From Inclusion to Exclusion, to Inclusion, to Exclusion: The Australian
Indigenous Disadvantage, Freedom Through Education
ELIZA SHRESTHA
LATROBE UNIVERSITY.
Introduction.
The term aborigine is a problematic term which encompasses a generalization of a people who
are comprised of many varied tribal groups spread over the country, all very diverse and unique
from each other. The term Aborigine is an obscure cultural identity, in so far as it still remains
to be a colonial creation, invented under colonial conditions as a tool for social control. On one
hand it’s an important source of identity for a peoples, and at the same time it remains a relic
of colonial domination (Haralambos et al. 1996). To first understand the present state of
Australian Aborigines, a brief history of the past 200 years will illuminated, focusing mainly on
the indoctrination, protection, education and welfare. Moreover, the attitudes which are
reflected towards Australian Aborigines are not a directly disempowering as they once were in
the 1800s, yet strikingly similar in its effects of disempowering a race. Only in 1972 did the
Whitlam government introduce provisions and the ordination of the Department of Aborigine
Affairs, this formality would distribute the welfare accordingly to the Indigenous (Altman &
Sanders 1991). This attempt to alleviate decades of stigmatization is proven to be difficult even
until now. Instead of dealing with the issues which inflict many indigenous peoples, the
government have once again made them dependent.
Brief History.
The history of welfare in Australia seems to somehow fall short when it came to providing
adequate care towards the Indigenous peoples of this land which was deemed as Terra Nullius
(No mans land). Arguably, the legitimacy of what type of welfare was given throughout history
is dependent on when it was deemed as appropriate; and whether is actually was. It was only
after the bureaucratic jargon of the 70s, that in 1980 all aborigines were treated as being
eligible to collect unemployment benefits, and receive funding for community projects (Altman
& Sanders 1991). Moreover, the inclusion of indigenous Australians in the welfare system is
shrouded in a bureaucratic playground which would always make it difficult for the Indigenous
to receive any sort to true autonomy. Nether the less, wealth distribution in the form of welfare
is varied amongst the states, up until now Queensland government still have their own policy
for welfare distribution, this reflects the dominant conservative party (Altman & Sanders 1991).
Moreover, a small example of Queensland’s conservative policy is that it remains to be one of
the biggest states in Australia, yet indigenous land which has been given back to various ethnic
groups has been the smallest amongst the states, with only returning 42, 000 square kilometers
(Hunter 2001). In comparison to the Northern Territory which has given back 40% (536, 000
square kilometers), this discrepancy can be largely attributed to poor Indigenous governance
(2001).
Representation of Social Problem.
One challenge which is faced by the Australian government is the effective distribution of
wealth amongst the younger indigenous generations. Indigenous children are among the most
disadvantaged group in Australia, across all spectrums of welfare the lack of attention and
understanding gives motivation to the imminent gap in education and life chances (Wise 2013).
One prominent aspect in which the Australian government fail to acknowledge are the state of
affairs in which many indigenous families are exposed to, poor living condition, lower chances
of education and employment, etc. Moreover, many indigenous communities do not function
as nuclear families, but as collective communities. When it comes to raising children it is not
only the mother who is the mother, the also the aunty who can play the role of mother (2013).
Similarly, land ownership is owned as a collective rather than on an individually owned plots,
this is an important factor when understanding how wealth of economy is distributed within
the Indigenous community. Welfare payments are not necessarily seen as individual payments,
but as communal (Hunter 2001). What this means to the community is simply ‘taking care’ of
each other. The various policies like welfare checks handed out to individual peoples are often
distributed amongst the family and extended community (2001). Arguably, the government it
ethnocentrically distributing wealth even though there are many cultural studies which prove
that individual welfare payments are not always beneficial to the individual. A review of current
policy indicates that legislations are pressingly inadequate.
Current Policy.
