Thursday November 11, 05:36 AM AAP
"Aboriginal communities will soon have behavioural "contracts" with the federal government covering health services, education, dole money and other benefits, it was reported.
Families and communities will be rewarded for ensuring their children are washed, clothed and attending school, The Australian newspaper said. . . . .
Under the program, the communities would enter "contracts" with Centrelink officers in Indigenous Co-ordination Centres, federal-funded regional health agencies."
Pete's Points
I am absolutely certain that this initiative will be welcomed by those in the community whose view is that millions of dollars have been spent on indigenous communities in Australia without seeming to achieve any real change in the circumstances of the people who are the target of this funding. These people will say that the levels of health have not significantly improved, housing is still an issue, levels of abuse of alcohol and petrol sniffing are still considered to be a major problem.
This point of view fails to consider the following, is the payment of welfare to anyone in this country something that arises as a consequence of an entitlement that has been created through government policy? If it is, then adding conditions for one part of the Australian community and not another, would tend to smack of discrimination. Or am I missing something?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
It's only discrimation if indigenous people get more money from Centrelink than non indigenous people (which is not true).
The issue I am trying to highlight is not whether they get more money than others. The issue is whether they will get any money at all if they do not comply with the social contract that is likely to be imposed by the government. If we want to change behaviour among people then I think for it to be completely 'fair' the same rules should apply to non indigenous people as well. Alternately, if it is not fair to apply such social contracts to non indigenous people then it stands to reason that it is also not fair to apply it to indigenous people.
Happy to receive your comments on this.
I can't really comment any further at this stage because I don't have a clear enough picture of how these "contracts" work; whether they're tied to individual or community outcomes, whether they'll be indivdiaully tailored to suit particular communities; how much of a say indigenous communities will have in negotiating repsonsibilities. They're being called 'shared responsibility agreements' but whether this is the case is not yet clear to me. What I'm not agreeing with at the moment is veiw that it's mutual obligation. The Government is not putting enough in for indigenous communities to be expected to give something in return. I think they even plan to scrap work for the dole exemptions in remote communities before they can even create jobs - this seems too much like another kick 'em when they're down solution.
I agree with you that the whole process seems to smack of a new agenda by the Commonwealth government to take the relationship with indigenous communities on a new tack.
The abolition of ATSIC, the reconstituted 'advisory' body which has been set up in its stead, and now this social contract associated with payments, all smacks to me of a determined effort to get some outcomes for indigenous people. Whether or not this attempt at social re-engineering is a misguided one or not we will have to wait and see. Would you agree that what has been done in the past has not worked in favour of the indigenous communities?
Their health is still poor, their housing is abysmal and the percentage of indigenous people in gaol is way out of proportion to any other group in the community.
If the aim is to enable indigenous people to become better integrated into the general community and to facilitate an increase in their living standards, while at the same time enabling them to preserve and cherish their culture, is this a bad thing to try for?
To be honest, I do believe these changes will lead to better outcomes in health and education for indigenous people. Most of these concepts have been very clearly reasoned in a paper called "Do Indigenous Youth Have a Dream?" by Bob Beadman. The problem is, as Pat Dodson pointed out in The Australian yesterday, that it borders on holding people to ransom - is that the best idea we can come up with? It may improve community living standards, but is this how society is prepared to do it, through ransom?
And how could I forget citizenship rights!? I think this is one of those proposals that may lead to some positive benefits for indigenous people but is really quite morally objectionable.
Thanks for the comments. I wonder if you have also had the opportunity to read my comments on Oct 24 about Mutual Obligatons?
Perhaps when you read my commentary we can talk again since I have now read your references. I am sure that there is something we will agree strongly about and there may be things we will disagree about. It would be nice to know which is which. At present I am still a little confused
If indigenous people have full citizenship, then they, like any other Australian citizen have rights and duties. However I believe that a fundamental inequality exists between indigenous and non indigenous people which is preventing indigenous people from experiencing the benefits of full citizenship and preventing indigenous people from fulfilling their duties. This inequality is life expectancy (there are others, but I'm just using this one for this example). As such, a problem arises when indigenous people are subjected to the same welfare conditions as non indigenous people. If an indigenous man is not likely to live beyond 53 years (current life expectancy), how can he possibly be expected to fulfill the same duties as a non indigenous person. This is where rights come into it. I think that for indigenous people to be able to fulfill their duties they first need the right to a same life expectancy. This is one example of what I mean when I say the "government does not put enough in to expect anything in return". This is also why an indigenous citizen appears to be claiming more public assistance; he/she is facing something more difficult (poor health, morbity, mortality) or harder than the non indigenous citizen. In terms of mutual obligation, in the presence of the poorer mortality condition, the government must fist discharge their obligation to indigenous people before indigenous people have an obligation towards the government. Only in the presence of equal life expectancy (which as a citizen should be a right) would I consider an indigenous person to have an obligation to the government. I don't believe it'd be mutual obligation or fair reciprocity any other way.
I think we have agreed that the impost of a social contract on indigenous people would be inappropriate.
I would like to think that this is where I started from. It may well be that I have expressed myself badly and hence caused another impression.
That said, I am afraid I do not agree with your association concerning the average life span of indigenous people and the 'obligation' of the Australian government to keep spending more money to ensure that this average increases.
The objective reality for me is that the government has in fact spent enormous sums already on trying to improve indigenous health and well being. The simple fact of the matter is, that whatever they have been doing, is not working!
Thus, throwing more money at the problem, without a lot of work at the front end, is unlikely to change things.
Asking the indigenous communities whether they want assistance from the government could be a good start. Then we might ask how they perceive their circumstances? How they wish to live their lives? How they wish to participate (or not) in the general community?
What if, for example, indigenous communities wanted nothing to do with white Australia? What if they wanted to continue with a nomadic hunter gatherer existence?
Would they be able to do this on their own land or would there be interference because once again we, in the dominant society knew better what they SHOULD want?
I know that what you point to, about average life expectancy etc. is, from your point of view, common sense and appropriate. The question is whether indigenous people share your view and whether they are prepared to pay the cost of enhancing their life span.
The cost may be in a change in their way of life.
As adults is it not their responsibility to make decisions about their lives and how they choose to live it?
It may be that to choose to live in a way that is appropriate for you and me may NOT be the choice that indigenous people make. If that is their choice and it does lead to a lower life expectancy, poorer accommodation (by our standards), poorer health etc do we have the right to impose a different life style on them as a way of 'helping' them?
I think the notion of "client self determination" versus paternalistic helping is something you may care to consider in responding to these questions.
Personally, I would not be happy with a decision by indigenous Australians that would place their health into a situation that was worse than the average, where their accomodation was poorer then the average, where their life expectancy was lower than the average.
However I might simply have to accept their right to determine their own future. What do you think?
I don't think it is appropriate. It smells of assimilation and I don't think poor living standards and the apparent failure of indigenous people to uphold their own indigenous social order make it appropriate to adopt such paternalistic extremes. Rowse (1998) considers that public policy does rely somewhat on "responsible personal lifestyle decisions" (p.80) but goes on to argue that in the case of indigenous Australians, responsibility was waived when "Australian governments, in the 1970's, gave up trying to assimilated indigenous Australian and began to recognise the legitimacy of their continued difference." (p.80). I definitely support client self determination, but with the government's continued/past/present control over indigenous service delivery and it's desire to keep mainstreaming their delivery, self determination never stood a chance.
Post a Comment