23 Nov 2009

The Government Wants A Word With You

By Sarah Burnside
The Rudd Government seems to have a very interesting idea of what 'community consultation' actually means, writes Sarah Burnside
What does it mean when the Government says it is "consulting" a particular community as it designs policy? Not much, apparently, if that community happens to be Indigenous.

As the Government goes about a particularly interesting series of consultations about the Northern Territory Intervention with the communities affected by it, more people are questioning whether their results will have any validity.

Earlier this year, Chris Graham, the editor of the National Indigenous Times wrote a "punter's guide to cutting through the spin of an Aboriginal community consultation". Graham translated the consultation's stated purpose — that "we need to talk with community people about these changes" — as: "the Government needs to 'talk to you' because legal advice tells it that if it doesn't, it might lose a legal challenge that may be brought against it."

Now, beyond scepticism over the good-faith motives of the Government holding the talks at all, serious doubts are being raised over whether it will actually pay attention to the feedback it gathers. More disturbingly, the way it has gone about the process strongly suggests that the process has been carefully designed to produce only the kind of feedback it wants.

Tomorrow, at Melbourne Law School, speakers including former prime minister Malcolm Fraser and retired Melbourne bishop Hilton Deakin will launch a report entitled Will they be heard? A response to the NTER consultations June August 2009.

The report is based on independent records of recent consultations held at the Northern Territory communities of Utopia, Bagot and Ampilatwatja. It was prepared by the Hon. Alastair Nicholson, Larissa Behrendt, Alison Vivian, Nicole Watson and Michele Harris of the Jumbunna Indigenous House of Learning, with the transcribing of the consultations initiated and coordinated by a group called "Concerned Australians".

You hear a great deal about "consultation" in Indigenous affairs. Paradoxically, consultation itself is a rare creature, far more spoken of than seen. Few people know what it actually looks like. Will they be heard? allows us a rare glimpse into the Northern Territory Emergency Response (NTER) consultations, about which little information has been officially released.

Exactly what classifies as a valid consultation varies according to the context. It is reasonably clear, though, that a consultation must be more than simply telling an affected community of your decisions. It has been found that consultation as prescribed by the Native Title Act 1993 "is to be a reality, not a charade", and that to consult is not "merely to tell or present" but involves "the statement of a proposal not yet finally decided upon, listening to what others have to say, considering their responses and then deciding what will be done".

Government consultation with Indigenous people has its own particular character owing to an obvious power imbalance exacerbated by cultural, and often linguistic, differences. After the launch of the Intervention in 2007, the anthropologist Toni Bauman charged that such consultation "has mostly been one-way communication in 'meetings' in which talking heads drone on, poorly explaining complex information and concluding by asking: 'Everyone agree?'".

An examination of the motives behind these recent NTER consultations raises suspicions that this is still the case. The consultations are a response by the Government to the probability that the Intervention legislation clashes with the Racial Discrimination Act. It's these legal problems that are the driving concern, rather than a moral or ideological commitment to involving remote community residents in decisions affecting them.

As noted recently, what is at stake here for the Government is how to bring back the Racial Discrimination Act (RDA) as they have promised, without opening the way for a legal challenge to the Intervention legislation — legislation which they largely want to keep. The legal avenue for this that the Government seems keen to exploit is the one which permits exceptions to the RDA if the affected communities have been consulted and support the exception. If they can argue that the "consulted" communities support Intervention initiatives such as compulsory income management, alcohol restrictions and bans on pornography, then the Government could have a bob each way — reinstatement of the RDA to demonstrate its commitment to racial equality, but retention of some of the controversial measures that curtail the rights of those in "proscribed communities".

The Will they be heard? report gives rise to real concern over the adequacy of Government engagement with some of the nation's most disadvantaged citizens. In his introduction, Alastair Nicholson characterised consultations in Utopia, Bagot and Ampilatwatja as follows: "the Government is not offering any choice. It is simply telling the people what it proposes to do. The consultation is nothing more than going through the motions in order to achieve a predetermined end."

The absence of interpreters during the process, the limited notice given to the communities that they are happening and the inadequacy of explanations given are all deeply problematic, but the strongest and most damaging impression is that the Government has simply set out to obtain the answers it wanted.

The report also shows that community residents are confused about the whole point of the consultations; one participant in Bagot asked: "But the thing I really want to know is, when you go back ... and you send your report, what is it going to do really?"

Such confusion is understandable given the vagueness of statements made by officers of the department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs (FaHCSIA), who are quoted giving different reasons for why they were there. One explanation focused on the need to "get people's input about what changes the Government may make in October when they are trying to make those amendments to that law". Another described the consultations as a way to "listen to what your problems [are] and see if we could find some solutions ... we want to talk about this Intervention and what people are thinking about it", while a third line of reasoning was the need to "get some comments about the different measures and what people think about them ... there will be some changes to some measures, and there mightn't be changes to others, but [the Government] certainly want to find out from people, so when they put that legislation in what are some of the changes."

These disingenuous explanations given by FaHCSIA representatives — playing on variations of the theme that "we're from Canberra and we're here to yarn with you" — were exactly the kind of FaHCSIA-speak that Chris Graham roundly criticised in his translation of the department's spin. As he also wrote, "This new government has been in power for two years — you might ask yourself why it is only talking to you now?"

The Will they be heard? report supports Graham's scepticism, suggesting that the parameters of discussions with the three relevant communities were limited from the very outset.

The consultation at Bagot, for instance, began with a statement that "the Government has said that it wants to keep the Intervention as it sees that the measures that were brought in ... have some positive benefits." Such language does not indicate discussion of a proposal that has yet to be approved.

