Why "practical reconciliation" is bad policy

The Howard Government has developed an indigenous affairs policy approach which it is promoting as 'practical reconciliation'.

'Practical reconciliation' has been explained as the targeting of acute Indigenous disadvantage and community dysfunction as the central focus of Indigenous policy. It essentially involves highly publicised spending on Indigenous basic social services, like health and education services - the provision of which is the obligation of Government towards all citizens.

Funds for Indigenous services are directed away from the Indigenous department, ATSIC, to mainstream government departments.

The level of funds allocated so far - recent Federal Budgets have offered next to nothing - is only a fraction of the amount necessary to put Indigenous Australians in a position of equality with other Australians. And it seems that these grants may include funds which have already been ear marked for Indigenous programs anyway.

At first glance, "practical reconciliation" may seem a reasonable policy approach, with its emphasis on social problems and resources for alleviating them. But on closer inspection, it is a disastrous development for Indigenous Australians. The policy has been criticised for its questionable rationale, suspect assumptions, and deeply flawed implementation.

One major reason is that it is based on the view that Indigenous Australians should be assimilated into the mainstream of society. Under "practical reconciliation," Indigenous people will increasingly be compelled to use mainstream social services.

John Howard's opposition to recognition of Indigenous Australians as Indigenous, with their own unique culture, religion, customary laws and communities, is well-known. He frankly expressed his strong personal view in 1988, saying "Aboriginal people should be brought into the mainstream of Australian society." He reiterated such a view in May 2002 while commenting on the "disgraceful" state of Indigenous communities, saying "There are plenty of Aborigines, indigenous Australians, who are fully integrated. But there are still quite a lot who aren't."

If Indigenous social services are mainstreamed, decisions as to how and where services are delivered will be made by non-indigenous people. In a myriad of ways, it will become harder for Indigenous Australians to develop autonomy and determine their own futures.

Another reason that "practical reconciliation" is a disaster for indigenous people is the way the funding grants are handled by Government. Each public announcement is pitched to raise awareness in the community that funding is being provided. This leads people to believe that indigenous Australians are getting massive "handouts" which the rest of society does not get.

In reality, "practical reconciliation" funds are simply for ordinary social services which are automatically provided to the rest of the community - such as teaching children to read or providing basic infrastructure for Indigenous communities. ATSIC Chairman, Geoff Clark, puts it this way:

"Practical reconciliation..(is) part of the politics of division, by specifically accentuating services to our peoples but not to others. In truth, the Government must provide these services in its duty of care as a government to all Australians."

The tragedy is, of course, that funds for basic services and programs are desperately needed. Indigenous Australians communities rank with many of the most disadvantaged in the world.

But they should not be asked to give up their unique identity and culture in order to receive these basic services.

Patrick Dodson explained it in his May 2000 Wentworth Address:

"The Government wishes to drive a wedge between the concepts of rights and welfare, and between those who advocate a rights agenda and those seeking relief from the appalling poverty. This is an attempt at a new spin on a very old wicket of divide and rule. If it were a matter of rice bowl politics it might not be so bad but it is far more sinister than that. It is about removing the centrality of community as the life centre; it models on the individual as the essential unit of society. This is not our way. With all our social problems, the answer is not to attack the foundations of our community by putting the individual before the community."

In fact, a third problem with "practical reconciliation" is that it assumes that indigenous Australians could simply decide to give up their unique culture and identity in return for some basic services. It assumes that, somehow, health and well-being are not related to a sense of identity, strong culture, close communities, a sense of belonging, and the like.

It is not possible to separate indigenous health and other social problems from Indigenous Australians' desire for recognition as this country's first peoples and to the respect and rights which that status should confer. In the words of Peter Yu, Director of the Kimberley Land Council,

"If the Prime Minister looks only at health and housing, without recognising the things that make us Aboriginal, then he will not be allowing us to come together as equals to plan a future. Immunisation programs mean nothing if a people are denied the law, the culture and the land that give them life. You cannot immunise against a death of the spirit."

The very term "practical reconciliation" indicates an inability on the part of the Government to comprehend non-practical elements of reconciliation, which are as essential as any practical measures. One clear example is the need for recognition of the social, spiritual and cultural devastation caused by removal from traditional lands and the destruction of families.

The need for such recognition has been strongly endorsed by the Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation in its final recommendations, which set out a strategy for dealing with the 'unfinished business' of reconciliation and recognise the need for Indigenous people themselves to identify the agenda of unfinished business.

The Government has also sought to defend its practical reconciliation approach by blaming self-determination policies for the lack of progress in tackling Indigenous disadvantage. However, there is increasing recognition that it is not self determination which has been the problem, but its flawed implementation by successive governments, with the effect of undermining Indigenous autonomy and creating the conditions for welfare dependence and community dysfunction.

The fact remains that much of the progress which has been made by Indigenous communities over the past 30 years has resulted from the hard work of Indigenous people themselves and from steps taken by previous governments toward full recognition of land rights, new policies of self-determination and a willingness to appreciate the value of Aboriginal people and cultures.

What is now required is a renewed commitment to self-determination through a comprehensive strategy in which Indigenous people themselves are at the centre of decision-making and implementation. Yet this is the one course of action that the Government stubbornly rejects. The paternalism and assimilationism of practical reconciliation will ensure its failure as a policy.

More Information:
A Practical Critique of Practical Reconciliation - Greg Crough [pdf (45K) or rtf (72K)]
HREOC Social Justice Reports
Why Warriors Lie Down and Die, 2001, Richard Trudgeon. Excellent account of how Indigenous autonomy has been undermined by inept policy implementation, with devastating effects for the Yolngu of Arnhem Land.