Fri 20 Apr 2007
Chaney argues against centralisation
Posted by jangari under Indigenous
[2] Comments
Fred Chaney, who this week retired from the national Native Title Tribunal, spoke to Kerry O’Brian last night on the 7:30 Report about the problem with native title, in that only a quarter of the agreements actually deliver real benefits to communities.
You can still watch the entire interview from the 7:30 Report’s front page, but probably only until this time tomorrow, or you can read the transcript, which I assume will stay there permanently.
Chaney argues on several points against the typical way of approaching indigenous policy from the proverbial armchair in Canberra. He acknowledges that a single policy edict from Canberra designed to apply to all aboriginal communities just will not work.
the point is made with respect to native title, but I think it rings true of all facets of indigenous policy, from land and housing to health and education, and even to language and culture. The last two of which are pretty much neglected at all levels.
Once you try and do it by remote control, through visiting ministers visiting bureaucrats fly in, fly out – forget it.
Though I will say that at least Mal Brough flies in at all. I don’t think Ruddock had been to the bush in his entire time as minister.
April 25th, 2007 at 6:07 pm
The whole thing is just farcical. Here we are ‘celebrating’ 40 years since the ’67 referendum and I ask myself what’s really changed?
Aside from being recognised as citizens, the Mabo decision (effectively destroyed by the Howard government) and a reconciliation movement characterised by an acute lack of political will, nothing much has changed.
Indigenous people are still the most disadvantaged group in the nation. 2% of the population yet something like 40% of the prison population. Life expectancy some 30 years below the wider community.
You would know more than I do, Aboriginal people are living in the fourth world, third world conditions in a first world country.
The Mandarins in Canberra are totally flawed. They go about Indigenous policy with blatant ignorance of the diversity and complexity of Indigenous societies and cultures. Morons, mate, total morons.
April 26th, 2007 at 9:49 am
I couldn’t agree more dude. And something that irks me about all this, is that those in Canberra are happy to talk about so-called ‘armchair academics’ and disregard their views when they tell them about all these problems with health, education, incarceration, death in custody, language and culture, yet these ‘armchair academics’ are the ones going out there and seeing it all first-hand; they’re the anthropologists, the educators, the healthcare professionals, the linguists. It is in actual fact the government being the armchair legislator, making crucial decisions as to funding and so on, from the insular context of an office in parliament house. Credit to Mal Brough though, for actually going out to communities. But, as you point out, he needs to understand the vast diversity of cultures and communities in the country and recognise their diverse needs rather than seeing one or two communities, such as the Tiwi, and make certain edicts based solely on that experience. Indigenous Australia is not a one-size-fits-all sort of demographic.
This is why I think no centralised form of indigenous policy would work, if it endeavoured to cover areas like land rights, culture, employment and so on. Health and education are more easily catered to from a centralised position – perhaps education less so, given the imperative of cultural eduction needs – but most aspects of governance should be done as locally as possible.