JavaScript disabled. Please enable JavaScript to use My News, My Clippings, My Comments and user settings.

If you have trouble accessing our login form below, you can go to our login page.

If you have trouble accessing our login form below, you can go to our login page.

Tony Abbott's lifestyle comments highlight the lack of policy in Aboriginal affairs

Date

Pat Dodson

A genuine engagement has to be the starting point for Indigenous Australians.

Video settings

Please Log in to update your video settings

Video will begin in 5 seconds.

Video settings

Please Log in to update your video settings

Please don't preach

Hey Mr Rapporteur give Tony some credit, where credit is due. By Rocco Fazzari and Denis Carnahan with apologies to Madonna.

PT1M15S 620 349

The Prime Minister's comments in Kalgoorlie on the "closing" of 150 Aboriginal communities have been rightly rejected by many.  It is not just that the comments reflect Tony Abbott's worldview –   which belongs in a time capsule of Australian political culture before Mabo – nor is it that the holder of the highest political office in the land, despite his genuine engagement and experience in Aboriginal Australia, simply doesn't get it. 

The truly sad aspect of this media-grab commentary is that it encapsulates what is fundamentally amiss in the relationship between descendants of the first Australians and those Australians who arrived in the wake of Governor Arthur Phillip in 1788. 

The comments and subsequent response from our Aboriginal leaders, whose frustrations have again been highlighted by this commentary in the absence of policy, have reinforced  our despair at ever being able to build a true and just relationship between our peoples that is based on dialogue, negotiation, mutual respect and the recognition that this nation has culture and languages that have survived for millennia and which have successfully sustained our lifestyle well before any engagement with the colonising peoples.

Aboriginal domestic scene from Blandowski's Australien in 142 Photographischen Abbildungen, 1857.

Aboriginal domestic scene from Blandowski's Australien in 142 Photographischen Abbildungen, 1857.

Australia would be at risk of becoming a pariah state if its foreign policy and engagements with other nation states were run in the haphazard manner in which our policies towards Indigenous Australians are managed. 

In the past weeks we have celebrated the freedom ride to western New South Wales from the 1960s; and we have laid to rest a national treasure – our sister from the South Pacific.

Yet less than a month later we are highlighting to the whole world our failure to negotiate in a considered way the right of Aboriginal people to live as Aboriginal peoples in our own lands and seas, whilealso participating in every aspect oflife  as contemporary Australian citizens.

Aboriginal children playing footy at the Gunbalanya School in Arnhem Land.

Aboriginal children playing footy at the Gunbalanya School in Arnhem Land. Photo: Pat Scala

A government's aspiration that the gap between the wellbeing of Indigenous and other Australians must be closed, and that Indigenous people cannot expect to have their lifestyles subsidised by government, does not amount to national policy or  informed engagement  with Indigenous people.

Removal of frontline services from Indigenous organisations working towards closing the gap would seem counter intuitive to any fair-minded Australian.  But that has been the result of the Indigenous Advancement Strategy funding that was announced, ironically, just this week.

If the gap between the wellbeing of indigenous Australians and their fellow citizens is ever to be properly addressed, the starting point has to be a genuine engagement between our Indigenous peoples and all Australian governments. The negotiation must be fully informed and the first step is for governments to  reach a real understanding of the diverse nature of Indigenous societies, their hopes and aspirations.

It is not a "lifestyle choice" to be be born in and live in a remote Aboriginal community. It is more a decision to value connection to country, to look after family, to foster language and celebrate our culture. There are significant social, environmental and cultural benefits for the entire nation that flow from those decisions. 

There are also direct economic benefits, especially in reducing the costs of front-line services dealing with health, welfare and the criminal justice system in our regional centres. The dialogue with  our people must be informed by factual data and empirical evidence informed  by an Indigenous cultural framework.  

As a nation we are moving slowly towards a referendum that will ask people to finally give full recognition to the status of Indigenous Australians as the nation's first peoples and to remove the historical fiction that puts the supremacy of our colonial history above the reality of indigenous peoples as custodians of the national estate.

If the referendum is ever to occur, and if it is to garner universal support, Aboriginal values, priorities and concerns need to be better understood by the whole nation, and by our leaders in particular.

Pat Dodson was the first chairman of the Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation.

139 comments

  • I've read Tony Abbott's comments a few times now and still can't work out what he said that was so wrong. I did some research on the matter and have come up with the following:
    The cost to the Aust tax payer to fund Aboriginal communities in remote locations is on average between $43,000 per year to $80,000 per person per year. Funded by the taxpayer and at a total cost of $30 billion per year to the Australian tax payer.
    Some of these communities are as small as six people.
    I think Tony Abbott has been very brave to raise an issue he is educated on having spent so many weeks/months in these very communities and once the hysteria has worn off people will start to see some reason and perhaps even be open to debate on the matter.

