by Dr Gary Fry
Consistent with every government predecessor since 1978 (when self-government commenced), the newly minted NT Country Liberal Party Government has gone down the same pathetic trajectory of imposing policy violence on the NT’s First Nations population.
It is a normalised trajectory that guarantees Indigenous inequality will not just remain but deepen. And, along with such steps, justifying the sorts of draconian measures that always fail, and of which Aboriginal families are blamed. This politicisation of Indigenous peoples is at the core of the sustained welfare state that this tiny hamlet is imprisoned.
Sprouting catch-cries of “we have a mandate” misrepresents the various reasons for why the population votes the way it does (for example a rejection of all things NT Labor), and it fails to reflect that at the core of effective governance is wise and ethical decision-making that is oriented toward the greater good; one where reconciliation is realised, and the targets of Closing the Gap are met.
But this greater social order that is pursued in a truckload of reports, continues to situate ambiguously, and without definition within governance and official strategic planning and community participation.
The structural inequality that NT First Nations peoples are continually and perpetually caught within remain a direct result of an NT political economy that has fuelled a pompous, arrogant and ignorant white hegemony situated around ‘fixing the black problem’. Along with the problematisation of crocodiles, Aboriginal families in the NT are continually cast as part of the natural flora and fauna; something to ‘fix’ without enabling an equal foothold in voice at the highest levels of governance and policy development.
We see this in every key government institution, particularly in education, which The Australian recently exposed around the misappropriation of millions of dollars away from remote Aboriginal student schooling.
The most recent iteration of this policy violence has been in reducing the age of criminal responsibility to 10 years of age, the return to truancy officers, and the handing out of fines imposed on families that have no capacity to repay. The School Enrolment and Attendance Measure (SEAM), which was introduced in 2009, included both these recent measures involving truancy officers (the yellow shirts) and fines to families of students with poor attendance, resulted in attendance actually going backwards and increased stress on Aboriginal households. So, doing the same and hoping to achieve different outcomes is pathetic and traumatic, and a huge disservice to the NT community.
This back to the future policy trauma is truly an act of criminal irresponsibility, and pays no respect to the NT’s Indigenous and non-Indigenous communities, and this Trumpian-style conservative agenda that seeks to bulldoze the population will not, and never will work, because a shared governance in a shared problem is at the heart of improving this social trajectory. This requires, as a first step for the CLP, to invest in high level think-tanks that include key First Nations leaders from across industry and to develop socially and economically responsive policy actions, where accountability of government is a core design feature.
Should this happen, more progressive policy designs have the capacity to emerge, facilitating actions where the spotlight put on the previous Labor government’s Indigenous education funding levels are responded to, where instead of threats and continued punishing acts to attend school are replaced by incentives to help Aboriginal families already in crisis, where schooling services, and employment pathways are prioritised policy pillars, and where development is based on pilot models that provide evidence-based future actions.
The NT is a site that new, bold and progressive thinking needs to pave the way for 21st Century problems which are solved by community thinkers, not politicians emboldened by their narrowed sense of entitlement, and presumed mandate to spray their long held racialised belief systems, and narrowed lens of social understanding across a tired and brutalised community.
Indigeneity has always been part of solving the consciousness of the white power dynamic that has been destructive for Aboriginal families, and the non-Indigenous community that continues to be represented by poor and irresponsible governance that ultimately divides the community and fuels the destructive policy carnage so abundantly on display in the NT.
Dr Gary Fry is an Aboriginal academic and Associate Professor of First Nations Studies at CQ University and a former senior school principal in the NT.
