically conservative and traditional bodies. From my reading of the situation, Howard et al are planning to make legislative changes that will allow individuals to somehow override the Councils and acquire leases for residence and commerce. A laudable intention no doubt, but one that is all too obviously loaded towards mainstream norms and methods.
I'm sure you've heard me bleating about this one before, but I see this type of approach as extremely problematic. Strictly speaking, having indigenes conform to majority methods is good, because it's inherently inclusive, a big difference to the situation pre-1971 (when the very first instance of land being returned occurred, in Victoria). But, it's bad because it's a wholly white solution.
Since the 70s there's been two approaches to handling the Aboriginal issue. The first is pretty universal, you work to have Aboriginal people turn into 'black-skinned Aussies', racially distinct, but Ockers all the same. 'Australian' in this case is defined more by a procedural, citizenship-based model, and things like culture and ethnicity are pushed into the background or into private lives.
The second approach, advocated by doyens such as the late great Nugget Coombs, or in its latest avatar by Noel Pearson, says that the way to get socio-economic traction for Aboriginal people is to bring Aboriginal culture into focus in Canberra, thereby making government work for the minority, but with simultaneous participation by Aboriginal people in the majority. You might recognise this approach as New Zealand biculturalism.
While I'm suspicious that the reforms are really just the thin end of a wedge that will result in alienation of Aboriginal land, and therefore more easily obtainable mining licences, the Australian wealth really being the result minerals exports, let's give the incumbent government the benefit of the doubt, as has the venerable Michelle Grattan.
The problem is, once again, that remote and regional Aboriginal communities are in an entrenched crisis. All the statistics used to measure normality in the white community are off the Richter in for Aboriginal people, and seem to be firmly resistant to improvement. Now, you can't blame all these problems on entrenched racism and historical 'baggage'. But you also can't assume that home ownership and a healthy mortgage will fix them. For example, owning a white picket fence is all good and well, but does it make any difference to the guy at the corner dairy thinking you're a 'coon'? But then on the other hand, who cares what he thinks if you have the readies to buy his life's work and burn it to the ground to spite him?
My real gripe is that the Coalition has never actually attempted to bring mainstream Australia closer to Aboriginal people and bridge this type of divide, only vice versa, i.e. assimilate them. And my opinion is that this particular race is being run on rocking horses: lots of movement on squeaky hinges, not a lot of distance.
This view is aggravated by Howard having a history of trying to minimise or remove Native Title (the title Aboriginal land is communally held under), especially during the Wik crisis of 1996-99, when he promised 'buckets' of title extinguishment. The main image broadcast during that time was of Howard presenting a little map of Australia with a huge portion of it coloured in, the coloured bits being 'potentially' the subject of a native title claim. That most of this land would never actually be subject to a claim, and that the remainder was largely arid, was withheld from the public.
The aim to have 'every Australian' in their own home is largely a furphy designed to give the appearance of action towards remote communities. This article contains yet more statistics about ongoing under-funding of Aboriginal communities in health and education, the main markers used to indicate potential socio-economic success. Meanwhile, Howard recommends that Aboriginal people mire themselves in debt, and seemingly advocates the demise of the Land Councils, the last vestiges of traditional Aboriginal authority and the ones usually opposed to extensive mining.
As Grattan says in another article:
The Government is also frustrated at the clout of Aboriginal bodies, especially the land councils, which negotiate with mining companies.
Where possible, it wants to push more power down to communities or families. (In contrast, the NSW Government is considering recentralising decision-making because of corruption at the local level.)
Separate changes to the Land Rights Act will allow communities, where they are competent to do so, to negotiate directly on mining exploration and development. There will also be amendments to speed these negotiations, because exploration has been hampered by frustrating delays.
Like I say, it’s all about the needs of the mainstream.