Governments should spend taxpayer’s money on Aboriginal development where it is most needed

Recently, the Australian Government has been heavily criticized by the Chinese Government for its hypocrisy with respect to human rights and in particular, the manner in which the Federal Government has administered programs relating to Aboriginal people in Australia.

Until the Whitlam government was elected in 1972 remote Aboriginal communities were managed in a number of cases by the Churches in co-operation with the Federal Government. The Catholic, Lutheran, Uniting and Anglican Churches were particularly active and involved in the management and administration of a number of communities throughout the Northern Territory.

While it has been fashionable by the 'woke left' to be critical of the role of Christian churches in managing Aboriginal remote communities and cases of exploitation existed, the descent into hell that has occurred over the last fifty years was largely prevented.

Aboriginal people were gainfully employed in a wide range of occupations and community industries including horticulture, forestry, fishing, administration and trade and technical occupations – for example. Promising students were often sent to top schools in other states or to institutions to learn trades and technical skills. There was little difficulty having children attend school and Aboriginal people understood the value and relevance of education and skills training for the benefit of their communities. Cases of assault and violence were rare.

At the same time remote Aboriginal people continued to practice their traditional skills and customs and this was often encouraged by the Church, who saw the need for a 'two way' rather than 'one way' form of engagement with Aboriginal people. On Bathurst Island for example, the local Catholic Church was complete with large numbers of Tiwi carvings and fabrics, while Tiwi paintings and designs covered the ceilings and walls.

Following the decision by the Whitlam Labor government to significantly reduce the influence of Christian Churches and to introduce the policies of self-management and self-determination, largely as a reaction to the naïve and ill-informed pressure from the left wing of the party, the results have been disastrous.

Widespread cases of the rape of children, severe domestic violence and assault, vicious fights over the distribution of royalties, children that aboriginal parents are unable to control, or get to school – is as far as the Chinese and others are concerned, substantial and on-going evidence of the manner in which Australian governments have attempted to manage Aboriginal issues. Things have been left to drift to disaster. Politicians that should be responsible and accountable have been prepared to 'let things happen', rather than strive to 'make things happen'.

Rather than attempt to take responsibility for the impact of such disastrous government decision making, politicians at the Federal, State and Territory levels have largely refused to be accountable for such decision making. As a result the problems have spiralled out of control and are now spilling over into major Territory urban centres such as Alice Springs. No amount of police resources are likely to be able to control the escalating violence and crime.

Future projections

Before the Whitlam government introduced the ability of Aboriginal people to self-identify and prior to the sharp increase in funding made available in Commonwealth Budgets for Aboriginal people, there had been little incentive for those with some Aboriginal heritage to identify as Aboriginal Australians.

The sudden appearance of a number of important government funding programs directed at Aboriginal people rapidly changed this tendency. Those with some Aboriginal heritage now saw it increasingly relevant to identify with the original Australians.

This tendency has gathered pace and has important implications for more traditional Aboriginal people living within remote communities. In particular, there is an increasing danger that funding will be diverted from areas of real need to those who identify as Aboriginal, living in the relative comfort of urban communities and cities.

As with other areas of policy relating to Aboriginal people in remote regions the response of government has been to remain mute.

Over the last 10 years, the number of Australians identifying as Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander has increased sharply, by 43 per cent. Growth in major cities and inner regional areas (29% and 28% respectively) was higher than the growth in remote and very remote areas (1% and 2% respectively).

This has had a major skewing effect on the delivery of government policy and expenditure on Aboriginal programs.

As pointed out by the Centre of Independent Studies, - of the Indigenous people in Australia identified in the 2011 Census, approximately 65% were in employment and living lives not noticeably different from the rest of Australia. Twenty two per cent were welfare dependent and living in urban and regional areas with other welfare dependent Australians. However, 70, 000 were welfare dependent and living on Indigenous land in remote regions, where education was limited, infrastructure poor and where there were very few employment opportunities.

Without doubt it is this group who experience the most disadvantage and who require the most government support. Yet most Indigenous government programs continue to treat Indigenous people as one, very similar group and fail to take into account the fundamental differences between Indigenous peoples, according to level of need.

Despite this many Indigenous people living with cities in major urban centres attempt to speak on behalf of, and represent the political interests, of those living in remote regions.

However, many urban Aboriginal activists have had little or no experience of the severe privations, poverty, violence and associated social problems existing within remote communities of Australia. As a result, despite increasing resources being directed towards Indigenous Australians, there has been very little improvement in outcomes, and the gaps between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians have not narrowed and in some cases, increased – particularly in remote regions.

In the 2016 Census, the latest figures available, there were nearly 650, 000 people across Australia who identified as being of Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander origin.

The majority (81%) lived in non-remote areas of Australia.

In the Northern Territory, just under 25% of the population identified as being of Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander origin in the 2016 Census. In all other States and Territories, 5% or less of the population were of Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander origin. Victoria had the lowest proportion at 0.8% of the State total.