The current policy in Australia is focusing on the social implications of early child development,
by investing in sectors like early education, parenting help and childcare. Theoretically, this will
reduce the social inequality which is inflicted towards Indigenous peoples (Wise 2013). When
reviewing the policy large discrepancies were evident. “The long-term objective of the OID
(Overcoming Indigenous Disadvantage) report is to inform Australian governments about
whether or not their policies and programs are achieving positive outcomes for Indigenous
people and to help inform further work” (ACER 2012, p. 13). Distinctively, from the findings the
divide in feedback presupposed that many of the government, non-government and various
NGO’s who were interviewed all possessed varied answers about the nature of the current
indigenous health and education policies, drawing from the data many people were either
misinformed or did not possess enough information to comment. Many answers pointed to the
continuation of performance despite the external changes which are going on that effect the
nature of the OID (ACER 2012). Consequentially, Indigenous communities remain marginalized
as bureaucrats fuss around over legitimate policies rather than implementing them to benefit
the Indigenous.
The delivery of education in rural areas of Australia is economically difficult because Capital
except for mining does not thrive in remote places. The Australian government have introduced
programs for skilled and graduating teachers to move and work in remote parts of Australia in
return for certain benefits (Macklin 2013). Arguably, this provision is proving troublesome, the
results are proof that despite the benefits, skilled and graduating teachers are more likely to
work around cities, this comes down to the availability of capital achieved (Pearson 2000).
Hunter argues that bribing a few teachers and buying more books is the governments way of
not attempting to alleviate issues which are effecting Indigenous communities in the first place
(Hunter 2001). In hindsight the government program called ‘Teach Remote’ have all together
invested $19.5 million to deliver a competent teaching force to Indigenous communities in rural
areas; who are the poorest and most disadvantaged in Australia (Macklin 2013).
The solution to the lack of education and a good health among the indigenous is to conduct
more systematic studies in factors of disadvantage. The 2013-14 Budget has only included one
comprehensive study to track children early in their educational development. The research
proposal for this study does not look into the personal housing composition of the participants.
Social factors like arrests and housing compositions are statistically demonstrated to be more
important factors when it comes to social opportunities than educational institutions and
employment (Hunter 2001). Jenny Macklin writes in the Budget, that all indigenous children
have the right to early and higher education (Macklin 2013). Arguably, vague statements about
injecting future funds into aspects like education and health will not necessarily improve the
levels of general health or higher participation in education. Reiterating Hunter’s argument that
simply buying more books, building more houses and injecting more money into indigenous
communities which face over representation in jail systems and a long history of trauma, is just
a vicious cycle of indoctrination (Hunter 2001).
Extended Critiques.
The displacement and resettlement of Indigenous people into Western forms of living rendered
many communities to break down, as their language was prohibited and Christian values were
put in place, this was viewed as a way of saving the Indigenous Australians; this was considered
a form of welfare (Hunter 2001; Haralambos et al. 1996). Up until now the Indigenous are being
displaced and discriminated against. General attitudes towards the Indigenous are over
simplified and ethnocentric (Julian 2009).Indigenous Aborigines were only included in the
welfare state in the 1970. Before which as a race they were only deemed as human beings in
May 1967 (Haralambos et al. 1996). Julian and Hunter both argue that the late inclusion of
Indigenous people’s within the welfare state has attributed their dependency on check
payments (Julian 2009; Hunter 2001). The Australian government have put in place policies
which encourage Indigenous communities to interact with more Western form of life. For
example, the education program for Indigenous young people varies from learning only the
dominant language of that area or hardly learning any at all. Moreover, many Indigenous
Australians possess very poor literacy and numeracy skills, this is the direct influence f not only
the education system but the systematic break down of their language and community
(Pearson 2000). One thing that the Australian government has a history of being and continues
to be afraid of is an educated indigenous population that will be able to demand more rights.
An educated aboriginal population would make it harder for the mining companies and the
Australian government to mine heritage land. This would also increase the prospect of more
aboriginals obtaining adequate land rights. With the former assimilation laws, Aborigines were
a largely marginalized group, education, health and all aspects of public life were segregated,
separate hospital wards different, seating areas in cinemas and as their rights as human beings
were taken away their reliance on the colonizers often deemed them as lazy, drunk, stupid
(Haralambos et al. 1996). Notwithstanding the stereotype, many were participating in paid
work, although they were grossly underpaid many of the Aborigines would often be better
qualified than their European co-workers (Haralambos et al. 1996).
