Graham Ring, a columnist with the National Indigenous Times, had a good piece on Online Opinion last week bemoaning the difficulties of having a rational debate on Indigenous issues in Australia.
It strikes me that some of the commentary on Indigenous Affairs in this country has become so poisonous - not just among the media, but among sections of the Indigenous leadership itself - that the very object of the game has been forgotten.
It really rang a bell with me. During my time in the Senate, there was no other policy area that came even close to frustrating me as much as Indigenous affairs when it came to the impossibility of having a rational discussion. Every comment seemed to be slotted into a pre-determined polarised package of ideological positioning, and every commenter assigned to over-simplified opposing camps.
It is very hard to keep trying to debate issues on their merits when it seems to instantly degenerate into sloganeering. Debate in this area seems to always be instantly sidetracked into the same old tired arguments and accusations, usually ignoring the core point that people were trying to make.
The recent controversy over comments by leading Indigenous educator Chris Sarra is a case in point. His core point, and a very important one, is that Aboriginal communities often have to make do with service workers with a level of competence and commitment far below what would be acceptable in mainstream society. He used the provocative term “white trash” to describe such people, causing a lot of argument about whether this was an offensive term or not. Meanwhile, his core point was mostly ignored.
I don’t think it is a desirable term to use in this context, but if he hadn’t used it, his overall comments probably would have been completely ignored.
Bob Gosford, who lives in Yuendumu 300 kilometres away from Alice Springs, gives a great insight on his own blog into the sort of phenomenon Chris Sarra was talking about, using his own employment in an Aboriginal community as an example.
4 Comments
Andrew - now available are more of Chris Sarra’s own words from an interview with the wonderful Melinda James of ABC TV Darwin on last Friday night’s NT version of Stateline - see: http://www.abc.net.au/stateline/nt/content/2006/s2426756.htm
For mine he is still back-pedalling furiously from the ‘white-trash’ comment…
“MELINDA JAMES: You’ve since expressed regret about using the term “white trash” but you don’t resile from saying some teachers, remote teachers are lazy and incompetent - what do you base that assessment on?
CHRIS SARRA: Well I base that on things I’ve watched with my own eyes you know and my own experiences with a range of Aboriginal communities. And the frustrations of lots and lots and lots of people with whom I’ve worked over the years who are in schools and in remote communities who say that one of the things that makes it really difficult for them is being in circumstances where it’s hard to, hard to shift people on if they’re not performing because of the various challenges. And one of the challenges is this kind of systemic collusion with incompetent and lazy service providers that would never be tolerated in mainstream communities.”
…and I think he is a bit naive to think that Aboriginal townships are the only place with ‘incompetent and lazy service providers’…most bureaucracies I’ve had anything to do with have had their fair share of the lazy and incompetent…but I think his point - though poorly articulated - that it is the quality of leadership that is important, is a good but rather obvious one.
I don’t think that Chris Sarra has actually advanced the debate about the issue of the quality of public and private servants in indigenous townships at all…it has just given opportunists like Warren Mundine some free space to tout their beliefs and further enhance his, to me, dubious in an NT context at least, credibility as an ‘indigenous leader’ much loved by the mainstream press - who should know better.
And I expect to hear something similar to the comments from Warren Mundine on this issue from that other ‘mouth from the south’, Marcia Langton, any day soon…
Thanks Bob
I understand what you are saying, but obvious points still need to be continually made if they are not being acknowledged.
From what i have seen, the issue of lack of longevity in a community - workers who have only just started to know a community and people and culture by the time they are about to leave - is as big an issue. I guess this in itself is a form of cultural competence (or lack thereof). (of course i say this as someone who has never had more than an overnight stay in any Aboriginal community)
I also understand what you say about Warren Mundine, but he is given space anytime any ‘debate’ on Indigenous issues comes up, no matter what the reason. The only way to avoid that is for people not to say anything controversial. I don’t think terms like ‘white trash’ are helpful in the long run with issues like this, but if he hadn’t used the term, he probably wouldn’t have been being interviewed by Melinda James either
The issues of staffing for Indigenous communities are complex. Reducing it to ‘white trash’ does no-one a favour because it immediately frames the debate in a destructive way. The trouble with inclusive terms, however, by whomever, or to whomever applied, is that they are rarely ‘all’ right.
I believe that there are issues for both non-Indigenous and Indigenous staff to address. I also believe that the systems and support for remote staff are simply inadequate. I applaud all those people, both Indigenous and non-Indigenous who do achieve great things. The difficulties they face and overcome are almost unimaginable for urban Australians.
