PROBLEMATISING THE WICKEDNESS OF ‘DISADVANTAGE’ IN AUSTRALIAN INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS POLICY

Elizabeth Ann Pyle Graduate Diploma in Business Administration, Queensland University of Technology

Principal Supervisor: Dr Deanna Grant-Smith

Associate Supervisor: Associate Professor Robyn Mayes

Submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Business (Research) (Management)

QUT Business School, School of Management Queensland University of Technology 2018

Keywords

Aboriginal people, deficit discourses, disadvantage, Indigenous Affairs policy, interpretive policy analysis, strength-based discourses, Torres Strait Islander people, whiteness, wicked problems

ii Problematising the wickedness of ‘disadvantage’ in Australian Indigenous Affairs policy Abstract

Australia’s First Peoples, Aboriginal people and Torres Strait Islander people, have been the subject of and have experienced significant marginalisation as a result of the occurrence and ongoing manner of European colonisation. Despite being the focus of numerous government programs and policies designed to ‘improve’ their lives, Indigenous Australians continue to experience disproportionately negative life outcomes in areas such as education, health, justice and employment compared to non- Indigenous Australians. Collectively and individually these outcomes are classified in public policy as Indigenous disadvantage. Indigenous disadvantage has been framed as a wicked policy problem: one that is characterised as intractable, contradictory and difficult to solve. Whilst such a label recognises the social, cultural and economic complexities involved in developing and implementing Indigenous Affairs policy, classifying Indigenous disadvantage as a wicked problem also has the potential to disempower those to who are its target. It disempowers by framing the lived experiences of Aboriginal peoples and Torres Strait Islander peoples, both collectively and individually, as an unsolvable problem. Such discourse also carries an implicit, yet powerful, assumption of inherent or unmanageable deficiency which may work against achieving the policy aims of improving the lives of Indigenous Australians and the disadvantage they experience. This research explores how the language of wickedness has influenced and continues to influence the development and implementation of Indigenous Affairs policy in Australia. In particular, cultural biases in policy discourses of Indigenous disadvantage are examined using interpretive policy analysis of key policy artefacts and the transcripts of semi-structured interviews undertaken with fifteen policy actors involved in the development and implementation of Indigenous Affairs policy. This research identified three influential discourses in historic and contemporary Indigenous Affairs policy. Namely, (1) deficit-based policy discourses including the characterisation of Indigenous disadvantage as wicked; (2) policy discourses which downplay the ongoing effects and legacies of intergenerational trauma on Indigenous disadvantage; and (3) the emergence and potential of strength-based policy discourses.

Problematising the wickedness of ‘disadvantage’ in Australian Indigenous Affairs policy iii This research also highlights the role of news media coverage in shaping Indigenous Affairs policy, and finds that much of the perceived wickedness of Indigenous disadvantage is connected to the deficit discourse of Indigenous Affairs policy. The research provides further support for arguments that adopting strength- based discourses may offer greater potential for addressing disparities by moving beyond the more dominant, and limiting, negative policy discourses and toward policy partnership with Aboriginal people and Torres Strait Islander people.

iv Problematising the wickedness of ‘disadvantage’ in Australian Indigenous Affairs policy Table of Contents

Keywords ...... ii Abstract ...... iii Table of Contents ...... v List of Figures ...... vii List of Tables ...... vii List of Abbreviations & Key Terms ...... viii Statement of Original Authorship ...... ix Acknowledgements ...... x Chapter 1: Introduction ...... 1 1.1 Research background ...... 1 1.2 Research problem & rationale ...... 5 1.2.1 Justice as a policy example of Indigenous disadvantage ...... 6 1.3 Research aim and questions ...... 8 1.4 Thesis overview ...... 9 Chapter 2: Framing ‘Indigenous disadvantage’ as a policy problem ...... 11 2.1 Policymaking and policy framing ...... 11 2.2 Policy discourses ...... 13 2.2.1 Defining deficit discourse...... 13 2.2.2 Discourses of wickedness ...... 16 2.2.3 Strength-based policy discourses ...... 19 2.3 The Indigenous Other in policy ...... 21 2.3.1 Policies of whiteness ...... 21 2.3.2 Policies of Othering ...... 23 2.4 Summary: The legacy of Indigenous Affairs policy ...... 24 Chapter 3: Research design ...... 26 3.1 Research methodology...... 26 3.1.1 Interpretive Policy Analysis ...... 27 3.1.2 Operationalising Interpretive Policy Analysis ...... 29 3.2 Data collection ...... 30 3.2.1 Key Indigenous Affairs policy artefacts analysed ...... 31 3.2.2 Semi-structured interviews with policy actors ...... 33 3.2.3 Research participants ...... 34 3.3 Ethics ...... 36 3.3.1 Data collection protocols and ethics ...... 36 3.3.2 Researcher standpoint ...... 37 3.4 Summary ...... 39

Problematising the wickedness of ‘disadvantage’ in Australian Indigenous Affairs policy v Chapter 4: The dominance of deficit discourses in Indigenous Affairs policy ...... 40 4.1 Historical discourses of deficit ...... 40 4.1.1 Aboriginals Protection and Restriction of Sale of Opium Act 1897 (Qld) ...... 41 4.1.2 The stolen generations ...... 45 4.2 Contemporary deficit discourses ...... 46 4.2.1 Deficit discourse in practice: The Northern Territory National Emergency Response ...... 46 4.2.2 Closing the Gap ...... 50 4.3 Policy actor interpretations of deficit discourses in Indigenous Affairs policy ...... 51 4.3.1 Partnerships ...... 51 4.3.2 Legacy ...... 53 4.3.3 Policy actors ...... 55 4.4 Summary ...... 56 Chapter 5: The wicked problem of ‘Indigenous disadvantage’ ...... 58 5.1 Framing Indigenous disadvantage as a wicked problem ...... 58 5.1.1 Wicked complexity in Australian Indigenous Affairs policy ...... 59 5.1.2 Wicked uncertainty in Australian Indigenous Affairs policy ...... 60 5.1.3 Wicked value divergence in Australian Indigenous Affairs policy ...... 62 5.2 The impact of wicked discoures on public policy ...... 63 5.3 Policy actor interpretations of discourses of wickedness in Indigenous Affairs policy 65 5.3.1 Wicked problems ...... 65 5.3.2 Homogenisation or one size fits all ...... 67 5.3.3 What’s missing ...... 68 5.4 Summary ...... 70 Chapter 6: Reframing Indigenous disadvantage through strength-based discourses ...... 71 6.1 Public policy and strength-based discourses ...... 71 6.2 Contemporary strength-based discourses ...... 75 6.3 Cultural safety ...... 78 6.3.1 The strength of Indigenous knowledges and shared worldviews ...... 78 6.3.2 Public leadership statements ...... 79 6.4 The power of symbolic acts ...... 80 6.5 Policy actor interpretations of strength-based discourses within Indigenous Affairs policy ...... 81 6.5.1 The importance of cultural safety ...... 81 6.5.2 Engagement and co-design ...... 83 6.5.3 There have been changes ...... 85 6.6 Summary: we’re not there yet ...... 88 Chapter 7: Does it all have to be wicked? ...... 90 7.1 Ceding whiteness is strong not wicked ...... 92 7.2 Research contributions ...... 93 7.3 Implications for practice ...... 94

vi Problematising the wickedness of ‘disadvantage’ in Australian Indigenous Affairs policy 7.4 Directions for future research and limitations ...... 94 Reference List ...... 97 Appendices ...... 120 Appendix A: Policy and Program Timeline ...... 120 Appendix B: Australia’s Prime Ministers Referred to in this Research...... 124 Appendix C: Interview Guide ...... 125

List of Figures

Figure 2.1 Categories of wicked problems...... 17 Figure 2.2 Complexity, Uncertainty, Value Divergence Model ...... 17 Figure 3.1 In IPA symbolic artefacts accommodate multiple meanings...... 28

List of Tables

Table 3.1 Operationalising IPA ...... 30 Table 3.2 Key policy artefacts analysed ...... 32 Table 3.3 List of research participants ...... 36

Problematising the wickedness of ‘disadvantage’ in Australian Indigenous Affairs policy vii List of Abbreviations & Key Terms

Aboriginal Defined as a person who (1) has Aboriginal or Torres Strait person and Islander descent; who also (2) identifies as an Aboriginal or Torres Strait Torres Strait Islander person; and (3) is accepted as such by the Islander person Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander community in which they live (or come from) (AIATSIS, 2018). Aboriginal The terms Aboriginal people/s and Torres Strait Islander people/s and people/s are used in this thesis as a standard that indicates and Torres Strait respects difference between and within many cultural groupings. Islander The term people is used as a collective cultural term and peoples people/s to demonstrate cultural diversity including language, practices and beliefs (AHRC, n.d). ATSIC Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission Closing the Gap Closing the Gap on Indigenous Disadvantage COAG Council of Australian Governments Indigenous Used as a term to describe the public discourses around the Affairs administration of policy development and implementation involving Aboriginal people and Torres Strait Islander people. Indigenous Used in this thesis at times as a term to acknowledge all peoples Australian who are the First Peoples of Australia. It is not intended to characterise Aboriginal people and Torres Strait Islander people as culturally homogenous. IPA Interpretive Policy Analysis Policy How policy actors “talk and act with respect to the policy issue” Discourse (Yanow, 2011, 19) and the “different language, understandings and perceptions” of policy issues (Yanow, 2011, p. 12). Policy Actor Used to describe those who are “operating policies of ‘governmentality’” (Jones, 2013, p. 5), including politicians, public servants, not for profit staff and the media.

viii Problematising the wickedness of ‘disadvantage’ in Australian Indigenous Affairs policy Statement of Original Authorship

The work contained in this thesis has not been previously submitted to meet requirements for an award at this or any other higher education institution. To the best of my knowledge and belief, the thesis contains no material previously published or written by another person except where due reference is made.

QUT Verified Signature Signature:

Date: November 2018

Problematising the wickedness of ‘disadvantage’ in Australian Indigenous Affairs policy ix Acknowledgements

There are so many people to thank for their enduring support throughout the process of researching and writing a dissertation – of any size! This includes my many steadfast (and exceptionally patient) friends as well as the passers-by in life – daily public transport acquaintances, work colleagues, friends of friends, and sympathetic students working behind bars and checkouts, in coffee shops, and sitting libraries.

In particular, I would like to acknowledge my two fabulous (and exceptionally patient) supervisors who were unwavering in their support of my research and generous with their knowledge, feedback and encouragement. To Dr Deanna Grant Smith and Dr Robyn Mayes – a sincere and heartfelt thank you! You kept me going through the dark times towards completion … Your time, advice, input and insightful thoughts and discussions around my research, and the process of reflecting on and representing this research were very much appreciated.

I would also like to thank family – Norm, David, Sandy and ever understanding niece Lauren. To other friends: Jane, Janet, Therese, Mavis and Dave, Moreen and Dave, Graham and Li, Susan and David, Julie, Julie and Marty, Wayne, Kay and Ken, Sylvia, Carmel and Tony, and Priscilla – thanks for the supportive listening!!

Importantly, I sincerely acknowledge those who agreed to participate in this research and for their generosity, candour and enthusiasm for the topic. I would also like to recognise the unique knowledges of the over 3000 generations of the First Peoples of this country and who are custodians of the land on which I completed this research project.

This journey also provided the opportunity to present my initial research at The 9th International Conference in Critical Management Studies in the United Kingdom in 2015, and to author a chapter accepted for publication.

Pyle, E., Grant-Smith, D., & Mayes, R. (2019, in press). Deficit discourses and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander disadvantage: A wicked problem in Australian Indigenous policy? In W. Thomas, A. Hujala, & S. Laulainen (Eds) The Management of Wicked Problems in Health and Social Care. Routledge.

x Problematising the wickedness of ‘disadvantage’ in Australian Indigenous Affairs policy

‘But if thought corrupts language, language can also corrupt thought’

(Orwell, 1946)

Problematising the wickedness of ‘disadvantage’ in Australian Indigenous Affairs policy xi Chapter 1: Introduction

1.1 RESEARCH BACKGROUND

Australia’s First Peoples, Aboriginal peoples and Torres Strait Islander peoples, are two distinct cultural groups (AIATSIS, 2018). It is estimated that Aboriginal people have lived on the Australian continent for around 60,000 years (Dockery, 2010) and that Torres Strait Islander peoples have lived in the Torres Strait for approximately 3000 years (Lawrence & Lawrence, 2004). Together Aboriginal peoples and Torres Strait Islander peoples comprised more than 250 language groups at the time of European settlement (Walsh, 2001). European colonisation of Australia began in earnest with the arrival of the British First Fleet in 1788, carrying convicts and public officials with instructions from King George III to oversee the convicts, promote agriculture and exploration, and protect “Natives” lives and “conciliate their affections, enjoining all Our Subjects to live in amity and kindness with them” (MoAD, n.d.a, p. 6). Captain Arthur Phillip, as the first governor of the first British Colony in Australia, announced British law and the First Peoples automatically became British subjects. The recognition of property rights for Australia’s Indigenous people was not part of this brief (Buchan & Heath, 2006).

Aboriginal people and Torres Strait Islander people have experienced significant marginalisation because of the British invasion of Australia and the manner of continued colonisation. In his landmark Redfern Speech1 Prime Minister Paul Keating recognised the impact of colonisation and later government actions on Indigenous Australians:

Just a mile or two from the place where the first European settlers landed, in too many ways it tells us that their failure to bring much more than devastation and demoralisation to Aboriginal Australia continues to be our failure (Keating, 1992, para. 12). It was anticipated that this public acknowledgement combined with the 1992 Mabo Case which negated the concept of terra nullius and acknowledged that people were living on the Australian continent for a considerable time prior to European

1 This speech was delivered at the launch of Australia's celebration of the International Year of the World's Indigenous People, one year after the Mabo Decision and in the year the Native Title Act 1993 was promulgated.

Problematising the wickedness of ‘disadvantage’ in Australian Indigenous Affairs policy 1 colonisation, and the instigation of the Native Title Act 1993, would lead to considerable changes for Aboriginal peoples and Torres Strait Islander peoples (Frankland, 2006).

However, the title of Lowitja O’Donoghue’s key speech at the 1997 Spann Oration2, “In Indigenous Affairs nothing is new, just forgotten” (1997, p. 5) was an apt precursor to Prime Minister Tony Abbott’s widely condemned comments at the 2014 launch of the 100 Defining Moments in Australian History project. His worldview provided an alternate and it might be argued retrograde perspective of Indigenous Australians’ experiences of colonisation:

The arrival of the First Fleet was the defining moment in the history of this continent. Let me repeat that, it was the defining moment in the history of this continent…It was the moment this continent became part of the modern world (Dingle, 2014, paras. 3, 4). Warren Mundine, Chair of the Prime Minister’s Indigenous Advisory Council (2013- 2017), agreed it was indeed a defining moment but clarified it was “a disastrous defining moment for Indigenous people” (Dingle, 2014, para. 6).

Since colonisation Aboriginal people and Torres Strait Islander people have been subjected to many government interventions, which progressively escalated (Frankland, 1994). These interventions included the controlling of, or shaping of, lived experiences such as the practice of cultural lores and language (White, 2010), movement throughout the country, choice of places and type of work, remuneration and wage control (Nakata, 2004; Bielefeld, 2014), marriage (Bamblett & Lewis, 2010) along with categories that defined levels of Aboriginality3 (Brown, 2009). The forced removal of children from their parents (Brown, 2009; Fforde et al., 2013) was a policy decision that lasted for many decades.

These experiences resulted in the ongoing dispossession of home, loss of cultural knowledge and family, and intergenerational trauma (Beresford & Beresford, 2006). The effects of colonisation, including violent conflicts and protectionist policies (Hunt, 2013), have contributed to high rates of suicide, alcohol misuse, and incarceration in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities (Beresford & Beresford, 2006).

2 The Spann Oration is an annual event held by the Institute of Public Administration Australia (IPAA, 2012). 3 The term ‘Aboriginality’ is used here to represent Brown’s writings about the language of early to mid-20th Century

2 Problematising the wickedness of ‘disadvantage’ in Australian Indigenous Affairs policy Continued separation of Indigenous children from their families and social infrastructure combined with the historical use of tobacco as wages has also contributed to extremely high rates of smoking among Indigenous Australians (Schofield, Sebastian, Donelly, & Anderson, 2015). It is this unresolved trauma (Hunt, 2013) that is still reflected in disproportionately negative life outcomes for example in the education and health of many Indigenous Australians in comparison with non- Indigenous Australians (DPMC, 2018).

The push for the Australian Government to have national control over Indigenous Affairs began soon after Federation in 1910 by the Australian Board of Missions (Attwood, Markus, & Edwards, 2014). The momentum for reform continued over the following decades through other groups and committees such as the Australian Aborigines’ League, the United Associations of Women and the Aborigines Progressive Association. The Federal Council for the Advancement of Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders launched a petition for equality for Indigenous Australians in 1962 (Attwood et al., 2014).

A pivotal moment in the history of Indigenous Affairs was the 1967 Referendum (O’Donoghue, 1997; Burney, 2017). This referendum allowed for Indigenous Australians to be counted in the census for the first time (Brown, 2009, p. 1567), and for Indigenous Affairs to become a national responsibility of the Australian Government (Arthur, 2004). This constitutional amendment was supported by over 90 percent of Australia’s voting population (Brown, 2009, p. 1567).4 One of the key legacies of the 1967 Referendum was the introduction of a central Commonwealth ministry for Indigenous Affairs, via an advisory council of “three white men” (Turner, 1997, p. 5). Education and enterprise development was the first program created for Indigenous Australians on a national level. When Gough Whitlam became Prime Minister in 1972, a new reform agenda was established, as was the infrastructure for Indigenous Affairs as a discrete administrative area within government (Turner, 1997). Under Whitlam, all Australian government departments and State, Territory and Local

4 The final lead up to the 1967 Referendum included support from churches, unions and the Labor Party (Attwood et al., 2014). Support for the ‘yes’ vote was so immense that the government in opposition did not put forward an argument for voting ‘no’ (Attwood et al., 2014).

Problematising the wickedness of ‘disadvantage’ in Australian Indigenous Affairs policy 3 governments were considered to have common accountabilities for Aboriginal peoples and Torres Strait Islander peoples.

Another pivotal moment in contemporary Australian Indigenous Affairs was the establishment of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission (ATSIC) in 1990. ATSIC took over the roles of the Department of Aboriginal Affairs and the Aboriginal Development Commission (O’Donoghue, 1997). ATSIC involved elected Indigenous Regional Councils Australia-wide, with those Councillors electing seventeen Commissioners to be the ATSIC Board (Turner, 1997). This Commission was designed to decentralise Indigenous Affairs, including funding of programs, through creating opportunities for community contribution and localised self- determination (O’Donoghue, 1996).

ATSIC was finally abolished in 2005 (Cunningham & Baeza, 2005) and in 1992, the Council of Australian Governments (COAG) introduced the “National Commitment to Improved Outcomes in the Delivery of Programs and Services to Aboriginal Peoples and Torres Strait Islanders” to create an inter-governmental framework (Turner, 1997, p. 8). 2008 saw the introduction by COAG of the Closing the Gap on Indigenous Disadvantage strategy where seven targets were decided upon to address the disadvantage experienced by Indigenous Australians in life expectancy, child mortality, education and employment (COAG Reform Council, 2014).

Sanders (2010, p. 308) identifies three principles which can inform the discourses of contemporary Indigenous Affairs policy: “equality, choice and guardianship”. Given the high rates of dispossession and the traumas experienced by Aboriginal people and Torres Strait Islander people as a result of family removals, the third principle, guardianship is pivotal to Indigenous Affairs discourses. ‘Guardianship’ is created when difference and diversity are viewed disparagingly and as an “indicator of misinformed or irresponsible Indigenous agency” (Sanders, 2010, p. 314). This means in policy terms, governments believe certain people do not have the ability to identify what is best for them and neither can the people who would normally assist in difficult times, resulting in government intervention.

A converse, or ameliorating position to guardianship, could include policy actors actively reflecting on their epistemological and ontological truth and the influence this truth has on their framing of ‘problems’ and policy development and implementation, and indeed, whether that influence might be positive or deleterious (Yanow, 2009).

4 Problematising the wickedness of ‘disadvantage’ in Australian Indigenous Affairs policy Linked to a deficit concept of patronage is the ongoing romantic view that Indigenous Australians are automatically ‘at one with the land’ (Howlett & Hartwig, 2017; Wheeler-Jones et al., 2015). Their ‘authenticity’ as an Indigenous person or community is gauged based upon whether they live in remote or metropolitan areas with those living in metropolitan areas being ‘inauthentic”, or somehow less Indigenous (Howlett & Hartwig, 2017; Fredericks, 2007).

1.2 RESEARCH PROBLEM & RATIONALE

Australia’s First peoples experience disproportionately negative life outcomes relative to non-Indigenous Australians in areas such as education, health, justice, and employment (DPMC, 2018). SEIFA, the Socio-Economic Indexes For Areas, measures disadvantage and advantage within a socio-economic framework based on geography and census data. SEIFA defines socio-economic disadvantage and advantage in terms of individuals’ capacity to participate in society including access to physical and social resources (ABS, 2018a). Despite representing a small proportion of Australia’s total population5, based on SEIFA indicators a large proportion of Indigenous Australians experience a negative disparity in life outcomes such as morbidity, mortality, education, health and employment in comparison to non- Indigenous Australians (COAG Reform Council, 2014).

Disparities between the lived experiences of Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians have been well-documented and debated in government reports, scholarly works and the media (Dockery, 2010). Successive governments have initiated policies and strategies to address these ongoing inequalities. Indigenous Affairs policies have labelled this disparity ‘Indigenous disadvantage’ and a ‘problem’. As a result, in Australia, tropes conflating ‘disadvantage’ and being Indigenous, have become an assumed point of reference for public and policy discourse around Aboriginal peoples and Torres Strait Islander peoples.

More recently, public discussion has defined ‘Indigenous disadvantage’ as a ‘wicked’ problem (Hunter, 2007; Johns, 2008; Head, 2008): a policy problem that is

5 Aboriginal people and Torres Strait Islander people comprise approximately three percent of the total Australian population. Torres Strait Islander people comprise approximately five percent of Australia’s Indigenous population, with approximately four percent of all Indigenous Australians identifying as both Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander (ABS, 2018b).

Problematising the wickedness of ‘disadvantage’ in Australian Indigenous Affairs policy 5 extremely complex, difficult to define and seemingly intractable (Rittel & Webber, 1973). The term Indigenous disadvantage and the implications of deficit and homogeneity that accompany the words ‘Indigenous’ and ‘disadvantage’ have been conflated with the cultural identity of Australia’s First Peoples (Fforde, et al., 2013).

There is a disconnect between the rhetoric of government-initiated policies and reviews designed to address Indigenous disadvantage and their implementation that result in poor policy outcomes and low levels of engagement with the Aboriginal people and Torres Strait Islander people these policies are targeted at. This exclusion since the beginning of the process of colonisation has had ongoing policy ramifications for Indigenous Australians. Aboriginal academic Michael Dodson (2003) notes that because of ongoing colonial discourses:

We are constantly defined as ‘other’, but we are never permitted to be genuinely independent, genuinely different. In fact, far from being recognised in our difference, in our own terms, we are always defined in terms of the colonising or defining culture (p.36). Significantly, as he further points out, it was under that colonial gaze that “Aboriginality changed from being a daily practice to being ‘a problem to be solved’” (Dodson, 2003, p. 27). A key example of discourses that problematise Indigenous Australians themselves as ‘the problem’ can be seen in Indigenous Australian justice policies.

1.2.1 Justice as a policy example of Indigenous disadvantage A key marker of disparity in life outcomes between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians is the over-representation of Indigenous Australians within the penal system. Despite comprising only two percent of the Australian population aged eighteen years and older, approximately thirty percent of prisoners in Australia are Indigenous Australians (ABS, 2017). The statistics for young people between the age of ten and seventeen held in detention are more dire. In the 2016 June quarter, 55 percent of young people in overnight detention were Aboriginal young people and Torres Strait Islander young people, with these groups represented in detention at around 26 times higher than non-Indigenous young people (AIHW, 2016). In the Northern Territory in June 2018, 100 percent of young people between the ages of ten and seventeen in detention were Indigenous Australians (Allam, 2018).

6 Problematising the wickedness of ‘disadvantage’ in Australian Indigenous Affairs policy High rates of incarceration have been accompanied by deaths of Indigenous Australians whilst in custody. Responding to increasing public concerns regarding the deaths of Indigenous Australians in custody, Prime Minister Bob Hawke formed the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody. This Royal Commission examined the causes of deaths in custody of Indigenous Australians in state and territory prisons occurring between 1 January 1980 and 31 May 1989 (ALII, 2018). The title, Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody, however, does not reflect that three Torres Strait Islander people were investigated by the Royal Commission (Marchetti, 2012, p. 46).

Incarceration statistics, including deaths in custody, of Indigenous Australians have remained high since the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody. In 2013, an Australian Institute of Criminology study revealed there were almost twice the numbers of Indigenous Australians in prisons since the Royal Commission and a sharp increase in Indigenous Australian deaths in custody over the years 2005-6 to 2009-10 (Lyneham & Chan, 2013). Deaths in custody prior to this period had remained relatively steady (Cuddihy, 2013).

Aboriginal politician Patrick Dodson (2016), reflecting on twenty-five years since the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody, highlighted the disproportionate growth of Indigenous Australians, particularly Indigenous women, within the justice system and noted, “by and large, the problem the Royal Commission was set up to examine and advise governments on has become worse” (p. 24). For example, the paperless arrest system adopted in the Northern Territory from 17 December 2014 allowed police to detain individuals arrested for infringement notice offences for up to four hours (Yang, 2015, p. 21). Within approximately six months, these provisions were used over 700 times with approximately 75 percent of those arrested being Indigenous Australians. There was also one Indigenous death in custody (Yang, 2015, p. 23). The paperless arrest provisions reflect the Northern Territory Government’s “‘tough on crime’ mentality which disproportionately affects Indigenous people” (Yang, 2015, p. 24).

Given the increasingly high incarceration rates of young and adult Indigenous Australians, requests have been made by a range of government and non-government stakeholders for a national target around Indigenous Australian justice. This includes the 2011 House of Representatives Committee inquiry Doing Time – Time for Doing:

Problematising the wickedness of ‘disadvantage’ in Australian Indigenous Affairs policy 7 Indigenous Youth in the Criminal Justice System which highlighted the need for action. In 2014, the Australian Government indicated Indigenous Australian incarceration would be prioritised within the existing COAG Closing the Gap on Indigenous Disadvantage targets (Haughton, 2016). The 2015 Australian Labor Party’s National Platform also called for setting such a COAG target (Australian Labor Party, 2015). In March 2017, Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull modified that stance indicating that justice targets would only be considered as part of a review of existing Closing the Gap targets (Connifer, 2017).

There have a large number of reviews on the effects of justice related policy delivery and development throughout the last three decades (ALRC, 2017; Beacroft et al., 2011; Clayton Utz, 2015; PricewaterhouseCooper, 2017; White & Gooda, 2017). Although these reviews and reports refer to the legacies of colonisation and ongoing intergenerational trauma as direct causes of the deficit disparity in life outcomes today there has been little change in outcomes for Indigenous Australians.

1.3 RESEARCH AIM AND QUESTIONS

The aim of this research is to understand how the dominant discourses in Indigenous Affairs policy reproduce ‘Indigenous disadvantage’. In order to achieve this aim, the research asks the following three research questions: 1. What are the dominant discourses in Indigenous Affairs policy in Australia? 2. How do these discourses contribute to the framing of Indigenous disadvantage as a wicked problem? 3. How can the dominant discourses of Indigenous Affairs policy be contested and reframed through strength-based discourse?

While focussing primarily on analysis of contemporary Indigenous Affairs policy and policy actors (2007-2017) in Australia, this thesis also examines historical Indigenous Affairs policy to provide crucial context and background to matters discussed as the ongoing policy narrative of Indigenous disadvantage.

It is important to note that the subject of Indigenous Australia and Indigenous Australian’s lived experiences is extremely complex. This is especially so given the history and nature of European colonisation, ongoing policy controls, large public financial investments and intergenerational negative economic and social ramifications for Aboriginal people and Torres Strait Islander people. Indigenous

8 Problematising the wickedness of ‘disadvantage’ in Australian Indigenous Affairs policy disadvantage can also be an extremely sensitive subject to discuss and may result in feelings such as guilt and embarrassment (Elmir et al., 2011). A reticence to speak, by individuals in general, can also arise through feeling uninformed or afraid of offending Aboriginal people and Torres Strait Islander people due to concerns of being ignorant of the lived experiences of Indigenous Australians. Discourse can often evoke very public and emotive political, media and personal responses, often not based on fact or an appreciation of differing worldviews and result in stereotyping (Schneider & Ingram, 1993). For these reasons Indigenous Affairs policy can be understood as an unspeakable policy issue, a wicked policy problem characterised by high levels of verbal proscription and psychosocial sensitivity (Grant- Smith & Osborne, 2016).

1.4 THESIS OVERVIEW

Chapter 2 reviews literature associated with policy discourse and framing. It unpacks and defines three key discursive themes related to Indigenous disadvantage: deficit discourses, wicked problems and strength-based discourses. Theories of whiteness and othering are explored to highlight their importance in the identification of key discourses in Australian Indigenous Affairs. Chapter 3 describes the research methodology used to answer the research questions. It describes the data collection and analysis process which involved semi- structured interviews with fifteen policy actors from government and not for profit sectors and collation and review of key historical and contemporary Indigenous Affairs policy artefacts. Following Yanow (2000), this data was analysed using interpretive policy analysis to identify the dominant policy framing of Indigenous disadvantage. Within this analytical frame contending policy frames are understood to be comprised of “different policy discourses—different language, understandings, and perceptions—” as well as potentially different courses of action, values, and meanings (Yanow, 2011, p. 12). Ethical considerations and researcher standpoint are also outlined in this chapter.

Chapter 4 answers the first research question by identifying the dominant discourses in Indigenous Affairs policy. It discusses the dominance of deficit discourses. Chapter 5 answers the second research question by exploring the framing of Indigenous disadvantage as a wicked problem in Indigenous Affairs policy. The intersections of complexity, uncertainty and value divergence are explored within the

Problematising the wickedness of ‘disadvantage’ in Australian Indigenous Affairs policy 9 wicked problem context of Indigenous disadvantage. Chapter 6 answers the third research question by focussing on the contestation of discourses of deficit and wickedness and the potential for these discourses to be reframed through strength- based discourse. Finally, chapter 7 draws conclusions from the analysis undertaken in the previous chapters. Importantly, this chapter consolidates the research findings and suggests their potential practical application and direction for future research.

