|
WSWS : News
& Analysis : Australia
& South Pacific
Australia:
Anti-welfare agenda behind moves to oust Aboriginal leaders
By Mike Head
4 August 2003
Use
this version to print
| Send this
link by email | Email the
author
It has become something of a modus operandi in Australian
politics to use allegations of petty corruption to pursue a definite
political agenda.
In late 1997, the so-called travel rorts affair,
involving unsubstantiated claims for travel expenses, claimed
the political lives of three Howard government ministers, just
months after the 1997 Budget failed to deliver the economic measures
demanded by the banks and major corporations. Within months, the
chastened government reinstated plans for a consumption taxthe
GSTwhich had previously been shelved, broadened its work-for-the-dole
program, and announced spending cuts to nursing homes and aged
care.
Three years later, the telecard affair, concerning
misuse of an official telephone charge card, essentially ended
the career of Prime Minister John Howards preferred successor,
Peter Reith. Reith had become something of a political liability
after his involvement in the attempt to smash the waterfront union
in 1998.
In the latest instance, the Howard government itself, backed
by the mass media, is utilising accusations of graft against Aboriginal
leaders to effect a fundamental shift in official indigenous policy.
A campaign to oust the elected office holders of the official
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission (ATSIC) has become
the spearhead for dismantling what remains of Aboriginal welfare
and social services.
ATSIC chairman Geoff Clark last month received a show
cause letter from Indigenous Affairs Minister Philip Ruddock
demanding that he give reasons why he should not be removed from
his post. Days earlier, ATSIC deputy chairman Ray Robinson was
pressured into resigning over alleged financial irregularities.
The chief charge against Clark is that he wrongly took his
wife Trudy with him on a $31,000 trip to an indigenous affairs
conference in Ireland last year. Even if the claim is correct,
the amount involved is minor compared to the officially-sanctioned
travel expenses of other political figures. Ruddock spent more
than $235,000 on international travel for himself and his wife
last year, while Prime Minister John Howard, his wife and entourage
spent $3.5 million.
Nevertheless, the Labor opposition and a section of the Aboriginal
establishment have lined up behind the government, urging it on.
Opposition indigenous affairs spokesman Bob McMullan said Clark
should resign or be sacked as soon as possible. Labors former
ATSIC chairperson, Lowitja ODonoghue, said Clark should
go because he had let his people down.
Clark and Robinson have been targetted as part of wider plans
to either abolish ATSIC or strip the indigenous affairs body of
all but token responsibilities. ATSI,c established by the previous
Labor government in 1989, has been a mechanism for disbursing
limited funds and subsidies to Aboriginal communities and businesses,
paying lip service to ameliorating the poverty, ill-health and
lack of elementary facilities experienced by the vast majority
of Aboriginal people.
Aboriginal politicians and bureaucrats were placed in charge
of certain programs, primarily Community Development Employment
Program (CDEP) work-for-the-dole schemes, housing projects and
legal aid services, while federal, state and local governments
maintained the purse strings for major services such as health,
education, public housing, water supply, sanitation, electricity,
roads and communicationsall of which remain severely under
funded.
In effect, ATSIC was utilised by the Labor government to develop
a privileged caste of Aboriginal entrepreneurs who, in the name
of providing economic and other assistance, established indigenous
corporations to operate services and business ventures, using
local people as cheap labour. Under the CDEP schemes, Aboriginal
workers became guinea pigs for the universal work-for-the-dole
regime that the Howard government has since imposed on all unemployed
workers.
The current ATSIC leaders have willingly complied. Only last
September, Ruddock and Clark issued a joint media statement boasting
that the number of CDEP participants nationally had risen to a
record 35,000a 28 percent rise since 1995. Until recently,
Clark has enjoyed cordial relations with the government, which
was perfectly willing to turn a blind eye to the nepotism and
favouritism that these policies inevitably produced.
But the government has now seized upon the record of perks
and benefits enjoyed by ATSICs leaders to push for the dismantling
of welfare and employment programs.