In the 2016 Census, over one-third (35%) of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander population lived in Capital City areas. States with relatively high proportions of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people living in Capital Cities include South Australia (54%) and Victoria (50%). In NSW, 32% of the population identifying as Indigenous lived within Greater Sydney. In contrast, 78% of the population who identified as being of Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander origin in the Northern Territory lived outside the Capital City area. Likewise, in Queensland, 71% of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander population lived outside of the Capital City area.

Looking at the distribution of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people across remote areas in 2016 compared to 2011, we can see how the proportion of those identifying as Indigenous changed between regions. In 2016, there was an increase in the number of people identifying as Indigenous living in major cities and inner regional areas and an associated reduction in the proportion of Aboriginal people living in outer regional and remote areas. It is unlikely that many remote Aboriginal people could be expected to move to major urban centres to live.

In New South Wales and Queensland, where most Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people live, most people lived in major cities or regional areas. While a quarter of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in Western Australia lived in very remote areas, most (40%) lived in major cities.

Federal State and Territory taxpayer spending on Indigenous Australians increased from $21.9 billion in 2008-09, to $25.4 billion in 2010-11, $30.3 billion in 2012-13 and $33.4 billion in 2019-20. At first glance these figures are startling.

However, these expenditure figures include amounts spent on mainstream services, such as education and health that all Australians receive. It is important to note that Indigenous specific expenditure, covering programs, services and payments targeted at Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders, is a far smaller component, estimated to be around $6 billion a year. This is made up of Federal Government expenditure of $3.3 billion, State and Territory Government expenditure of $2.4 billion and Indigenous Own Source Income of $224 million.

The Need for Economic Development

Importantly, very little State and Territory funding was spent on programs and services to increase Indigenous people's economic participation ($17 million) with ACT, SA, TAS and QLD allocating none. Given this relatively low amount it is not surprising that little progress has been made in the key area of Indigenous economic development, which many commentators see as fundamental to the human and social development of Indigenous Australians living in remote regions.

Unfortunately, the Centre for Independent Studies also found that misuse of funds for Indigenous programs is extensive. Currently, a number of organisations delivering Indigenous programs are under investigation for fraud. Duplication and waste is also very common. For example, Roebourne in Western Australia, with a population of 1,150, was found to have 67 local service providers and more than 400 programs funded by both federal and state government. This is a common situation in many remote communities throughout Australia

Not only then does it appear that funding is being targeted away from remote Indigenous areas, but when government moneys are expended, they are subject to high levels of inefficiency, ineffectiveness and potential fraud and corruption.

This is a completely unsatisfactory level of governance being demonstrated by Australian governments and little wonder that only marginal improvements have been recorded in attempts to 'close the gap' between Indigenous Australians living in remote regions and other Australians.

There is also little understanding by Australian government of the importance of economic development for the social and human development of Aboriginal Australians in remote regions.

This will be the focus of the next opinion piece by Roger Steele and Don Fuller.

Summary

Australia is in no position to 'point the finger' at other countries regarding their human rights record given the shocking living conditions Aboriginal people strive to endure in many remote communities in Australia.

The democratic system of government has clearly failed Aboriginal people living within remote communities in Australia.

Currently, all of the main political parties show little interest or competency in working with remote Aboriginal Australians.

The ALP is supposed to be a party with the ideals of economic and social equality for all Australians. However, their political representatives appear voiceless and clueless when dealing with the substantive issues of economic and human development for those living within remote regions of Australia.

This is painfully ironic, given it was the ALP that suddenly introduced the abrupt change to Aboriginal self-determination and self-management, well before Aboriginal people in remote communities were in a position to take on such complex financial and organisational responsibilities.

Any focus on Aboriginal issues now appears to be in 'progressive' areas such as whether a treaty or bill of rights should be pursued. Such considerations have little connection or relevance to solving the horrific living conditions within remote Aboriginal communities.

In the Northern Territory a Labor government is now in its second four year term. This government has done little to face the living conditions of Aboriginal people in remote regions. This is despite the presence of a very large bureaucracy, many of whom are on relatively exorbitant salaries and benefits, particularly compared to those they are meant to be assisting in Aboriginal communities.

There seems to be an absence of belief or intention on partnering with Aboriginal people to develop employment and training opportunities in communities in the Territory, even though 50 per cent of the land mass of the Territory is owned by Aboriginal people. Many of these traditional owners live in remote Territory communities.

With regard to Coalition parties, the Liberal party focuses increasingly on city issues and electorates. The National Party, which is supposed to represent country and regional interests in Australia, has been particularly lethargic in recognizing that elected members from regional and remote parts of Australia need to work for all Australians and not just established agricultural and pastoral organizations with large corporate and city based interests.

The charter of the National Party needs to extend to representing Aboriginal Traditional Land Owners in remote areas where the development of a substantial amount of Australia's potential wealth is currently caught in an immovable deadlock. The significance of this is brought into sharp relief when it is appreciated that 50 per cent of the land area of the Northern Territory and 85 per cent of the coastline is Aboriginal land.

In addition, from an ethical view point there is a clear responsibility in a developed country such as Australia for a party in government to properly and forcefully represent the interests of Australians in regional areas to ensure that all Australians receive a similar level of service to that provided to city electors.

Related to this requirement is a need for the National Party to be far more effective in arguing for the decentralization of city bound population and economic activities to benefit the regional development of Australia.