10 Problematising the wickedness of ‘disadvantage’ in Australian Indigenous Affairs policy Chapter 2: Framing ‘Indigenous disadvantage’ as a policy problem

This chapter provides a review of policy development and implementation literature, particularly as it relates to Indigenous Affairs policymaking. Section 2.1 describes the processes of policymaking, sensemaking and policy framing. Section 2.2 describes the origins of three key policy discourses enmeshed in Indigenous Affairs policy: deficit discourses, discourses of wickedness, and strength-based discourses. Finally, Section 2.3 provides a context for Indigenous Affairs policy development and implementation in the Australian context and in the construction of Indigenous disadvantage as a policy problem.

2.1 POLICYMAKING AND POLICY FRAMING

In Australia, public policy is the “instrument of governance” and the result of political decision making based on behavioural assumptions to achieve stated objectives (Althaus et al., 2013, p. 5). However, rather than being an entirely planned and rational process, policymaking is influenced by ongoing and emerging issues (Colebatch, 2006) and the politics of the day (Althaus et al., 2013). Policymaking can thus be understood as the product of a complex process of definition, legitimation and sensemaking (Hannigan, 2014). Sensemaking is the process used by people to comprehend and resolve doubt and vagueness through their own worldview. As a result sensemaking “both precedes decision making and follows it” (Maitless, 2005, p. 21).

Effective policy development and implementation involve a range of policy actors including governments, not for profit organisations, think-tanks, educational institutions, the general public, media, interest groups (Jones, 2013; Hannigan, 2014) and ministerial staff (Colebatch, 2006). To this end, the term policy actor can be broadly understood to include politicians, public servants and not for profit staff (Jones, 2013). It is important to facilitate the input of all these actors in the policy process to ensure an holistic and integrated approach to enveloping individual and sectoral worldviews into policy development and implementation (Jones, 2013).

Problematising the wickedness of ‘disadvantage’ in Australian Indigenous Affairs policy 11 The interpretation of the opinion, knowledge and perceived expertise of policy actors informs the sensemaking and construction of policy (Maddison, 2012). While government policy actors may call upon shared understandings of the policymaking and governing process, their sensemaking may differ as it involves the influence of the broader policy community such as representatives from the media and public identities (Colebatch, 2014).

The complex social and structural relationships within a community of policy actors can act to “amplify or dampen” the amount of consideration given to policy issues (Hannigan, 2014, p. 150) as policy actors’ individual sensemaking delineates both how problems are defined (Colebatch, 2014, p. 350) and how these problems are ultimately managed through policy. However, not all input into the policymaking process is treated equally. For example, policy advice that is considered to be provided by ‘experts’ is often given credence or additional legitimacy over that which is deemed to be based on lived experiences and local knowledge (Maddison & Denniss, 2013, p. 114).

Populations targeted by public policies are often ascribed particular social characteristics against what is considered “normal” (Schneider & Ingram 1993, p. 334). These descriptions, often based on popular opinion and stereotyping, can influence policy actors’ sensemaking and broader political agendas (Maddison & Dennis, 2013). This stereotyping can include positive representations such as being characterised as deserving and honest citizens or negative representations such as undeserving and dishonest citizens or a combination of these (Schneider & Ingrahm, 1993). Those burdened by negative representations may experience difficulty securing meaningful participation in policy processes, as their “cause” and interests may be perceived by those in power to be less likely to have a major impact on their personal political success (Schneider & Ingram, 1993, p. 336). Furthermore, the constructions or representations of certain policy actors, particularly those perpetuated by the media, can inhibit their influence both within and outside policy processes (Wheeler-Jones, et al., 2015).

The language used to frame a policy issue can influence how it is constructed, understood, synthesised and labelled as a policy problem (Maddison & Denniss, 2013). Policy actors’ use of language to frame policy issues can promote particular definitions of a policy problem and promote the influence of particular interests and policy actors

12 Problematising the wickedness of ‘disadvantage’ in Australian Indigenous Affairs policy (Daviter, 2007). The discursive framing of policy issues can have material consequences (Howlett & Hartwig, 2017) and are often difficult to change. Indeed, Van Hulst and Yanow (2016) suggest that policy actors can become ‘attached’ to policy problems in emotional ways and that involvement in intractable problems may affect their identities when issue reframing occurs which contradicts their worldview.

Opportunistic framing can change the direction and impetus of policy development and implementation (Maddison & Denniss, 2013), especially when crises allow the framing of negative situations as “policy opportunities” (Althaus et al., 2013, p. 56). This has the potential for political conflict within a community of policy actors as it cannot be guaranteed that issues are understood or interpreted in the same manner by policy actors (Colebatch, 2014). This may be particularly influential in the current policy environment which is highly susceptible to the need for urgency as a result of the influence of the media, and individual and collective emotions around an issue (Althaus et al., 2013). The 24-hour news cycle has resulted in the imperative for governments to provide daily updates to prove it is “doing something” (Maddison & Dennis, 2013, p. 175). An implication of this is that policy may be made reactively and on the run (Bourdieu, 2001).

2.2 POLICY DISCOURSES

Policy discourses promote shared meaning between policy actors. Policy discourses also provide a forum for shared understandings around policy development and implementation for the broader public. It is these shared meanings that become the prevailing discourses for problem solving, which in turn promotes a shared language with implied interpretations (Colebatch, 2014). Policy discourses define and shape policy problems and to this end are not “value-neutral” (Maddison & Denniss, 2013, p. 112). Thus policy discourses can also be interpreted as a policy instrument, given the influence of these discourses on the relationship between policy and the establishment of laws, and as an advocacy tool (Althaus et al., 2013).

2.2.1 Defining deficit discourse Deficit thinking exists throughout society (Garcia & Guerra, 2004). The term discourse can refer to “thought represented in written and spoken communication and/or expressed through practices” (Fogarty et al., 2018a, vii). The complexity around sensemaking of these policy thoughts and acts can promote debates that are discursive

Problematising the wickedness of ‘disadvantage’ in Australian Indigenous Affairs policy 13 and may result in “power inequalities” (Fogarty et al., 2018a). Deficit discourses often refer to what people are not. This can lead to discrimination and being viewed as the other, through difference being interpreted as deficiency (Mackay & Devlin, 2016). Deficit thinking has been categorised as an “endogenous theory” meaning that sub- optimal outcomes are caused by internal factors rather than external factors (Valencia, 1997, p. 2). An example of endogenous deficit thinking is identifying individual deficiencies as the cause of a student performing poorly at school rather than recognising the contribution of external factors to this educational outcome (Valencia, 1997).

Valencia (1997) argues that the “genetic pathology model of deficit thinking” (p. xiii) that existed between 1890 and 1930 advocated that inferiority was “transmitted by the genetic code” (p. 41). Under these assumptions it was believed that the intellect of ‘white’ people was greater than particular ethnic groups due to genetic factors. This thinking is reflective of the views of the Enlightenment6, European colonisers, and social Darwinist ethos and aligned stereotypes.

Deficit discourse around population groups and individuals is often accompanied by a lowering of standards and lower expectations for these groups. This can be seen within education systems and the expectations and assumptions of teachers of students from lower socio-economic backgrounds (Mackay & Devlin, 2016; Garcia & Guerra, 2004). Some educators can be of the pre-conceived opinion that this particular group of students will automatically leave their studies early, are lazy, won’t be able to cope with work-loads, and will perform poorly anyway (Mackay & Devlin, 2016). It is suggested that deficit thinking of those in power around the expectation of ‘others’ justifies an excuse for poor performance and that any amelioration is out of the educator or “systems’ control and influence” (Walker, 2011, p. 578). Such views are often supported by systems which reinforce these misconceptions. For example, a relationship has been identified between deficit discourse and standardised testing for language and literacy skills as those from non-English speaking cultural groups who do not do ‘well’ in tests based around dominant English language educational

6 The ‘Age of Enlightenment’ in 17th century Europe saw an embracing of a new philosophy on life and religion and a search for the truth based on imperial notions of knowledge as a point of reference for scientific enquiry (Smith, 1999).

14 Problematising the wickedness of ‘disadvantage’ in Australian Indigenous Affairs policy paradigms. This deficit discourse can promote and justify racial discrimination and the relegation of diverse peoples to a homogenised disadvantaged group (Shapiro, 2014). Indigenous peoples across the world have been the target of deficit ‘racial’ discourses circulated through philosophies of colonisation and assimilation. The history and results of this discourse of low expectations have had detrimental effects for these communities and individuals including leading to loss of identity (Hansen & Sorlie, 2012) such as occurred with the Sami in Sweden, Norway, Russia and Finland (Hansen et al., 2010; Omma et al., 2012). Prior to World War II, Swedish assumed the Sami race would become extinct by being overtaken by more dominant non-Sami cultures and those Sami who could not work as ‘traditional’ reindeer herders were “assimilated” into Swedish culture and forced to deny their language, culture and identity (Omma et al. 2012, p. 1). A similar situation was experienced in Norway, where between 1850 and 1959 assimilation policies forced Sami people to renounce their languages in favour of the Norwegian language; non-compliance could result in discrimination around identity (Hansen et al., 2010). The presence and influence of colonial deficit discourse concerning the Aboriginal Peoples of Canada can be demonstrated through several legislative policies, some of which were simultaneously benevolently paternalistic and oppressive. A key example can be seen in The Royal Proclamation of 1763 which allowed the Crown to procure Indian7 hunting grounds while protecting Indians from dishonest and opportunistic traders (Leslie, 2002). Further ‘racial’ based discourse was evident in 1857, with the introduction of an assimilationist Act to encourage the “gradual civilization of the Indian Tribes” (Leslie, 2002, p. 3). A number of assimilation policies and proposals followed including the 1876 Indian Act which consolidated pre-confederation Indian Affairs legislation and controlled all areas of Indian life including, what constituted being an Indian, laws around reserves, and distribution of money; and the June 1969 Statement of the Government of Canada on Indian Policy which called for removal of an Indian status (Leslie, 2002). To sum up the intentions of such policies in the early 20th century, Deputy Superintendent- General Duncan Campbell Scott is quoted as saying to the 1920 Special Committee of the House of Commons which was considering amendments to the Indian Act,

7 The term ‘Indian’ has been used only to reflect the language of Canadian historical and contemporary legislative language, and not to pejoratively label the First or Aboriginal Peoples of Canada.

Problematising the wickedness of ‘disadvantage’ in Australian Indigenous Affairs policy 15 Our objective is to continue until there is not a single Indian in Canada that has not been absorbed into the body politic and there is no Indian question, and no Indian Department, that is the object of this Bill (Leslie, 2002, p. 26). The central role of colonial discourse and government policy in contributing to Indigenous poverty and the erosion of culture in Canada was highlighted in the Final Report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples (Liodakis, 2009). However, described as a “problem” (Liodakis, 2009, p. 93), disparities in life outcomes between Aboriginal peoples and non-Aboriginal peoples in Canada have been conflated with discourse centred on Aboriginal peoples not being disposed to participate in “mainstream” society (Liodakis, 2009, p. 93).

2.2.2 Discourses of wickedness A particular form of deficit discourse is the characterisation of a policy problem as wicked. The term wicked problem is used to characterise a problem that appears to be unsolvable (Rittel & Webber, 1973). Wicked has been widely used to describe policy challenges associated with multi-faceted issues such as poverty, homelessness (Sherman & Peterson, 2009, 87) and climate change with its local, national and global intra- and inter-complexities (Head, 2008). These policy problems are extremely complex, seemingly intractable, insoluble and difficult for policy actors to define and agree upon a course of action.

Rittel and Webber (1973) use the term ‘wicked’ not as a morally judgemental statement but as a contrary or contrasting notion to “benign” or accommodating (p. 160). Tame problems, by contrast, are understood as those policy problems which can be more readily explained and engender general agreement by policy actors around approaches to resolutions and have examples or models to learn from (Wexler, 2009; Head, 2008). A tame problem could be used to describe an engineering problem which can be accurately problematised and a solution verified (Head, 2008; Rittel & Webber, 1973). Rittel and Webber (1973) suggest that “one-best answer is possible with tame problems, but not with wicked ones” (p. 169).

Rittel and Webber (1973, pp. 162-166) developed ten properties to determine if a problem was wicked. As shown in Figure 2.1, these properties can be grouped into three categories where ‘wickedness’ is comprised of a combination of complexity, uncertainty and value divergence (Head, 2008). In this context, complexity is associated with elements of a problem and their interdependencies; uncertainty

16 Problematising the wickedness of ‘disadvantage’ in Australian Indigenous Affairs policy associated with consequences, risk and unpredictability; and the divergence of viewpoints, values and intentions (Head, 2008).

Figure 2.1 Categories of wicked problems

While problems can be independently complex, uncertain and divergent they may not necessarily be wicked (Head, 2008). Rather, as demonstrated in Figure 2.2, the degree of wickedness experienced is related to levels of intersection and interdependencies between the three categories.

Figure 2.2 Complexity, Uncertainty, Value Divergence Model (adapted from Head, 2008, p. 104)

Problematising the wickedness of ‘disadvantage’ in Australian Indigenous Affairs policy 17 When complex questions and issues are not well understood, there is the potential for any related problem solving to exclude focussed deliberations and actions (Bishop & Dzidic, 2014). The complexity of developing policies around perceived wicked problems is exacerbated by the limits of policy evaluation as it can be difficult to meaningfully measure constructs such as social capital or individual wellbeing (Jackson & Sam, 2007). Adopting a wicked frame for evaluation can however, assist in identifying the policy actors and other stakeholders who can contribute to effective program design and evaluation (Sherman & Peterson, 2009).

The language used to frame a policy issue as wicked highlights its difference from other policy problems (Van Hulst & Yanow, 2016). Although the fraught nature of the inevitability of not being able to provide all the answers is foregrounded by Rittel and Weber’s characterisation of wicked problems, there is also an implication that policy actors are wholly responsible for the outcomes of decision making which may need to be softened in this context (McCall and Burge 2016). This point is raised by McCall and Burge, who argue:

While [policy] designers must be accountable for the reasonably foreseeable consequences of their [policy] design decisions, they should not be held accountable for consequences that they could not reasonably have foreseen. This avoids the implication that [policy] designers have no right to design [policy] because of the difficulties associated with the first nine properties of wicked problems (2016, p. 207). Describing social problems as wicked has become more common, particularly since the turn of this century (Alford & Head, 2017), indeed Peters (2017) describes this phenomena as a “fad” (p. 385). Reddel (2016) writes “It has become a truism in national public policy discourse that Indigenous affairs are a classic ‘wicked’ problem.” (p. 515).

This focus has created ongoing and discursive debate that has questioned the validity of what defines a wicked problem, and that perhaps there are varying degrees of the ‘wickedness’ of problems (Alford & Head 2017). Indeed Alford & Head (2017) have put forward a typology for dealing with different types of wicked problems, further building on Head’s 2008 Complexity, Uncertainty, Value Divergence Model (p. 104). There is also the notion that wicked problems are now considered outside of their original context as a diagnostic tool for defining problems, and as that of standard terminology (Peters, 2017) for a policy frame. Turnbull & Hoppe (2018) find that the

18 Problematising the wickedness of ‘disadvantage’ in Australian Indigenous Affairs policy idea of wicked problems is “flawed” (p. 19) as it is now removed from its original context and has become a “rhetorical device” to explain how difficult a problem is and why their solutions have not been found.

Alford & Head (2017) posit that a general approach to wicked problems can be that of “totalising” (p. 399) – that is, only focussing on the sum of the parts which can support avoidance of the problem altogether (Alford & Head, 2017; Althaus et al., 2013). Indeed, Head (2018) describes various “tactics” employed within the framing of wicked problems such as avoidance, blame, “establishing expert inquiries”, and creating consultation and engagement programs with “key stakeholders” (p. 5). The result of this can be “apocalyptic” according to Alford & Head (2017, p. 399) where there is little time to get a solution for “big” problems (p. 399) and smaller problem components are overlooked.

Head (2018) explains that since Rittel and Webber’s 1973 paper, understandings around policy problems evolving and how to frame, design, analyse and evaluate can bring the wicked framework into new dimensions. The discursive nature of not only wicked problems, but the discourses surrounding the very construct, can mean that problems are not solved, but there may be ways to improving the issue and better manage for outcomes (Alford & Head, 2017).

2.2.3 Strength-based policy discourses The adoption of a strength-based discourse is often associated with achieving good health and well-being outcomes for marginalised populations (Gates & Kelly, 2013). A strength-based approach both recognises and seeks to further develop the existing strengths of individuals and communities (Fogarty et al., 2018b). In contrast to deficit discourses, where the focus is on what people aren’t or can’t do, strength-based discourses assume that people are experts in their own lives (Gates & Kelly, 2013, p. 70).

Fogarty et al. (2018b) developed a typology for strength-based policy approaches to Indigenous Australian health which demonstrate their diversity. These six approaches are: asset-based approaches which foreground existing positive attributes; resilience-based approach which focus on building capacity to withstand adverse circumstances; cultural appropriateness approaches which seek to tailor programs and privilege culture; empowerment approaches which focus on self-

Problematising the wickedness of ‘disadvantage’ in Australian Indigenous Affairs policy 19 determination and ability; holistic approaches which privilege Indigenous ways of Knowing and being; and decolonisation methodology approaches which seek a shift from Western worldviews to Indigenous worldviews. This typology identifies how strength-based discourses and related concepts can be utilised including to interrupt deficit discourses (Fogarty et al., 2018b).

To counteract deficit discourses, strength-based approaches can give people a voice (Brough, Bond & Hunt, 2004) through assuming communities do possess the abilities to demonstrate their strengths and resilience (Fogarty et al., 2018b). These strength-based discourses do not assume the natural existence of problems within community. Brough et al. (2004) directly link hegemonic discourses of deficiency to the promotion of negative stereotypes and poor policy outcomes.

Within Indigenous Affairs, public acknowledgement of the impacts of European colonisation is an intrinsic component of strength-based discourses. This includes shifting the language of colonial worldviews (Smith, 1999) away from stereotypical deficit labelling of communities (Fogarty et al., 2018a). Population groups labelled as culturally diverse, and often marginalised, can be prone to deficit discourses as descriptors of identity. Within the education sector, for example, systems that are culturally respectful and relevant and support students socially and emotionally can work in opposition to deficit thinking and achieve positive outcomes (Walker, 2011). Strength-based discourses embrace multiple points of view (Carter et al., 2017), including collective community strength as demonstrated through shared life skills and awareness of services and resources available to the community. This type of community strength is difficult to determine in “communities understood only in terms of dysfunction” (Brough et al., 2004, p. 216). To focus only on problems does not indicate the full extent of an individual or community identity (Gates & Kelly, 2013) or lived experience, and is not helpful for challenging negative stereotypes (Fogarty et al., 2018a).

Strength-based discourse is also strongly associated with ‘cultural safety’, a concept created by Maori nurse Irihapeti Ramsden (Downey & Stout, 2006). In this context, cultural safety considers and works to bridge the differences in power relations between nurses and Indigenous people that have been created through historical contexts, including generational trauma (Downey & Stout, 2006). Such an

20 Problematising the wickedness of ‘disadvantage’ in Australian Indigenous Affairs policy approach invites Indigenous peoples as active participants and contributors in developing and implementing strategies that affect their lives.

2.3 THE INDIGENOUS OTHER IN POLICY

Within Australia, Indigenous Affairs policy has been framed through the lens of ‘whiteness’ which has resulted in the identity of Australia’s Indigenous peoples being treated as homogenous and ‘other’ (Moreton-Robinson, 2004). Prior to the influence of whiteness studies in the early 1990s, it was assumed that “race equalled ‘blackness’” (McMahon, 2015, p. 42). Whiteness has been notably absent in policy discourse and constructions of race and its dominance as the ‘normal’ against which others are identified and judged has obscured the ways that whiteness is privileged, and enjoys privileges, in comparison to “blacks and other peoples of colour” (McMahon, 2015, p. 42).8

2.3.1 Policies of whiteness Australia’s Westminster System of Government was developed with whiteness as fundamental to Western epistemology as “an invisible regime of power that secures hegemony through discourse and has material effects in everyday life” (Moreton- Robinson, 2004, p. 75). As a result policy is built on ‘unspoken’ cultural biases, stereotypes and singular conversations (Coram, 2009). Knowledges and worldviews, as well as values, “narratives, and symbolic boundaries, which together serve to maintain racial oppression and normalize an imbalanced racial hierarchy”, provides the framework for whiteness as a “system of racial power” (Withers, 2017, pp. 1-2).

Whiteness is a dynamic “socially constructed phenomena” which contributes to “changing meanings of race in society” (Green, Sonn & Matsebula, 2007, p. 393). In Australia this can be seen in a number of colonising policies such as the Aboriginals Protection and Restriction of the Sale of Opium Act 1897 (Qld) which identified Indigenous peoples as other, inferior, and in need of care.9 Similarly, constructions of whiteness can be seen in various “White Australia” policies between 1901 and 1973

8 This is not to suggest that all white peoples are considered to be equal. For example, in the context of immigration, Kolchin (2002) has noted the influence of notions such as “better-whiter-than others” (Kolchin, 2002, p. 156). 9 Tellingly, the long title of this act was An Act to make Provision for the Better Protection and Care of the Aboriginal and Half-Caste Inhabitants of the Colony, and to make more Effectual Provision for Restricting the Sale and Distribution of Opium (Queensland Act No. 17 of 1897).

Problematising the wickedness of ‘disadvantage’ in Australian Indigenous Affairs policy 21 which included two categories of white—British as representing mainstream whiteness and “other whites” or “white aliens” which included people from Italian, Greek, Yugoslav, and Polish backgrounds (Langfield, 1999, para. 1).

Other race-based policy was closely tied to the Immigration Restriction Act 1901 (Cth) and European categorisation. For example, despite large numbers of South Sea Islanders being brought to Queensland, through means of kidnapping, trickery and ‘blackbirding’ (SLQ, 2016), to work on sugar and cotton farms, the Pacific Island Labourers Act 1901 (Cth) enforced the deportation of most South Sea Islanders10 in Australia from the end of 1906.

The Immigration Restriction Act 1901 (Cth) was introduced in the year of Australian Federation when approximately 98 percent of the Australian population was white (Thompson, 2007). The legislation required aspiring immigrants to complete the dictation of:

a passage of fifty words in length in an European language directed by the officer, and if he fails to do so shall be deemed to be a prohibited immigrant and shall be deported from the Commonwealth pursuant to any order of the Minister (MoAD, n.d.c, p. 4). The test was ostensibly designed to distinguish and reward white ethnicity “without mentioning race” (Robertson, Hohmann & Stewart, 2005, p. 243). The test requirements made it difficult for people from many parts of Asia, for example, to become citizens of Australia. ‘English’ tests became more stringent over time until the dismantling of the White Australia Policies in the Whitlam Government era in 1972– 1975 (Markus, 2014).

Basing knowledge on European colonial worldviews secured ‘whiteness’ as an epistemological a priori that set the point of reference for what was assumed or known about another (Moreton-Robinson, 2004). The structural advantages, assumptions and privilege of the implicit “unmarked and unnamed” dominance of governance and social constructs of European colonised countries is the continuing basis for worldviews and standpoint (Evans et al., 2009, p. 899) around Indigenous Australian policy development and implementation.

10 Between 1863 and 1904, South Sea Islanders from around 80 Melanesian islands were brought to Australia as workers. Registration as an indentured servant was the only way Pacific Islanders could enter Australia until March 1904 (MoAD, n.d.b).

22 Problematising the wickedness of ‘disadvantage’ in Australian Indigenous Affairs policy 2.3.2 Policies of Othering Krumer-Nevo and Sidi (2012) describe value judgements, social distance and knowledge as the “three dimensions of the relationship between Self and Other” (Krumer-Nevo & Sidi, 2012, p. 300). Value judgements are about perceiving the other as good or bad. Social distance defines others as psychologically and physically removed, and knowledge is where little is understood about the history and culture of another ( Krumer-Nevo & Sidi, 2012).

Assumptions of European superiority and whiteness as the ‘social norm’ from which to research Indigenous people as curiosities further cemented the hegemony of colonial governance and the concept of the ‘other’ (Walker, 2003). This then embedded the other as a space relegated for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples to be studied, defined, and controlled. The hegemony of colonisation supports the positioning of Indigenous disadvantage “as natural” (Krumer-Nevo & Sidi, 2012, p. 300). The framing of Indigenous disadvantage is a continuous alignment with ongoing experiences of othering resulting in disparities in wellbeing and full participation within social and economic structures (Berman & Paradies, 2010) within local communities and the broader population.

A discourse designed to be inclusive of multiple meanings and nuances can disguise othering (Krumer-Nevo & Sidi, 2012). In Australia, the application of social Darwinism resulted in a catalogue that ‘legitimately’ classified Indigenous Australians at the bottom of a human species hierarchy (Rigney, 1997). This allowed the colonising force to exert power and control over a group of people with believed inherent biological inferiorities. These biological inferiorities meant that from the worldview of colonisers, the Indigenous knowledges and the Indigenous epistemologies, ontologies and axiologies that comprised the worldviews of First Peoples were devalued and Indigenous ways of knowing were discounted (Smith, 1999). The idea of Indigenous knowledge and ways of knowing were not considered compatible with scientific rigour and First Peoples were demarcated as sub-human policy objects with lesser intellects, behaviours and knowledge systems. Further the concept of ‘place’ and the lived experiences linked with place—connection to country—which underpin Indigenous ways of knowing have not been well-considered in Indigenous Affairs policy (Graham, 2009).

Problematising the wickedness of ‘disadvantage’ in Australian Indigenous Affairs policy 23 Most non-Indigenous Australians have had their worldviews around Indigenous Australians shaped by “Eurocentric” (Howlett & Hartwig, 2017, p. 331) and colonial discourses (Fforde et al., 2013). These colonial discourses have largely been promulgated by governments through a range of policies including for example the Aboriginals Protection and Restriction of the Sale of Opium Act 1897 (Qld) and the Closing the Gap on Indigenous Disadvantage strategy, and these discourses reflect and produce meanings (Howlett & Hartwig, 2017). Possessing the capacity to promote ideas and possibilities, along with being able to overpower what others think helps to create dominant discourses that “establish the ‘rules of the game’, that individuals and groups must ‘play’ in order to be recognised and participate” (Howlett & Hartwig, 2017, p. 331).

Of particular note, is the continued dominant discourse legacy that has infiltrated Indigenous Affairs since colonisation that Indigenous Australians are naturally akin to ‘nature’ and the environment (Wheeler-Jones et al., 2015). This romantic view of Aboriginal people and Torres Strait Islander people is often promoted by the media (Wheeler-Jones et al., 2015), and coupled with the concept that those Indigenous Australians who live in remote areas or have native title rights are ‘authentically’ Indigenous and culturally ‘adept’ (Fredericks, 2007; Howlett & Hartwig, 2017). Conversely, Aboriginal people and Torres Strait Islander people who live in metropolitan areas are not ‘authentic’ Indigenous people (Fredericks, 2007).

2.4 SUMMARY: THE LEGACY OF INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS POLICY

The literature review presented in this chapter has highlighted the historical framing of Aboriginal people and Torres Strait Islander people through a deficit a priori of whiteness, and as the ‘other’ in Indigenous Affairs policy. The individual and community trauma resulting from the unresolved consequences of several hundred years of policies and programs of whiteness and othering made on behalf of or enacted upon Australia’s First Peoples has been widely recognised (Beresford & Beresford 2006; Hollinsworth, 1996; Paradies, 2016; Bielefeld, 2014). This intergenerational trauma is the ongoing and daily lived experience for many Indigenous Australians.

Deficit thinking as a part of daily life (García & Guerra, 2004) has been an implicit and acceptable way of working within Indigenous Affairs and ‘doing to’ Indigenous Australians. Several Indigenous and non-Indigenous researchers have

24 Problematising the wickedness of ‘disadvantage’ in Australian Indigenous Affairs policy referred to the deleterious effects of deficit language on Indigenous peoples (Dodson, 2003; Hunter, 2007). Milner (2007, p. 390) has highlighted the “cognitive dimension to deficit discourses” and how these discourses may be related to the worldviews of researchers and policy actors. However, while there is growing research on the physical and emotional effects of deficit discourses on the ‘recipients’ of Indigenous Affairs policy (Fogarty et al., 2018a), the influence of deficit discourses, such as the construction of Indigenous disadvantage as wicked, on Indigenous Affairs policy actors remains underexplored. The aim of this research is to understand how the dominant discourses of Indigenous Affairs policy reproduce ‘Indigenous disadvantage’.

Problematising the wickedness of ‘disadvantage’ in Australian Indigenous Affairs policy 25 Chapter 3: Research design

This chapter commences by describing the research methodology applied in this research. The data collection and analysis approach adopted is outlined in Section 3.2. Section 3.3 highlights research ethics processes and the importance of declaring researcher standpoint in relation to the conducting of this research.

3.1 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

The research asked the following three research questions: 1. What are the dominant discourses in Indigenous Affairs policy in Australia? 2. How do these discourses contribute to the framing of Indigenous disadvantage as a wicked problem? 3. How can the dominant discourses of Indigenous Affairs policy be contested and reframed through strength-based discourse? The methodology adopted to answer these questions was informed by critical realism. Critical realism recognises “the world as theory-laden, but not theory-determined” (Fletcher, 2016, p. 2). As a result, this research isolated and correlated “the real, the actual and the empirical” (Sayer, 2000, p. 2). For critical realists, the ‘real’ is what exists along with associated “causal powers” (Sayer, 2000, p. 3), which when actioned defines what happens, that is, the ‘actual’. The ‘empirical’ is the understanding that some experiences can be formed by processes that can be seen, as well as what might happen as a result of processes that can’t be seen (Sayer, 2000). A critical realist ontology maintains a “coherent account” of a diversity of worldviews set amongst a diversity of lived experiences and individual capacity (Bhaskar, 2011, p. 148).

Critical realism was fundamental to acknowledging and investigating the potential spheres of influence the researcher standpoint, ontology and epistemology may have on all facets of the research (Schwartz-Shea & Yanow, 2012). This research approach is justified as analysis of the discursive nature of policy discourse has acknowledged the importance of separating the tenets of ontology and epistemology (Fairclough, 2005) as related to researcher, participant and discourse producer. Through a critical realist approach, it was possible to delve into, and examine with a reflective approach, a diversity of policy artefacts and the influence of the lived

26 Problematising the wickedness of ‘disadvantage’ in Australian Indigenous Affairs policy experiences of policy actors and the researcher (Bhaskar, 2011) on the sensemaking of discourses within Indigenous Australian Affairs.

3.1.1 Interpretive Policy Analysis Interpretive policy analysis (IPA) focuses on “meanings” of policies and “values or feelings or beliefs” they convey as well as considering the language of policy and the language of related testimonies and public debates (Yanow, 2000, pp. 22, p. 41). This form of analysis veers away from more traditional positivist analysis (Healy, 1986) and is well supported by a critical realist ontology. One of the key strengths of IPA is its focus on the framing of policy problems as well as intended solutions (Yanow, 2009). IPA was used in this research to interrogate the textual narratives of policy artefacts, and to interpret interview narratives (Yanow, 2000).

