Grey nomads to step up to the plate?

The freedom to move, the capacity to choose where and how one lives is certainly important. The problem, however, with the minister’s description of his new initiative is that it implies that living in a remote Indigenous community is inherently threatening, and that “escaping” to a metropolitan area is the only possible solution.

Certainly, some communities have unacceptable social problems, including violence, but that does not mean that the only solution is for victims to move to - or to “attain” - “mainstream” metropolitan communities. It is not possible to delineate geographic areas of Indigenous suffering and Indigenous refuge: to try to do so is to ignore the many challenges which affect the lives of the many Indigenous Australians living in regional and metropolitan areas.

The existence of such widespread disadvantage should suggest that the multifaceted problems faced by Indigenous people are not simply a consequence of living in a remote area.

Regardless, advocating “escape” to “mainstream” metropolitan communities only solidifies and institutionalises the lack of choices available. No-one should be required to choose between, say, harsh poverty or illiteracy or violence and losing contact with family, friends and country.

Many advocates and commentators have already cautioned that Senior Volunteers for Indigenous Communities should not be regarded as a long-term solution to the poor provision of services in remote Indigenous communities. When nursing, education, maintenance and skills training are given as prominent examples of areas in which volunteers might contribute, there is good reason for such caution.

Remote community services certainly constitute a difficult policy area, but the temptation to transfer the responsibility for some portion of services to voluntary programs or other non-binding structures should be resisted.

If we accept that access to basic health care, to basic housing and food, and to education, is necessary to ensure that all people can have access to some opportunities in life, then those services should be extended to all. The offer of such support, from society as a collective, is premised on fundamental respect for the autonomy and worth of every person.

The way that Brough discusses this new program is most concerning because it tacitly suggests that government obligations should be reduced and juxtaposes this suggestion with a negative image of remote Indigenous communities.

The way that Brough talks about a “highway for escape” conjures up the sensationalised template of “Indigenous violence” circulating in public debate. The current focus on the problems of a small number of Indigenous people, especially given the context of ongoing and historical prejudices, raises powerful connotations of immorality and even “degeneracy”. These connotations can make all people in remote Indigenous communities seem unworthy of empathy.

Thus, evoking the image of “Indigenous violence” quietly implies that some Indigenous people are fundamentally undeserving of simple support. That implication makes it easy for non-Indigenous Australians to accept - or just ignore - the extreme disadvantage of many remote Indigenous communities.

Mal Brough may not have been trying to imply that some Indigenous people do not deserve access to basic services. Yet the way that government figures are talking about Aboriginal people - assuming that customary law justifies sexual abuse, labelling remote communities “cultural museums”, or arguing for a “new paternalism” - and the way that they are talking about Indigenous policy - saying that “we won’t just throw more money at the problem” and “we need more accountability first” - makes it very easy to hear that message.

And that is very worrying.