Will to win

U. S. Army General Douglas Macarthur (1880 – 1964) once said "It is fatal to enter any war without the will to win it."

Bring on the federal election – I just can’t wait!

I’ve not known any other period in my adult life where so much constructive dialogue on Indigenous issues has been entered into by leaders of government and the opposition even weeks out from a federal election.

The reason I’m excited about these developments is because our discrete cultural group, Indigenous Australians, is generally not viewed by either party has a big ticket item at election time.

If we are mentioned at all it is raised principally as negative rhetoric when politicians, bereft of original thought, insist on playing the tried and tested ‘race card’ to draw attention away from shortcomings of their term in office.

The playing of the race card was a successful ploy for Pauline Hanson’s One Nation party in both federal and state government election campaigns of the ‘90s (especially in Queensland) and indeed have been used effectively by the Coalition and more judiciously by Labor when convenient.

In his address to The Sydney Institute on October 11 on the aptly titled paper “The Right Time: Constitutional Recognition for Indigenous Australians”, John Howard referred to a new alignment of ideas and individuals; a coming together of forces I have not witnessed in 32 years of public life.

Howard said a major catalyst for the new alignment is the rise of the Indigenous responsibility agenda and the intellectual firepower which a new generation of Indigenous leaders has brought to Australian politics.

I guess in many ways he is stating the obvious.

Australians of all political persuasions have heard the divergence of opinion through the media from the Indigenous right; NIC Chairperson Sue Gordon, former Labor Party President Warren Mundine and Cape York Institute Director Noel Pearson and the Indigenous left; UTS Professor Larissa Behrendt, Queensland author Sam Watson and Tasmanian lawyer Michael Mansell.

And in between our warring factions of both extremes we have a luminary of Indigenous blue and white collar professionals occupying middle ground on the Indigenous debate and who are equally keen to have their voices heard; if not publicly, then certainly within their circle of associates.

In addition we are also blessed with a luxury of riches in our ever increasing critical mass of Indigenous university educated affiliates who are eager to share their new outlook on the bigger picture for our people. In many ways their views may be dissimilar to those of the old school Indigenous right’s advocates, but nevertheless their views are equally as important in shaping our future.

Gone forever are the days when we were viewed, without complaint, as homogenous and where our fight was from a position of disadvantage and our supporters were from the socialist left.

By far the biggest surprise from the Prime Minister in his address at the Sydney Sofitel Wentworth Hotel was his admission that; "I have never felt comfortable with the dominant paradigm for Indigenous policy – one based on the shame and guilt of non-Indigenous Australians, on a repudiation of the Australia I grew up in, on a rights agenda that led ultimately and inexorably towards welfare dependency and on a philosophy of separateness rather than shared destiny".

To rectify his shortcomings and admission of guilt for his decades of deliberate abandonment of Indigenous people, Howard offered up before an adoring audience of like minded conservatives his new goal of a Statement of Reconciliation incorporated into the Preamble of the Australian Constitution.

The new preamble, Howard argued, would reflect his profound sentiment that Indigenous Australians should enjoy the full bounty that this country has to offer; that their economic, social and cultural well-being should be comparable to that of other Australians.

Now, no one would argue with parity of economic, social and cultural well-being for Indigenous Australians espoused by the Prime Minister. But in order to have this vision accomplished within practical time parameters requires not only a full commitment from him but also a total change in attitude of the vast majority of the populace on this new policy direction for Indigenous Australians.

In many ways Howard is correct when he says he is best able to lead Australia’s conservatives in this ideological mind shift. And as the most conservative leader in my living memory, including his Prime Ministership for the last 11 years, I'm reasonably happy to accept that like-minded people will tend to follow his lead.

Howard's election promise of $2 billion for the Northern Territory Indigenous intervention is significantly higher than Rudd’s commitment on Indigenous initiatives thus far of $116 million. However Rudd did offer bipartisan support of the $2 billion for the NT intervention policy initiatives.

Noel Pearson, in his Weekend Australian piece on 13-14 October, called Howard’s new outlook of a symbolic reconciliation as "a holy grail for Australians of goodwill".