The discursive nature of policy discourses, the inter-relationship of texts and their settings (Fairclough, 2005), and personal and professional sensemaking (Maitlis, 2005) of these discourses by research participants and the researcher, lends itself to the hermeneutic, analytic nature of IPA. Discourse is defined by Yanow (2011, p. 19) as how policy actors “talk and act with respect to the policy issue”.

The use of IPA can expose implicit, as well as explicit discursive intentions by interrogating the language, representations, and absences in policy artefacts. This permits the in-depth exploration of policy actor deliberations and sensemaking around the perceived intent of a range of public discourse platforms such as policies, programs, research and the media. The relationship between policy discourse contributors, research participants and researcher, and respective epistemologies and ontologies are examined within the context of ‘communities of meaning’ of those who create, implement, comment on and who live the outcomes of policy discourses. (Figure 3.1).

Problematising the wickedness of ‘disadvantage’ in Australian Indigenous Affairs policy 27

Figure 3.1 In IPA symbolic artefacts accommodate multiple meanings (adapted from Yanow, 2000, p. 15, 21)

Examples of the use of IPA can be seen in the work of Grant-Smith (2015, 2011) and Osborne and Grant-Smith (2017). Grant-Smith (2015) used IPA to investigate the ways animals were constructed by recreational boaters in policy processes as a way of avoiding responsibility for managing sewage discharges from their vessels. Through IPA, Grant-Smith (2015) identified and explored the multiple meanings of policy artefacts and the ways in which policy actors interpreted these meanings including points of conflict. These artefacts included parliamentary processes, policies, position papers, media and promotional materials, surveys of recreational boaters, and unsolicited material from recreational boaters.

Grant-Smith (2011) also used IPA to investigate the added challenge of the complexity of the ‘unspeakable’ to policy making. Through a case study focussing on marine pollution, she analysed media reports, Hansard records, policies, public submissions to government, and texts from interviews with policy actors to examine the effect of the ‘unspeakable’ on public participation in policy development. Grant- Smith (2011) demonstrates through the use of IPA that a lack of ‘acceptable language’ for discussing a policy problem can aggravate a problem already considered as wicked. This is because strong elements of abjection, symbolic pollution and psychosocial sensitivity, combined with high levels of verbal proscription, can impact the way that policy problems are framed and their perceived wickedness and intractability (Grant- Smith & Osborne, 2016). Osborne and Grant-Smith (2017) have also used IPA to understand how the language and imagery of government cycling policy documents

28 Problematising the wickedness of ‘disadvantage’ in Australian Indigenous Affairs policy can work to reinforce exclusionary constructions of cyclists and their needs. They found that policy discourses can limit policymakers by directing them to a narrow set of policy approaches by reinforcing sometimes problematic and undesirable stereotypes (Osborne & Grant-Smith, 2017).

IPA has also been used in the context of Indigenous policy. Porter and Barry (2015) use IPA to explore discourses around urban planning and Indigenous rights in Canada and Australia. Artefacts such as legislation, policies, fact sheets, manuals and laws relating to Indigenous land rights were used to explore the interface between “groups marked by difference” (Porter & Barry, 2015, p. 23). Historical and unbalanced hermeneutic relations between Indigenous and non-Indigenous people are highlighted, particularly around the meaning of ‘place and culture’ through recognition of Indigenous ownership of those places and recognition of “Indigenous political authority” (Porter & Barry, 2015, p. 22). Porter and Barry (2015) elaborate on their use of IPA to explore relationships or interfaces through texts by signifying that texts “are simultaneously made of relations, and make relations” (p. 28).

Warhol (2011) draws on Yanow’s IPA framework to investigate communities of meaning such as “grassroots educators, university academics, and government officials” (p. 284) in a study of the Native American Languages Act of 1990/1992. Policy artefacts analysed included policy documents, transcripts of Congressional hearings, briefs, newsletters and evaluation reports. Through IPA, Warhol demonstrates more understanding of the facets of the policy cycle is needed and recommends moving toward a policy framework that “supports the multi-faceted ways in which policy is made and transformed ‘on the ground’” (Warhol, 2011, p. 295). Aspects of IPA also include making meaning around the process for the establishment of policy taxonomy, and ‘constructed texts’ resulting from a combined range of influences such organisational, legal and societal frameworks. There can be a ‘tacit’ understanding by a community of the broader context of a policy portrayed through artefacts such as language and actions (Yanow, 2015).

3.1.2 Operationalising Interpretive Policy Analysis Following Yanow (2000, p. 22), Table 3.1 identifies the actions undertaken to fulfil the five steps of IPA.

Problematising the wickedness of ‘disadvantage’ in Australian Indigenous Affairs policy 29 Table 3.1 Operationalising IPA (adapted from Yanow, 2000, p. 22)

Steps defined by Yanow How these steps were operationalised in this research Identify the artefacts (language, objects, Key historical and contemporary acts) that are significant carriers of policies, strategies and discourses in the meaning for a given policy issue, as public domain such as speeches, reports 1 perceived by policy-relevant actors and and media statements since colonisation interpretive communities were identified through literature searches and through interviews with research participants. Identify communities of Key policy artefacts were scrutinised to meaning/interpretation/speech/practice explore the relationships between a range 2 that are relevant to the policy issue under of policy actors and the importance of analysis the language of these artefacts as identified by each policy actor. Identify the “discourses”: the specific Components of the language of wicked meanings being communicated through problems and policy development and specific artefacts and their entailments implementation within Indigenous 3 (in thought, speech, and act) Affairs were highlighted through the meanings of artefacts and the key constructs that inform the sensemaking of policy actors. Identify the points of conflict and their Tensions between the views of policy conceptual sources (affective, cognitive, actors including academics, research 4 and/or moral) that reflect different participants, politicians and journalists interpretations by different communities. were explored through comparison of the sensemaking of a range of discourses. Show the implications of different Key themes were identified from meanings/interpretations for policy literature searches and research 5a formulation and/or action participant interviews that demonstrated how policies within Indigenous Affairs were developed and implemented. Show that differences reflect different The range of policy actors included in the 5b ways of seeing research allowed for differences of opinions to be highlighted through the exploration of differing worldviews. Negotiate/mediate/intervene in some Analysis of key policy artefacts, policy other form to bridge differences (e.g., actors’ worldviews and sensemaking of suggest reformulation or reframing) discourses within Indigenous Affairs, 5c supported the framing of Indigenous Australians, in particular, in a different role within policy development and implementation.

3.2 DATA COLLECTION

Data were collected through two key methods: the collation of policy artefacts; and interviews with policy actors experienced in Indigenous Affairs policy development and/or implementation. While focussing primarily on analysis of contemporary Indigenous Affairs policy and key policy actors (2007-2017), the thesis uses historical Indigenous Affairs policy to provide crucial context and background to matters discussed as the ongoing narrative of Indigenous disadvantage. 2007 was chosen as

30 Problematising the wickedness of ‘disadvantage’ in Australian Indigenous Affairs policy the starting point for defining contemporary policy discourses within Indigenous Affairs as this was the year the Northern Territory National Emergency Response Act 2007 (Cth) was introduced by Prime Minister John Howard (AHRC, 2007). This particular policy has been, and continues to be, widely contested by governments, researchers, the news media and individuals and represents a significant moment in Australian Indigenous Affairs.

3.2.1 Key Indigenous Affairs policy artefacts analysed Contemporary and historical policy artefacts were identified as key to this research through the researcher’s experience working within Indigenous Affairs, and by investigating the artefacts related to, and influencing, the prominent public discourses within this field of research since colonisation. The policy artefacts analysed were identified as meaningful to the research participants (Schwartz-Shea & Yanow, 2012) and included accepted categories that tacitly defined the characteristics (Yanow & Haar, 2013) of Indigenous Australians and Indigenous disadvantage. Organisational and public artefacts (Yanow, 2000) such as government policies, public reports, media statements and web-based research materials provided much of the context around the grounded aesthetics of the operating culture and environs of policy actors. A number of artefacts focussed on historical and contemporary policy discourses within Queensland as these were well known policies and programs, and influential to policy development implementation through other states in Australia, such as the Aboriginals Protection and Restriction of the Sale of Opium Act 1897 (Qld) and Tackling Alcohol Issues in Indigenous Communities: The Indigenous Communities Liquor Licences Bill 2002 (Qld). Library resources, as well as internet searches, were utilised to access research artefacts and associated research, including on the advice of other researchers and as identified by research participants. Research participants also suggested policies and documents they felt would add value to the context and outcomes of the research.

Table 3.2 lists the major policy artefacts interrogated in this research. Other artefacts referred to in the research are included in Appendix A, and a list of Prime Ministers related to these artefacts is in Appendix B.

Problematising the wickedness of ‘disadvantage’ in Australian Indigenous Affairs policy 31 Table 3.2 Key policy artefacts analysed

Name & Author Type/Date Description Royal Commission into Report Prime Minister Bob Hawke formed the Royal Aboriginal Deaths in Custody 1991 Commission in 1987 to examine causes of deaths in custody of Aboriginal people. All deaths in Australian Government custody were examined, including actions taken in respect to these deaths, in each state and territory occurring between 1 January 1980 and 31 May 1989. Bringing Them Home Report The National Inquiry into the Separation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Children Human Rights and Equal 1997 from Their Families was established in 1995 in Opportunity Commission response to concerns of Indigenous communities and agencies of the general public’s ignorance of the history of forcible removal was hindering the recognition of the needs of its victims and their families and the provision of services. Cape York Justice Study Report Justice Tony Fitzgerald was approached to Queensland Government 2001 identify the relationship between alcohol, substance misuse and breaches of the law in Cape York Indigenous communities; and identify ameliorating strategies. Tackling Alcohol Issues in Legislation Developed as part of the Queensland Indigenous Communities: The 2002 Government’s response to the Cape York Justice Indigenous Communities Study including declaring restricted areas for Liquor Licences Bill 2002 minimising harms caused by alcohol and (Qld) and The Community providing legislative support for Community Services Legislation Justice Groups. Amendment Bill 2002 (Qld) Queensland Government Meeting Challenges, Making Policy The Queensland Government response to the Choices 2002 Cape York Justice Study including strategies around economic development and alcohol Queensland Government restrictions. Ampe Akelyernemane Meke Report A Board of Inquiry into the Protection of Mekarle: Little Children Are 2007 Aboriginal Children from Sexual Abuse. Sacred Northern Territory Government

Northern Territory National Policy On 21 June 2007, the Australian Government Emergency Response Act 2007 2007 announced a ‘national emergency response to (Cth) protect Aboriginal children in the Northern Territory’ from sexual abuse and family violence. Australian Government COAG - Closing the Gap on Policy COAG agreed to seven targets to address the Indigenous Disadvantage 2008 disadvantage faced by Indigenous Australians in life expectancy, child mortality, education and Closing the Gap Annual employment. Reporting – 2016, 2017, 2018 Australian Government Tackling Wicked Problems: A Issues Paper Strategies for Australian public servants when Public Policy Perspective 2012 approaching wicked problems. Australian Government

32 Problematising the wickedness of ‘disadvantage’ in Australian Indigenous Affairs policy

3.2.2 Semi-structured interviews with policy actors Policy actors were interviewed to explore their sensemaking in the Indigenous Affairs policy environment (Yanow, 2007). The use of semi-structured interviews supports the in-depth exploration of narratives, complex contexts (Marshall & Rossman, 2011), and sensitive issues (Barriball & While, 1994). The malleability of direct and indirect questioning allows for an iterative flow of conversation that can respond to the cognitive and articulation styles, and body language, peculiar to each participant. This type of interaction helps to build rapport that may assist to mitigate some potential effects of social desirability bias (Jo, Nelson & Kiecker, 1997).

Cultural differences can make qualitative research complex given the subjectivity of lived experiences of research participants (Gorman & Toombs, 2009). Transparency of discussions may be limited if research participants are apprehensive about discussing sensitive issues. For example, discussing subjects relating to a participant’s organisational culture, personal decision making processes and issues that may potentially relate to cultural background, can be concerning and cause vulnerabilities. The iterative nature of the semi-structured interview allowed research participants and researcher to reflect separately and together about the project, its cultural focus, progression and outcomes (Milner, 2007). Interpreting and comparing the meanings and correlational values placed by the researcher on the professional and personal background and experiences with interview and other artefact data, helped flesh out and expose the relationship and potential bias of research motivation, standpoint and approach (Foley, 2000).

Prompting research participants with searching questions helped emphasise the importance of, and facilitated grounded exploration of, the discursive nature of language, discourse, and meanings. The iterative and in-depth exploration of research participants’ personal and professional contexts and their perspectives of producers of research artefacts (Yanow, 2007) provided rich data to support the investigation of public policy discourses. To elicit the greatest amount of information from participants and ensure a culturally safe environment interviews were conducted at the research participants’ convenience (Elmir et al., 2011) and choice of formal or informal setting (Ashton, 2014). Interviews were conducted at places of work, residences, and coffee shops and via Skype. The development of an interview guide (refer Appendix C)

Problematising the wickedness of ‘disadvantage’ in Australian Indigenous Affairs policy 33 focussed on questions based around the themes of Indigenous Australians as participants in policy development and implementation and Indigenous Australians as objects of policy development and implementation. Questions were structured to support open and iterative responses which increased the comfort of research participants and the expansiveness of their discourse.

Research participants were not shown the questions prior to their interviews, however, were aware of the context of the study from brief pre-interview discussions and explanatory informed consent forms. Research participants were asked at the commencement of interviews to share their current policy role, past policy experience and number of years they had worked within Indigenous Affairs to provide context for their answers.

Interviews were audio recorded and transcribed verbatim through a professional transcription service. The only participant who declined to be tape recorded consented to notes being taken throughout the interview. Reflexive notes (Yanow, 2007) were made after each interview by the researcher outlining frame of mind, the perception of responses, demeanour and body language of research participants. These notes also included personal prompters for further investigation such as themes, policies, research articles and news media.

3.2.3 Research participants To ensure appropriate sources of data, the target population (Zikmund et al., 2012) of policy actors with a background in Indigenous Affairs was accessed from government agencies and not for profit organisations delivering government-funded services to Indigenous Australians. The definition of policy actor in this research was broadened beyond government in recognition that policy implementation is “about translation between contexts, understanding and priorities” (Jones, 2013, p. 5); and this includes the broader policy making community, including those in the not-for-profit sector. Government and not for profit policy actors included executive leadership and staff whose roles were actively interrelated through the various steps of the policy cycle. These actors were chosen to represent the hierarchy of public policy development (Althaus et al., 2013) and implementation. Staff and committee members from not for profit organisations in receipt of public funding around Indigenous Affairs were selected to provide insight into the perceptions of individuals and organisations involved in policy discourses peripheral to the government.

34 Problematising the wickedness of ‘disadvantage’ in Australian Indigenous Affairs policy This research draws on a sample of fifteen policy actors. Given the potential sampling difficulties around sensitive issues (Renzetti & Lee, 1993), research participants were purposively (Higginbottom, 2004) ‘seeded’ and selected through the researcher’s networks and through snowballing (Seale, 2004). Given the ‘elusive’ population of policy practitioners working within the specialist and discrete field of Indigenous Affairs policy development and implementation, snowballing through the researcher’s networks became an imperative part of the research participant selection process to ensure an expansive pool of research participants (Lee, 1993). Selection did not focus on age, gender, cultural or ethnic background; however, while some research participants chose to self-disclose their Indigenous cultural background this was not reported in the thesis to preserve the confidentiality of respondents. Given the relatively small sample size, confidentiality was further protected by not revealing where in Australia respondents lived and worked, and in which government jurisdiction(s). Policy actors interviewed included a mix of state, federal and local government officers and many respondents had a varied work history across levels of government and within the not-for-profit sector. Indicating these complex work histories against actors may have revealed participant identity.

The initial four research participants were identified through the researcher’s professional networks. The remaining research participants were selected from a combination of the recommendation of research participants, the researcher’s networks and one cold call. The eight government and seven not for profit policy actors actively suggested other practitioners who would add benefit to and be interested in the process and outcomes of the research. Not all suggestions were able to be pursued. Table 3.3 records the pseudonyms chosen to represent research participants to ensure confidentiality. Participant quotes are presented in ‘italics’ to differentiate them from other data sources.

Problematising the wickedness of ‘disadvantage’ in Australian Indigenous Affairs policy 35 Table 3.3 List of research participants

Policy roles Policy roles Policy roles Pseudonym Pseudonym Pseudonym held held held Bradley Government Craig Not for Profit Donald Not for Profit including including board executive membership leadership Government Geoff Government Donna Not for Profit including executive leadership Graham Government Frank Not for Profit Stephen Not for Profit including Government Matthew Government board Wendy Not for Profit membership including board Peter Government Larry Not for Profit membership Government including executive leadership William Government Wanda Not for Profit Frances Government Private Industry

3.3 ETHICS

3.3.1 Data collection protocols and ethics The QUT Human Research Ethics Committee provided ethics approval (1500000274) on 29 April 2015. The unit OUB130 Indigenous Knowledges: Research Ethics and Protocols was undertaken as an elective subject of the BS92 Master of Business (Research) (Management). This unit, facilitated by the QUT Oodgeroo Unit, included research protocols for research with Indigenous peoples and associated schools of thought from Indigenous, Indigenist and non-Indigenous researchers.

Along with meeting the requirements of the National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research (NHMRC, 2018), the research methodology was influenced by the values and research ethics emphasised in the Guidelines for Ethical Conduct in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Health Research (NHMRC, 2003). The research methodology was designed to be culturally safe and respect the equal rights of all research participants (Downey & Stout, 2006).

Research participants were informed their identity would be protected and that participation was voluntary. Research participants were required to sign consent forms regarding the recording and note taking of interviews. To ensure informed consent, these forms reiterated earlier discussions between researcher and participant that they could withdraw from the research without penalty within two weeks of their interview, their interview transcript would be de-identified to preserve confidentiality; and that

36 Problematising the wickedness of ‘disadvantage’ in Australian Indigenous Affairs policy they were not speaking on behalf of their organisation. The professional company transcribing the recordings also signed a confidentiality agreement. Data were stored in secure locations, however, all of the policies, reports, research papers and media content involved in this research were publicly available from libraries and the internet.

3.3.2 Researcher standpoint The general worldviews of European colonial scholars did not acknowledge the existence of Indigenous knowledges and the Indigenous epistemologies, ontologies and axiologies that comprised the worldviews of First Peoples (Smith, 1999). Indigenous and Indigenist researchers have developed research methodologies that challenge western research paradigms (Smith, 1999; Rigney, 1997). These decolonising methodologies focus on identification of researcher standpoint, showing respect for, and the inclusion of, Indigenous knowledges; and call for collaboration in research, policy and program design and participation (Goodwin & Cox, 2008)

The methodology for this research does not adopt a decolonising approach, however, there has been an attempt to acknowledge constructs that ‘decolonise’ the hegemony of western research paradigms (Walker, 2003). This includes being committed to articulating researcher standpoint and considering the complexity of Indigenous knowledges and worldviews in relation to researcher ontology and epistemology behind the choice and development of research instruments and data analysis.

This research was predicated on the role of researcher, not as an expert or an owner of knowledge (Wilson, 2001), but as a participant facilitating and contributing to the overall data. I was also mindful of my obligations as a researcher around my relationship with the research participants, data and chosen research methodology (Wilson, 2001). To this end, the net value of the research must necessarily reflect an element of research bias based on researcher standpoint (Foley, 2000). The ontological and epistemological approach to the research methodology (Wilson, 2001), described later in this section, was fundamental to how any potential research bias was acknowledged and examined. It was also essential to defining the methodology (Edmondson & McManus, 2007) and data best suited to explore the research problem such as the policy role of research participants, interview responses, professional

Problematising the wickedness of ‘disadvantage’ in Australian Indigenous Affairs policy 37 experience, written artefacts; and to mitigate potentially prejudiced outcomes resulting from research standpoint and social desirability bias (Podsakoff et al., 2003).

As described in Chapter 2, Moreton-Robinson (2004, pp. 76-77) characterises whiteness as the standard used to judge human beings, that is “the constitution of whiteness as an epistemological a priori that informs one’s ontology”. For this reason, I openly declare my research standpoint along with my research motivation. I come to this study with a personal and professional ontology based on the knowledge that Aboriginal peoples and Torres Strait Islander peoples are the First Peoples of Australia and as such are Traditional Custodians of the land, seas and waterways. I believe that for Australia to legitimately become a multicultural society that is comfortable with a pluralistic identity, all Australians must embrace the ongoing dynamism and heterogeneity of Australia’s First Peoples’ cultural existence, knowledge, and lived experience, long articulated by Indigenous Australians (Martin, 2003).

It is this epistemology that has been the point of reference for my professional life as a cultural development and arts worker and Queensland Government Public Servant. For the past 25 years I have worked with and within Aboriginal, Torres Strait Islander, Australian South Sea Islander, Pasifika, refugee and migrant communities whilst based in Brisbane, South East Queensland and the Torres Strait and Northern Peninsula Area, Far North Queensland.

As a Brisbane-born non-Indigenous woman from a Celtic-European cultural background, I am sensitive to the methodological and philosophical tensions that can arise from research structures that have “evolved from Anglo-Celtic cultural values” (Gorman & Toombs, 2009, p. 4). I am also aware of the opportunities and privileges I have enjoyed, and at times taken for granted, as someone living in a governance paradigm that reflects the history of my cultural background – and the assumption of power this can have over those not represented as part of the governance structure (Max, 2005). I question as a non-Indigenous researcher how I can make a contribution to more meaningful Indigenous Affairs policy without “hijacking” (Aveling, 2013, p. 204) Indigenous Australian ownership of this agenda. That is, it is my intention to be an “ally” (Kendall, 2013, p. 172) as opposed to “a good white” (Kendall, 2013, p. 66).

Given my professional and personal lived experiences which have involved a philosophy of exploring, questioning and reflecting upon my practice and ethical motivations, it was important to me to incorporate axiologies (Wilson, 2001) that

38 Problematising the wickedness of ‘disadvantage’ in Australian Indigenous Affairs policy acknowledged my non-Indigenous and gendered, cultural background and epistemology and ontology. This approach included being cognisant of the construct of a research paradigm that was fundamentally grounded in a western educational framework (Foley, 2000). This involved reflecting upon what I know and recognising that I cannot fully understand the colonising experiences of Indigenous Australians (Aveling, 2013). My reflections also examined working within a policy research agenda that acknowledges the combined cultural history of colonised Australia through a convergence of traditional and western knowledge systems (Ray, 2012).

3.4 SUMMARY

This chapter justifies a qualitative research methodology that is sensitive to the cultural needs of research participants and researcher. Furthermore, by focussing on the role of artefacts as well as the language and range of interpretations and sensemaking of these artefacts, a critical realist ontological approach supports such a complex study area, and the importance of the researcher disclosing personal standpoint and being cognisant and respectful of research participants’ and other policy actors’ worldviews and lived experiences.

IPA provides a robust method for exploring the discursive nature of policy development and implementation and in particular the sensemaking of policy actors within Indigenous Affairs. The exploratory mechanisms facilitated by IPA promote in-depth critical thinking and investigation of discourses and provides a space for researcher reflexivity and iterative sensemaking (Schwartz-Shea, 2012). This research design was predicated on challenging known and obscured biases, and the ‘other’, by attempting not to construct whiteness as the dominant research reference point (Phillips & Lampert, 2012).

Problematising the wickedness of ‘disadvantage’ in Australian Indigenous Affairs policy 39 Chapter 4: The dominance of deficit discourses in Indigenous Affairs policy

This chapter presents an analysis of key historical and contemporary Indigenous Affairs policy artefacts along with an analysis of research participant interview data. It identifies a range of dominant discourses and a range of policy actor perceptions of these discourses. Section 4.1 describes three policy artefacts which demonstrate historical discourses around Aboriginal people and Torres Strait Islander people since colonisation and to the 1970s. Contemporary discourses are described in Section 4.2 through two key policies developed after 2007. The ramifications of these historical and contemporary policy artefacts are highlighted in Section 4.3 as an ongoing legacy of perceived Indigenous deficit. To this end, this chapter focusses on the dominance of deficit discourses, including those articulated in the media, which define Indigenous Australians as deficient (Fforde et al., 2013), and answers the first research question: What are the dominant discourses in Indigenous Affairs policy in Australia?

There has been a growing research focus around the negative ramifications of the use of a deficit framework to create and implement Indigenous affairs policies (Fogarty et al., 2018a), and the potentially deleterious effects of deficit language on Indigenous peoples (Dodson, 2003; Hunter, 2007). For example, the term ‘Indigenous disadvantage’ and the implicit implications of deficit and homogeneity that accompany the words ‘Indigenous’ and ‘disadvantage’ has been conflated with the cultural identity of Australia’s First Peoples (Fforde et al., 2013). This conflation has also further embedded a dominant deficit narrative of Indigenous ‘otherness’, particularly within policy development and implementation. The opinions, knowledges and ‘expertise’ of policy actors also inform the sensemaking and construction of policy (Maddison, 2012; Yanow, 2001).

4.1 HISTORICAL DISCOURSES OF DEFICIT

Policy analysis requires a deep understanding of history and context (Yanow, 2009). Aboriginal people and Torres Strait Islander people began colonial life as objects of policy development, a positioning informed by ‘enlightenment’ thought and social Darwinism prior to actual colonisation. A European colonial assessment of inferiority

40 Problematising the wickedness of ‘disadvantage’ in Australian Indigenous Affairs policy was a given for Indigenous peoples throughout the world. To fully explore the deficit discourses informing Australian Indigenous Affairs policy it is necessary to interrogate historical policy artefacts that have been influential during the colonial policy journey. Through these, a racially constructed deficit framework enters the current lexicon of ‘Indigenous disadvantage’.

Three policies and strategies have been identified as influential in developing deficit discourses: the Aboriginals Protection and Restriction of Sale of Opium Act 1897 (Qld); government controls over wages and savings, and the ‘Stolen Generations’. These policies arose out of a dominant deficit narrative founded on notions of ‘otherness’. It was the Aboriginals Protection and Restriction of Sale of Opium Act 1897 (Qld) in particular which set the scene for the future of deficit discourses informing Indigenous Affairs.

4.1.1 Aboriginals Protection and Restriction of Sale of Opium Act 1897 (Qld) The Aboriginals Protection and Restriction of Sale of Opium Act 1897 (Qld) and ensuing amendments created the Chief Protector of Aboriginals Office (Frankland, 1994, p. 3). This Office exercised extensive control over Aboriginal people and Torres Strait Islander people over many decades including the authority to forcibly remove Aboriginal people and Torres Strait Islander people to reserves and “Prohibiting any aboriginal rites or customs that, in the opinion of the Minister, are injurious to the welfare of aboriginals living upon a reserve” (Aboriginals Protection and Restriction of Sale of Opium Act 1897 (Qld), 1897, p. 7). This Act, whilst aimed at Queensland’s Indigenous population, was particularly significant as other colonies and states throughout pre- and post-federated Australia adopted the principles for many years, including Western Australia, South Australia and the Northern Territory. As a result, this Act is considered to have affected more Indigenous Australians than any other legislation (SLQ, 2016b) until the Native Title Act 1993 (OPC, n.d.).

Designed to control the supply and payment of opium as wages, the Aboriginals Protection and Restriction of Sale of Opium Act 1897 (Qld) also allowed the creation of reserves11 and the forced removal of Indigenous Australians from their homes to isolated and quarantined settlements. The removal of people from their homelands was

11 A reserve was either “granted in trust” or “reserved from sale or lease” for the benefit of Aboriginal people (MoAD, n.d.d, p. 2).

Problematising the wickedness of ‘disadvantage’ in Australian Indigenous Affairs policy 41 carried out by a ‘Protector of Aboriginals’ part of the Chief Protector of Aboriginals Office, with the Minister of the day able to “cause any aboriginal to be removed from one reserve to another” (Aboriginals Protection and Restriction of Sale of Opium Act 1897 (Qld), 1897, p. 3). The reserves were run on a permit system where it was illegal for a person to enter or remain on a reserve without permission. There were exemptions to the forced removals policy which included:

(a) Lawfully employed by any person under the provisions of this Act or the Regulations, or under any other law in force in Queensland; (b) The holder of a permit to be absent from a reserve; or (c) A female lawfully married to, and residing with, a husband who is not himself an aboriginal; (d) Or for whom in the opinion of the Minister satisfactory provision is otherwise made (Aboriginals Protection and Restriction of Sale of Opium Act 1897 Qld, 1897, p. 3). This permit system also included work permissions issued by the Protector, which were granted for a twelve month period and in agreement with the worker and in the presence of a Justice of the Peace or a police officer (Frankland, 1994, p. 5, 6). Other provisions covered in the Aboriginals Protection and Restriction of Sale of Opium Act 1897 (Qld) included the issuing of government blankets, alcohol restrictions, and the supply of opium to an “aboriginal or a half-caste” (Aboriginals Protection and Restriction of Sale of Opium Act 1897 (Qld), 1897, p. 5). Failure to comply with the Act could result in fines, convictions or imprisonment. Penalties also applied to those who supplied opium to non-Indigenous peoples (Aboriginals Protection and Restriction of Sale of Opium Act 1897 (Qld), 1897).

There has been much written about this Act (Nakata, 2004; Stephenson, 2003; Stratton, 2006). Ostensibly designed for humanitarian reasons (Nakata, 2004) to protect Indigenous Australians from the Chinese who were believed to be supplying opium to Indigenous women and girls for immoral purposes, this initial Act resulted in the “removal of Aboriginal-Asian children” (Stephenson, 2003, p. 59). Those who were considered non-white blurred the “absolute distinctions between black and white” and became a “semi-official category” (Stephenson, 2003, pp. 59-60) for those who did not fall under existing specific legislation.

The lives of Indigenous Australians under the various iterations of the Aboriginals Protection and Restriction of Sale of Opium Act 1897 (Qld) were increasingly governed by the competing and conflicting interests of religious

42 Problematising the wickedness of ‘disadvantage’ in Australian Indigenous Affairs policy institutions, government and business. Initially, Torres Strait Islander people did not fall under this Act as they were considered by John Douglas, the Government Resident for the Torres Strait Islands, as British subjects (Stratton, 2006). After 1904, Torres Strait Islander people were bought under the provisions of the Act and “were deemed ‘Aborigines’ as far as the law and government were concerned” (Nakata, 2004, p. 158). This manoeuvre began the homogenisation of Indigenous Queenslanders despite distinct cultural backgrounds (Stratton, 2006; Nakata, 2004). This categorising defined the concept of “‘Australianness’ to white people” as well as defining ‘white’ in contrast “to a confined and excluded, and homogenised, indigeneity” (Stratton, 2006, p. 675).

There were seventeen regulations attached to the Aboriginals Protection and Restriction of Sale of Opium Act 1897 (Qld) including: defining duties of Protectors; removal of Indigenous Australians to reserves; apportioning the net produce of the labour of Indigenous Australians on reserves; providing for the care, custody, and education of “the children of aboriginals”; and the prohibition of Indigenous rites and customs (pp. 7-8). This legislation, its enablers and enactors, along with its iterations and correlational legislation in other Australian states and territories, described Indigenous Australians in terms only of homogeneity and deficiency (Fforde et al., 2013) and by default, deficit in nature. Whilst it was possible to gain an exemption from the Act, it defined people and their lived experiences through ethnicity and stereotyping that wasn’t white, resulting in ongoing othering.