Ruddock began the campaign against the ATSIC leadership in
earnest last September, when he fed information to Brisbane Courier-Mail
journalist, Michael McKinnon, about police investigations into
Robinsons affairs. As revealed last week by an audio tape
of Ruddocks telephone conversation with McKinnon, Ruddock
used the interview to blacken Robinsons reputation and foreshadow
a new crackdown on alleged misbehaviour among Aboriginal
leaders.
Last November, Ruddock announced a sweeping review of ATSICs
functions and introduced new regulations boosting the governments
power to dismiss ATSIC office-holders. The new rules widened the
definition of misbehaviour to include failing to disclose
relevant information in order to receive an allowancethe
precise charge levelled against Clark eight months later.
Ruddocks three-person ATSIC review panel, which includes
former federal Labor minister Bob Collins, issued an interim report
on June 18, predictably declaring that ATSIC had reached
a crisis point in respect of its public credibility and
had to be restructured or become irrelevant or face abolition.
On July 1, without waiting for the final outcome of his review,
Ruddock handed ATSICs employment and social services to
a new government agency, the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
Service (ATSIS), which is tendering the services out to commercial
operators. Ruddock instructed ATSIS to apply so-called best
practice to its funding decisions, including market
testing and competitive tendering, thus insisting that market
forces dictate the provision of Aboriginal services.
Two weeks ago, ATSIS rejected an application for $600,000 in
funding for the National Aboriginal and Islander Legal Services
Secretariat (NAILSS), forcing many Aboriginal legal aid offices
to shut down overnight. The closures, which could strip thousands
of Aboriginal people of legal representation, went virtually unreported
by the media. Dozens of other Aboriginal services are similarly
threatened.
Welfare dependency
Aboriginal lawyer and entrepreneur Noel Pearson has become
the most vocal spokesman for this policy shift. With increasing
stridency he has declared passive welfare dependency,
together with alcohol and drug abuse, to be the primary causes
of Aboriginal poverty and squalornot two centuries of dispossession,
exploitation and impoverishment.
Aboriginal dysfunction is today maintained by a self-perpetuating
vortex of passivity and abuse, not primarily by our poverty or
traumatic history, Pearson stated in a lecture delivered
in April. Many communities are today dominated by people
caught up in passivity, addiction and abuse, and these states
are today primary causal factors and not just symptoms.
Calling for the termination of all basic services to Aboriginal
communities, Pearson denounced Queensland government officials
who were reluctant to comply. They dont understand
that government service delivery is part of our passive
welfare problem: government activity is usually at the expense
of indigenous responsibility.
Pearson purported to find support for his blueprint in the
mores of traditional Aboriginal society, which he
declared, were strict and based on a real economy:
gather and hunt or starve. In reality, his views are based
on far more recently developed moresthose of
free market capitalism.
His lecture is featured on the web site of Indigenous Enterprise
Partnerships (IEP), a pro-business organisation established by
Pearson, backed by leading corporate executives, to encourage
investors to move into Aboriginal enterprises. IEPs directors
include Graeme Wise, an Australian director of The Body Shop,
Ann Sherry, CEO of the Bank of Melbourne, Colin Carter, a director
of Boston Consulting Group, Professor Christopher Bartlett from
the Harvard Business School and Charles Lane, CEO of the Myer
Foundation.
According to IEPs web site, its mission is to assist
Indigenous economic development bodies to create self-sustaining
enterprise and real economic opportunities that break welfare
dependency.
Pearson was prominent at Howards July 23 summit
on indigenous violence, the purpose of which was to indict
Aboriginal people themselves, men in particular, for the deteriorating
conditions, economic stress and breakdown of personal relations
facing many indigenous families. The participants pointed to terrible
statistics indicating a high rate of domestic violence among Aboriginal
families, but no-one mentioned figures showing corresponding rates
of unemployment, poverty, homelessness and ill-health.
The summit marked another turning point in the official repudiation
of any approach based on addressing these underlying social problems.