Yirrkala Elder Djuwalpi Marika, in acknowledging Howard’s new direction on Indigenous reconciliation on ABC Message Stick online, was quick to pounce on his admission of failure; "We also welcome Prime Minister Howard's acknowledgment of his inadequate understanding of issues of Indigenous identity and of his role in preventing more significant progress towards reconciliation over the past 11 years".

Prominent Brisbane Aboriginal activist and university lecturer Sam Watson, speaking to the Brisbane Times, described Mr Howard as a "political opportunist" and dismissed his offer to recognise Indigenous Australians in the Constitution as poll politics.

Howard rounds off his address to The Sydney Institute by saying he is a realist and true reconciliation will be the work of generations. Reconciliation at best, he argues, is, and must be, a people’s movement.

I have no doubt that Howard is correct of his final assessment on reconciliation, but it’s a pity that he has different views on what matters most to Indigenous Australians when it comes to policy direction and how that advice is achieved.

To this end Rudd has the wood on Howard as he is on record as saying he will establish a new Indigenous representative body to advise his government on policy direction.

This then brings me to my concerns of the direction of the newly formed National Aboriginal Alliance (NAA) and the part they will play in shaping the national Indigenous agenda. In particular will they still be an entity if Rudd win’s the upcoming federal election and follows through with his promise to establish an elected national Indigenous representative body.

Or will they become a think tank on Indigenous issues like the Centre for Aboriginal Economic Policy Research based at the Australian National University.

Michael Mansell, in the first NAA media release of 14 September, refers to the group as instigators of the beginning of resistance and providing a national voice of dissent and one that will offer leadership instead of ‘black bashing’.

Pastor Geoffrey Stokes, a Wongatha man from Kalgoorlie in Western Australia, concurred with Michael and viewed the new organisation as the body that can express our aspirations in our way.

But of most concern to me is the language of this new movement – or more specifically the absence of the word Indigenous. The release goes under the title of  A new independent voice for Aboriginal Australians. It refers to the 100 or so participants as being 100 Aboriginal people from land councils, Stolen Generations organisations, health and housing bodies, the national youth forum, media organisations, doctors and Elders as well as people living in town camps and remote communities and outstations.

Is it the intention of this new national body to exclude future representation of Torres Strait Islander people from their movement or from their language?

There was a surfeit of outstanding Indigenous lawyers present at the Alice Springs meeting that would be the envy of most law firms and I query whether the absence of the word Indigenous was a coincidence or oversight.

Is the absence of the word Indigenous in their new title (NAA) and in the language of their media release indicative of an attempt to wind back the clock to when such names as the Aboriginal Development Commission (ADC), Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies (AIAS), and Department of Aboriginal Affairs (DAA) were synonymous with the national lexicon?

Those organisations since the 1980s have changed through the amalgamation of ADC and DAA to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission (ATSIC) and the AIAS to the Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies (AIATSIS).

I am a great admirer of lead members of the organising committee, but to them I say remember one word – Mabo – and ask them to think of that famous name and how he changed the landscape of Indigenous affairs in this country forever.

The David and Goliath battle of Eddie Koiki Mabo v State of Queensland that culminated in the favourable 1992 High Court judgement was by far the most significant legal victory for Indigenous Australians.

This colossal win which dispelled once and for all the myth of ‘terra nullius’ (no man’s land) and led to the passing of the 1993 Native Title Act through Federal Parliament should not be discounted when attempts are made to wind back the clock to assert a perceived cultural norm on language discourse.

Prime Minister John Howard concludes his paper with a look into the crystal ball at the future and observes that for the first time in a long time, he can see the outline of a new settlement for Indigenous policy in Australia.

I’m wondering if it is the same crystal ball that Kevin Rudd, the National Indigenous Council, the National Aboriginal Alliance and the Cape York Institute are looking into for inspiration as they strategically position themselves in readiness to shape future policy directions for our people.

Bring on the Federal election – I just can’t wait!

And a final few words to all the combatants as they line up for the spoils of the Election outcome - hold your nerve and always remember the famous saying of U. S. Army General Douglas Macarthur who said; "It is fatal to enter any war without the will to win it."