Australian Governments have a long history of control over the remuneration for work performed by Indigenous Australians. For example, from the 1890s to the 1970s the Queensland Government ‘managed’ the wages and savings of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Queenslanders who were controlled under the Protection Acts (SLQ, 2016b). As explained previously, this was overseen and administered by the agents of the Chief Protector of Aboriginals Office. These controls became widely known as stolen wages.

In 1943, the Queensland Government established the Aborigines Welfare Fund to fund Indigenous Queensland policy and services administration (ADCQ, 2017). A percentage of wages – between 2.5 and 10 percent – was appropriated from Indigenous Australian workers to support the fund essentially designed to reduce extra government financial expenditure (ADCQ, 2017, para. 22).

Problematising the wickedness of ‘disadvantage’ in Australian Indigenous Affairs policy 43 The Queensland Government was forced to partially address the inequitable wages paid to Indigenous Queenslanders after several Palm Island residents won, a case against the government for being paid under award wages. The Palm Island Wages Case (HREOC, 2006) was resolved in 1999, approximately fourteen years after being lodged (McDougall, 2002) with a one off payment of $7,000 for Indigenous Australians working for the government on reserves between 1 October 1975 and 29 October 1986 (HREOC, 2006, para. 20). These dates are significant as in 1975 the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 commenced and in 1986 award wages became available to everyone (HREOC, 2006). Those who worked for religious organisations were ineligible for this government worker payment scheme (HREOC, 2006, para. 20).

In late 2002, the Queensland Government introduced the Indigenous Wages and Savings Reparations scheme which provided financial reparations and an apology to Aboriginal people and Torres Strait Islander people born between the 1890s and the 1980s whose savings and wages were controlled under various protection acts (ADCQ, 2017). Depending on the date of birth of those seeking reparation the payments were $3,500 and $7,000 (Queensland Stolen Wages Reparations Taskforce, 2016, p. 12).

The continued controlling and disempowering consequences of these policies resulted in a number of detrimental legacies for Indigenous Australians, including extremely limited savings and home ownership and the perpetuation of peoples defined through deficiency (Fforde et al., 2013). Financial benefits could not be passed on, and built upon, by successive generations. Associated with this financial legacy is the legacy of health, particularly substance misuse. For example, tobacco and other rations were used as ‘payment’ for Indigenous Australians until around the 1960s, was also used as a source of control by pastoralists whilst wages were being totally or partially withheld by the government (Schofield et al., 2015, p. 51). As with other life outcomes for Indigenous Australians, the high levels of tobacco use compared with non-Indigenous Australians can be linked to colonial policies (Schofield et al., 2015).

Recent examples of forms of financial control include trials of cashless debit cards by the Australian Government that quarantine part of Indigenous Australian’s welfare payments and restrict expenditure to certain stores (DSS, 2018). The intention has been to reduce the cash available in a community and thus reduce harms perceived to be caused by alcohol abuse, gambling, and drug misuse (DSS, 2018). This form of compulsory income management was introduced as part of the Northern Territory

44 Problematising the wickedness of ‘disadvantage’ in Australian Indigenous Affairs policy National Emergency Response Act 2007 (Cth) and enabled by the suspension of Part II of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 Indigenous Australians in the Northern Territory had no legal means of redress for discrimination due to income management (Bielefeld 2014).

There have been consequent amendments in 2010 and 2012 to the income management policies. This included, after criticism of human rights violations within the 2007 laws, reinstating Part II of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 within these measures. These income management laws impact significantly on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander agency and wellbeing (Bielefeld 2014). In particular, the focus of the policies and strategies has been on those “defined as 'disengaged youth', 'long term', or 'vulnerable' welfare recipients, and on instances where there is a child protection issue” (Bielefeld 2014, pp. 288-9).

4.1.2 The stolen generations Government policies and strategies enabled through the original Aboriginals Protection and Restriction of Sale of Opium Act 1897 (Qld) promulgated a program of assimilation between 1910 and the 1970s. These policies allowed governments to remove Indigenous Australian children from their families and send them to institutions, missions or to be fostered by non-Indigenous families (HREOC, 1997). These children were not allowed to continue cultural practices or speak traditional languages. There was a perceived notion by governments of the day, churches and community that children were disadvantaged just by being Indigenous and that “non- indigenous models of child rearing were superior” (Brown 2009, pp. 1565-6).

The prime motivation advanced for these policies was ostensibly ‘child protection’ and these children became known as “The Stolen Generations” (HREOC, 1997). This phrase became embedded in public discourses after the release of the 1997 Bringing Them Home Report (HREOC, 1997). This report was a result of the National Inquiry into the Separation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Children from Their Families established in 1995 in response to concerns of Indigenous communities and agencies that public ignorance of the history of forcible removal was hindering the recognition of the needs of its victims and their families and the provision of services (HREOC, 1997).

Problematising the wickedness of ‘disadvantage’ in Australian Indigenous Affairs policy 45 The Bringing Them Home report estimated that between ten and thirty percent of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children were forcibly removed at the height of removal policies implementation (HREOC, 1997). On 26 May 1998, the first annual National Sorry Day was held. Over a decade after the Bringing Them Home Report, Prime Minister Kevin Rudd adhered to one of the Report’s recommendations and apologised to the Stolen Generations on 13 February 2008 (Commonwealth, 2008).

The disconnecting of generations of Indigenous families from spiritual, cultural, land, water and kinship ties resulted in ongoing trauma (Hunt, 2013; Beresford & Beresford, 2006; Schofield et al., 2015). Ramifications of these removal policies, which were also policies of prohibition, particularly with regards to experiencing and expressing individual cultural identity, include poor physical and mental health, high suicide rates and unrealised education outcomes. (SCRGSP, 2014). Many Australians are able to take their history and identity as a given and for granted, but this is not so for many Aboriginal people and Torres Strait Islander people. This is even more pronounced when considered in light of the original homogenisation of Indigenous Australians as a result of the introduction of the Aboriginals Protection and Restriction of Sale of Opium Act 1897 (Qld) over Torres Strait Islanders in 1904 (Stratton, 2006).

4.2 CONTEMPORARY DEFICIT DISCOURSES

There are two key policies which particularly emphasise the continuation of deficit discourses within Indigenous Affairs following the implementation of the Aboriginals Protection and Restriction of Sale of Opium Act 1897 (Qld), and similar subsequent legislation throughout Australia. These are the Northern Territory National Emergency Response Act 2007 (Cth) and the 2008 Closing the Gap on Indigenous Disadvantage policy. These two, often controversial, policies have received substantial financial investment. They reproduce being Indigenous as deficient, and do so within a wicked problem context (Hunter, 2007; Johns, 2008). An example of deficit discourse in practice can be found in the Northern Territory National Emergency Response Act 2007 (Cth), which became widely known as the ‘Intervention’.

4.2.1 Deficit discourse in practice: The Northern Territory National Emergency Response On 21 June 2007, Prime Minister Howard announced a “national emergency response to protect Aboriginal children in the Northern Territory” from sexual abuse and family

46 Problematising the wickedness of ‘disadvantage’ in Australian Indigenous Affairs policy violence (AHRC, 2007). The Northern Territory National Emergency Response Act 2007 (Cth) involved the mobilisation of the Australian Defence Force to deliver the child protection priorities of the government in remote Indigenous communities in the Northern Territory. This Response also saw the suspension of Part II of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975. This suspension denied Aboriginal people and Torres Strait Islander people protections afforded to other citizens to challenge legislation considered to be in breach of the Act, such as laws that affect people of a “particular race, colour or national or ethnic origin” and not people of “another race” (AHRC, 2017, para. 10).

The Intervention demonstrated a continuation of Australia’s history of control of its First Peoples through legislation and the portrayal of Indigenous cultures as deficient. The speed with which the Howard Government drafted and enacted legislation around the Intervention, reproduces the sense of urgency foregrounded in the Act’s title: Northern Territory National Emergency Response Act 2007 (Cth). The announcement of the Intervention was made within six days of the highly publicised Little Children Are Sacred report (NTBIPACSA, 2007).

The emphasis on ‘emergency response’ in the Act’s title positions the government action as both immediately necessary and on a ‘national’ scale, just as it confirms that the situation requires, if not demands, external intervention. The words ‘emergency response’ emphasises the situation as particularly serious and in need of immediate redress. This emergency discourse is emphasised in Prime Minister Howard’s use of the term ‘disaster’ to describe the extent of the child sexual abuse recorded in the report. Relatedly, Howard referred to Northern Territory child sex abuse as “Australia’s Hurricane Katrina” (Faulkner, 2015, p. 118). Significantly, this need for action was supported by the removal/suspension of Indigenous Australians’ rights in the Northern Territory as noted above. Such a characterisation removes agency from Indigenous Australians. The Northern Territory National Emergency Response Act 2007 (Cth) illustrates contemporary discourse evolving from a long line of policies which have aimed to ‘improve lives’. Indeed, the Act is reminiscent of the removal and control policies of the Stolen Generations which justified significant intervention in Indigenous peoples’ lives without their consent.

The Act was influenced by and announced via the news media, with many senior bureaucrats unaware of the measures until they were publicly announced (McCallum

Problematising the wickedness of ‘disadvantage’ in Australian Indigenous Affairs policy 47 & Waller, 2013). Further, it was an ABC Television Lateline report in 2006 around the sexual abuse of children in the Northern Territory that sparked the inquiry that led to the Ampe Akelyernemane Meke Mekarle: Little Children Are Sacred report (ABC, 2006). The report’s title Ampe Akelyernemane Meke Mekarle makes a significant and symbolic statement about cultural nuances through the very public use on a government report of traditional Indigenous languages peculiar to the areas of the inquiry. The description in the report of the story that relates to Ampe Akelyernemane Meke Mekarle is further supported by a cover designed by an Indigenous woman from the Northern Territory and which represents people from differing Indigenous and non-Indigenous backgrounds coming together to work together with an understanding of Indigenous and non-Indigenous laws (NTBIPACSA, 2007). There are strong messages of partnership and support for Indigenous knowledges within the first two pages of the report.

The Intervention was announced through the news media (McCallum & Waller, 2013, p. 143) within one week of the release of the Little Children Are Sacred report (Proudfoot & Habibis, 2015, 171). Proudfoot & Habibis (2015) highlight the way that the mainstream print media around the Intervention largely attended to ‘supportive’ non-Indigenous perspectives over the ‘contesting’ discourses of Indigenous people. In 2010 a United Nations Special Rapporteur questioned the levels of consultation undertaken by the government, and as a result, challenged the legitimacy of actions carried out as part of the Northern Territory National Emergency Response Act 2007 (Cth) (Vivian, 2010, p. 52).

It was confronting for many Indigenous community members to see the army arrive without announcement into their communities; some used the term ‘human waste’ to describe how this made them feel (Tedmanson & Wadiwel, 2010, p. 16). It was also a damaging portrayal of Aboriginal Australians for the rest of the country to witness - that the armed services were needed to ‘control’ whole communities. These othering actions by the government, that removed the human rights of many, are an unambiguous example of ‘doing to’ and reminiscent of the seventeen controlling regulations of the Aboriginals Protection and Restriction of Sale of Opium Act 1897 (Qld).

The concentration of the political rhetoric around child protection to introduce and justify the Intervention to the broader public directly reflects the principle of

48 Problematising the wickedness of ‘disadvantage’ in Australian Indigenous Affairs policy guardianship (Sanders, 2010). The government decided that the Indigenous populations of the Northern Territory, particularly those in remote areas were not able to make considered and rational decisions around what was best for their families, their communities and themselves. This distrust in peoples’ life skills ability was also played out in the context of “Indigenous people as whole groups” being assessed as vulnerable to the privilege and power of “settler industrial society” (Sanders, 2010, p. 314).

Johns (2008) has a different take on the settler industrial society with his critique of the Northern Territory National Emergency Response Act 2007 (Cth). He explains that policy actors have continued to concentrate on the ‘traditional’ view of Aboriginal people and Torres Strait Islander people. That, “unfortunately, ‘progressive’ Aboriginal politics is built around the enduring assumption that cultural preservation is fundamental to ‘identity’” (Johns, 2008, p. 69). This political and romantic viewpoint is also described as a “fascination with Indigenous hunter-gatherer society” (Sanders, 2010, p. 319). For Johns, the need for the Intervention was an antidote to previous policies which focussed on cultural preservation as opposed to the ‘aboriginal problem’ (2008, p. 67). Hunter, however, talks about the Intervention in terms of complexity and the range of stakeholders that need to be “open to the possibility that their ideas are wrong” (2007, p. 41).

The whiteness of policies associated with the Northern Territory National Emergency Response Act 2007 (Cth) mimics the language of the policies around protectionism including the stolen generations (Sanders, 2010). Public discourse continues around the legacies experienced by the Stolen Generations and the current upward trend in the number of young Indigenous people in out-of-home care, particularly as a result of the Intervention. Out-of-home care involves placing children and young people aged 0–17 years of age with carers on a short- or long-term basis (AIFS, 2017), and the number of Aboriginal children in out-of-home care in the Northern Territory has tripled since June 30, 2007. As of June 2016, 89 percent of the children in out-of-home care in the Northern Territory were Aboriginal children (RCBIPDCNT, 2017).

Another similarity between the Aboriginals Protection and Restriction of Sale of Opium Act 1897 (Qld) and the Territory National Emergency Response Act 2007 (Cth) is the breaking down of cultural ties through ‘land’. Whereas the first Act

Problematising the wickedness of ‘disadvantage’ in Australian Indigenous Affairs policy 49 removed people from their homes to reserves and continued to control daily lives including employment and wages, the compulsory acquisition leases with questionable compensation allowed through the latter Act was an intervention into the property rights of Indigenous people (Johns, 2007). Changes to permit systems were also interventionist as some communities relied on remuneration from issuing permits (Johns, 2007).

4.2.2 Closing the Gap The language and perceptions of ‘Indigenous disadvantage’ is cemented in the Close the Gap campaign. This campaign was instigated by Oxfam in 2006 in response to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commissioner’s Social Justice Report 2005. It was supported by 40 peak Aboriginal, Torres Strait Islander and non-Indigenous health bodies, health professional bodies and human rights organisations (AHRC, 2018.) The Close the Gap campaign aims to ensure that by 2030 Indigenous Australian children have the same opportunities and life outcomes as other Australian children. A national Close the Gap Day has been marked annually since 2009 and is now a significant health event in Australia. Statistics show that whilst this Day has grown in support, associated policies and strategies have not made a significant difference in the lived experiences of many Aboriginal people and Torres Strait Islander people (DPMC, 2018). COAG adopted the Closing the Gap campaign with the launch of the 2008 Closing the Gap on Indigenous Disadvantage strategy. This strategy comprised seven target areas focussed on reducing the high levels of disadvantage experienced by Aboriginal people and Torres Strait Islander people in life expectancy, child mortality, education, literacy and numeracy, year twelve school attainment, and employment (COAG Reform Council, 2014).

In 2015-16, the total direct expenditure on Aboriginal people and Torres Strait Islander people was estimated to be $33.4 billion. Direct expenditure per Indigenous Australian was $44,886 which is around twice the direct expenditure per non- Indigenous Australian (SCRGSP, 2017, pp. 6, 14). Notwithstanding this campaign, significant disparities in life outcomes between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians continue. For example, since 2008, there has been progress in only three of the seven Closing the Gap targets: child mortality, early childhood education and Year 12 school attainment are on track, whereas school attendance, reading and

50 Problematising the wickedness of ‘disadvantage’ in Australian Indigenous Affairs policy numeracy levels, employment outcomes and increased life expectancy are not (DPMC, 2018).

The language used in public discourses and domains has habitually framed Indigenous Australians in a negative light since colonisation. These “notions of normality, where racialised and cultural ‘others’ are viewed as negative, are the results of ingrained systems of knowing” (Milner, 2007, p. 389). These discourses insinuate a ‘racial construct’ for Indigenous Australians but not for ‘European Australians’ (Moreton-Robinson, 2004, p. 82). This includes discussing Aboriginal peoples and Torres Strait Islander peoples as a de-personalised, non-heterogeneous entity (Riggins as cited in Krumer-Nevo & Sidi, 2012, p. 300); that is, as one cultural grouping, and without sophisticated and nuanced associated cultures.

4.3 POLICY ACTOR INTERPRETATIONS OF DEFICIT DISCOURSES IN INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS POLICY

Themes of (1) partnership, (2) legacy and (3) policy actors were raised by all research participants as major and complex components of deficit discourses around policy development and implementation within Indigenous Affairs. Research participants focussed on these themes as reoccurring and contradictory.

4.3.1 Partnerships All fifteen research participants interviewed referred to the need to partner and collaborate, through meaningful engagement and shared consultation (Graham), in the development of policies and programs with Indigenous Australian communities. The majority of research participants emphasised the imperative to engage with community members who would be program recipients and to do so “on their terms” (Wendy).

It's not just communities, but if we actually sit down with people most affected by the issue that we’re looking at options to address and actually letting them explain to you their perception of the issue, that's far better than us going in and telling them: “This is the issue that you're facing or this is how we interpret your issue and we wanna hear what you wanna do about it or how we should approach it” (Bradley). However, whilst Geoff also shared the sentiment of partnership and collaboration he cynically explained his view of government-initiated partnerships: “we see a lot of use of the word partners, but the partner is in – ‘we’ve made the decision’”.

Problematising the wickedness of ‘disadvantage’ in Australian Indigenous Affairs policy 51 Prime Minister Rudd also spoke of partnerships and the “spirit of reconciliation” in his 2008 Apology to Australia’s Indigenous Peoples (Australian Government, 2008), sparking relief for many (Fredericks, 2010, p. 2). In the words of a research participant: “there was great anticipation, there was great excitement within those areas within communities…this was changing the way that government did their business” (Stephen).

According to Closing the Gap statistics (DPMC, 2018), the political pledge of partnerships and engagement as a vital tool of policy discourse is not working. This was ratified by most research participants: “Well, it's not improving it. I mean it's certainly not really closing the gap…We've been on this endless trip of consultation and partnership” (Wendy). Donna summed up the ongoing deficit discourse within Australian Indigenous Affairs through highlighting the meaning of ‘real listening’: “we’re a long way from having any real, genuine affinity of being informed and listening is hard ‘cause listening means that you have to hear things about yourself or your own culture that are uncomfortable”.

None of the fifteen research participants had anything positive to say about the Intervention, particularly with regards to meaningful engagement and respect for the worldviews of Aboriginal people and Torres Strait Islander people. Research participants, did, however, highlight the need for a range of tailored strategies co- designed and co-implemented by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities to be considered for future policy framing and making within Indigenous Affairs. In support of this, Stephen indicated: “There is not one answer but we need to do something different than what we’re doing”.

The partnership rhetoric in response to inquiries and reports that are focussed on equal relationships for good outcomes brought about a comment from one participant that invoked those of Patrick Dodson (2016, p. 24) on the worsening numbers of Indigenous Australians in incarceration since the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody: “We’ve had a Royal Commission into deaths in custody for over - almost 25 years and the numbers are worse” (Craig).

Frank, when talking about the lack of meaningful partnerships, including the invisibility of Indigenous Australians within decision making processes around individual and community futures; and resulting poor outcomes, said ‘Indigenous disadvantage’ is:

52 Problematising the wickedness of ‘disadvantage’ in Australian Indigenous Affairs policy not being addressed through most of the measures that are implemented by the policymakers and service providers…we’re consistently seeing poor policy and poor services being developed in that siloed approach without proper conceptualisation and development being led by the communities that are most likely to know what their problems are and how those problems can be addressed to get more meaningful outcomes. Importantly, all research participants referred to the continued limiting by decision makers of Indigenous Australian voices in policy development and implementation - despite the rhetoric of partnerships - and the dismissive and disempowering language of the media. In Geoff’s view the real focus on what meaningful community participation means is overlooked by decision makers and their preconceived ideas: “somehow, we focus on the Aboriginality of that problem rather than it’s just a thing that occurred in that community, the same as it occurred in every other community.” There is a strong tendency by news media to focus on or to sensationalise negative aspects of the lived experiences of Indigenous Australians Most research participants felt the media didn’t focus enough on the strengths of ‘every day’ Indigenous Australians going about their ‘every day’ lives - the media is not interested in “good natured stories” (Donald) and “haven’t generally picked up on strengths” (Donna). This conflicting rhetoric of partnerships, participation and policy discourse by governments, as far as all research participants were concerned, continued to result in the perpetuation of poor outcomes for Aboriginal people and Torres Strait Islander people.

4.3.2 Legacy All research participants referred in some way to the circular nature of the five historical and contemporary policies outlined earlier in this chapter. In particular, they pointed to the corollary of exponential intergenerational trauma, mostly with regards to the stolen generations and controlling of wages. Several research participants felt that the broader population did not really understand the ongoing traumatic nature of these legacies, and that they affect entire communities; they felt that the public was of the opinion after 200 years of colonisation: “why don't they just move on?” (Wendy). Research participants felt that legacy outcomes and issues crossed every level of discourse within Indigenous Affairs. All research participants, however, spoke to the unquestionable and ongoing disparate statistics around life outcomes for many Indigenous Australians in comparison to non-Indigenous Australians.

Problematising the wickedness of ‘disadvantage’ in Australian Indigenous Affairs policy 53 The dismissive, unilateral language and philosophy of protectionism was a strong theme amongst research participants, along with a tendency to equate policies such as the Northern Territory National Emergency Response Act 2007 (Cth), with enforced protectionism. Closing the Gap was referred to by all research participants as a prominent example of contemporary rhetoric within Indigenous Affairs. The majority of research participants referred to the strategy as another unsuccessful attempt by governments to improve Indigenous Australians’ lives.

Research participants felt there was a need to build an understanding of the Indigenous worldviews of legacy policies into policy implementation and any engagement processes. In particular they felt that it is important for policy actors to understand the history of the causes of this intergenerational trauma –through the context of listening to Indigenous people tell “stories about why” (William). Wanda described her view of the concept of intergenerational trauma experienced by many Indigenous Australians:

So starting from losing your land, losing your identity, losing your family, lose – It’s just loss, loss, loss, loss, loss and so that has really set up, I guess, a pathway to almost like self-perpetuating disadvantage because it’s just mired so deep. And it’s not just a financial thing, there’s all the other things like, you know, as I said, of loss of family. So the emotional and spiritual, I guess and historic. (Wanda). One research participant summing up removal policies of the past and present said:

I think the idea of a new Stolen Generation is really an important one. The over-representation of kids in the child protection system is having that result for altruistic or whatever kind of benevolent motivations might be behind it. The reality is why people think black kids are better off outside of their family and so kind of feel like we are coming back a bit to some of that stuff. Looking through the trends of the Stolen Generation segregation, integration and all those kinds of things, we’re not - have there been some improvements? (Frank). There appears to be an inability to truly accept the legacies of policy development and implementation for what they genuinely are – the cause of ongoing generational trauma that for many Aboriginal people and Torres Strait Islander people prevents a personal and communal cultural safety and quality of life. Perhaps this explains the need to hang on to an ‘other’ in daily discourses around Indigenous Australian lived experiences. It would seem the subtext to this othering is that by recognising self- determination of a group of peoples the sovereignty of the nation is at risk (Davis,

54 Problematising the wickedness of ‘disadvantage’ in Australian Indigenous Affairs policy 2007, p. 6), particularly when this group of peoples are in the extreme minority. As Wendy pointed out:

when you've got a group of people who are only 2.6 per cent of the population and therefore, are almost invisible to a whole range of people, then that, I think, is a major difficulty because our policy really is driven very much on a populist sort of – that's really the main driver (Wendy).

4.3.3 Policy actors Research participants were consistent in their identification of key policy actors involved in policy development and implementation within Indigenous Affairs. These policy actors included politicians, statutory bodies, not for profit organisations, churches, non-Indigenous and Indigenous Australian leaders and spokespeople, and in particular, the media. These categories of policy actors have remained relatively constant since settlement. Policy community membership and the power relations in this community remain somewhat static.

It was noticeable that all research participants mentioned the media in a negative light when it came to reporting on topics relating to Aboriginal people and Torres Strait Islander people and that “bad messages and news shows contributed to Indigenous disadvantage” (Graham) and “their coverage of Aboriginal issues has always been negative” (Larry). The media was mentioned as a key stakeholder by several research participants as “the media is what connects us across the day” (Bradley) One participant did, however, refer to good news stories as those centred around “sports heroes” (Graham). At the same time, the increase of the influence of the media on the immediacy of actions of politicians as a result of the 24 hour news cycle in William’s experience meant that “the media has a huge role in influencing policy development”.

Noel Pearson, Indigenous Australian lawyer and land rights activist was a prominent figure throughout research participant interviews and research literature (Bradfield, 2003; Billings, 2011; McCallum, 2011; Hunter, 2007). Pearson was referred to as a major policy actor influencing both governments and the media. Several research participants felt that Pearson “speaks from a singular point of view” (Geoff), and that government had a habit of liaising with self-proclaimed leaders. Pearson was nominated by research participants in that category. Research participants questioned the value of engaging with those self-nominated individuals and particular representative bodies over and above people living in urban and regional areas directly

Problematising the wickedness of ‘disadvantage’ in Australian Indigenous Affairs policy 55 experiencing a disparity of life experiences: “I don't think we've really examined how best we can do that” (Bradley).

Research participants referred to what constituted the ‘voice’ or ‘leadership’ of Indigenous people. The majority of research participants referred to the cycle of Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australian leaders selected by politicians as their ‘go to’ for advice. This selection coincided with election cycles and party politics: “When Labor comes to power, it will be a different set of people” (Peter). Research participants also spoke about Indigenous Australian community structures and the need to embrace engagement practices that consider a whole of community and thus include voices “which may or may not be the same people” (Peter) as the elected leadership. All research participants emphatically agreed that the prime stakeholders that were generally missing were Aboriginal people and Torres Strait Islander people who would be the recipients of policy development and implementation.

4.4 SUMMARY

Prime Minister Keating in his Redfern Speech, referred to not “hiding behind the contemporary version of social Darwinism” when talking about non-Indigenous Australians accepting collective responsibility for disparate life outcomes experienced by Indigenous Australians (Keating, 1992, para. 21). This 1992 speech pre-empted a number of policies and programs over the next twenty-five years that promoted collective responsibility, such as the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Women's Task Force on Violence Report, 1999 and the Cape York Justice Study, 2001. These were government responses to the above recommendations about not treating Indigenous peoples as inferior subjects. However, policy has continued to directly echo and perpetuate the retrogressive discourses of policies and programs of the past.

Extant research illustrates the unchanging poor life outcomes for Aboriginal peoples and Torres Strait Islander peoples, citing a range of reasons including lack of appropriate engagement, and reactive policies in response to negative media and deficit discourse. Government-commissioned reviews continue to provide successive governments with similar recommendations for partnerships, acknowledgement of the consequences of past policies and resulting intergenerational trauma, and recognition of the worldviews of policy ‘recipients’. Successive governments also continue to implement repetitive policies and programs that at worst openly defy or ignore these

56 Problematising the wickedness of ‘disadvantage’ in Australian Indigenous Affairs policy recommendations from a ‘white’ perspective or at best do not have the skills to interpret recommendations from any other perspective than those reflecting systems of whiteness. As one research participant exclaimed about these ongoing cycles of deficit discourse and policy development and implementation: “what really strikes me is we keep doing the same things and expect a different result” (Stephen).

Problematising the wickedness of ‘disadvantage’ in Australian Indigenous Affairs policy 57 Chapter 5: The wicked problem of ‘Indigenous disadvantage’

The previous chapter has shown the dominance of deficit discourses in Indigenous Affairs policy development and implementation. This chapter focusses on the framing of ‘Indigenous disadvantage’ as a wicked problem, in large part based on this deficit, and the implications of this framing. Section 5.1 clarifies the use of the term wicked to describe Indigenous disadvantage. Section 5.2 describes how the wicked problem components of complexity, uncertainty and value divergence can be applied to Indigenous Affairs policy discourses. The impact of these wicked discourses on public policy development and implementation is highlighted in Section 5.3. Section 5.4 explains that implementing a change from promoting deficit discourses is apparently a wicked problem within itself. In doing so, this chapter answers the second research question: How do these discourses contribute to the framing of Indigenous disadvantage as a wicked problem?

5.1 FRAMING INDIGENOUS DISADVANTAGE AS A WICKED PROBLEM

As many issues facing Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders do not appear to affect non-Indigenous Australians to the same extent Hunter (2007) identifies Australian Indigenous policy as one of the many complex areas facing government. Examples of this these issues include Native Title12 and historical government interventions (Hunter, 2007, p. 36). The Howard government’s 2007 Intervention has been described as wicked on a number of levels (Hunter, 2007; Johns, 2008). Johns (2008) suggests that it isn’t, for example the Northern Territory National Emergency Response Act 2007 (Cth) that is wicked, but instead that it is the policymakers’ vision which is wicked. He argues that policymakers have a romanticised view of Indigenous Australians and, relatedly, that ‘traditional’ culture should be preserved at the expense of policy imperatives that may be seen to erode cultural practices. As Howell & Hartwig (2017) have emphasised, this romantic view of ‘culture’ is perpetuated

12 Native title describes the recognition by the Australian legal system of rights and interests of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples to land and waters according to their traditional laws and customs (FCA, n.d.).

58 Problematising the wickedness of ‘disadvantage’ in Australian Indigenous Affairs policy through government policies promoted by Eurocentric assumptions of the ‘innate’ relationship Indigenous Australians have with the land and sea.

Johns (2008) and Hunter (2007) discuss the ramifications, and complexity of, the legacy of Indigenous Affairs policies and outcomes. They explain the importance, within a wicked context, of understanding the cycle of legacy outcomes and their intrinsic role in the lived experiences, community lores, mores and social capital of communities and individuals (Prins et al., 2010). Indeed, there is a greater open acknowledgment by government policy actors of the role previous policy development and implementation has had in the ongoing framing of policy responses to Indigenous disadvantage (Van Hulst & Yanow, 2016; DPMC, 2018; Commonwealth, 2008). Importantly, a wicked problem as it exists in public discourse tends to be a deficit conversation given the intractable label and the no stopping rule of wicked problems (Harris, 2012).

5.1.1 Wicked complexity in Australian Indigenous Affairs policy Complexity in a wicked problem policy context involves diverse stakeholders representing a range of social and work backgrounds, and many symbiotic relationships within the problem environment and the framework being proposed to solve the problem. The diversity of Indigenous Australian cultures and the intergenerational consequences of being removed from family and place of birth create significant complexity to be managed by Indigenous Affairs policy and can also create conflicting political and community views as to the best outcomes and future for Aboriginal people and Torres Strait Islander people (Howitt, 2012).