Why doesn’t anyone that writes these critiques balance their narrative with some constructive suggestions? The problems need to be addressed at the coal face. In order to improve your life there is only one person that needs to take action. Governments take action when we have situations out of control (e.g. crime)
This fellow would not know, he was not brought up on country and not being a full-blood indicates he has no cultural knowledge other than the invented post-1976 culture. the real culture is that women are chattels owned by the old men expected to work tirelessly to feed them. Check Bishop Gsell and his purchase of about 130 Tiwi girls and all will become clear. Their never were female elders or”Aunties”
Perhaps the good doctor could spend some time around the camps convincing parents to send their kids to the free education system to better themselves rather than down the street vandalising and wrecking all within range
Can we agree Close the Gap is not working in 21 century, what next?
Secondly, Aboriginal kids want access to mobile phones for inclusion & connection in the global ecosystem. Why not bring remote community kids into a civilised town for higher standard of education, recreation facilities, future jobs where they can learn to integrate with white kids & immigrants? Maybe they won’t become bored & look for trouble?
Put the blame where it belongs, at the feet of the parents who are letting their kids cause all the trouble.
The CLP got a mandate to do something about it in a landslide.
This bloke is not part of the answer, he is part of the problem
Dear Editor,
I read Gary’s piece with interest. He was a colleague of mine in NT Schools and for a time he ws on my staff as a Senior Teacher at Leanyer.
Like Gary, I have worked in Aboriginal Schools, but cannot reconcile my experience and expectations with some of the points he raises in his column.
I have raised the following questions in response to expressions of opinions made by others around Aboriginal issues. Inerestingly, none of my questions have been responded to when I raised them, so they remain in my mind as key matters deserving response.
Sincerely
Henry Gray
November 23 2024
The strong inference is always that fixing the issues has to come from the government, agencies, or a change in attitude by those held accountable by writers.
In this context, my questions were pertinent to ‘The Voice’. There was an assumption that if the Voice was passed into our constitution by the referendum, then all the issues rfaised arpound the questions I had – and still have – wpuls somehow be corrected: That withbout the Voice, there could be no fixing.
I was involved with Aboriginal Education in both WA (1970, 1974/75) and the NT (1975 – 82) as a school leader. With staff, I initiated many programs that greatly benefit children of young ages. I worked to ensure school attendance and had the support of communities.
I have also undertaken formal studies in the field of Indigenous Education.
I add this chronology to point out that my questions are not from someone unaware.
Why are parents and primary caregivers not looking after their children? Why are parents and caregivers excused from looking after their children?
Why are Elders now apparently powerless when it comes to the management of children and youth within communities?
Why are non-Indigenous persons deemed wholly responsible for issues about the health and welfare of Indigenous youth and adults?
vWhy don’t people take responsibility for their health; why do they blame the health department and other agencies for poor health and illness when a great deal comes from their chosen behaviours? mn
Why are parents and caregivers not responsible for ensuring their children attend school?
Why are teachers and the education department blamed when children leave school as functional illiterates when that has been and is the result of them not attending school?
Why is it deemed racist when issues are raised, and the need for self-responsibility is pointed back to families from where the problems arise?
Why do some mothers in our country who are pregnant drink alcohol while pregnant, with this leading to FASD issues?
Why are Indigenous people coming into towns from communities not responsible for their accommodation?
What happens to those who are victims of crime when it comes to damaged premises, stolen cars and so on?
Is the need for welfare support occasioned by the expenditure priorities of parents and caregivers who should be providing for children?
What should happen in the many cases of children and young people roaming the streets and getting into trouble because they feel unsafe at home?
If agencies take children from unsafe homes, are they not faced with ‘double jeopardy’ because of accusations of stealing children from parents?
Are responsibilities that should belong to parents being passed to government instrumentalities, with parents and caregivers shrugging and inferring that various government agencies should pick up their commitment?
Should ANY responsibility for the upbringing of children belong to parents?
Why is the role parents should play in raising their children at best infrequently raised; are parents excused from any responsibility?
Do many young people act disruptively because they feel a sense of entitlement because Australia is a country where its First Peoples were first? Do they feel ‘owed’ by being first?
Sent from my iPad
Very good comments Henry, in my view. Not much point in talking in ideologically based generalisations.