Noel Pearson coins the term ‘passive welfare’ as being the biggest contributing factor to
indigenous disadvantage. Census data collaborated each year show alarming discrepancies
amongst communities, some of the highest rates of alcohol abuse in the world, not to mention
array of disease and death which is almost unseen in non-indigenous communities (Pearson
2000). The education which is received among the indigenous is proving to be not nearly as
effective as those who are non-indigenous. Arguably, when looking at the history of welfare, it
was the working class who were able to establish minimum rights in the form of basic
education, health, pensions in return for their work. What is problematic about the indigenous
welfare system is that it’s not reciprocal, this manifests a mentality of the rights to acquire
‘welfare’ (Pearson 2000). The disillusionment towards work is inevitable when the distributer of
welfare stands at the higher end of the power struggle as being the holder of welfare giving it
to the needy. The issues which arose after the 1970s is largely contributed to the economic
dependency to passive welfare. Noel Pearson would argue that although the education system
allows the Indigenous to receive many benefits, the economic factors which influence many
indigenous communities prevent people from accessing even basic education (Pearson 2000).
Moreover, trauma, dispositions and racism does not explain the rather rapid breakdown of a
society which before the 1970s was still functioning and relatively stable, in so far as traditions
were intact and most importantly a cultural consciousness was shared.
Much of the preventative intervention in coloration to substance abuse does not take into
consideration social implications of misuse, thereby heavy penalties are deled out as
consequences. The Ministerial Taskforce is a body which coordinates the expenditure and
policy for the Australian Government regarding Indigenous Aborigines. MTFs long time
philosophy is that all aborigines have the same access to opportunities in life like all Australians,
and have the potential to make informed decisions about their lives direction while being able
to manage their own affairs (Indigenous Affairs Arrangements 2006). Many Indigenous people
do not have the same opportunities as other Australian’s because most people that chose to
come to Australia adhere to the terms and conditions before entering (Pearson 2000). Under
these circumstances the situations vary greatly. Policing of substances abuse and dealing is
often met with harsh penalties, jail sentences are often the result of violence or substance
abuse (Pearson 2000). Most of the programs targeted towards Indigenous substance abuse is
focused on punishment rather than rehabilitation, this often results is reoffending cases when
socialization back into problematic environments is likely. Studies show that Indigenous
communities are the most disadvantaged and broken in Australia (Gray & Saggers 2009).
Moreover, in terms of legislation, rehabilitation, in conjunction with prevention methods are
contingent on each other. Reiterating the importance of making the coloration between history
of trauma (The Stolen Generation), Hunter argues that there is a direct link between removal,
past family trauma and current likelihoods of criminalization (Hunter 2001).
The issues that concern indigenous peoples was caused by the very same people who say they
are trying to alleviate disadvantage. One common characteristic which is shared by almost all
colonizing nations is ethnocentricity. For hundreds of years and now, colonizers have
indoctrinated their ideologies, and have forcibly attempted to apply their own perspectives and
beliefs onto the indigenous peoples (Grey & Saggers 2009). It’s a systematic process of
marginalizing a race in order to exploit them. Moreover, this is what we see in Australia and
other parts of the world, indigenous peoples of the Americas are often shrouded with similar
colonial histories and marginalization (Grey & Saggers 2009). When a group of people are being
systematically removed from their families and communities, the traumas reflect all aspect of
their lives. Consequentially, when they are reintroduced into the community after a period of
separation, anxieties and depression are common because of loss of culture and identity (Julian
2009).
Possible Solutions.
The indigenous Australians have entitlement to their version of autonomy. Autonomy in the
form of financial, political, economic, and control of their well beings. Pearson suggests that in
place of ‘passive welfare’, alternate economies need to be set up (Pearson 2000). There are
already 2600 Aborigine corporations in Australia, achieving their Autonomy through the
participation of Western forms of power economy (Macklin 2013). Theoretically, this may not
be the ideal solution, however Australia is a country run on corporate power, it’s true that
corporations are able to infiltrate government policies and change legislations. By taking
advantage of community pay checks, Indigenous communities in rural and non-rural can gain
recognition by establishing co-op. In the case of the Murdi Paaki Region in rural New South
Wales, they were able to receive many educational autonomy, in so far as, the community was
able to create in unique course syllabus relevant to their own culture, and this was due to the
push in corporate interaction in the political and economic sphere.