Circular and contradictory policy language and the perceived intractability of wicked problems are starkly represented in ongoing cycles of emotive and complex discourse in Indigenous Affairs policy. For example, the Western Australian Premier, Colin Barnett, cited the safety of children as a reason for closing down remote Indigenous Australian communities in Western Australia13 (The Guardian, 2015). However, a leaked State Government document reported by the ABC , shows that the safety of children was not questioned as part of a 2010 report prepared by the

13 In November 2014, the Western Australian Government announced plans to close over 100 remote Indigenous communities after a September 2014 announcement by the Australian Government that financial support for these communities would be withdrawn (Kagi, 2014).

Problematising the wickedness of ‘disadvantage’ in Australian Indigenous Affairs policy 59 Australian Government, Priority Investment Communities - WA which “categorised 192 of 287 remote settlements as unsustainable” (O’Connor, 2015, para. 3). This use of child safety as justification for an interventionist policy against a particular group of peoples is reminiscent of earlier protectionist and assimilationist policies.14

Directly linked to these cycles of deficit discourse is historical events such as the non-recognition of the sovereignty of Aboriginal people in the 1901 Constitution of Australia, and more recent discussions regarding the meaningful recognition of Aboriginal peoples and Torres Strait Islander peoples in the Constitution of Australia. Policy development and implementation still continues to be developed around the “historical construction of colonial sovereignty” (Howitt & McLean, 2015, p. 140) and these complex issues of Indigenous Australian sovereignty still exist despite the reversal of the concept of terra nullius in 1992 through the recognition of land rights.

Whilst lived experiences are a corollary of previous circumstances, it could be argued that the discourses currently surrounding Indigenous Australian peoples are still reminiscent of the Enlightenment. The identity of Australia’s Indigenous peoples remains largely defined by statistics gathered within a ‘Western’ research framework. In the past where through the ethno-curiosity of early colonisation Indigenous Australians had their physical features measured and categorised, statistics are now used to define Indigenous identity through the categorisation of levels of disadvantage, size of the perceived problem and the political positioning of the stakeholders involved.

5.1.2 Wicked uncertainty in Australian Indigenous Affairs policy The uncertainty component of a wicked policy problem involves the relationship of the factors of the problem with the outcomes from the solution being imposed (Head, 2008). In attempting to solve wicked problems there may be unintended or perverse consequences, or the implementation of a policy or program may simply not work as intended. These outcomes are unknown, and not able to be predicted beforehand. Factors that comprise a wicked problem are in a state of constant change and the direction and consistency of those changes are also unknowns.

14 This discourse, along with the sharp rise in young people in detention in the Northern Territory is also feeding into discussions around a new generation of stolen children.

60 Problematising the wickedness of ‘disadvantage’ in Australian Indigenous Affairs policy The language of current political leadership is a continuation of the deficit discourses in Indigenous Affairs that were already in evidence prior to colonisation. The wicked language of deficit emphasises a lack of recognition of the continuity of discourses in the policies of the colonial past and contemporary policies, strategies and implementation processes around Indigenous Australian Affairs. Almost 230 years after colonisation, there is still a focus on punitive, patronising and repressive policies based on the hegemonic a priori of whiteness (Moreton- Robinson, 2004), such as the Northern Territory National Emergency Response.

The inability and perhaps unwillingness of successive governments to implement recommendations from reports and inquiries is a prominent example of unmet outcomes and expectations. Patrick Dodson, Labor Senator for Western Australia and Shadow Assistant Minister for Indigenous Affairs and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders, has questioned the levels of significance placed on Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody recommendations (Dodson, 2016) and the impact of this on justice outcomes for Indigenous Australians. Similarly, the Queensland Government has failed to realise its ambitions for the Queensland Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Justice Agreement (2001) which promised to support the outcomes of the 1999 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Women’s Task Force on Violence Report.

A 2006 evaluation of the 2001 Queensland Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Justice Agreement noted the “greatest failure” of implementation was “little sense of urgency” (Cunneen, 2006, p. 98) in meeting its goal of a reduction of 50 per cent by 2011 of the numbers of Indigenous Queenslanders in the criminal justice system (DATSIPD, 2001a, p. 11). The number of policies and strategies introduced by the Queensland Government around the time of the 2001 Justice Agreement and its 2006 review demonstrates the evolving and revolving decision-making context and uncertain landscape in which policy actors are required to implement strategies.15

15 Policies introduced included Towards a Queensland Government and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Ten Year Partnership 2000-2011 (DATSIPD, 2001b), Queensland Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Justice Agreement (DATSIPD, 2001a), Meeting Challenges, Making Choices: The Queensland Government's Response to the Cape York Justice Study, 2002 (DPC, 2002) and Partnerships Queensland: future directions framework for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander policy in Queensland 2005-2010 (DATSIP, 2005). These policies were intertwined with the Under Award Wages and Indigenous Wages and Savings Reparations schemes being implemented throughout Queensland.

Problematising the wickedness of ‘disadvantage’ in Australian Indigenous Affairs policy 61 5.1.3 Wicked value divergence in Australian Indigenous Affairs policy Wicked problems contain the tensions between the differing viewpoints of the diversity of stakeholders involved (Head, 2008). Stakeholders include those who will be recipients of policy implementation and those who are creators of problem formulation and policy development and implementation. The different ways in which policy actors and recipients make sense of systems, lived experiences and the ‘problem’ means perspectives differ. They may also be totally opposing in both values and in the manner preferred to solve the problem.

Whilst the Enlightenment promoted a school of thought that Indigenous peoples were inferior, there was a by-line too, and that Indigenous culture was ‘at one with’ the environment. This romantic view is still writ large in Australia (Howlett & Hartwig, 2017; Wheeler-Jones et al., 2015; Dodson, 2003; Fredericks, 2007; Johns, 2008;). With the romantic view of Indigenous Australians as environmentally ‘grounded’ and the ‘we know best’ policies, comes the legacy of low expectations. As the ‘other’, Indigenous Australians are not expected to perform as well as non- Indigenous Australian peers, at school or in the workforce, including running a business (CYIPL, 2007). Low expectations, too, can exist with Indigenous Australians’ participation within the economy based on an assumption of an unwillingness to engage or are “culturally incapable of engaging in the mainstream economy” (Wheeler-Jones et al., 2015, p. 169). Moving on from this policy has led to a misunderstanding of the dynamics of culture with many still believing that to be Indigenous is to live ‘on country’ in a remote area and to be dark skinned (Fredericks, 2007). This romanticised view is however extremely patronising by assuming identity is singular and not multifaceted. To quote Bronwyn Fredericks, “When we live in a city or town, we don’t become any less or any more Indigenous” (2007, p. 4).

These misconceptions can result in an Indigenous Affairs policy focus on people living in remote areas and ignoring the statistics of people living in urban and regional areas, who although may be in proximity to services may not be able to access them for any number of reasons. This focus also leads to Aboriginal people and Torres Strait Islander people’s life experiences not being treated as credible or ‘normal’ and when urban contexts are considered, a one size fits all approach is considered appropriate for those who might experience fewer life opportunities.

62 Problematising the wickedness of ‘disadvantage’ in Australian Indigenous Affairs policy Prime Minister Abbott’s support for the Western Australian Government’s 2014 announcement to close down remote Indigenous Australian communities throughout the State played out through public comments including, “It is not the job of the taxpayer to subsidise lifestyle choices” (Scarr, 2015, para. 39). Of Abbott’s comments, Noel Pearson, a long-time Indigenous Australian advisor to the Prime Minister, had the following, “These are real human beings with a long history of displacement and great uncertainty about what place they have in Australian society … I think it’s a very disappointing and hopeless statement by the Prime Minister” (Martin, 2015, para. 5).

This exchange provides a pertinent example of the value divergence of a wicked problem. Abbott’s value judgement about ‘lifestyle’ choices of Indigenous Australians living in remote areas is clearly oppositional to Noel Pearson’s concept and sense- making of contemporary Indigenous Australians. Reference was made by the Western Australian Government around the range of past programs that had been provided to support remote Western Australian Indigenous communities. However, there was no real discussion as to what programs worked and should be continued. The decision to close down communities was seemingly based on emotion and politics and not being considered with the meaningful input of Indigenous Australian voices.

5.2 THE IMPACT OF WICKED DISCOURES ON PUBLIC POLICY

Despite the discourse around the importance of a ‘whole of government’ approach to policy development and implementation around Australian Indigenous Affairs (e.g. NCAFP, 2016), government activity and policymaking still tends toward ineffective siloes (Hunt, 2013). This 2016 Redfern Statement was made twenty-four years later and in the same place as Prime Minister Keating delivered his 1992 Redfern Speech. Both the Redfern Statement and the Redfern Speech were, directly and ironically related, calling for partnerships, understanding of Indigenous worldviews, and for meaningful acknowledgement of the ramifications of Indigenous Affairs policy and implementation.

The Australian Public Service Commission’s Tackling Wicked Problems: A Public Policy Perspective (APSC, 2012) outlines engagement and shared understandings as important to ‘solving’ wicked problems. One of the key premises of the document is affecting ‘behavioural change’ of those in receipt of policy programs is necessary for dealing with wicked problems. The document refers to research around

Problematising the wickedness of ‘disadvantage’ in Australian Indigenous Affairs policy 63 the need for public services to be more adaptive when dealing with wicked problems. This includes managing risk, and emphasising the need to employ the right people for the job. For example, employing people who have the skills to work across government jurisdictions, to engage and network, and to think and act in a non-linear capacity. In effect, however, the document focusses on behavioural change in ‘others’. Though it acknowledges the need for meaningful change within the public sector and opens avenues for debate around how to affect this type of behavioural change within the public sector, including co-design and listening to the views of stakeholders, it is not about acknowledging the worldviews of self and others.

While collaborative strategies have been identified as important for dealing with wicked problems, one of the barriers to achieving good collaboration is that “the skills of collaboration are in limited supply” (APSC, 2012, para. 29). The inability of policy development to involve meaningful engagement with stakeholders can result in conflict and intractability. To quote the Australian Public Service Commission (2012) document, “Behaviours are more conducive to change if issues are widely understood, discussed and owned by the people whose behaviour is being targeted for change” (Section 8, para. 1). Whilst this statement was applying to recipients of policy, surely this should equally apply to policy actors to induce the collaborative skills that are in short supply.

Opening statements in policies and implementation plans generally acknowledge Aboriginal cultures and Torres Strait Islander cultures as the First Australians and as separate and distinct. However, the discourse that follows articulates a ‘one size fits all’, ignoring the importance of individual cultural difference through a lexicon that conflates, in particular, the terms ‘Indigenous’ and ‘Aboriginal’; and is considered appropriately generic to describe all policy recipients. Neither Turnbull nor Shorten acknowledged differences between and within Australia’s two Indigenous cultures in their 2016 Closing the Gap statements to parliament. Articulating the need to acknowledge, and align collaborative processes with, the heterogeneity of Australia’s Indigenous cultures was absent from both policy actors’ Closing the Gap speeches. The acknowledgement of two Indigenous Australian cultures in this process was followed by an unfortunate homogenisation of Indigenous Australians throughout policy discourses. This actively demonstrates the multiple perspectives around the understanding of what it means to be an Indigenous Australian – in an historic and

64 Problematising the wickedness of ‘disadvantage’ in Australian Indigenous Affairs policy contemporary context – and in relation to policy development and implementation. There are significant material consequences for Indigenous Australians as a result of the perceptions of policy actors, including the news media, of the lived experiences of Aboriginal people and Torres Strait Islander people, and beliefs around what those lived experiences should look like.

It would appear extremely difficult for policy actors, particularly those actors who establish the parameters of policy discourses, to genuinely acknowledge and adapt cultural biases, and truly embrace the effect personal and societal biases have on decision making (Milner 2007). This is despite policy actor capacities to verbalise ‘appropriate’ language of legacy recognition, value the heterogeneity of Indigenous Australians, and shape the ethos of policy development and implementation co-design.

5.3 POLICY ACTOR INTERPRETATIONS OF DISCOURSES OF WICKEDNESS IN INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS POLICY

There were three main themes emerging from interviews with policy actors around Indigenous disadvantage as a wicked problem: (1) the concept of wicked problems, (2) the homogenisation of Aboriginal peoples and Torres Strait Islander peoples, and (3) aspects of policy development and implementation that are missing.

5.3.1 Wicked problems Only two research participants explicitly described Indigenous disadvantage as a wicked problem. Frank’s description of Indigenous disadvantage as wicked included the term “chronic” and:

not being addressed through most of the measures that are implemented by the policymakers and service providers. So I’ll unpack that a bit. I think the multi-generational cycles of disadvantage in which people find themselves in suggest that it’s chronic. I say wicked in the sense of a wicked problem, it has a whole heap of intersecting and varied layers to it that make it really, really difficult for any programs or services to attack in a holistic way, to address those that are a disadvantaged and I think we’re consistently seeing poor policy and poor services being developed in that siloed approach without proper conceptualisation and development being led by the communities that are most likely to know what their problems are and how those problems can be addressed to get more meaningful outcomes. The overwhelming majority of interviewees felt that the terminology around the description of a wicked problem did represent the disparity in life outcomes experienced by Indigenous Australians as discussed and approached by politicians,

Problematising the wickedness of ‘disadvantage’ in Australian Indigenous Affairs policy 65 public servants and the media. Significantly, all research participants felt that use of the word wicked was not helpful to foster a more positive discourse and was in fact a derogatory way to describe the undeniable statistics and also the positive things happening within the Indigenous Australian population.

When asked how they felt about the wicked discourse around policy development and implementation within Indigenous Affairs, most research participants said that whilst wicked references and repeated conversations around intractability “frustrated” them and made them “sad”, it didn’t change their belief that equitable life outcomes for Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians was possible.

There were some strong views from research participants about the negative consequences of referring to Indigenous disadvantage as wicked. As one research participant said about the language of wicked within Indigenous Affairs: “It makes me feel that that's not right, as in that if you start saying things like that, to me, you're perhaps saying that we’re never gonna – this is never gonna shift and so, let's move on to something else” (William).

The notion that “wicked problems have no stopping rule” (Rittel & Webber, 1973, p. 162), describes the wicked nature of policy discourses around Indigenous Australians. The cycles of rhetoric and contradictory actions, which currently define Indigenous Australian policy development mitigate against a stopping point – as demonstrated by Prime Minister Turnbull’s ultimate homogenisation of Indigenous Australian cultures in his 2016 Closing the Gap statement. This circularity reflects a resistance to ceding some of the power that comes with the privilege of whiteness. As Wendy said: “it's that whole thing about being prepared to give up some of your – effectively, your power and control, and they're not prepared to do that”.

Whilst several research participants felt Abbott was “genuine” in his motives when visiting remote Indigenous Australian communities each year, several research participants referred to the Abbott government as regressive and “turning back the country 200 years” (Graham). In a few short statements of support for the Western Australian government’s plan to close a number of remote communities, Abbott had returned the public discourse around Indigenous Australian peoples to that of government enacted forced removals, and unilateral decision-making noticeably lacking input from the voices of those who would be most affected. The overall view, however, of the research participants about the Abbott government’s policies and

66 Problematising the wickedness of ‘disadvantage’ in Australian Indigenous Affairs policy programs differed greatly from the views of the Prime Minister and his cabinet, particularly about repeating protectionist policies of the past.

5.3.2 Homogenisation or one size fits all A language of homogeneity is consistent throughout most public discourse, nurturing a worldview that places all Indigenous Australians at a disempowered disadvantage (Fforde et al., 2013). Research participants pointed out that policy development and implementation around Indigenous Affairs tended to be a ‘one size fits all’ approach. One research participant summed up this approach:

I think sometimes it’s still the fact they say it’s an Indigenous issue, one size fits all, where I suspect that there are significant differences between the disadvantages for Indigenous council people in Aurukun, as opposed to Indigenous people in Logan, as opposed to Indigenous people in the Northern Territory, as opposed to Indigenous people in Western Australia (Geoff). Frank spoke to child protection and youth justice when he said:

we wanna treat everyone the same but there’re different drivers of those problems and responses to those problems . . . we treat every family the same in a kind of systems way but without appropriate services and strategies to address Aboriginal need, they’re just not going to have the impact that they need to for that part of the community. The issue of blanket distributions throughout communities with cashless welfare cards was raised by several participants with the philosophy that governments “have the tendency to tar everyone with the same brush” (Wanda).

The need to remediate against the conflation of Aboriginal people and Torres Strait Islander people as one Indigenous grouping within policy development and implementation was raised by several participants. As one research participant said:

we need to develop two policies most of the time. We need to do an Aboriginal focus and a Torres Strait Islander focus … you need to be very careful around particularly the remote Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities around developing policy strategy across all communities because as soon as they get [sic] that it came out of somewhere else. They won’t even read it (Stephen). When research participants during discussions were asked to ‘unpack the term Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander’ all research participants referred to the lack of meaning such a joined up term reflected. One participant articulated the phrase as a form of “meaningless shorthand” (Wendy) and another that the term “belies diversity” (Graham). Francis responded:

Problematising the wickedness of ‘disadvantage’ in Australian Indigenous Affairs policy 67 so, the first thought that comes to mind is we know that lot of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people are grouped as a whole, and not separate cultures. And so, I think that was a really good learning lesson for me in government is that they are very distinct and separate cultures. Other research participants certainly reflected the opinion of all by explaining:

I think it’s just a meaningless conflation of so many groups. It’s an easy way for us to conceptualise those peoples who were here before Europeans came and colonised Australia. (Peter).

5.3.3 What’s missing Throughout the interview questions, all research participants referred to the lack of genuine engagement with, and input of, Aboriginal people and Torres Strait Islander people within Indigenous Affairs. However, when expressly asked who they felt was missing from policy development and implementation around Indigenous Australians, all research participants strongly felt the participatory voices of the Indigenous Australians who would be recipients of policies and strategies had been silenced by the prevailing power discourses of privilege. This includes the voices of self-appointed or politically anointed Indigenous Australian leaders operating through the paradigms of Australia’s Westminster system of governance. Several research participants felt the voices of policy actors, Indigenous and non-Indigenous, which had “more operational experience” (William) within Indigenous Australian communities were stymied.

Several government research participants spoke to obstacles around providing frank and fearless advice to executive position holders and that this advice was regularly watered down as it went further up the rungs of responsibility. One interviewee noted that advice often needed to suit the “policy context of the day” (Bradley) which in turn often involved second-guessing ministerial priorities and political agendas.

A process that supports this democratic listening deficit (Dobson, 2012) within policy development and implementation, is that of not making decisions. Alford & Head (2107) and Althaus et al. (2013, p. 55), refer to “non-decisions” as an avoidance tactic for dealing with wicked problems. Keeping issues out of public discourses sends a message that certain matters are not significant enough to warrant further debate. An hegemonic privilege, such as being able to dictate policy discourses (Howlett & Hartwig, 2017), can prevent these issues from becoming a point of widespread focus

68 Problematising the wickedness of ‘disadvantage’ in Australian Indigenous Affairs policy (Althaus et al., 2013) that necessitate a decision by leaders. This risk aversion, which was highlighted by the majority of research participants, is also related to a fear of personal repercussions from media coverage; and “is around the vote” (Craig).

The majority of research participants stated they would like to know more about Indigenous Australian knowledges and the perspectives of the particular communities they were working with or developing and implementing policies for. Deficit discourse for research participants also meant to not ‘listening’ to Indigenous Australians, yet ‘listening’ to the media, and re-hashing policies with different names, “the idea of the language of wicked problems is it becomes a way in which to describe new work that can be mistaken as old work in a language that people understand” (Peter).

All research participants felt that the context of the worldviews of Indigenous Australians was not adequately considered during the various stages of policy development and implementation. Whilst acknowledging the need to look at and take into consideration the lived experiences of Indigenous Australians when developing and implementing policy, indeed citing examples of their own lived experiences of engagement with Indigenous Australians and how that had influenced their own work. During interview discussions, when asked their understanding of the worldviews of Indigenous Australians, responses were mixed.

Most research participants were reticent when commenting on such a question as they felt they had little knowledge of such issues. Matthew said: “unpacking that term is difficult because we’re talking about people and they’re all individuals and my exposure is really just in the communities not in the urban setting . . . I can’t say I really understand it”. This was supported by Frank when he explained: “the fact that I went through thirteen years of schooling and then post tertiary qualifications and I’m still so ignorant of that vast cultural knowledge is embarrassing”. A sentiment reflective of the researcher, who has learned through life and professional experience to acknowledge the limitations of one’s idea or interpretation of another’s lived experiences and epistemology, and certainly to work in a collaborative manner “that privileges local knowledge” (Anderson, 2012, p. 132).

After several years spending one week per annum in a remote Indigenous Australian community, Abbott clearly still demonstrated a worldview based on the privilege of his upbringing and an a priori of whiteness (Moreton-Robinson, 2004).

Problematising the wickedness of ‘disadvantage’ in Australian Indigenous Affairs policy 69 This particular discourse, as Peter pointed out about policy development and implementation, was “based on the idea [of] what’s best” shows little understanding of connection to land, sea, waterways, law and lore; and an Indigenous Australian epistemology and ontology of ways of being and knowing (Martin, 2003). This epistemology was expressed by the Chair of the Prime Minister’s Indigenous Advisory Council Warren Mundine in response to Abbott’s support of the Western Australian government: “It is not a lifestyle change for them. It is actually about their culture, their very essence, their religious beliefs” (Pearlman, 2015, para. 9).

5.4 SUMMARY

It would seem that the limited change in policy discourses and direction within Australian Indigenous Affairs since colonisation continues to reinforce cyclical behaviour and outcomes. The value divergence between the diverse stakeholders involved within Indigenous Affairs is clearly articulated through differing opinions in ongoing discourses. This includes politicians, policy actors who make and directly implement policies; and the recipients of those policies – Indigenous Australians. The research in this chapter demonstrates that it is this complexity and uncertainty of sense- making by the many stakeholders involved, along with the lack of democratic listening (Dobson, 2012) by many policy actors that creates ongoing cycles of deficit discourse and deficit outcomes.

70 Problematising the wickedness of ‘disadvantage’ in Australian Indigenous Affairs policy Chapter 6: Reframing Indigenous disadvantage through strength-based discourses

The previous two chapters have demonstrated that wicked discourses of deficit are pervasive within Indigenous Australian policy development and implementation. There has, however, been some resistance to this framing. This chapter highlights this contestation, and focusses on the potential for these discourses to be reframed using strength-based discourses. Sections 6.1 and 6.2 discuss the growing research around, and the current state of, strength-based approaches to developing and implementing policy around Indigenous Affairs. In Section 6.3 the concept of cultural safety— premised on acknowledging and respecting the fact of Indigenous knowledges and the worldviews of Indigenous Australians is explored. Section 6.4 outlines strength-based discourses that have become part of Indigenous Affairs, and Section 6.5 examines policy actor interpretations of strength-based discourses. To this end, the chapter answers the third research question: How can dominant discourses of Indigenous Affairs policy be contested and reframed through strength-based discourse?

Strength-based discourses within Indigenous Affairs policy development and implementation which affirm the identity and the progressive lived experiences of Indigenous Australians are important for ensuring positive and long term outcomes for those targeted by policy and program implementation. These discourses create culturally safe environments where the rights and knowledges of Indigenous Australians are respected (Downey & Stout, 2006).

6.1 PUBLIC POLICY AND STRENGTH-BASED DISCOURSES

There is a growing acknowledgement by government and researchers of the need for strength-based and inclusive approaches to policy development and implementation (Bamblett, 2011; Goodwin & Cox, 2008; Brough et al., 2004). In support of this acknowledgement, and in response to deficit framing of discourse around Indigenous disadvantage, Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australian academics and commentators have been writing about strength-based approaches, for example: good engagement and consultation practices; and the consideration of lived experiences such as place, family, and relationship to country and sea (Fogarty et al., 2018b). In

Problematising the wickedness of ‘disadvantage’ in Australian Indigenous Affairs policy 71 this literature, strength-based approaches are characterised by processes that achieve well-being (Gates & Kelly, 2013) through promoting “physical, social, emotional, cultural and spiritual influences at the level of the individual and the community” (Nguyen & Cairney, 2013. p. iii); and that empower people to express their views (Brough, Bond & Hunt, 2004) and demonstrate their capabilities.

In particular, this work emphasises the importance of using language that affirms the strengths of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander individuals and communities in order to challenge negative stereotypes and achieve good outcomes (Fogarty et al., 2018b). For example, English literacy skills in children improved considerably at Erambie Mission in New South Wales after deficit thinking and attributing blame for poor results was rejected (Fforde et al., 2013) through the community sharing positive life experiences and maintaining “ways of being” (Bamblett, 2011, p. 17). Deadly Kids, Deadly Futures, the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Child Ear and Hearing Health Framework 2016-2026 in Queensland, is expanding upon the learnings and achievements of the Deadly Ears Deadly Kids Deadly Communities 2009-2013 program. The Framework involves government, non-government and community partnerships around health, early childhood development and schooling (Fogarty et al., 2018b). These partnerships are a strengths-based approach to engagement ensuring the program is directed by an understanding that those involved are best placed to have input to and design treatments. The Deadly Ears program has successfully improved ear and hearing outcomes and has won awards (Fogarty et al., 2018b).

These asset-based models, focussed on working from existing positive attributes (Fogarty et al., 2018b), are also inclusive of Aboriginal people and Torres Strait Islander people in co-design and implementation (Goodwin & Cox, 2008) within policy development and implementation. Good engagement processes involve not only information sharing and agreed methods of consultation, monitoring and evaluation, but also the recognition of the need to acknowledge power inequities through mutual relationships of trust and accountability (Hunt, 2013). There has also been recognition of the need to publicly acknowledge and encompass the continuing emotional and physical effects of policy legacies on Indigenous peoples within policy development and implementation (McKendrick & Thorpe, 1998) as an important part of validating strength-based discourses.

72 Problematising the wickedness of ‘disadvantage’ in Australian Indigenous Affairs policy Symbolic acts such as flag raising ceremonies on Indigenous cultural days, naming of buildings with Indigenous names and public displays of Indigenous art are seen as significant acknowledgement of Australia’s First Peoples and their history (Jacobs, 2017; Reid, 2015). These acts are “significant and meaningful for Indigenous people, and convey a clear and genuine sentiment towards the receiver” (Jacobs, 2017). For example, many Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians applauded the marches for reconciliation in 2000 that took place nationally. Similarly, Prime Minister Rudd’s apology to the stolen generations in 2008 was also publicly lauded – including gaining headlines around the world. There are now formalised acknowledgements, with the consent of traditional owners, of their intrinsic relationship to land and sea in Parliaments throughout the country, and flying of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander flags on public and private buildings, particularly schools.

The media also has a powerful role to play in the promotion of strength-based discourse. An example of where the media had a powerful role in promoting images of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander equity was in the lead-up to the 1967 Referendum. There were commercials, and visual and print news coverage of marches, with the message “vote yes for Aborigines” in the lead up to this historic vote with plenty of Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australian ‘faces’ talking and working together to promote a positive outcome. As the majority of politicians supported an affirmative vote, a case for voting in the negative was not publicly mounted (NAA, 2018, para. 4).

There can be no doubt that there was much good will around the 1967 Referendum where a record number of Australians voted ‘yes’. This event is still referred to as a celebration of equality (Burney, 2017) and what could be achieved through positive discourse based on the Australian ‘fair go’. In 1967, the Australian people demonstrated willingness to make long-term changes to the Constitution, to right an historic wrong.

In contrast, fifty years later, current discussions around Constitutional changes to acknowledge Indigenous Australians, have been beset with delays and disagreements about the setting up of advisory groups and consultation processes. Like other Indigenous Australian policy discourses, asset-based approaches are very much dependent on which Prime Minister and political party is in power. That is, the rhetoric is shaped by the ideology of the party in power. There is also an underlying fear that

Problematising the wickedness of ‘disadvantage’ in Australian Indigenous Affairs policy 73 there will be some ceding of power if the Constitution is amended to acknowledge voices of Australia’s First Peoples, such as the recommendation from the Referendum Council16 for a national Indigenous representative assembly (Grattan, 2017). This is so even though the suggested updates to the Constitution through the Uluru and Redfern Statements do not change the current position of Australian sovereignty (Grattan, 2017). Strength-based discourse which would include the issue of acknowledgement of original sovereignty has not been prevalent in the political or mainstream media, leading to a disjointed approach to resolving this discussion.

Many researchers, commentators, communities and individuals are calling for strength-based approaches, which include Indigenous worldviews in policy development and implementation and media conversations (Dodson, 2003; Martin, 2003; Moreton-Robinson, 2004; Fogarty et al., 2018b). There is at the same time a current public policy trend to acknowledge the need for strength-based discourse. For example, there is such an acknowledgement in the COAG Closing the Gap policy, and in the Queensland Government’s 2010 acknowledgment of First Australians as the first Queenslanders in The Queensland Constitution. For this strength-based discourse to be effective, however, it must acknowledge the long term past damage of deficit discourse (McKendrick & Thorpe, 1998). It must also recognise the lack of representation of Indigenous Australian worldviews in public discourse. In order to move forward, the past, particularly the intergenerational past, must be acknowledged as a starting point. As Howlett (2010, p. 105) has reminded us, “History matters” not least in that “the historical distribution of resources and interests laid down structurally over time may exert an important enabling or constraining influence on agency” (Howlett, 2010, p. 105).

Despite the growing and open acknowledgement of the need to positively affirm Indigenous Australians’ life experiences as occurred in Prime Minister Keating’s Redfern Speech in the year of the Mabo Decision17, Prime Minister Rudd’s 2008 Apology, Prime Minister Turnbull’s 2016 Closing the Gap address, and numerous

16 In late 2015, the Referendum Council was appointed by Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull and Leader of the Opposition Bill Shorten. The Council comprises Aboriginal, Torres Strait Islander and non-Indigenous membership (Referendum Council, 2017). 17 The 1992 Mabo Case recognised land rights of the Meriam people, traditional owners of the Murray Islands, Torres Strait by challenging the assumption that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples had no concept of land ownership (terra nullius) before 1788 British colonisation; and that sovereignty meant complete ownership of all land by the Crown, abolishing existing rights that may have existed (AIATSIS, 2015).

74 Problematising the wickedness of ‘disadvantage’ in Australian Indigenous Affairs policy government engagement guidelines, the practice does not reflect the rhetoric. Australian governments have repeatedly failed to implement the recommendations of reports, evaluations and commissions, and have neglected key components of consultation and co-design with Indigenous Australians recommended as fundamental to any policy implementation. For example, the alcohol management plans that became compulsory within a number of Indigenous Queensland communities between 2002 and 2006, came with limited social services to support communities with implementation of the plans. The 2001 Cape York Justice Study, however, recommended a full suite of programs to support each community if alcohol management plans were introduced.

A further example is the implementation of policies on the run that do not respect the input of those who are to be recipients of the policies or Indigenous Australians who developed reports, recommendations and strategies for meaningful design and outcomes. The Northern Territory National Emergency Response Act 2007 (Cth) is a prime example, emphasising that fear of the media and desire to retain political power and control of Indigenous Australians takes priority over improved lived experiences including mental wellbeing. Using ‘for the future of children’ as a morally righteous shield to publicly justify actions that would not be enforced on non-Indigenous Australians does not demonstrate a genuine belief in the need ‘to do with’ Aboriginal people and Torres Strait Islander people. It also indicates there is still little understanding about the worldviews of Indigenous Australians.