    Commenter
    PMI
    Location
    Hampton
    Date and time
    Thu Mar 12 05:22:53 UTC 2015
    • "The cost to the Aust tax payer to fund Aboriginal communities in remote locations is on average between $43,000 per year to $80,000 per person per year."

      "Funded by the taxpayer and at a total cost of $30 billion per year to the Australian tax payer."

      "Some of these communities are as small as six people. "

      PMI,

      Can you back up everything you've just asserted?

      Commenter
      Tristan
      Location
      Melbourne
      Date and time
      Thu Mar 12 05:53:43 UTC 2015
    • Seems cheap since we took their land

      Commenter
      peter
      Location
      vietnam
      Date and time
      Thu Mar 12 05:59:43 UTC 2015
    • Thanks for asking - Indigenous Expenditure Report 2014

      Geoffalex, no need to apologise for me.

      Commenter
      PMI
      Location
      Hampton
      Date and time
      Thu Mar 12 06:52:30 UTC 2015
    • PMI,

      And in comparison how much money do residents in remote mining towns and tiny country towns with miniscule populations cost our economy in terms of providing services?

      Commenter
      Tristan
      Location
      Melbourne
      Date and time
      Thu Mar 12 07:13:52 UTC 2015
    • It might pay to read the report a little more carefully:
      "Total direct expenditure on services for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians in 2012-13 was estimated to be $30.3 billion, accounting for 6.1 per cent of total direct general government expenditure. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians made up 3.0 per cent of the population in 2013.""$5.7 billion (or $8137 per person) on services where expenditure is attributed on the basis of their share of the population (expenditure in areas such as defence, foreign affairs and industry assistance, which benefits all Australians equally).

      Commenter
      KIDDING
      Date and time
      Thu Mar 12 10:34:57 UTC 2015
    • PMI, if you had read the report you quoted,you should have noted at least two things. Total expenditure is an estimate, and the report specifically states that it is NOT accurate as a per head expenditure.
      The report also points out that there are significantly poorer outcomes for indigenous people in terms of health, education and employment, surely not a lifestyle choice at least in white mans terms.
      The WA Government has a vested interest in removing the indigenous out of the land in line with the disposable people ideology that the WA and federal neoliberal governments practice. In short, removing the indigenous creates two opportunities; cutting government expenditure at the expense of peoples' lives, and opening up the land for exploitation by extraction industries, thus favoring the corporate cronies of government.
      The amount the taxpayer pays to the indigenous is a small price to pay for the peace of mind that non indigenous enjoy knowing our beautiful land is protected and in good hands.

      Commenter
      Nonrev
      Date and time
      Thu Mar 12 11:44:09 UTC 2015
    • PMI, aagghh! The $30 billion is the expenditure of all Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians, all 700,000 of them, NOT just the ones in remote communities. The $80K figure you quote was not even in the report. Cherry picking figures and not giving the correct meaning is blatantly dishonest. You must have thought no-one would look at the report!

      Commenter
      Misha
      Location
      Tumbi Umbi
      Date and time
      Thu Mar 12 12:12:10 UTC 2015
    • Perhaps you could continue your research and find out how long that sort of money would take to pay back for the land stolen off them. Then reflect on the absurdity of forcing them to leave their homes. Have we not made them suffer enough?

      Commenter
      DrPhil
      Date and time
      Thu Mar 12 12:26:59 UTC 2015
    • I agree with you, PMI -- I think it's a case of people being 'professionally offended' by a statement of fact. They don't like what is said, so they attack the man.
      But let's analyse what "lifestyle choice" might mean, piece by piece. There are really only 2 pieces to look at:
      1. "Lifestyle" -- is this what living in a remote indigenous community is about? Seems like it to me. It is a lifestyle which keeps the people in touch with their land. It is a lifestyle which keeps them out of the cities where myriad more harmful contexts lie in wait for their young people. It is a life situation wherein indigenous languages can be nurtured and preserved, and not 'lost' in a large population centre. So what is wrong with calling this a "lifestyle"? Plenty of other people identify themselves in terms of their lifestyle: a surfing lifestyle, an inner urben lifestyle -- on it goes.
      2. "Choice" -- now then, does this describe the situation wherein some indigenous people prefer to live in remote areas? Of course it does. Dodson acknowledges this in his article: living in remote communities is what many indigenous people want to do. It is their choice, and good on them.
      Having established that "lifestyle choice" is hard to construe as offensive, we must ask why some have been offended. Beats me. But maybe the term doesn't sound serious enough? Certainly not serious enough to warrant the massive funding per individual that PMI has brought to our attention?
      And so that might just be the real issue: withdrawal of funding is now on the table. As usual, follow the money...

      Commenter
      Mike R.
      Location
      Perth, WA
      Date and time
      Thu Mar 12 13:11:41 UTC 2015

More comments

Comments are now closed
Featured advertisers

Special offers

Credit card, savings and loan rates by Mozo