The simplistic descriptions of "special measures" and the limited discussion of the concept of informed consent are also striking: note the comments of one facilitator, who said that "the Government wants to make sure that the Racial Discrimination Act does work with the Emergency Response ... But the Government also says that you can still pass laws just for Aboriginal people, if that law is going to help Aboriginal people have the same rights as everybody else."

Based on the report it would seem that justifying Intervention initiatives as "special measures" will be difficult — to put it mildly. One facilitator's explanation of the proposal to introduce a system of exemptions to the income management scheme was met with vehement responses of "No! Can't do that stuff. Stop it altogether. Stop it ... altogether" while another described the system as "cruel to all us Aboriginal people". Participants also expressed the view that the Intervention was a step backward for their communities, comparing it to "where we were before", the era of "Native Affairs where the government was overruling people".

Michele Harris of the Concerned Australians group involved in producing the report notes the advice of the Attorney-General's Department that "the Government will be giving careful consideration to these views (from the consultations) in formulating its final policy position, which will be reflected in the legislation to be put before Parliament."

After Will they be heard?, the next question is whether the residents of Utopia, Bagot and Ampilatwatja will be heeded or if, in Bauman's words, consultation will remain something that is done "to" Indigenous people rather than with them.

Log in or register to post comments

Discuss this article

To control your subscriptions to discussions you participate in go to your Account Settings preferences and click the Subscriptions tab.

Enter your comments here

scottyea
Posted Monday, November 23, 2009 - 18:02

Dear Aborigine,

This isn't meant personally (although I suspect that this in itself annoys you more than practically anything else about me), but I just can't like you very much. I kind of want to, after all, we took your land and all that, mumble mumble whatever.

But when looking at you I can't see much that makes sense, even after 300 years. What can i see? I see that beyond the tar seal and streetlights is a place utterly hostile to me. I see myself in a thousand years, while remembering a wet, muddy place that ended in -shire or -borough; where I was a slave. In you I see a freedom that I lost any hope of whatsoever in the industrial revolution. What I don't see in you is cogs, and people without cogs are weird. How can they work? I was abandoned - exiled and I see family in you. I have family, but I mainly want stuff - more and more, 'cos it all hurts.

So really I'm in a bit too much pain myself to give too much of a hoot about yours. So, um, keep trying and um, yeah.

Sincerely,
Box-fed Suburban carboard cutout.

Necron99
Posted Tuesday, November 24, 2009 - 01:35

What a sorry state we must be in if scottyea is being sincere... oh, and please don't take it personally scottyea.

Why is the government so afraid of admitting that the NTER will probably never work. They want to reinstate the RDA and keep the NTER completely intact... am I missing something here? Is it so hard to admit that you were wrong, that you're making a mistake?

The need to save some face is way overshadowed by the needs and rights of the indigenous community affected. The ability to show responsible leadership, to act with compassion is all it takes. Why is this simple principle so easily and so often misunderstood?

Will they be heard indeed?

This user is a New Matilda supporter. DrGideonPolya
Posted Tuesday, November 24, 2009 - 17:22

For anti-racist Jews and indeed all anti-racist humanitarians the core moral messages from the Jewish Holocaust (5-6 million dead, 1 in 6 dying from deprivation) and from the more general WW2 European Holocaust (30 million Slav, Jewish and Gypsy dead) are “zero tolerance for racism”, “never again to anyone”, “bear witness” and “zero tolerance for lying”.

These sacred injunctions mean that there must be "zero tolerance" for the racist Australian Labor Party (aka the Apartheid Labor Party) and its racist Coalition collaborators in the race-based exclusion of Northern Territory Indigenous Australians from the 1975 Racial Discrimination Act, the obscene race-based violations of equal rights and human rights in the NT Intervention and their complicity in ongoing Palestinian Genocide, Iraqi Genocide, Afghan Genocide, Aboriginal Genocide and Climate Genocide (see "Aboriginal Genocide. Racist White Australian Child Abuse & Passive Mass Murder": http://mwcnews.net/content/view/15140/42/ and "Australian Genocide– Oz Ignores Aboriginal, Iraqi, Afghan & Climate Genocides": http://mwcnews.net/content/view/12578/42/ ).

Further, if such race-based discriminatory laws apply in the 21st century to one group of Australians then it is quite feasible that it will happen to other Australian citizens and Australian subjects.

As German anti-Nazi hero Pastor Martin Niemöller (1892–1984) said:
"First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a communist;
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a trade unionist;
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew;
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak out for me. "

My father was a Jewish refugee from Nazism in 1939 and my wife is a non-Indigenous Black Australian. I'm not waiting for the Apartheid Labor Party (that I voted for for decades; we door-knocked for Mr Whitlam in 1975) to pass race-based laws against non-Indigenous Black Australians, Jews, Calathumpians, whoever - I say "Put Labor Last" until they return to the anti-racism, anti-war, pro-environment Australian Labor Party policies of 1975.

I have done my bit by exposing the evil racism of the war criminal, climate criminal Apartheid Labor Party and Apartheid Australia around the world. Indeed I have made a Formal complaint to the Chief Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court (ICC) re
Australian Government involvement in Aboriginal Genocide, Iraqi Genocide, Afghan Genocide and Climate Genocide: http://climateemergency.blogspot.com/2008_02_01_archive.html .

Peace is the only way but Silence kills and Silence is complicity.

EarnestLee
Posted Wednesday, November 25, 2009 - 02:02

We must do more and keep trying alternatives. If we concentrated on the young and engendered an eagerness for learning they might create a tide for their elders to catch and latch onto.

am i dreaming?