6.2 CONTEMPORARY STRENGTH-BASED DISCOURSES

Numerous, policies and programs have reiterated the importance of partnership and collaboration for meaningful outcomes. A common theme in contemporary Indigenous Affairs policy development and implementation is that of ‘partnerships’ – partnering between government and the community. Of particular significance is the fundamental value placed on genuine partnerships within the recommendations of the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody for meaningful outcomes:

Recommendation 1: That having regard to the great input which has been made to the work of the Commission, not only by governments and departments of government but also by Aboriginal communities, organisations and individuals, on the one hand, and non-Aboriginal organisations and individuals, on the other, it is highly desirable that the attitude of governments to the recommendations and

Problematising the wickedness of ‘disadvantage’ in Australian Indigenous Affairs policy 75 the implementation of those adopted be carried out in a public way as part of the process of education and reconciliation of the whole society. To this end the Commission recommends also, c. That governments consult with appropriate Aboriginal organisations in the consideration and implementation of the various recommendations in this report; d. That, wherever appropriate, governments make use of the services of Aboriginal organisations in implementing such recommendations; and e. Ensure that local Aboriginal organisations are consulted about the local implementation of recommendations, and their services be used wherever feasible. (ALII, 1998, para. 16) The theme of ‘partnerships’ could be considered almost ubiquitous within Indigenous Affairs within Australia. For example, in Queensland the ‘Indigenous Affairs agency’ is the Department of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Partnerships. A previous iteration of this Department—the Department of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Policy and Development—established the Towards a Queensland Government and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Ten Year Partnership 2000-2011 and Partnerships Queensland: The Way Forward for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Queenslanders policies. In the concluding comments of his February 2016 Closing the Gap statement accompanying the presentation of the 8th Closing the Gap Prime Minister's report 2016 to the 45th Parliament, Prime Minister Turnbull spoke of the need for government to listen, innovate, be receptive to new approaches, acknowledge local solutions and work in partnership with community.

It is equally important that we listen to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people when they tell us what is working and what needs to change. It is our role as government to provide an environment that enables Indigenous leaders to develop local solutions. Again, it is time for governments to ‘do things with Aboriginal people, not do things to them’ (Commonwealth, Record of Proceedings, February 10, 2016a, p. 1173).

This oft repeated ‘political pledge of partnership’ (Keating, 1992; Commonwealth, 2008; DATSIPD, 2001a; DPMC, 2014a), and injunction to ‘listen to’ and ‘do with’ Indigenous Australians, is on some levels a response to Indigenous advice. Following his Senate Occasional Lecture in November 2015, Chris Sarra, a prominent Indigenous educator, responded to a direct question posed to him by the recently appointed Prime Minister Turnbull: “Chris, what are three things we can do in the Indigenous policy space to make a difference?”:

76 Problematising the wickedness of ‘disadvantage’ in Australian Indigenous Affairs policy The first thing we can do is acknowledge, embrace and celebrate the humanity of Indigenous Australians. The second thing we can do, or the Prime Minister can do, is bring us policy approaches that nurture hope and optimism rather than entrench despair. And the third thing is to do things with us, not to us (Sarra, 2015, para. 9). An emphasis on meaningful collaboration with Indigenous Australians is well supported by Indigenous and non-Indigenous communities and academics across a range of areas such as education, health, housing, justice and employment (Jackson et al., 2013; Parter, 2005; Dodson, 2016; Hunter, 2010). Ongoing political references to the need to understand the experiences, knowledge and worldviews of Indigenous Australians in order to provoke meaningful discourse and outcomes (Keating, 1992; Commonwealth, 2008), demonstrate that ‘collaboration’ continues to be a pivotal focus of contemporary discourse around what constitutes genuine engagement and consultation with Indigenous Australians.

However, there has been a general reluctance to truly relinquish or even share power with Indigenous Australians either on committees or running programs. The government retains authority to nominate who is on a given committee, which will most likely operate under terms of reference which have not been jointly designed, and can also disband committees in response to criticisms. There appears to be a disconnect between experts recommending partnerships, and government capacity to genuinely develop and implement policy in collaboration with Indigenous Australians. It would appear that by using the words ‘partnerships’, ‘engagement’ and consultation’ in titles of agencies and policies that the rhetoric of a collaborative approach is enough to satisfy those principles. The fact that government leaders, including recently, Prime Minister Turnbull and Opposition Leader Bill Shorten, felt the need to emphasise that the time has come for things to change and meaningful listening and partnerships to occur (Commonwealth, Record of Proceedings, February 10, 2016b), along with countless consultative reports and research recommending these principles for meaningful outcomes clearly indicates partnership status has not been achieved.

There continues to be a dichotomy between verbalising the principles of partnerships including joint ownership of policy development and implementation and meaningfully putting these notions into practice to create a strength-based discourse. The Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody, the Cape York Justice Study, and the Little Children Are Sacred report, all spoke to the imperative for the

Problematising the wickedness of ‘disadvantage’ in Australian Indigenous Affairs policy 77 Aboriginal people and Torres Strait Islander people who would be affected by any government policy and programmatic responses to be involved in these processes.

6.3 CULTURAL SAFETY

Public policy development and implementation increasingly acknowledges the benefits of a strength-based approach such as creating culturally safe environs with stakeholders (Downey & Stout, 2006) that foster ‘respectful design’ (Sheehan, 2011, p. 69) and where the rights and knowledges of Indigenous people are respected (Downey & Stout, 2006). Managers or policy actors have a responsibility to understand the components of cultural safety including impacts of colonialism, power inequity and different values (Fogarty et al., 2018b), to ensure partnerships are equitable “rather than competing for cultural space” (Tangihaere & Twiname, 2011, p. 114). Downey & Stout (2006), within their nursing context, refer to the need for leadership to advocate policy reforms to ensure the promotion of culturally safe approaches.

6.3.1 The strength of Indigenous knowledges and shared worldviews A culturally safe environment respects the knowledges of community members (Downey & Stout, 2006, p. 327) and differs from cultural awareness and cultural sensitivity both of which focus on understanding difference (Nguyen, 2008, p. 991). An understanding of and respect for Indigenous Australian knowledges is seen as necessary to underpin a genuine move in Indigenous Australian policy development and implementation away from the a priori of whiteness (Moreton-Robinson, 2004). This move focusses on a process that defies deficit and embraces the strengths of the ontologies and epistemologies of Aboriginal peoples and Torres Strait Islander peoples (Green et al, 2007).

Policy discourses around Indigenous Australians do not generally acknowledge the cultural background and worldview of the developer and the implementer; they do however tend to state that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people make up two separate cultures and have been living in Australia for over many tens of thousands of years. This statement is proffered as if it sufficient to explain the context of the recipients of the policy – indicating a one size fits all approach from the very beginning. The political context of policy development further demonstrates that it is a ‘given’ that it is only the ‘other’ that has to define their very being –that is, there is a

78 Problematising the wickedness of ‘disadvantage’ in Australian Indigenous Affairs policy “racial construct” for Indigenous Australians but not for “European Australians” (Moreton-Robinson, 2004, p. 82).

6.3.2 Public leadership statements Prime Minister Turnbull was publicly lauded by Indigenous Australian leaders for beginning his 2016 Closing the Gap statement of inclusivity in the language of the Ngunawal people on whose land Parliament House in Canberra stands. Turnbull was the first Prime Minister to do so. Jackie Huggins, former Co-Chair of the Closing the Gap Campaign said this action “gave us all heart” and she “looked forward to starting a new chapter for our people because things cannot progress as they have over the decades” (cited in Gordon & Hunter, 2016, paras. 6, 23). This sentiment was echoed by Mick Gooda, former Co-Chair, Closing the Gap Campaign. However, this sentiment was qualified by “We have heard these words before” and the need for an active demonstration of this relationship – “we're entitled to be a little bit cynical about it until it starts happening” (cited in Booth, 2016, para. 3). This cynicism was validated when Prime Minister Turnbull appointed Martin AO QC as Royal Commissioner for the Royal Commission into Child Protection and Youth Detention Systems in the Northern Territory (Hudson, 2016) with extremely limited consultation with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities just a few months later.

Speeches and policies that begin with words of affirmation around the ‘successes’ of and ‘value’ to be drawn from the culture of Indigenous Australians have been ubiquitous for several years. Whilst this language suggests a strength-based approach, statements such as these should not be construed as establishing a culturally safe environment for further engagement. Reminiscent of someone complimenting another before providing ‘critical feedback’, this discourse, including that of the media, is often limited to praise for Indigenous artistic and sporting prowess thus promoting stereotypes (Coram, 2011). This typecasting does not acknowledge the role of Indigenous knowledges in contemporary lived experiences and achievements. Keating’s Redfern Speech was ultimately a statement of affirmation that many people felt validated the voices of generations of Indigenous Australians whose claims of sovereignty had been ignored. However, as Keating has said since that speech, the challenge is to look through the worldview of Indigenous Australians, “the more non- Indigenous Australians came to see the country through the eyes of its first people, the better off the whole country will be” (Gordon, 2015, para. 5).

Problematising the wickedness of ‘disadvantage’ in Australian Indigenous Affairs policy 79 6.4 THE POWER OF SYMBOLIC ACTS

There is a tension that underpins discussion around strength-based discourses and Indigenous Affairs. This is particularly so around symbolism of place which can send either an inclusive message or a directive of exclusion, particularly within an urban environment (Fredericks, 2007). The visibility, or non-visibility, of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander flags is a good example. Many buildings including schools, general office space, police stations, city halls and courthouses raise Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander flags alongside Government flags providing a very public acknowledgement of the First Peoples of the local area and the country. There is a rhetoric of ‘saying the right thing’ at the beginning of an event by acknowledging Australia’s Traditional Owners and ensuring there is a Welcome to Country. Many government agencies mandate this protocol be adhered to at business and public gatherings (Queensland Government, 2017; Kowal, 2015). Such words are now expected and commonplace at many events. These symbolic acts can been seen as tokenistic (Jacobs, 2017; Kowal, 2015; Reid, 2015).

There were conflicting positions around the significance and positive outcomes of the 2008 Apology. There was a definite cynicism by many Indigenous Australians at the time of the Apology, and growing disgruntlement in the ensuing years (Fredericks, 2010). This dissatisfaction was based on an awareness by Indigenous Australians that inequalities will continue - despite the words of the Apology, ongoing rhetoric around ‘doing with’, and the promotion of good news stories (Fredericks, 2010).

There are mixed responses by Indigenous and non-Indigenous people to these symbolic acts (Fredericks, 2010; Jacobs, 2017; Kowal, 2015; Reid, 2015). It is certainly a very visible acknowledgement of a different story around ‘Australia’s’ history (Reid, 2015) and a step towards cultural safety for all Australians. The cultural complexity and resilience of Indigenous Australians has however become increasingly visible in the public domain. Indigenist, Indigenous, and non-Indigenous research, along with Indigenous media such as the Koori News18, are developing discourse and

18 The Koori Mail is a fortnightly national newspaper owned by five Aboriginal community organisations in New South Wales reporting on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander issues (Koori Mail, 2018).

80 Problematising the wickedness of ‘disadvantage’ in Australian Indigenous Affairs policy analysis based on strength, identity and lived experiences that comprise Indigenous Australian worldviews.

6.5 POLICY ACTOR INTERPRETATIONS OF STRENGTH-BASED DISCOURSES WITHIN INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS POLICY

Research participants spent much of their interview talking about the need for strength- based approaches. They felt these approaches needed to include policy development and implementation that genuinely recognised the generational impact of colonial legacies on the epistemologies and ontologies of Aboriginal people and Torres Strait Islander people. Within this broad understanding, three prominent and deeply interconnected themes emerged throughout the interviews: (1) the importance of cultural safety, (2) engagement and co-design, and (3) change through contemporary policy development implementation.

6.5.1 The importance of cultural safety All research participants referred to cultural safety as fundamental to good engagement with Aboriginal people and Torres Strait Islander people in a number of ways. All research participants referred to the principles of cultural safety (Downey & Stout, 2006) as fundamental to strength-based engagement processes within Indigenous Affairs. These principles include co-designing policy and engagement with Aboriginal people and Torres Strait Islander people, building rapport with stakeholders through meaningful relationships ‘on the ground,’ and two-way engagement allowing stakeholders to tell their stories. Participants noted the need to trust Indigenous Australians with regards to what works and decision making. Craig was of the opinion that: “I don't think people respect that Aboriginal people might have an idea what’s best for their community. So, I think that’s where we’re at, I think it’s a real leftover from the Terra Nullius understanding”.

Research participants also emphasised a need for engagement with Aboriginal people and Torres Strait Islander people beyond those who are ‘self-proclaimed’ and/or elected leaders. There were mixed feelings, for example, on the part of several research participants around the Australian Government’s decision to terminate ATSIC in 2005. Whilst it was considered a good elected representative model by research participants, there was general agreement that there were some very self- interested people. One participant opined that he was not surprised by the termination,

Problematising the wickedness of ‘disadvantage’ in Australian Indigenous Affairs policy 81 and that it was quite justifiable to shut ATSIC down (Donald). Another participant, however, felt there was a big hiatus with regards to informing policy around that time, [when] ATSIC went down:

I think that gave government a thought that they could possibly just get on and do what they felt like ‘cause there’s no one able to keep them accountable (Craig). The majority of the research participants felt that cultural safety also meant acknowledging differences between Indigenous Australian cultures and implementing engagement and partnerships through heterogeneous policy discourses. Larry, for example, said Aboriginal people and Torres Strait Islander people were “all different and have different issues” but somehow end up as “all the same people”. Wendy explained about respecting cultural differences and lived experiences within policy development and implementation: “the difference between Torres Strait Islander peoples and Aboriginal peoples, their experience is not identical by any means”. Relatedly, a pivotal point for establishing culturally safe partnership environs, as referred to by a number of research participants, was the need to look at the ‘language’ of those being consulted, and to do so in the context of their experience and their reality.

There is much research and evidence of the validity of strength-based discourse and culturally protective environments as a focus for working with individuals or groups that may experience disadvantage. However, as interviewees noted, such discourse and approaches require those with government power to accept that Indigenous Australians are successful as the rule, and this should be the starting point for policy development and implementation. Instead, in one interviewee’s words, Indigenous disadvantage is often seen to be about “hopeless cases” (Wanda). One research participant felt that many Australians would be of the opinion that the predicament of Aboriginal people and Torres Strait Islander people was due to “a lack of effort or energy or care” (Peter) and of their own making. Another research participant stated:

There is a perspective I still think within the Australian community that Aboriginal people are heavier drinkers… and all the statistics show quite the opposite. So, my perception is most people think the disadvantage that occurs is often self-driven rather than a factor of the Australian society (Geoff).

82 Problematising the wickedness of ‘disadvantage’ in Australian Indigenous Affairs policy Research participants in general felt that contradicting these wide-ranging, public impressions was an important part of growing culturally safe environments.

Cultural safety is more than just language; it includes reflection by policy actors, including the news media, on their own epistemologies and ontologies. Interviewees noted that the political environment can also make it hard for public servants to provide frank and fearless advice19. As Bradley explained: “frank and fearless advice will be potentially watered – it could be watered down to suit the policy context that the government of the day is working on”.

Both government and non-government research participants referred to the pervasive influence of news media on the policy cycle, the results of which do not create a culturally safe environment for those who receive or are about to receive enforced changes to their daily lives. Frank felt the role of the media was: “most stark in media reporting about what happens in communities where people dip in, find something sensational to grab a hold of and then piss off”. Geoff explained that: “politics these days is much more about the media, the marketing than it used to be”, and Frances strongly felt: “the media has a huge role in influencing policy development”. It was strongly felt by all research participants that with the immense influence the media holds within policy development and implementation, comes the responsibility to work to create an environment where culturally safe policy discourses can occur.

6.5.2 Engagement and co-design All research participants were vocal about the need to listen with integrity to Aboriginal people and Torres Strait Islander people with several research participants referring to Indigenous Australians feeling consultation fatigue (Graham). The politics around ‘hearing’ those being consulted was raised by research participants with one participant responding as to why he felt the Queensland Government hadn’t listened to communities when enforcing alcohol management plans: “because they don’t have to … It’s always been the problem … Aboriginal issues is not a vote winner for them” (Larry).

19 The idea of frank and fearless advice is based on the idea that the public service should have the willingness and capacity to provide impartial policy advice and that this should be supported by government systems and cultures (MacDermott, 2008).

Problematising the wickedness of ‘disadvantage’ in Australian Indigenous Affairs policy 83 Research participants, too, referred to the need to look at the “perspectives” (Wendy) of Indigenous Australians when consulting around the development and implementation of policy. Stephen felt that Indigenous voices were not “truly” acknowledged within Indigenous Affairs and “often we go to consult, we don’t listen”. This claim was reinforced by Bradley who said: “what we didn't do was look at it from a customer’s point of view, the Indigenous person's point of view”. The complexity of the concept of perspectives for research participants also included whole of community contexts. For example: “things around gender, around the role of elders, around the role of young and emerging community leaders and where they might fit” (Frank). Geoff summed up some of the disconnect research participants were feeling around the inability for governments as a whole to genuinely engage with Aboriginal people and Torres Strait Islander people for good outcomes. He explained that people who make and implement policy “don’t have an appreciation of what’s it like to live in a community and be connected to community” (Geoff).

The overwhelmingly common theme through research interviews was the imperative to have engagement practices that were tailored towards each community and environment. Several research participants referred to the ineffectiveness of fly in, fly out engagement with Matthew commenting: “unless you’ve got absolute engagement on the ground, it’s just words, just words”. This comment echoes the reply from Fred Chaney, founding co-chair of Reconciliation Australia, when asked during a 2007 ABC interview why successive governments have failed so comprehensively to turn the story of Aboriginal deprivation around, replied:

The great thing about the education projects in which I’m involved is that we can manage locally for the outcomes that we want to achieve locally. Once you try and do it by remote control, through visiting ministers and visiting bureaucrats fly in, fly out – forget it (cited in Little Children are Sacred, 1997, p. 21). Research participants spoke of particular projects they had worked on that they felt were successful. In their views these projects were successful because there was a project leader whether government or non-government based in the community, there was co-design of consultation processes, and one particular project was led by an Indigenous Australian at a high level with government. The idea of partnerships through the recipient defining the process and outcome plays an important part of achieving cultural safety (Tangihaere & Twiname, 2011). All interviews contained the

84 Problematising the wickedness of ‘disadvantage’ in Australian Indigenous Affairs policy common theme that government rhetoric was strong around partnerships but unable to deliver on meaningful partnerships.

The experience of the vast majority of research participants was that government in particular was lacking the ability to engage meaningfully with Indigenous Australians around policy development and implementation. Whilst government media statements often state explicitly that ‘this policy is based on evidence and consultation with community’, research participants felt consultation undertaken with Indigenous Australian communities was not conducted appropriately and in some circumstances had been written beforehand. One research participant stressed:

So you consult, you do it properly, you then build that into your strategic framework around your policy advice but it’s no good; it’s just less than useless if you’re gonna go out there and, you know, what the answer’s gonna be and you’ve written it already (Stephen). Much contemporary discourse includes statements and commitments of bipartisanship from represented leaders of opposing political sides to ‘address Indigenous disadvantage’ or to ‘solve the problem’. One research participant disagreed: “Unfortunately, I do still think its party specific, so in other words, not a bipartisan approach” (Geoff).

Providing a culturally safe environment through strength-based discourse that embraces meaningful conversations, democratic listening (Dobson, 2012) and policy co-design and implementation requires acknowledging responsibility for past decisions and responsibility for the deficit legacies of those decisions. This means also recognising and acknowledging that implementing the same policies as before, especially based around the hegemony of whiteness, will result in the same deficit life experiences for Indigenous Australians. Recognising the existence of an a priori of whiteness also means “being prepared to give up some of your – effectively, your power and control” (Wendy) and embracing a conviction that Aboriginal people and Torres Strait Islander people are perfectly capable and successful.

6.5.3 There have been changes Research participants agreed that there had been some small shifts since colonisation in some of the policy language. This includes recognising and celebrating the longevity, resilience and uniqueness of the country’s Indigenous cultures and that for policy to be constructive and effective Aboriginal people and Torres Strait Islander

Problematising the wickedness of ‘disadvantage’ in Australian Indigenous Affairs policy 85 people should play a part in any decision making around strategies that affect lived experiences (Lane, 2006). These sentiments are also supported by the research literature.

According to the views of research participants, this shift included emphasising the language of engagement and active participation of those who would be recipients of Indigenous Australian policy and program implementation. This particular language modification has occurred in both public speeches and written documents. One participant referred to the changes in government approaches to policy since the years of the Chief Protector and that there is more of an attempt by government to consult locally. Another participant referred to the importance of the recent public discourse acknowledging that “the past hurts” and saying “I’m sorry” (Donna).

Several research participants, though a minority in the sample, commented positively about the Closing the Gap policy. This included focussing Australian, State and Local government jurisdictions through a whole of government and holistic approach on the negative disparities of life outcomes of Indigenous Australians. This was especially so when the policy was first launched, resulting in the broader public having a greater awareness of the lived experiences of Aboriginal people and Torres Strait Islander people. One research participant did feel that Closing the Gap was one of the “better” strategies.

The media has been responsible for bringing many injustices to public light such as the mistreatment of people in the justice system. This includes highlighting individual and institutional biases that support understandings of Indigenous Australians as inferior.

Both not for profit and government research participants mentioned the Queensland Government Champion Program, which commenced in the early 2000s. Participants had mixed views as to whether or not the program was an example of good, or not so good, engagement practice. Government Champions are Directors’ and Deputy-Directors General of Queensland Government agencies allocated a discrete Indigenous Queensland community to ‘champion’ whole of government outcomes for that community. For example, some Champions built an ongoing relationship with the community they were engaging with, with some Champions taking their families to the community “to spend time with them, to understand them and their reality and their way of life and their culture. And it wasn't just about – we'll come to you when

86 Problematising the wickedness of ‘disadvantage’ in Australian Indigenous Affairs policy we need something from you, to fix you” (Wendy). Another participant felt, however, that a number of Champions “cherry picked” who they wanted to listen to during their engagements, not necessarily hearing all the voices of the community.

Strength-based discourse within Indigenous Affairs has received some traction. Graham felt that the symbolic act of the acknowledgement of Aboriginal people and Torres Strait Islander people in the preamble of the Queensland Constitution in 2010 was a “good and positive step”. The re-introduction of Murri Courts into the Queensland justice system after a two-year political hiatus during the years of the Newman Queensland Government (2012-15) was viewed as a positive occurrence by several research participants. Murri Courts allow for Elders and others from the local Indigenous community to provide guidance to defendants and support magistrates to know more about defendants’ cultural backgrounds and lived experiences.

The majority of research participants did feel there had been a shift over time with governments’ approach to developing and implementing Indigenous Australian policy. These thoughts ranged within a time spectrum from the days of the ‘protector’ to Closing the Gap policies. Several research participants, however, did feel there had been no change with one participant feeling it had gone backwards with the demise of ATSIC and the funding from the Australian Government Indigenous Advancement Strategy (DPMC, 2014b)20 being awarded to mostly non-Indigenous Australian companies. The introduction of Native Title which enshrined the concept of the onus of proof on “Aboriginal people to prove that we have connection to country” (Craig) was also considered “backwards”. This further supports Moreton-Robinson’s (2004) research around the hegemonic privilege of whiteness as an epistemological a priori and that white Australians do not have to prove their identity.

An overall change in approaches to the development and implementation of policy within Indigenous Affairs was acknowledged by the majority of research participants. This was particularly apparent in reference to an emphasis growing over time around factoring into policy discourses good practice around engagement and consultation with Aboriginal people and Torres Strait Islander people. Research participants did feel that whilst there had been a substantial journey since colonisation

20 The Indigenous Advancement Strategy was initiated in 2014 and provides funding for five programs based on economic, social and remote strategies (DPMC, 2014b)

Problematising the wickedness of ‘disadvantage’ in Australian Indigenous Affairs policy 87 towards including implicit good practice in all policy methodology, there was a “long way to go”. It was mostly agreed that co-design, acknowledgement of the legacies of past government actions, and inclusive language was central to good outcomes.

As an observation, all research participants were extremely engaged during interviews. Given their visible ongoing investment in, and reflexive practices around, policy development and implementation within Indigenous Affairs, they were obviously emotionally committed to their fields of practice. The range of opinions expressed by research participants around policy construction and the best way to create culturally safe environs through strength-based approaches was very much grounded in the sensmaking of their personal and professional experiences (Maddison, 2012; Yanow, 2001).

6.6 SUMMARY: WE’RE NOT THERE YET

Strength-based discourses are not considered to be a panacea for reducing negative disparities between the life outcomes of Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians (Fogarty et al., 2018b). However, these discourses can be considered as a counter- frame to the deficit discourses perpetuated since colonisation (Fogarty et al., 2018a). According to both research participants and the research literature there have been shifts towards strength-based thinking and articulation regarding policy development and implementation within Australian Indigenous Affairs.

Much of the outward public discourse around strength-based approaches to policy development and implementation has focussed on the acknowledgement of deficit legacy outcomes and the importance of co-design through the prism of Indigenous Australians’ worldviews, for example, as highlighted within the 2016 Closing the Gap statements of the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition. Much of the academic discourse extends that focus to exploring the inherent hegemony that comes with the privilege of whiteness (Moreton-Robinson 2004). There are difficulties it would seem, for a genuine convergence of these two approaches. The underlying meaning of public rhetoric is still weighted towards the dominant power paradigm. There is a question as to whether or not policy actors, particularly policy leaders, can genuinely embrace the nuances of what is apparently a monumental philosophical shift in perspective, to redefine their role as enablers of adaptive processes for change.

88 Problematising the wickedness of ‘disadvantage’ in Australian Indigenous Affairs policy Wendy referred to her experience within Australian Indigenous policy development and implementation: “we actually just keep turning up with a white perspective, in white concepts, in white terms, and saying, ‘So, we want to talk to you about this and it's gotta be the way we do it’”.

Problematising the wickedness of ‘disadvantage’ in Australian Indigenous Affairs policy 89 Chapter 7: Does it all have to be wicked?

This research has identified that Australian Indigenous Affairs policy emphasises deficit discourses which focus on Aboriginal people and Torres Strait Islander people as objects of policy development and implementation. This includes the intractable discourse of ‘Indigenous disadvantage’ as a wicked problem. Although only two research participants explicitly referred to the concept of wicked problems in relation to Indigenous disadvantage, all participants agreed the discursive language of wicked problems reflected the nature of the discourse around Indigenous Affairs. This included the now inextricably linked role of the media in perpetuating cycles of reactionary policies and programs (Bourdieu, 2001). Indigenous Affairs policy development and implementation around Indigenous disadvantage as a wicked problem promotes understandings of Indigenous Australians as the ‘other’. This is disempowering by virtue of defining the lived experiences of Aboriginal peoples and Torres Strait Islander peoples as a problem that is unsolvable (Fforde et al., 2013). The ubiquity of the term Indigenous disadvantage in public and policy discourse has hijacked the identity of Indigenous Australians and conflated disadvantage as the very state of ‘being Indigenous’ and vice versa. A wicked problem as it exists in public discourse tends to be a deficit conversation by nature as it appears easy or indeed convenient to latch on to the ‘intractable’ nature label and the ‘no stopping rule’ property.

The meaning and sensemaking of the analysis of policy artefacts and interviews (Yanow, 2001) for this research project, has demonstrated that there has been little change in the epistemologies and ontologies behind policy development and implementation since colonisation. Policies within Indigenous Affairs remain protectionist, with a ‘we know best’ attitude and a common justification that strategies are implemented for the ‘good’ of the children. Research participants spoke to the need for political bipartisanship in order to assess the success of some policies and programs, or to continue successful programs. Most research participants blamed the short electoral cycles for discursive action or inaction within Indigenous Affairs, including the approach that the major political parties had to dismantling many initiatives just for being the opposition party’s policies. At the same time, several

90 Problematising the wickedness of ‘disadvantage’ in Australian Indigenous Affairs policy research participants felt there was no real difference between the philosophies and actions of the major political parties.

The fifth property of wicked problems directly reflects one term policies. “Every solution to a wicked problem is a ‘one-shot operation’; because there is no opportunity to learn by trail-and-error, every attempt counts significantly” (Rittel & Webber, 1973, p. 163). This is because ‘solutions’ must not only not pass the three or four-year election hurdle, but are also not being implemented appropriately, nor co- designed with Indigenous Australians. To some extent the wicked problem is a political management issue as there have been many opportunities to implement appropriate policies and programs from the learnings of previous ‘pilot programs’.

It could be argued that the language of intractability of wicked problems to represent the lived experiences of Indigenous Australians is being used as a justification for not being able to arrive at activities that can have shared and positive outcomes. This becomes a perfect political stalling tool (Althaus et al., 2013, p. 55), that it is too hard to get stakeholders to agree on the initial situation, let alone derive workable answers. It is true that many of the key players within Indigenous Affairs including elected, non-elected and self-appointed leaders do not agree on a way forward for many Indigenous Australian issues, as indicated by literature and research participants.

The wickedness of this prevaricating discourse would seem to emphasise the level of genuine political consideration around the significance of the disparities in life outcomes experienced by Indigenous Australians. This is reinforced by Dodson (2016) when he doubted the significance placed by governments on the recommendations of the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody. However, within the political governance sphere, Wicked Property 8 rings true – where “Every wicked problem can be considered to be a symptom of another problem” (Rittel & Webber, 1973, p. 165).

Despite the proclamation in 1992 that terra nullius prior to colonisation did not exist, the concept of Indigenous sovereignty and its profound meaning for Aboriginal people and Torres Strait Islander people is absent from much of the public discourses. As referred to previously in this research, there is a political and at times public fear that discussing Indigenous Australian sovereignty and self-determination would result in the need for governments to cede power.

Problematising the wickedness of ‘disadvantage’ in Australian Indigenous Affairs policy 91 The privilege of whiteness brings with it the a priori of identity and self (Moreton-Robinson, 2004). As elaborated earlier, most non-Indigenous Australians don’t have to prove or justify their cultural identities beyond ticking a descriptive box. For Aboriginal people and Torres Strait Islander people identity is not necessarily straightforward. As Indigenous Australians straddle white and Indigenous cultural divides, there is often a need to prove that lived experiences do define Indigenous cultural background whether these experiences are remote, regional or urban based (Fredericks, 2007).