Some thoughts
Some non-Indigenous people have dedicated their working lives in the most difficult and challenging circumstances imaginable. Some have literally died on the job. Such people deserve far better than being called ‘white trash’.
There are several reasons why shortevity is structured into remote staffing systems:
1. It is the young and inexperienced staff who are sent to remote locations. A fair percentage of them simply can’t cope with the pressures and leave very soon.
2. Other young staff leave just when they have found their feet. After all, we are talking generation x and y here.
3. The older, more experienced staff, if they have stayed with organisations, generally find positions in the big smoke. There is no adequate reward system for experienced staff to return to remote locations. There are no senior positions in remote localities.
4. It can be very tough to live in remote locations - there is little professional support. 5. As elsewhere, it can at times be downright dangerous in remote locations - theft, threats, injuries, rape and disease may be risks that come into the equation. The difference is that you may be on your own when coping with these issues.
6. Reponse times by ambulances and police can be dangerously long.
7. Remote locations may offer monotony and a limited social life.
8. As soon as remote workers have children a whole new dynamic comes into play. They do not have family support structures. Their grandparents want access to them and so on.
9. Issues surrounding shortevity of stay is not just simply matters for non-Indigenous people. The Land Rights Act means that it is virtually impossible for non-Indigenous people to put down roots in many remote areas. By ‘roots’ I mean buy a block, build a house, have guaranteed access to the house for life, and then be buried locally. There was the somewhat famous case of the chap who had worked in Eastern Arhnemland for most of his lifetime and who wanted to be buried there. Nope. Indigenous people have the moral and legal right to make these decisions in their country, but there are consequences in terms of the commitments that non-Indigenous people are prepared to make.
10. Indigenous communities attract crackpots. These come and go, having done damage in the interim. Such people are rarely able to strive for excellence.
11. Indigenous communities attract people who have already failed (socially or professionally) in their own communities. These are unlikely to succeed in the very tough circumstances in remote communities. Such people are rarely able to strive for excellence. Improved vetting would stop many of these from getting through the net.
12. What goes for non-Indigenous staff may also go for Indigenous staff who do not ‘belong’ in a particular bit of country. They, too, are foreigners.
13. Local Indigenous staff may face huge personal and family pressures because they are at the absolute vortex of conflicting social systems and value systems. At times it becomes too much for them and they seek to relieve the pressure by moving on. Incidentally, these pressures may include pressures not to ‘drive’ children too hard.
I haven’t spoken about the positive side of the coin, but merely wanted to make a few main points: It can be very tough; Governments are simply not doing enough resourcing; There are issues for Indigenous people to address as well as for non-Indigenous people to address. As for Chris’s main point: Are we (the Australian nation) letting Indigenous people in remote communities down? Chris is absolutely right. Of course we are.
Hi Andrew, I agree the bigger issue is that the debate gets framed around issues that are petty and (if one were conspiritorially minded) designed to take the heat out of the real issue at hand.
At the higher level the reason that this matters is that Indigenous policy is shaped and made in relation to the democratic system we have in Australia. That is it is primarily made for consumption by the voters in the large population centres. Public policy in realtion to Indigenous Australians suffers because the policy making process, whereby policy actors negotiate around what they value, leading to a sense of compromise and good outcomes, is created around sets of actors who inhabit these population centres. There simply is no one in places like the NT, the Kimberley, the APY lands (the list goes on) who are able to play the game the way the game was invented to be played. Good policy relies on those who know what they want having a seat at the table and being listened to. This does not happen with Indigenous policy and this is before we even take into account language and cultural differences that mean that majority Australia does not even know how to listen to, or hear, what Indigenous people are saying.
The other thing is this ridiculous notion of “Indigenous leadership” that gets invoked in public circles to determine if this or that policy is good or bad. This was particualrly prevalent with the intervention where “leaders” are appointed by the media and then their comments become some kind of Indigenous gospel. Where I live the whole notion of “Indigenous leadership” is in my opinion a mainstream fantasy. The heirarchies that create this kind of leadership do not exist in the way that we think we do. Indigenous governance is complex, land and kinship related and negotiable across time and space. Therefore these “leaders” dont exist, and even the ones who often are called upon to advocate on behalf of others are careful to say that “this is my opinion in relation to my experience, if you want to know what others think you need to ask them”.
Yes we have a long long way to go if we are to get to a position where in both public and policy spheres we are able to work to ensure that sensible things are happening for the benefit of those they are supposed to benefit. However as I say, the system just wont allow this to happen.