Conclusion.
Consequentially, the ultimate dysfunction of the Indigenous people can be largely attributed to
many things like trauma and dispossession but when analyzing the autonomous nature of the
traditions and culture the breakdown is largely associated to its income of an artificial economy
coupled with a dependency to passive welfare. The relationship between welfare and how it
effects the indigenous population has been proven problematic throughout its history. The
‘Stolen Generation’ were deemed as children being ‘saved’, this form of welfare was seemingly
appropriate by Australia’s colonizers who only deemed Aborigines as Human in 1967. What is
evident, is that this form of welfare was grossly inappropriate, and has been the reason for
generations of trauma and social unrest amongst the indigenous communities. Necessarily, the
social problems which arise from generations of marginalization cannot not be undone by
further indoctrination through western forms of education and jurisdiction. Passively delving
out money to communities is also proving to be problematic, in as far as issue with health,
education and criminalization are highest amongst indigenous communities. Solutions are
evident, Indigenous communities require their economies which are reciprocal and circular. To
indirectly quote Noel Pearson, ‘Money without Purpose is Purposeless’ (Pearson 2000, p. 143).
Autonomy is an important building block to any society, the breakdown of a community usually
entails the lack of autonomy. Moreover, many indigenous communities like the Murdi Paaki
region are proof that if enough pressure is put on the state communities are able to achieve
their autonomy.
Word Count: 2,680
REFERENCES:






Altman, J C Sanders, W 1991, ‘From Exclusion to Dependence: Aborigines and the
Welfare State in Australia’, Discussion Paper No. 1/1991, Centre for Aboriginal Economic
Policy Research, ANU, Canberra
Australian Council of Educational Research 2012, Review of the Overcoming Indigenous
Disadvantage: Key Indicators Report for the Steering Committee for the Review of the
Government Services Provision, Australian Government Provision Commission,
Australian Government, Department of Families, Community Services and Indigenous
Affairs. Office of Indigenous Policy Coordination, (2006) ‘Indigenous Affairs
Arrangements’
Gray, D Saggers, S 2009, ‘Indigenous Health: The Perpetuation of Inequality’, in Germov,
J. (ed.) Second Opinion: An Introduction to Health Sociology (4th edition), pp. 156- 174
Haralambos, M van Krieken, R Smith, P Davis, A 1996, Sociology: Themes and
Perspectives Australian Edition, Addison Wesley Longman, South Melbourne.
Hunter, B 2001, ‘Tackling Poverty among Indigenous Australians’, In Ruth Fincher and
Peter Saunders (eds), Creating Unequal Futures? Rethinking Poverty, Inequality and
Disadvantage, Crows Nest, Allen & Unwin, pp. 129-157


Julian, R 2009, ‘Ethnicity, Health, and Multiculturalism’, in Germov, J. (ed.) Second
Opinion: An Introduction to Health Sociology (4th edition), pp. 175- 196.
Pearson, Noel (2000) ‘Passive Welfare and the Destruction of Indigenous Society in
Australia’. In Peter Saunders (ed.) Reforming the Australian Welfare State, Australian
Institute of Family Studies, Ch. 7, pp. 136-155

Macklin, Jenny (MP) (2013) Continued Investment to Close the Gap: Statement by the
Honourable Jenny Macklin MP, Minister for Families, Community Services and Indigenous
Affairs,
14
May
2013
Available
for
Pdf
download
at
URL:
http://www.budget.gov.au/201314/content/ministerial_statements/download/Indigenous_MS.pdf

Wise, S 2013, Improving the early life outcomes of Indigenous children: implementing
early childhood development at the local level, Australian Institute of Health and
Welfare & Australian Institute of Family Studies, Issue. 6,