The importance of genuinely including Indigenous Australian knowledges within public discourse, and development and implementation of policies within Indigenous Affairs, is imperative if the political discourse is to change from cycles of deficit thinking about the other. Aboriginal people and Torres Strait Islander people need to move beyond having to consume interpretation to being “involved in shaping it” (Colebatch, 2014, p. 351). Research participants actively highlighted this point, whilst at the same time admitting they did not know enough about Indigenous Australian knowledges to be able to discuss the issue with confidence. In order for true cultural safety to be experienced by all parties, Indigenous Australians’ ways of knowing and ways of being must be incorporated in all stages of policy development and implementation (Martin, 2003). Ultimately, this inclusion should become an implicit expectation of all Australians.

7.1 CEDING WHITENESS IS STRONG NOT WICKED

The meaning and sensemaking of the analysis of policy artefacts and interviews (Yanow, 2001) for this research project, has demonstrated that there has been little change in the epistemologies and ontologies behind policy development and implementation since colonisation. Policies within Indigenous Affairs remain protectionist, with a ‘we know best’ attitude and a common justification that strategies are implemented for the ‘good’ of the children.

Interpretations, if not valorisations, of policy and implementation as ‘well meaning’ belies the evidence that the same policies and strategies are repeated implemented with the same, and in some cases, worsening outcomes. The introduction to the Cape York Justice Study states:

92 Problematising the wickedness of ‘disadvantage’ in Australian Indigenous Affairs policy Well-intentioned initiatives continue to produce unexpected adverse consequences for Indigenous Australians. The tragic consequences of past mistakes provoke concern that future well-intentioned activities might miscarry and cause further damage. (DPC, 2001, p. 7) Australian governments are having to work against the consequences of their ongoing policies and strategies within Indigenous Affairs and have recognised this is the case (Van Hulst & Yanow, 2014). This has been openly acknowledged, for example, through annual Closing the Gap reports (DPMC, 2018).

Whilst dismantling of the White Australia Policy began during Prime Minister Harold Holt’s leadership (1966-67) and ended in 1973 through Prime Minister Gough Whitlam’s term (1972-75) (DHA, 2018), the tenets of the policy still live on in the privileged decision making positions of those that create policy and policy discourses around Aboriginal people and Torres Strait Islander people. These tenants promote policies and legacies of segregation through notions of ‘social norms’, and through the continued prism of whiteness.

As identified through this research, given the number of stakeholders within, and the interpretations of, ‘Indigenous Affairs’, creating a culturally safe environment is undoubtedly complex (Milner, 2009). Indeed, policy framing is malleable, and does indeed create a ‘political’ environment (Van Hulst & Yanow, 2016). It was very positive to note, however, that all research participants felt that whilst the use of wicked to describe the lived experiences of Indigenous Australians was not helpful, this factor did not affect their work and their hope for significant policy and discourse shifts in the future.

7.2 RESEARCH CONTRIBUTIONS

This thesis makes an empirical contribution to understandings of Indigenous disadvantage and wicked problems which to date has largely been literature based. Including a broader range of policy actors than usually included in policy analysis is a methodological contribution to understanding the positioning of Indigenous disadvantage as a wicked problem. This research has extended the examination of policy discourses beyond policy development to include policy implementation. Its findings may be transferable to other policy settings where deficit discourse and ‘othering’ is in evidence, such as policy settings around disability for example.

Problematising the wickedness of ‘disadvantage’ in Australian Indigenous Affairs policy 93 7.3 IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

A number of research participants commented that the interview questions and discussions had made them think more deeply about their worldviews and that they would apply this thinking to their work practice and private lives. Discussions around the importance and ramifications of language use and sensemaking support the case for the five components of interpretive policy analysis to be utilised in everyday policy ‘life’.

If the perceived right to control groups of peoples through the privilege of whiteness can be owned by policy actors and shifted, there will be space for culturally safe environs and the genuine meeting of individual standpoint, worldviews and shared outcomes. Meaningful reflexivity by policy actors must include consideration of whether assumptions through their worldviews and sensemaking may promote or compromise their role within policy development and implementation, and the ramifications for the recipients of these policies and programs, particularly if the policy recipients are framed as ‘others’ and viewed as negative (Milner, 2007). Consideration must also be given to understanding and reflecting upon the notion that there are “other ways of knowing, in particular, the local knowledge developed by the ‘targets’” (Yanow, 2009, p. 581). To this end, non-Indigenous policy actors must genuinely understand the imperatives of listening to, learning from, and acting upon the needs, values and priorities as experienced and expressed by Indigenous policy actors.

Moving the discourse of cultural awareness and capabilities to embrace “authentic” understanding of Indigenous Australian knowledges particularly within the public service (Althaus & Patterson, 2017, p. 396) and Indigenous Australian sovereignty will promote strength-based processes and language. Acknowledging, too, that the legacies of the past are being repeated and exacerbated whilst culturally safe policy development and implementation is not the standard practice should be able to ameliorate into the future unintended policy consequences.

7.4 DIRECTIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH AND LIMITATIONS

This research has identified a need to replace deficit discourse and negative symbols with positive ones (Bamblett, 2011) highlighting a need for further research on how such symbols could operate to ensure the principles of cultural safety. For example, there is a dearth of research on successful engagement mechanisms with Torres Strait

94 Problematising the wickedness of ‘disadvantage’ in Australian Indigenous Affairs policy Islander people within the Torres Strait and other areas (Hunt 2013, p. 4). This could include research into the value and effects of normalising respectful language—such as wider use of the terms Aboriginal peoples and Torres Strait Islander peoples— increases respect for cultural heterogeneity and difference in ways that genuinely acknowledge the current policy focus of whiteness.

Given the breadth of research around the continued high levels of negative disparities in life outcomes for Indigenous Australians as a result of repeated development and implementation of deficit policies, it is salient to ask: when does this deficit discourse around Indigenous Australians become recognised as a form of violence? This research delved into policy discourses within Indigenous Affairs since British colonisation by highlighting five prominent historical and contemporary policies. The sensemaking by policy actors, including research participants, of these artefacts and associated discourses, and analysis of accompanying literature (Yanow, 2000) was juxtaposed with the three components of wicked problems – uncertainty, complexity and value divergence (Head, 2008).

The results of this research project have identified a number of interrelated themes. It suggests a need to replace deficit discourse and negative symbols with positive ones (Bamblett, 2011). The research also supports the notion that the use of the language of wicked problems to refer to Indigenous disadvantage is deficit in nature. The consequence of that circular and intractable language which is used by influential policy actors, and not by research participants, does indeed indicate that policy development and implementation within Indigenous Affairs is a self-fulfilling ‘wicked’ management problem.

The language used in most public and policy discourse around Aboriginal peoples and Torres Strait Islander peoples, including research, does not consider issues concerning the worldviews (Rigney, 1999) and sovereignty (Ardill, 2013) of these heterogeneous cultures. This research has attempted to take into account the self- declared personal standpoint and potential biases that accompany a non-Indigenous woman from a Euro-Celtic background. To this end, the language used during the interview process and this thesis has also attempted to demonstrate the researcher preference to be an “ally” (Aveling, 2013, p. 210) within the Indigenous Australian research context and to “use what I know – rather than imagining that I know about Indigenous epistemologies or Indigenous experiences under colonialism” (Aveling,

Problematising the wickedness of ‘disadvantage’ in Australian Indigenous Affairs policy 95 2013, p. 210). The most prominent discourses, evident in political debate and media commentary, carry with them legacies from the privilege of power and opportunity that is embedded implicitly in the whiteness of Australia’s Westminster governance and management systems (Moreton-Robinson, 2009), and the nation’s colonial history (Dodson, 2003).

This research began by exploring the conflation of ‘disadvantage’ and cultural homogeneity as an implicit reference point for public and policy discourse around Aboriginal people and Torres Strait Islander people. In particular the thesis has focussed on ‘Indigenous disadvantage’ and ‘wickedness’ as descriptors for Indigenous Australian identity. Within the world of global policy discourse wicked problems have almost become de rigueur or a policy movement (Crowley & Head, 2017), and indeed are “more popular than ever” (McCall & Burge, 2016, p. 201).

All ten wicked properties do not really apply to the disparity in life outcomes experienced by many Indigenous Australians; they do, however, all apply to the singular culture of privilege and power of policy leaders and the organisational cultures they have created. Indeed, if there is a ‘problem to be solved’, it is surely the wickedness of Indigenous Affairs policy and politics, their place in Australia’s history, discourse and future (Johns, 2008). This includes the inability to listen to and work with Aboriginal peoples and Torres Strait Islander peoples and to relinquish power through empathetic acknowledgement of place, history and cultural dynamism.

96 Problematising the wickedness of ‘disadvantage’ in Australian Indigenous Affairs policy Reference List

Aboriginals Protection and Restriction of the Sale of Opium Act 1897 (Qld). Alford, J., & Head, B. (2017). Wicked and less wicked problems: A typology and a contingency framework. Policy & Society, 36(3), 397-413. Allam, L. (2018). All children in detention in the Northern Territory are Indigenous. The Guardian, June 26, 2018. Retrieved from www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2018/jun/25/all-children-in-detention- in-the-northern-territory-are-indigenous Althaus, C., Bridgman, P., & Davis, G. (2013). The Australian Policy Handbook (5th ed.). Crows Nest, NSW: Allen & Unwin. Althaus, C., & Patterson, M. (2017). A line in the sand 50 years on: Commonwealth involvement in Indigenous Affairs. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 76(4), 395-396. Anderson, H. (2012). Collaborative practice: A way of being ‘with’. Psychotherapy and Politics International, 10(2), 130-145. Anti Discrimination Commission Queensland (ADCQ). (2017). Financial Control and Confiscation. Retrieved from www.adcq.qld.gov.au/resources/a-and- tsi/Aboriginal-people-in-Queensland/financial-control-and- confiscation#content Ardill, A. (2013). Australian sovereignty, indigenous standpoint theory and feminist standpoint theory: First peoples' sovereignties matter. Griffith Law Review, 22(2), 315-343. Arthur, W.S. ( 2004). Bridge or barrier: The Torres Strait borderland. In R. Davis (ed), Woven Histories Dancing Lives Torres Strait Islander Identity, Culture and History (pp. 15-29). Canberra: Aboriginal Studies Press. Ashton, S. (2014). Researcher or nurse? Difficulties of undertaking semi-structure interviews on sensitive topics. Nurse Researcher, 22(1), 27-31. Attwood, B., Markus, A., & Edwards, D. (2014) 1967 Referendum: Race, Power and the Australian Constitution (2nd ed.). Canberra: Aboriginal Studies Press. Australasian Legal Information Institute (ALII). (1998). Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody. National Report Volume 1 – 1.10 An Overview

Problematising the wickedness of ‘disadvantage’ in Australian Indigenous Affairs policy 97 of the Recommendations. Retrieved from www.austlii.edu.au/au/other/IndigLRes/rciadic/national/vol1/24.html Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC). (June 22, 2006). Inquiry into child sex abuse claims. Retrieved from www.abc.net.au/lateline/inquiry-into-child-sex- abuse-claims/1784870 Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS). (2017). Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Prisoner Characteristics. Retrieved from www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/[email protected]/Lookup/by%20Subject/4517.0~2017~Ma in%20Features~Aboriginal%20and%20Torres%20Strait%20Islander%20pris oner%20characteristics~5 Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS). (2018a). Frequently Asked Questions for the 2016 Socio-Economic Indexes for Areas (SEIFA). Retrieved from www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/[email protected]/Lookup/by%20Subject/2033.0.55.001~20 16~Main%20Features~FAQs%20-%20SEIFA%202016~4 Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS). (2018b). Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Population. Retrieved from www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/[email protected]/Lookup/2071.0main+features102016 Australian Human Rights Commission (AHRC). (n.d). Questions and Answers About Aboriginal and Torres Straits Islander Peoples. Retrieved August 25, 2018, from www.humanrights.gov.au/publications/questions-and-answers-about- aboriginal-torres-strait-islander-peoples Australian Human Rights Commission (AHRC). (2007). Social Justice Report 2007—Chapter 3: The Northern Territory ‘Emergency Response’ intervention—A Human Rights Analysis. Retrieved from www.humanrights.gov.au/publications/social-justice-report-2007-chapter-3- northern-territory-emergency-response-intervention Australian Human Rights Commission (AHRC). (2017). The Suspension and Reinstatement of the RDA and Special Measures in the Northern Territory Emergency Response. Retrieved from www.humanrights.gov.au/publications/suspension-and-reinstatement-rda- and-special-measures-nter-1 Australian Human Rights Commission (AHRC). (2018). Close the Gap: Indigenous Health Campaign. Retrieved from www.humanrights.gov.au/our-

98 Problematising the wickedness of ‘disadvantage’ in Australian Indigenous Affairs policy

work/aboriginal-and-torres-strait-islander-social-justice/projects/close-gap- indigenous-health Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies (AIATSIS). (2015). Mabo Case. Retrieved from https://aiatsis.gov.au/explore/articles/mabo-case Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies (AIATSIS). (2017). War Service. Retrieved from http://aiatsis.gov.au/explore/articles/war-service Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies (AIATSIS). (2018). Indigenous Australians: Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. Retrieved from https://aiatsis.gov.au/explore/articles/indigenous- australians-aboriginal-and-torres-strait-islander-people Australian Institute of Family Studies (AIFS). (2017). Children in Care. Retrieved from https://aifs.gov.au/cfca/publications/children-care. Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (AIHW). (2016). Youth Detention Population in Australia. Retrieved from www.aihw.gov.au/reports/youth- justice/youth-detention-population-in-australia-2016/contents/summary Australian Labor Party. (2015). Labor National Platform: A Smart, Modern, Fair Australia. Retrieved from https://cdn.australianlabor.com.au/documents/ALP_National_Platform.pdf Australian Law Reform Commission (ALRC). (2017). Incarceration Rates of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples (DP 84). Retrieved from www.alrc.gov.au/publications/indigenous-incarceration-rates-dp84 Australian Public Service Commission (APSC).( 2012). Tackling Wicked Problems: A Public Policy Perspective. Retrieved from www.apsc.gov.au/publications- and-media/archive/publications-archive/tackling-wicked-problems Australians for Native Title and Reconciliation (ANTaR). (2017). Uluru Statement from the Heart. Retrieved from https://antar.org.au/statement-from-the-heart Aveling, N. (2013). ‘Don't talk about what you don't know’: On (not) conducting research with/in Indigenous contexts. Critical Studies in Education, 54(2), 203-214. Bamblett, L. (2011). Straight-line stories: Representations and Indigenous Australian identities in sports discourses. Australian Aboriginal Studies, 2, 5-20.

Problematising the wickedness of ‘disadvantage’ in Australian Indigenous Affairs policy 99 Bamblett, M., & Lewis, P. (2010). Human rights as social investment for Indigenous children and families: Putting history, culture and self-determination back into the equation. Children Australia, 35, 6-11. Barriball, K. L., & While, A. (1994). Collecting data using a semi-structured interview: A discussion paper. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 19(2), 328-335. Beacroft, L., Lyneham, M., & Willis, M. (2011). Twenty years of monitoring since the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody: An overview by the Australian Institute of Criminology. Australian Indigenous Law Review, 15(1), 64-84. Beresford, Q., & Beresford, M. (2006). Race and reconciliation: The Australian experience in international context. Contemporary Politics, 12(1), 65-78. Berman, G., & Paradies, Y. (2010). Racism, disadvantage and multiculturalism: towards effective anti-racist praxis. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 33(2):214-232. Bhaskar, R. (2011). Reclaiming Reality: A Critical Introduction to Contemporary Philosophy. New York: Routledge. Bielefeld, S. (2014). Income management and Indigenous peoples: Nudged into a Stronger Future? Griffith Law Review, 23(2), 285-317. Billings. P. (2011). Juridical exceptionalism in Australia: Law, nostalgia and the exclusion of ‘others’. Griffith Law Review, 20(2), 271-309. Bishop, B. J., & Dzidic, P. L. (2014). Dealing with wicked problems: Conducting a causal layered analysis of complex social psychological issues. American Journal of Community Psychology, 53(1-2), 13-24. Booth, A.NITV News (2016, February 11). What Indigenous leaders say about the 2016 Close the Gap report. NITV News. Retrieved from https://www.sbs.com.au/nitv/article/2016/02/10/what-indigenous-leaders-say- about-2016-close-gap-report-0 Bourdieu, P. (2001). Television. European Review, 9(3), 245-256. Bradfield, S. (2003). Citizenship, history and indigenous status in Australia: Back to the future, or toward treaty? Journal of Australian Studies, 27(80), 165-176. Brough, M., Bond, C., & Hunt, J. (2004). Strong in the City: Towards a strength- based approach in Indigenous health promotion. Health Promotion Journal of Australia, 15, 215-220.

100 Problematising the wickedness of ‘disadvantage’ in Australian Indigenous Affairs policy

Brown, N. (2009). History, law, and policy as a foundation for health care delivery for Australian Indigenous children. The Pediatric Clinics of North America, 56(6), 1561-1576. Buchan, B., & Heath, M. (2006). Savagery and civilisation. From terra nullius to the ‘tide of history’. Ethnicities, 6(1), 5-26. Burney, L. (2017). Reconciliation and Referendum: 1967 to present. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 76(4), 409-411. Cape York Institute for Policy and Leadership (CYIPL). (2007). From Hand Out to Hand Up: Cape York Welfare Reform Project Design Recommendations. Retrieved from https://capeyorkpartnership.org.au/wp- content/uploads/2014/07/from-handout-to-hand-up-welfare-reform-report.pdf Carter, C., Lapum, J., Lavellee, L., Martin, L.S., & Resoule, J-P. (2017). Urban First Nations Men: Narratives of Positive Identity and Implications for Culturally Safe Care. Journal of Transcultural Nursing, 28(5): 445-454. Clayton Utz. (2015). Review of the Implementation of RCIADIC – May 2015. Amnesty International. Retrieved from https://changetherecord.org.au/review-of-the-implementation-of-rciadic-may- 2015 COAG Reform Council. (2014). Indigenous Reform 2012-13: Five years of Performance. Report to the Council of Australian Governments. Retrieved from http://apo.org.au/system/files/39868/apo-nid39868-34576.pdf Colebatch, H.K. (2006). What work makes policy? Policy Sciences, 39, 309-321. Colebatch, H. K. (2014). Interpretation in the analysis of policy. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 73(3), 349-356. Commonwealth, Parliamentary Debates, House of Representatives, 13 February 2008, 167. Apology to Australia’s Indigenous Peoples. Retrieved from http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/genpdf/chamber/hansardr/2008-02- 13/0003/hansard_frag.pdf;fileType=application%2Fpdf Commonwealth, Parliamentary Debates, House of Representatives, 10 February 2016, 1171-1174. Closing the Gap. Retrieved from http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/genpdf/chamber/hansardr/7ef9bd10-ec92- 4de4-9372- a92d6a12d7ef/0040/hansard_frag.pdf;fileType=application%2Fpdf

Problematising the wickedness of ‘disadvantage’ in Australian Indigenous Affairs policy 101 Commonwealth, Parliamentary Debates, House of Representatives, 10 February 2016, 1175-1177. Closing the Gap. Retrieved from http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/genpdf/chamber/hansardr/7ef9bd10-ec92- 4de4-9372- a92d6a12d7ef/0041/hansard_frag.pdf;fileType=application%2Fpdf Connifer, D. (2017, March 31). Closing the Gap: PM overturns Government's opposition to target Indigenous imprisonment. ABC News. Retrieved from http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-03-25/pm-overturns-governments- opposition-to-closing-the-gap-goals/8386324 Coram, S. (2009). Encountering disregard in Australian academe: The subjective perspective of a disaffiliated racial 'other'. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 30(3), 275-287. Crowley, K., & Head, B.W. (2017). The enduring challenge of ‘wicked problems’: Revisiting Rittel and Webber. Policy Sciences 50(4):539-547. Cuddihy, M. (2013, May 24). Aboriginal deaths in custody numbers rise sharply over past five years. The World Today, ABC News. Retrieved from http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-05-24/sharp-rise-in-number-of-aboriginal- deaths-in-custody/4711764 Cunningham, J., & Baeza, J.I. (2005). An ‘experiment’ in Indigenous social policy: The rise and fall of Australia’s Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission (ATSIC). Policy & Politics, 33, 461-473). Cunneen, C. (2006). Evaluation of the Queensland Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Justice Agreement. Australian Indigenous Law Reporter, 10(4), 96- 98. Davis, M. (2007). The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Indigenous Law Bulletin, 6(30), 6-8. Daviter, F. (2007). Policy Framing in the European Union. Journal of European Public Policy, 14(4), 654-666. Department of Aboriginal & Torres Strait Islander Policy (DATSIP). (2005). Partnerships Queensland:Future directions framework for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander policy in Queensland 2005-2010. Queensland Government, Brisbane. Department of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Policy and Development (DATSIPD) & Robertson, B. (2000). The Aboriginal and Torres Strait 102 Problematising the wickedness of ‘disadvantage’ in Australian Indigenous Affairs policy

Islander Women's Task Force on Violence Report. Queensland Government. Retrieved from www.indigenouschamber.org.au/wp- content/uploads/2017/03/Aboriginal-Torres-Strait-Islanders-Womens-Task- Force-on-Violence-Report.pdf Department of Aboriginal & Torres Strait Islander Policy & Development (DATSIPD). (2001a). Queensland Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Justice Agreement: Full Text of the Agreement signed on 19 December 2000 and summary. Queensland Government. Retrieved from http://qut.summon.serialssolutions.com Department of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Policy & Development (DATSIPD). (2001b). Towards a Queensland Government and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Ten Year Partnership: Information Sheet. Queensland Government, Brisbane. Department of Home Affairs (DHA). (2018) Fact sheet – Abolition of the ‘White Australia’ Policy. Australian Government, Retrieved from www.homeaffairs.gov.au/about/corporate/information/fact-sheets/08abolition Department of the Premier and Cabinet (DPC). (2001). Advanced Copy Cape York Justice Study Report. Retrieved from http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/24611/20020516- 0000/www.premiers.qld.gov.au/about/community/capeyorkreport.htm. Department of the Premier and Cabinet (DPC). (2002). Meeting Challenges, Making Choices: The Queensland Government's Response to the Cape York Justice Study. Brisbane: Queensland Government. Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet (DPMC). (2014a). Communicating with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Audiences. Retrieved from www.pmc.gov.au/resource-centre/indigenous-affairs/communicating- aboriginal-and-torres-strait-islander-audiences Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet (DPMC). (2014b). Indigenous Advancement Strategy. Retrieved from www.pmc.gov.au/indigenous- affairs/indigenous-advancement-strategy Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet (DPMC). (2018). Closing the Gap. Prime Minister’s Report 2018. Retrieved from https://closingthegap.pmc.gov.au/sites/default/files/ctg-report-2018.pdf?a=1

Problematising the wickedness of ‘disadvantage’ in Australian Indigenous Affairs policy 103 Department of Social Services (DSS). (2018). Cashless Debit Card. Retrieved from www.dss.gov.au/families-and-children/programmes-services/welfare- conditionality/cashless-debit-card-overview Dingle, S. (2014, August 30). Tony Abbott names white settlement as Australia's 'defining moment', remark draws Indigenous ire. ABC News. Retrieved from www.abc.net.au/news/2014-08-30/pm-comment-on-defining-moment-angers- indigenous-groups/5707926 Dobson, A. (2012). Listening: The new democratic deficit. Political Studies, 60(4), 843-859. Dockery, A. M. (2010). Culture and wellbeing: The case of Indigenous Australians. Social Indicators Research, 99, 315-332. Dodson, M. (2003). The end in the beginning: Re(de)finding Aboriginality. In M. Grossman (Ed.), Blacklines: Contemporary Critical Writing by Indigenous Australians, 25-42, Carlton: Melbourne University Press. Dodson, P. (2016). Patrick Dodson: 25 years on from Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody Recommendations. Indigenous Law Bulletin, 8(23), 24-29. Downey, B., & Stout, M. D. (2006). Nursing, Indigenous peoples and cultural safety: So what? Now what? Contemporary Nurse, 22(2), 327-332. Edmondson, A. C., & McManus, S. E. (2007). Methodological fit in management field research. The Academy of Management Review, 32(4), 1155-1179. Elmir, R., Schmied, V., Jackson, D., & Wilkes, L. (2011). Interviewing people about potentially sensitive topics. Nurse Researcher, 19(1), 12-16. Evans, M., Hole, R., Berg, L. D., Hutchinson, P., & Sookraj, D. (2009). Common insights, differing methodologies: Toward a fusion of Indigenous methodologies, participatory action research, and White studies in an urban Aboriginal research agenda. Qualitative Inquiry, 15(5), 893-910. Fairclough, N. (2005). Discourse analysis in organization studies: The case for critical realism. Organization Studies, 26(6), 915-939. Faulkner, J. 2015. ‘Our own Hurricane Katrina’: Aboriginal disadvantage and Australian national identity. National Identities, 17(2), 117-135. Federal Court of Australia (FCA). (n.d.). Native Title. Retrieved August 25, 2018, from http://www.fedcourt.gov.au/law-and-practice/areas-of-law/native-title

104 Problematising the wickedness of ‘disadvantage’ in Australian Indigenous Affairs policy

Fforde, C., Bamblett, L., Lovett, R., Gorringe, S., & Fogarty, B. (2013). Discourse, deficit and identity: Aboriginality, the race paradigm and the language of representation in contemporary Australia. Media International Australia, Incorporating Culture & Policy, 149, 162-173. Fletcher, A. J. (2016). Applying critical realism in qualitative research: Methodology meets method. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 181- 194. Fogarty, W., Bulloch, H., McDonnell, S., & Davis, M. (2018a). Deficit Discourse and Indigenous Health: How narrative framings of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people are reproduced in policy. The Lowitja Institute, Melbourne. Fogarty, W., Lovell, M., Langenberg, J., & Heron, M-J. (2018b). Deficit Discourse and Strengths-based Approaches: Changing the Narrative of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Health and Wellbeing. The Lowitja Institute, Melbourne. Foley, D. (2000). Indigenous epistemology and Indigenous standpoint theory. Social Alternatives, 22(1), 44-52. Frankland, K. (1994). A Brief History of Government Administration of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples in Queensland. Retrieved from http://www.slq.qld.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0008/93734/Admin_History _Aboriginal_and_Torres_Strait_Islanders.pdf Frankland, R. J. (2006). Reconciliation, recognition and responsibility. Storyline, 16(Spring), 19-21. Fredericks, B. (2007). ‘We don’t leave our identities at the city limits’: Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people living in urban localities. Australian Aboriginal Studies, 2013(1), 4-16. Fredericks, B. (2010). We've had the Redfern Park Speech and The Apology: What's next? Outskirts: Feminisms along the Edge, 23, 1-14. Garcia, S.B., & Guerra, P.L. (2004). Deconstructing deficit thinking: Working with educators to create more equitable learning environments. Education & Urban Society, 36(2), 150-168. Gates T., & Kelly, B. (2012). LGB cultural phenomena and the social work research enterprise: Toward a strengths-based, culturally anchored methodology. Journal of Homosexuality, 60(1), 69-82.

Problematising the wickedness of ‘disadvantage’ in Australian Indigenous Affairs policy 105 Goodwin, B., & Cox, A. (2008). Demographics of Indigenous Australia. Reform, 92, 18-20. Gordon, M. (2015, December 10). Paul Keating's challenge: View Australia through Aboriginal eyes. The Sydney Morning Herald. Retrieved from http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/paul-keatings- challenge-view-australia-through-aboriginal-eyes-20151209-gljc7c.html Gordon, M., & Hunter, F. (2016, February 10). Australia failing to close the gap between Indigenous and non-Indigenous people. The Sydney Morning Herald. Retrieved from https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/australia- failing-to-close-the-gap-between-indigenous-and-nonindigenous-people- 20160210-gmq15x.html Gorman, D., & Toombs, M, (2009). Matching Research Methodology with Australian Indigenous Culture. Aboriginal and Islander Health Worker Journal, 33(3), 4-7. Graham, M. (2009). Understanding human agency in terms of place: A proposed Aboriginal research methodology. PAN: Philosophy Activism Nature, 3, 71- 78. Grant-Smith, D. (2011, 26-29 June 2011). More than merely wicked: Regulating sewage discharges and other unspeakable problems in environmental policy- making and planning. Paper presented at the Wicked Problems: Applied Environmental Research in a Changing World - Environmental Research Event 2011, Moreton Bay Research Station, North Stradbroke Island, Qld, North Stradbroke Island, Queensland, Australia.. Grant-Smith, D. (2015). Implicating animals: The symbolic power of scapegoating animals in marine pollution debates. Australasian Journal of Environmental Management, 22(3), 270-284. Grant-Smith, D., & Osborne, N. (2016) Dealing with discomfort: How the unspeakable confounds wicked planning problems. Australian Planner, 53(1), 46-53. Grattan, M. (2017, October 26). Turnbull government says not to Indigenous ‘Voice to Parliament’. The Conversation. Retrieved from https://theconversation.com/turnbull-government-says-no-to-indigenous- voice-to-parliament-86421

106 Problematising the wickedness of ‘disadvantage’ in Australian Indigenous Affairs policy

Green, M.M., Sonn, C. C., & Matsebula, J. (2007). Reviewing whiteness: Theory, research, and possibilities. South African Journal of Psychology, 37(3), 389- 419. Hannigan, J. (2014) Environmental Sociology (3rd ed.). New York: Routledge. Hansen, K.L., Melhus, M., Lund, E. (2010). Ethnicity, self-reported health, discrimination and socio-economic status: A study of Sami and non-Sami Norwegian populations. International Journal of Circumpolar Health 69(2), 111-128. Hansen, K.L., & Sorlie, T. (2012). Ethnic discrimination and psychological distress: A study of Sami and non-Sami populations in Norway. Transcultural Psychiatry, 49(1), 26-50. Harris, P. (2012, September 8). Too many ‘wicked problems’: How science, policy and politics can work together. The Conversation. Retrieved from https://theconversation.com Haughton, J. (2016, April 4). The 25th Anniversary of the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody. Retrieved from https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parli amentary_Library/FlagPost/2016/April/RCADIC-25by James Haughton Head, B.W. (2018) Forty years of wicked problems literature: Forging closer links to policy studies. Policy & Society, online ahead of print, 1-18. Head, B.W. (2008). Wicked problems in public policy. Public Policy, 3(2), 101-118. Healy, P. (1986). Interpretive Policy Inquiry: A response to the limitations of the received view. Policy Sciences, 19 (4), 381-396. Higginbottom, G.M.A. (2004). Sampling issues in qualitative research. Nurse Researcher, 12(1), 7-19. Hollinsworth, D. (1996). Community development in Indigenous Australia: Self- determination or indirect rule? Community Development Journal, 31(2), 114- 125. House of Representatives Standing Committee on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs, House of Representatives. (2011). Doing Time - Time for Doing Indigenous youth in the criminal justice system. Retrieved from https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Committees_E xposed/atsia/sentencing/report

Problematising the wickedness of ‘disadvantage’ in Australian Indigenous Affairs policy 107 Howitt, R. (2012). Sustainable indigenous futures in remote Indigenous areas: Relationships, processes and failed state approaches. GeoJournal 77, 817- 828. Howitt, R., & McLean, J. (2015). Towards Closure? Coexistence, remoteness and righteousness in Indigenous policy in Australia. Australian Geographer, 46(2), 137-145. Howlett, C. (2010). Indigenous agency and mineral development: A cautionary note. Studies in Political Economy, 85(1), 99-123. Howlett, C., & Hartwig, L.D. (2017). The friction of fracking: Discursive constraints on Aboriginal participation in coal seam gas in Northern NSW. The Extractive Industries & Society, 4(2), 329-336. Hudson, P. (2016, July 28). NT Royal Commission: Brian Martin to head inquiry. The Australian. Retrieved from www.theaustralian.com.au/national- affairs/nt-royal-commission-brian-martin-to-head-inquiry/news- story/93647b4b62285dd7ae788f4b72f04a17 Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission. (1997). Bringing Them Home. Report of the National Inquiry into the Separation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Children from their Families. Retrieved from www.humanrights.gov.au/publications/bringing-them-home-report-1997 Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission. (2006). Inquiry into Stolen Wages: Submission to the Senate Legal and Constitutional References Committee Inquiry into Stolen Wages. Retrieved from https://www.humanrights.gov.au/inquiry-stolen-wages Humpage, L. (2005). Experimenting with a 'whole of government' approach: Indigenous capacity building in New Zealand and Australia. Policy Studies, 26(1), 47-66. Hunt, J. (2013). Engaging with Indigenous Australia: Exploring the Conditions for Effective Relationships with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Communities. Issues paper no. 5. Produced for the Closing the Gap Clearinghouse. Canberra: Australian Institute of Health and Welfare & Melbourne: Australian Institute of Family Studies. Retrieved from www.aihw.gov.au/getmedia/7d54eac8-4c95-4de1-91bb-0d6b1cf348e2/ctgc- ip05.pdf.aspx?inline=true

108 Problematising the wickedness of ‘disadvantage’ in Australian Indigenous Affairs policy

Hunter, B. (2007). Conspicuous compassion and wicked problems: The Howard Government’s national emergency in Indigenous Affairs. Agenda, 14(3), 35- 51. Institute of Public Administration Australia (IPAA). (2012). Spann Oration. Retrieved from http://www.ipaa.org.au/knowledge-centre/ipaa- knowledge/orations/spann-oration/ Jackson, D., Power, T., Sherwood, J., & Geia, L. (2013). Amazingly resilient Indigenous people! Using transformative learning to facilitate positive student engagement with sensitive material. Contemporary Nurse, 46(1), 105- 112. Jackson, S. J., & Sam, M. P. (2007). “Yes, Prime Minister” and the dilemmas of sport policy. Sport Management Review, 10(3), 307-323. Jacobs, C. (2017). Symbolism and substance in Indigenous Affairs. Policy, 33(4), 45- 47. Jo, M., Nelson, J., & Kiecker, P. (1997). A model for controlling social desirability bias by direct and indirect questioning. Marketing Letters, 8(4), 429-437. Johns, G. (2008). The Northern Territory Intervention in Aboriginal Affairs: Wicked problem or wicked policy? Agenda: A Journal of Policy Analysis & Reform, 15(2), 65-84 Jones, H. (2013). Negotiating Cohesion, Inequality and Change: Uncomfortable Positions in Local Government. Bristol: Policy Press. Kagi, J. (2014, November 12) Plan to close more than 100 remote communities would have severe consequences, says WA Premier. ABC News. Retrieved from http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-11-12/indigenous-communities- closures-will-have-severe-consequences/5886840 Keating, P. (1992). Transcript: Redfern Speech (Year for the World's Indigenous People) – Delivered in Redfern Park by Prime Minister Paul Keating, 10 December 1992. Retrieved from https://antar.org.au/sites/default/files/paul_keating_speech_transcript.pdf Kendall, F. E. (2013). Understanding White Privilege: Creating Pathways to Authentic Relationships Across Race (2nd ed.). New York: Routledge. Kolchin, P. (2002). Whiteness studies: The new history of race in America. The Journal of American History, 89(1), 154-173.