The discussion at the three-hour gathering echoed the old racist
stereotypes depicting Aboriginal parents as hopeless drunkards.
Similar scapegoating of the poorunemployed workers, sole
parents, disabled pensioners and refugeeshas been a central
feature of the Howard governments ongoing campaign to abolish
the last vestiges of the welfare state.
At the summit, handpicked Aboriginal leaders discovered newfound
common ground with Howard, praising him for sharing their determination
to crack down on family violence. Notably, not a cent
was offered for remedial social programs.
Pearson distinguished himself by insisting that the causes
of violence were self-induced drug and alcohol abuse, for which
there was no answer other than prohibition and increased law and
order. In the name of fashioning a traditional solution,
Pearson in effect called for a return to the colonial policy of
segregation, denial of basic democratic rights and police repression.
An aspiring layer
Pearson has been at the forefront of government attempts to
groom a new generation of Aboriginal leaders, willing to enforce
such a reactionary program.
On July 28, the Australian Broadcasting Corporation promoted
a typical Pearson protégé on its Four Corners
current affairs TV program. Entitled, Positions Vacant,
the segment supported the governments offensive by retailing
accusations of intimidation and patronage against Clark and Robinson.
It began with reporter Peter George announcing: Wantedyoung,
aspiring Indigenous people ready for a challenge. Candidates for
these leadership positions must be at home with their own traditional
culture and with the demands of a 21st-century economy. Rewards
may be great for successful applicants who can go the distance
without burnout.
Tania Major, a 22-year-old criminology graduate from Sydney
University who recently became the youngest person ever elected
to ATSICs board, declared that she was ready for the challenge.
George explained that Pearson had been her mentor since she was
12, sponsoring her through school and university.
I agreed with all his philosophy about, you know, welfare
recipients and how welfare is so induced and in these communities
and how the communities are turning into these ghettos,
she told George. She took the reporter on a tour of her hometown,
Kowanyama, on the western side of Cape York, pointing out a group
of people engaged in gambling. You know, our worst enemies
are our own people, she said.
Ruddock has been working with Pearson and the government-funded
Australia Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies
(AIATSIS), headed by another Hawke and Keating-era Aboriginal
leader, Mick Dodson, to train the likes of Major. AIATSIS recently
received $400,000 to run an Indigenous leadership program.
The economic model that Pearson and the government have in
mind for Aboriginal communities can be gauged by a media release
issued by Ruddock on July 7, publicising his visit to the Torres
Strait to open a spectacular new five-star eco resort on
Poruma Island.
Ruddock hailed the luxury tourist venture as an example of
the kind of business operations that indigenous people needed
to build sustainable opportunities for employment, economic
growth and preservation of traditional culture.
The profitability of such projects will hinge on catering to
the rich, utilising Aboriginal youth as cheap labour and beating
corporate rivals in the highly competitive and unpredictable tourism
industry.
Pearson and others are agitating for the conversion of native
title rights, which retain some aspects of communal title,
into freehold title, so that Aboriginal businesses can buy and
sell, or borrow against, tracts of land. True to form, Clark has
echoed these calls, recently urging Howard to consider the
prime importance of enabling Indigenous peoples to gain some economic
capacity from their lands.
But the years of service squeezed out of the older generation
of Aboriginal officials and entrepreneurs have thoroughly discredited
them in the eyes of ordinary people, Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal
alike. Both the government and the media are now cynically utilising
this widespread hostility to replace them with a new layer, modelled
on Pearson, whose program dovetails more closely with the requirements
of the free market.
See Also:
Australia: Anti-social
conduct outlawed in the Northern Territory
[2 August 2001]
Australia: Aboriginal
leader pushes anti-welfare agenda
[25 July 2001]
Australian newspaper
chain launches unprecedented smear against Aboriginal official
[23 June 2001]
Top of page
The WSWS invites your comments.
Copyright 1998-2008
World Socialist Web Site
All rights reserved |