Former Liberal Prime Minister Malcolm Fraser has criticised the Coalition for its policies in Aboriginal affairs. He has suggested the adoption of a bill of rights to compensate for inadequacies in the common law treatment of Aborigines. He forgets the power of statute law and the power of the purse. His government passed the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976 and maintained the Racial Discrimination Act 1975. During the life of his governments, expenditure on Aboriginal affairs doubled, to $240M per annum. Today it stands at $2B per annum. It seems that the efforts of the last 25 years have not been enough. So what is enough?
Perhaps the one other thing that Malcolm Fraser mentioned, a Treaty between all Aboriginal people and the Australian nation. As expressed by some Aboriginal leaders the treaty strategy consists of claims to self-determination, the recognition of unspecified inherent rights, the recognition of traditional law and custom and even an Aboriginal state. Two models of Treaty are on offer -- a final settlement or a contract with on-going obligations. A settlement is attractive in some ways because it promises an end to the matter. This option will disarm the Aboriginal leadership.
Treaty as contract would replace the implied contract between each citizen and the state, based on a formal equality before the law, and public power resting in accountable and impartial institutions. The new racial relationship would be that of landlord and tenant, vanquished and conqueror, victim and perpetrator, First People and latecomer. In fact each of these already exists. Some Aborigines are landowners and receive royalties from their tenants, usually miners. Some Aborigines feel, as a result of the European invasion of 1788 that they are vanquished. Some are victims of prejudice and government policy like the removal of children from their parents. They are all descendants of First People. At present these roles can be transcended. People can change their circumstances. A Treaty will lock in a permanent and unequal status -- if you are one, you cannot be the other.
Almost certainly a Treaty will not help Aboriginal people come to terms with their condition. For example, policies aimed at economic integration will in time ensure that Aboriginal people have the same class-health-demographic profile as the rest of the nation. How will a tenant-landlord contract look when the landlord is doing well?
Policies aimed at separate development will ghettoise Aboriginal people, substituting their theoretical oppressors with real ones. The new oppression will result from petty feuding and retribution between local leaders, part of any society where authority is embedded in persons and not impersonal institutions. The disciplines and lines of authority of pre 1788 are well and truly gone. Aboriginal society may well become the most inegalitarian on the continent.
Different laws will apply to the signatories. For example, Aborigines will take Aboriginal children at risk. Such a system may work if it occurs in wholly Aboriginal families and in wholly Aboriginal areas. However, as few exclusively Aboriginal families or areas exist, which law, Aboriginal or Australian, will apply when the authorities come to claim the child of a mixed marriage?
What is the great moral principle on which Aboriginal claims are made? "We were here first!" This has all of the weight of an original sin. It can never be overcome -- all ills are placed at its feet. It is also a very useful tool to update claims, which is why some Aboriginal leaders prefer it as the basis of a Treaty. Of course, Western civilisation could offer a modest contrary principle -- that all are created equal, a morality that has freed white and black people the world over. A foundation for a civilisation whose brilliance offers the longest, most comfortable, free and artistically and intellectually productive and stimulating life ever produced.
Individuals may choose to practise their beliefs and live in an Aboriginal culture, but those who want something more must not be abandoned. Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal people recognise successful Aborigines as those who are successful in the wider society. The only "authentic" Aboriginal successes are the artists, painters, dancers and storytellers who keep alive ancient artistic traditions. Aboriginal culture grew out of the specific living conditions prior to invasion. They have not been the same since, they are adaptations and remnants. They can be revered or abandoned, but that is a matter for each person.
The worst thing the nation can do for Aboriginal people is to make credible that which is not. A contract that imposes separate terms is a dangerous fantasy. Every measure of success and piece of recovery demanded by Aboriginal leaders points to the further integration of Aborigines into the broader society. A Treaty of dubious moral principle may be good for a new class of Aboriginal leaders. It is bad for Aboriginal people.
ADVERTISEMENT
No comments:
Post a Comment