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 ...............................................................................................................