Problematising the wickedness of ‘disadvantage’ in Australian Indigenous Affairs policy 109 Koori Mail. (2018). About Koori Mail. Retrieved from http://koorimail.com/about- koori-mail/ Kowal, E. (2015). Welcome to Country: Acknowledgement, Belonging and White Anti-racism. Cultural Studies Review, 21(2), 173-204. Krumer-Nevo, M., & Sidi, M. (2012) Writing against othering. Qualitative Inquiry, 18(4):299-309. Lane, M. (2006). The role of planning in achieving indigenous land justice and community goals. Land Use Policy, 23, 385-394. Langfield, M. (1999). 'White Alien' (non-British European) Immigration Policy. Retrieved from http://guides.naa.gov.au/more-people- imperative/chapter4/index.aspx Lawrence, D., & Lawrence, H. (2004). Torres Strait: The region and its people. In R. Davis (Ed), Woven Histories Dancing Lives Torres Strait Islander Identity, Culture and History (pp. 15-29). Canberra: Aboriginal Studies Press. Lee, R. (1993). Doing Research of Sensitive Subjects. London: SAGE. Leslie, John F. (2002). The Indian Act: An historical perspective. Canadian Parliamentary Review, 25(2), 23-27. Liodakis, N. (2009). The social class and gender differences within Aboriginal groups in Canada: 1995-2000. Canadian Issues, Winter, 93-98. Lyneham, M., & Chan. A. (2013). Deaths in custody in Australia to 30 June 2011 Twenty years of monitoring by the National Deaths in Custody Program since the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody. Retrieved from https://aic.gov.au/publications/mr/mr20 MacDermott, K. (2008). Whatever Happened to ‘Frank and Fearless’? The Impact of New Public Management on the Australian Public Services. Canberra, ANU Press. Maddison, S. (2012). Evidence and contestation in the Indigenous policy domain: Voice, ideology and institutional inequality. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 71(3):269-277. Maddison, S., & Denniss, R. (2013). An Introduction to Australian Public Policy Theory and Practice (2nd ed.), Port Melbourne: Cambridge University Press. Maitlis, S. (2005). The social processes of organizational sensemaking. The Academy of Management Journal, 48(1), 21-49.

110 Problematising the wickedness of ‘disadvantage’ in Australian Indigenous Affairs policy

Marchetti, E. (2012). Victims or offenders: Who were the 11 Indigenous female prisoners who died in custody and were investigated by the Australian Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody? International Review of Victimology, 19(1), 37-49. Markus, A. (2014). Attitudes to immigration and cultural diversity in Australia. Journal of Sociology, 50(1), 10-22. Marshall, C., & Rossman, G. B. (2011). Designing Qualitative Research (5th ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications. Martin, K. (2003). Ways of knowing, being and doing: A theoretical framework and methods for Indigenous and Indigenist re-search. Journal of Australian Studies, 76, 203-214. Martin, S. (2015, March 12). Tony Abbott opens gap with indigenous community. The Australian. Retrieved from https://www.theaustralian.com.au/national- affairs/indigenous/tony-abbott-opens-gap-with-indigenous-community/news- story/cd14525d8520f841da04d9754fdd9d04 Max, K. (2005). Anti-colonial research: Working as an ally with Aboriginal peoples. In G. J. S. Dei & G. S. Johal (Eds.), Critical Issues in Anti-racist Research Methodologies, (pp.79 - 94). New York: Peter Lang. McCall, R., & Burge, J. (2016). Untangling wicked problems. Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing: AI EDAM, 30(2), 200- 210. McCallum, K. (2011). Journalism and Indigenous health policy. Australian Aboriginal Studies, 2, 21-31. McCallum, K., & Waller, L. (2013). The intervention of media power in Indigenous policy-making. Media International Australia, 149, 139-149. McDougall, S. (2002). ‘A certain commonality’: Discriminating against the discriminated in the compensation of Queensland's underpaid workers. Indigenous Law Bulletin, 5(14), 11-14. McKay, J., & Devlin, M. (2016). ‘Low income doesn't mean stupid and destined for failure’: Challenging the deficit discourse around students from low SES backgrounds in higher education. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 20(4), 347-363.

Problematising the wickedness of ‘disadvantage’ in Australian Indigenous Affairs policy 111 McKendrick, J.H., & Thorpe, M. (1998). The legacy of colonisation: Trauma, loss and psychological distress amongst Aboriginal People. Grief Matters, September, 4-8. McMahon, C. T. (2015). The pages of whiteness: Theory, evidence, and the American immigration debate. Institute of Race Relations, 56(4), 40-55. Milner IV, H. R. (2007). Race, Culture, and Researcher Positionality: Working Through Dangers Seen, Unseen, and Unforeseen. Educational Researcher, 36(7), 388-400. Moreton-Robinson, A. (2004). Whitening Race: Essays in Social and Cultural Criticism. Canberra: Aboriginal Studies Press. Moreton-Robinson, A. (2009). Imagining the good indigenous citizen: Race War and the Pathology of Patriarchal White Sovereignty. Cultural Studies Review, 15(2), 61-79. Museum of Australian Democracy (MoAD). (n.d.a). Governor Phillip’s Instructions 25 April 1787 (UK). Australian Government. Retrieved August 6, 2018, from https://www.foundingdocs.gov.au/resources/transcripts/nsw2_doc_1787.pdf Museum of Australian Democracy (MoAD). (n.d.b). Pacific Island Labourers Act 1901 - transcript. Australian Government. Retrieved August 6, 2018, from www.foundingdocs.gov.au/resources/transcripts/cth4i_doc_1901.pdf Museum of Australian Democracy (MoAD). (n.d.c). Immigration Restriction Act 1901. Australian Government. Retrieved August 6, 2018 from www.foundingdocs.gov.au/resources/transcripts/cth4ii_doc_1901a.pdf Museum of Australian Democracy (MoAD). (n.d.d). Aboriginals Protection and Restriction of Sale of Opium Act 1897 (Qld). Australian Government. Retrieved August 6, 2018, from https://www.foundingdocs.gov.au/resources/transcripts/qld5_doc_1897.pdf Nakata, M. (2004). Torres Strait: Commonsense, colonialism and government. In R. Davis (Ed), Woven Histories Dancing Lives Torres Strait Islander Identity, Culture and History (pp. 154-173). Canberra: Aboriginal Studies Press. National Archives of Australia (NAA). (n.d.). Australia’s Prime Ministers. Attorney General’s Department. Retrieved August 25, 2018, from http://primeministers.naa.gov.au/primeministers/ National Congress of Australia’s First Peoples (NCAFP). (2016). The Redfern Statement. Retrieved from http://nationalcongress.com.au/redfern-statement/ 112 Problematising the wickedness of ‘disadvantage’ in Australian Indigenous Affairs policy

National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC). (2003). Values and Ethics: Guidelines for Ethical Conduct in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Health Research. Retrieved from www.nhmrc.gov.au/guidelines/publications/e52 National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC). (2018). National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research - Updated 2018. Retrieved from www.nhmrc.gov.au/guidelines-publications/e72 Nguyen, H.T. (2008). Patient centred care: Cultural safety in indigenous health. Australian Family Physician, 37(12), 990-994. Nguyen, O. K., & Cairney, S. (2013). Literature review of the interplay between education, employment, health and wellbeing for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in remote areas. Working towards an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander wellbeing framework. Cooperative Research Centre for Remote Economic Participation Working Paper CW013. Ninti One Limited, Alice Springs. Northern Territory Board of Inquiry into the Protection of Aboriginal Children from Sexual Abuse (NTBIPACSA). (2007). Ampe Akelyernemane Meke Mekarle: Little Children are Sacred Report. Retrieved from www.inquirysaac.nt.gov.au/pdf/bipacsa_final_report.pdf O’Connor, A. (2015, March 24) Leaked document reveals 192 WA Aboriginal communities deemed unsustainable in 2010. ABC News. Retrieved from www.abc.net.au/news/2015-03-24/federal-review-reveals-192-communities- deemed-unsustainable/6343570 O’Donoghue, L. (1997) In Indigenous Affairs nothing is new, just forgotten. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 56(4), 5-10. Office of Parliamentary Counsel. (n.d.). Native Title Act 1993. Australian Government. Retrieved August 25, 2018, from https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C2017C00178 Omma, L., Jacobsson, L., & Petersen, S. (2012). The health of young Swedish Sami with special reference to mental health. International Journal of Circumpolar Health, 71(1). Orwell, G. (1946). Politics and the English Language. Horizon Magazine, April. Retrieved from http://www.orwell.ru/library/essays/politics/english/e_polit

Problematising the wickedness of ‘disadvantage’ in Australian Indigenous Affairs policy 113 Osborne, N., & Grant-Smith, D. (2017). Constructing the cycling citizen: A critical analysis of policy imagery in Brisbane, Australia. Journal of Transport Geography, 64, 44-53. Paradies, Y. (2016). Colonisation, racism and indigenous health. Journal of Population Research, 33(1), 83-96. Parter, C. (2005). Cultural dimensions in policy development: A case study, the NSW Aboriginal Justice Plan. Public Administration Today, July-October, 4- 8. Pearlman, J. (2015, March 11) Fury as Australia's Abbott calls Aboriginal communities a 'lifestyle choice'. The Telegraph. Retrieved from https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/australiaandthepacific/australia /11463264/Fury-as-Australias-Abbott-calls-Aboriginal-communities-a- lifestyle-choice.html Peters, B.G. (2017) What is so wicked about wicked problems? A conceptual analysis and a research program. Policy & Society, 36(3), 385-396. Phillips, J., & Lampert, J. (2012). Introductory Indigenous Studies in Education. Reflection and the Importance of Knowing. (2nd ed.). Frenches Forest, NSW: Pearson Education Australia. Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J.-Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879-903. Porter, L., & Barry, J. (2015). Bounded recognition: Urban planning and the textual mediation of Indigenous rights in Canada and Australia. Critical Policy Studies, 9(1), 22-40. PricewaterhouseCooper. (2017). Indigenous Incarceration: Unlock the Facts. Retrieved from www.pwc.com.au/indigenous-consulting/assets/indigenous- incarceration-may17.pdf Prins, G., Galiana, I., Green, C., Grundmann, R., Hulme, M., Korhola, A., Laird, F., Nordhaus, T., Pielke Jnr, R., Rayner, S., Sarewitz, D., Shellenberger, M., Stehr, N., &Tezuka, H. (2010). The Hartwell Paper: A New Direction for Climate Policy After the Crash of 2009. Paper from a meeting convened at Hartwell House, United Kingdom late 2009: 1-42. Retrieved from https://eprints.lse.ac.uk/27939/1/HartwellPaper_English_version.pdf

114 Problematising the wickedness of ‘disadvantage’ in Australian Indigenous Affairs policy

Proudfoot, F., & Habibis, D. (2015). Separate worlds: A discourse analysis of mainstream and Aboriginal populist media accounts of the Northern Territory Emergency Response in 2007. Journal of Sociology, 5(2), 170-188. Queensland Government. (2017). Welcome to Country. Retrieved from https://www.qld.gov.au/atsi/cultural-awareness-heritage-arts/welcome-to- country Queensland Stolen Wages Reparations Taskforce. (2016) Queensland Stolen Wages Reparations Taskforce Report Reconciling Past Injustice. Retrieved from https://www.qld.gov.au/atsi/documents/having-your-say/reparations- scheme/stolen-wages-taskforce-report-web.pdf Queensland University of Technology (QUT). (2018). Oodgeroo Unit. Retrieved from https://www.qut.edu.au/about/oodgeroo Ray, L. (2012). Deciphering the ‘Indigenous’ in Indigenous methodologies. AlterNative: An International Journal of Indigenous Peoples, 8(1), 85-98. Reddel, T. (2016). Serious Whitefella stuff: When solutions become the problem in Indigenous Affairs, Mark Moran. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 75(4), 515-516. Referendum Council. (2017). Final Report of the Referendum Council. Retrieved from https://www.referendumcouncil.org.au/final-report#toc-anchor-11-the- referendum-council Reid, T. (2015). Recognising Symbolism: Why a republic is part of the resolution. Indigenous Law Bulletin, 8(18), 15-16. Renzetti, C. M., & Lee, R. M. (1993). Researching Sensitive Topics. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications. Rigney, L.I. (1999). Internationalisation of an Indigenous anti-colonial cultural critique of research methodologies: A guide to Indigenist research methodology and its principles. WICAZO SA Review: Journal of Native American Studies, 14(2), 109-121. Rittel, H.J., & Webber, M.M. (1973), Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences, 4, 155-169. Robertson, K., Hohmann, J., & Stewart, I. (2005). Dictating to one of ‘us’: The migration of Mrs Freer. Macquarie Law Journal, 5, 241-275. Royal Commission and Board of Inquiry into the Protection and Detention of Children in the Northern Territory (RCBIPDCNT). (2017). Report of Royal

Problematising the wickedness of ‘disadvantage’ in Australian Indigenous Affairs policy 115 Commission and Board of Enquiry into the Protection and Detention of Children in the Northern Territory. Australian Government. Retrieved from https://childdetentionnt.royalcommission.gov.au/Documents/Royal- Commission-NT-Final-Report-Volume-3A.pdf. Sanders, W. (2010). Ideology, evidence and competing principles in Australian Indigenous Affairs: From Brough to Rudd via Pearson and the NTER. Australian Journal of Social Issues, 45(3), 307-331. Sarra, C. (2015). Senate Occassional Lecture – Dr Chris Sarra. Retrieved from http://parlview.aph.gov.au/mediaPlayer.php?videoID=283153#/3 Sayer, A. (2000). Realism and Social Science. London: SAGE. Scarr, L., and wires. (2015, March 11). Tony Abbott tells indigenous Australians taxpayers can’t fund their life style choices. News.com.au. Retrieved from https://www.news.com.au/national/tony-abbott-tells-indigenous-australians- taxpayers-cant-fund-their-lifestyle-choices/news- story/5181e28d07b1b6b7b32aa96dc7cee84e Schneider, A., & Ingram, H. (1993). Social construction of target populations: Implications for politics and policy. The American Political Science Review, 87(2), 334-347. Schofield, T., Sebastian, T., Donelly, M., & Anderson, C. (2015). Tobacco use among Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander high school students: Understanding 'the social' and the effects of indigeneity. Australian Aboriginal Studies, 2, 46-57. Schwartz-Shea, P., & Yanow, D. (2012). Interpretive Research Design: Concepts and Processes. New York, NY: Routledge. Seale, C. (2004). Qualitative Research Practice. London: SAGE. Shapiro, S. (2014). “Words that you said got bigger”: English language learners’ lived experiences of deficit discourse. Research in the Teaching of English 48(4), 386-406. Sheehan, N. W. (2011). Indigenous knowledge and respectful design: An evidence- based approach. Design Issues, 27(4), 68-80. Sherman, J., & Peterson, G. (2009). Finding the win in wicked problems: Lessons from evaluating public policy advocacy. The Foundation Review, 1(3), 87-99. Smith, L.T. (1999), Decolonising Methodologies: Research and Indigenous Peoples. (2nd ed.), London: Zed Books. 116 Problematising the wickedness of ‘disadvantage’ in Australian Indigenous Affairs policy

State Library of Queensland (SLQ). (2016a). Australian South Sea Islanders. Retrieved from http://www.slq.qld.gov.au/showcase/ASSI. State Library of Queensland (SLQ). (2016b). Queensland Legislation. Retrieved from www.slq.qld.gov.au/resources/atsi/community-history/qld-legislation. Steering Committee for the Review of Government Service Provision (SCRGSP). (2014). Overcoming Indigenous Disadvantage: Key Indicators 2014, Overview. Productivity Commission, Canberra. Steering Committee for the Review of Government Service Provision (SCRGSP). (2017). 2017 Indigenous Expenditure Report. Productivity Commission, Canberra. Stephenson, P. (2003). New cultural scripts: Exploring the dialogue between indigenous and Asian’ Australians. Journal of Australian Studies, 27(77), 57- 68. Stratton, J. (2006). Social identities: Two rescues, one history - Everyday racism in Australia. Social Identities: Journal for the Study of Race, Nation & Culture, 12(6), 657-681. Tangihaere, T. M., & Twiname, L. (2011). Providing space for Indigenous knowledge. Journal of Management Education, 35(1), 102-118. Tedmanson, D., & Wadiwel, D. (2010). Neoptolemus: The governmentality of new race/pleasure wars? Culture and Organization, 16(1), 7-22. The Guardian. (March 20, 2015). Colin Barnett links closure of remote Aboriginal communities to child abuse. Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2015/mar/20/colin-barnett- links-closure-of-remote-aboriginal-communities-to-child-abuse Thompson, S. (2007). 1901 Immigration Restriction Act. Retrieved from http://www.migrationheritage.nsw.gov.au/exhibition/objectsthroughtime/imm igration-restriction-act/index.html Turnbull, N., & Hoppe, R. (2018). Problematizing ‘wickedness’: A critique of the wicked problems concept, from philosophy to practice. Policy & Society, online ahead of print, 1-23. Turner, P. (1997). Public policy in Indigenous Affairs: No miraculous solutions. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 56(2), 3-11.

Problematising the wickedness of ‘disadvantage’ in Australian Indigenous Affairs policy 117 Valencia, R.R. (1997). The evolution of deficit thinking: Educational thought and practice. In Valencia, R.R. (Ed.), The Stanford Series on Education and Public Policy. Oxon: RoutledgeFalmer. Van Hulst, M. J., & Yanow, D. (2016). From policy ‘frames’ to ‘framing’: Theorizing a more dynamic, political approach. The American Review of Public Administration, 46(1), 92-112. Vivan, A. (2010). The NTER redesign consultation process: Not very special. Australian Indigenous Law Review, 14(1), 46-70. Walker, K.L. (2011), Deficit thinking and the effective teacher. Education and Urban Society, 43, 576-597. Walker, P. (2003). Colonising research: Academia's structural violence towards indigenous peoples. Social Alternatives, 22(3), 37-40. Walsh, M. (2001). Aboriginal languages since 1788. In J. Jupp (Ed) The Australian People: An Encyclopedia of the Nation, Its People and Their Origins. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. (pp. 93-97). Warhol, L. (2011). Native American language education as policy-in-practice: An interpretative policy analysis of the Native American Languages Act of 1990/1992. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 14(3), 279-299. Wexler, M. N. (2009). Exploring the moral dimension of wicked problems. International Journal of Sociology & Social Policy, 29(9/10), 531-542. Wheeler-Jones, C., Howlett, C., Seini, M., & Burns, G. L. (2015). Media constructions of Aboriginality: Implications for engagement with coal seam gas development in Australia. Australian Geographer, 46(2), 165–181. White, N. (2010). Indigenous Australian women’s leadership: Stayin’ strong against the post-colonial tide. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 13(1), 7-25. White, M, & Gooda, M. (2017). Report of the Royal Commission and Board of Inquiry into the Protection and Detention of Children in the Northern Territory. Retrieved from https://childdetentionnt.royalcommission.gov.au/Pages/Report.aspx#_Read Wilson, S. (2001). What is Indigenous research methodology? Canadian Journal of Native Education, 25(2), 175-179. Withers, Erik T. (2017). Whiteness and culture. Sociology Compass, 11(4), 1-11. 118 Problematising the wickedness of ‘disadvantage’ in Australian Indigenous Affairs policy

Yang, D. Y. (2015). Policing Indigenous Australians in the Northern Territory: Implications of the ‘Paperless Arrest’. Indigenous Law Bulletin, 8(8), 21-25. Yanow, D. (2000). Conducting Interpretive Policy Analysis. Thousand Oaks: Sage. Yanow, D. (2007). Interpretation in policy analysis: On methods and practice. Critical Policy Studies, 1(1), 110-122. Yanow, D. (2009). Ways of knowing: Passionate humility and reflective practice in research and management. American Review of Public Administration, 39(6), 579-601. Yanow, D. (2011). Conducting Interpretive Policy Analysis. Thousand Oaks: Sage. Yanow, D. (2015). Constructing ‘Race’ and ‘Ethnicity’ in America: Category Making in Public Policy and Administration. New York, NY: Routledge. Yanow, D., & Haar, M.van der. (2013). People out of place: Allochthony and autochthony in the Netherlands' identity discourse - metaphors and categories in action. Journal of International Relations and Development, 16(2), 227- 261. Zikmund, W.G., Babin, B.J., Carr, J.C., & Griffin, M. (2012). Business Research Methods (9th ed.). Boston: Cengage Learning US.

Problematising the wickedness of ‘disadvantage’ in Australian Indigenous Affairs policy 119 Appendices

APPENDIX A: POLICY AND PROGRAM TIMELINE

Year Policy type Policy title & author 1987 Legislation Aboriginals Protection and Restriction of the Sale of Opium Act 1897 (Qld) Queensland Government 1901 Legislation Constitution of Australia Australian Government 1901 Legislation Immigration Restriction Act 1901 (Cth) Australian Government 1901 Legislation Pacific Island Labourers Act 1901 (Cth) Australian Government 1901– Policies White Australia policies 1975 Governments of Australia 1967 Legislation 1967 Referendum (allowing for Indigenous Australians to be counted in the census) Australian Government 1975 Legislation Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth) Australian Government 1991 Report Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody Recommendatio Australian Government ns 1992 Government COAG established Body Governments of Australia 1992 Legislation Mabo Decision Australian Government 1992 Speech Redfern Speech Prime Minister Paul Keating 1993 Legislation Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) Australian Government 1995 Report National Inquiry into the Separation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Children from Their Families established in 1995 Northern Territory 1997 Report Bringing Them Home. Report of the National Inquiry into the Separation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Children from

their Families (1997) Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission

120 Problematising the wickedness of ‘disadvantage’ in Australian Indigenous Affairs policy

Year Policy type Policy title & author 1998 Report Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Women’s Taskforce on Violence Queensland Government 1999 Government / Protocols for consultation and negotiation with Aboriginal people Community Mina Mir Lo Ailan Mun: Proper communication with Torres Strait Guidelines Islander people Queensland Government 1999 Policy Under Award Wages payments Queensland Government 2000 Policy Queensland Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Justice Agreement Queensland Government 2000 Policy / Program Towards a Queensland Government and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Ten Year Partnership 2000-2011 Queensland Government 2001 Report Cape York Justice Study Queensland Government 2002 Policy Indigenous Wages and Savings Reparations 2015 Queensland Government 2002 Government Queensland Government Champion Program Program Queensland Government 2002 Policy Meeting Challenges, Making Choices. The Queensland Government’s Response to the Cape York Justice Study

Queensland Government 2002 Legislation Tackling Alcohol Issues in Indigenous Communities: The Indigenous Communities Liquor Licences Bill 2002 (Qld)

The Community Services Legislation Amendment Bill 2002 (Qld) Queensland Government 2004 Policy / Program Partnerships Queensland: The Way Forward for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Queenslanders (2004) Queensland Government 2006 Report Response to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commissioner’s Social Justice Report 2005 Oxfam 2007 Report Indigenous Expenditure Report commissioned by COAG Australian Government 2007 Campaign Closing the Gap launched Aboriginal, Torres Strait Islander and non-Indigenous health bodies, health professional bodies and human rights organisations 2007 Report Ampe Akelyernemane Meke Mekarle: Little Children are Sacred Northern Territory Government 2007 Policy Northern Territory National Emergency Response Act 2007 (Cth) Australian Government

Problematising the wickedness of ‘disadvantage’ in Australian Indigenous Affairs policy 121 Year Policy type Policy title & author 2007 Report From Hand Out to Hand Up Cape York Institute 2007 International United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Framework United Nations 2008 Policy COAG - Closing the Gap on Indigenous Disadvantage Australian Government 2008 Hansard Federal Government Apology Australian Government 2008 Policy / Program Cape York Welfare Reform Trial (response to From Hand Out to Hand Up) Australian and Queensland Governments and Cape York Institute for Policy and Leadership 2008 Strategy Australian Employment Covenant Andrew Forrest 2009 International Support for the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Framework Indigenous Peoples Australian Government 2010 Legislation Acknowledgement of First Australians as first Queenslanders in The Queensland Constitution in 2010 Queensland Government Twenty Years of Monitoring Since the Royal Commission into 2011 Report Aboriginal Deaths in Custody: An Overview by the Australian Institute of Criminology

Australian Government 2011 Inquiry/Report Doing Time – Time For Doing: Indigenous Youth In The Criminal Justice System Australian Government 2012 Australian Tackling Wicked Problems – A Public Policy Perspective Government Australian Government paper

2014 Strategy / Indigenous Advancement Strategy Program Australian Government 2014 Report The Forrest Review – Creating Parity Australian Government 2016 Report Review of Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody Australian Government 2016 Public Statement Redfern Statement National Congress of Australia’s First Peoples 2016 Inquiry Royal Commission into Child Protection and Youth Detention Systems in the Northern Territory Australian Government

122 Problematising the wickedness of ‘disadvantage’ in Australian Indigenous Affairs policy

Year Policy type Policy title & author 2017 Report Indigenous Incarceration: Unlock The Facts PricewaterHouse Cooper 2017 Discussion Paper Incarceration Rates of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples Australian Law Reform Commission 2017 Public Statement Uluru Statement from the Heart First Nations National Constitutional Convention

Problematising the wickedness of ‘disadvantage’ in Australian Indigenous Affairs policy 123 APPENDIX B: AUSTRALIA’S PRIME MINISTERS REFERRED TO IN THIS RESEARCH.

Prime Minister Term of Office Political Party Harold Holt 1966 – 1967 Liberal (Coalition) Gough Whitlam 1972 – 1975 Australian Labor Party Bob Hawke 1983 – 1991 Australian Labor Party Paul Keating 1991 – 1996 Australian Labor Party John Howard 1996 – 2007 Liberal (Coalition) Kevin Rudd 2007 – 2010; 2013 Australian Labor Party Tony Abbott 2013 – 2015 Liberal (Coalition) Malcolm Turnbull 2015 – Liberal (Coalition)

(source: National Archives of Australia (http://primeministers.naa.gov.au/primeministers/)

124 Problematising the wickedness of ‘disadvantage’ in Australian Indigenous Affairs policy

APPENDIX C: INTERVIEW GUIDE

1 How would you characterise Indigenous disadvantage in Australia?

2 What do you think is the understanding of Indigenous disadvantage in the broader Australian community?

3 Do you think Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander policy development and implementation is dealing with Indigenous disadvantage in the best possible way? (Please explain your thoughts.)

4 In your view, do you feel Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander policy development and implementation is making Indigenous disadvantage better or worse? (Please explain your thoughts.)

5 What do you think is of particular concern with regards to Indigenous disadvantage and policy development and implementation?

6 How would you characterise the approach to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander policy development and implementation in Australia?

7 In your view, do you think there has been a shift over time to the approach taken by government with regards to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander policy development and implementation? (Why?)

8 In your view, are there any strategies unique to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander policy development and implementation? (Please explain why you think this?)

9 In your experience, who is typically involved in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander policy development and implementation and how influential are they in determining policy outcomes?

10 In your view, was anyone missing from Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander policy development and implementation, and did it make a difference to the policy outcome? (Please explain your thoughts.)

Problematising the wickedness of ‘disadvantage’ in Australian Indigenous Affairs policy 125