Australian Indigenous Policy in the Neoliberal Age: Reassessing ‘Indigenous’ Responsibility Paul J. Dornan A thesis submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Faculty of Health, Arts and Design Swinburne University of Technology 2020 Declaration By Author To the best of my knowledge, this thesis contains no material that has previously been published by any other person except without due acknowledgement being made. This thesis contains no material which has been accepted for the award of any other degree or diploma in any university. Signed: Paul Dornan 2 Statement of Contributions to Jointly Authored Works Contained in the Thesis No jointly-authored works Statement of Contributions by Others to the thesis as a Whole No contributions by others Statement of Parts of the thesis Submitted to Qualify for the Award of Another Degree None Published Works by the Author Incorporated into the Thesis None Additional Published Works by the Author Relevant to the Thesis but not Forming Part of it None 3 Acknowledgments I would first like to acknowledge my supervising team including associate supervisor Katya Pechenkina, for her support and helpful suggestions. Special thanks must go to my primary supervisor Lorenzo Veracini. When I decided to undertake my PhD studies I had a project like this in mind. I looked Australia-wide for the ‘right’ supervisor. Someone who had the expertise and the standing to ensure this project would be all it could be. Lorenzo has exceeded my expectations and I remain indebted to him. I would also like to acknowledge my mother Kath Coxon and other family members for their love and support throughout the journey. I have also been fortunate to have the ear of a very dear friend, Kevani Moynihan. I thank her for being such a wonderful sounding board. Finally, thanks to Eddie of Katherine, who inspired this project. Thank you for showing me the way! 4 Abstract A neoliberal paradigm has shaped Australian Government Indigenous policy over the last twenty-five years. Neoliberal policy proscriptions are one part of a wider dialectic of domination that shapes indigenous/settler relations within Australia. This dialectic includes hegemonic processes of social and material domination, resulting in the imposition of a narrative that focuses on ‘responsibility’, imposes neoliberal economics, and apportions ‘blame’ for disadvantage on Indigenous communities through an agreement-making regime that relies on ‘consent’ to appropriate Indigenous cultural identity. This neoliberal notion of responsibility hampers and restricts possibilities for genuine reconciliation because it perpetuates a settler-colonial logic and heralds the triumph of settler cultural identity, a prospect that requires the demise of Indigenous autonomies. The colonization of these autonomies is here explored through case-study analysis of the Noongar Agreement in Western Australia and the Victorian treaty process. In these processes neoliberal responsibility as accountability is used to transform the Indigenous estate. This is resisted by some Indigenous peoples. This thesis explores how Indigenous resistance to neoliberal logics constitutes ‘decolonising’ practices that facilitate an Indigenous reclamation of a diverse ‘responsibility’ through the articulation of an unsurrendered Indigenous alterity. These responses are premised on a self-affirmation that promotes an emancipatory Indigenous process of self-determination. This project challenges neoliberal ideologies by emphasizing Indigenous expressions of self-identity, what it sees as an Indigenous reclamation of ‘responsibility’. It also highlights the settler state’s failure to fulfill its responsibility to Indigenous peoples. Genuine decolonization processes challenge the ‘practical reconciliation’ orthodoxy that has dominated political discourse over the last twenty-five years. To promote decolonization, this project uses a qualitative case-study analysis to highlight the limitations of neoliberal Indigenous policy and to inform a more inclusive approach to reconciliation through the promotion of a differentiated citizenship model. This model formalizes Indigenous alterity in policy and in a series of clan-based treaties that recognize Indigenous sovereignty. 5 Keywords Differentiated citizenship, governmentality, hybridity, Indigenous peoples, Indigenous estate, Indigenous policy, neoliberalism, Noongar, reconciliation, resilience, resistance, responsibility, settler colonialism, sovereignty. Australian and New Zealand Standard Research Classification (ANZSRC) GROUP 2103 HISTORICAL STUDIES: 33% GROUP 1606 POLITICAL SCIENCE: 33% GROUP 1605: POLICY AND ADMINISTRATION: 33% 6 TABLE OF CONTENTS List of Abbreviations 11 Prologue 12 1. INTRODUCTION 14 1.1 Research Questions 18 1.2 Context 18 1.2.1 The Indigenous Estate 18 1.2.2 Ascendant Neoliberalism 19 1.2.3 Australian Indigenous Public Policy: From Rights to Responsibility 19 1.2.3.1 Australian Indigenous Policy and ‘Consent’ 23 1.3 Conceptual Framework 23 1.3.1 Dialectic of Domination 24 1.3.2 Settler/Indigenous Interaction and Hybrid ‘Third’ Spaces 25 1.3.2.1 Third Spaces: The Risk of Appropriation 27 1.3.2.2 Hybrid Alternatives: The Risk of Appropriation 29 1.3.2.3 Hybridity as Indigenous Emancipation 30 1.3.3 Settler Colonialism and Structures of Power 31 1.3.4 Resistance and the Decolonising Process 33 1.3.4.1 Relationality 33 1.3.4.2 Victimhood 34 1.3.4.3 Decolonisation and Reconciliation 35 1.3.4.4 White (Settler) Possession 35 1.3.5 Practical Reconciliation: Responsibility over Rights 36 1.3.5.1 Meaningful Reconciliation: Grappling with Colonial Injury 38 1.3.6 Indigenous Sovereignty: The Human Rights Model 39 1.3.6.1 Indigenous Sovereignty: A Differentiated Citizenship Response 44 1.3.6.2 Treaty 44 1.4 Methodology 47 1.4.1 Method s 48 1.4.1.1 Textual Analysis 48 1.4.1.2 Case-Studies 49 1.5 Limitations 50 1.6 Chapter Outline 51 2. NEOLIBERALISM 54 2.1 Neoliberal Thought: 1920–1972 55 2.1.1 Neoliberal Theory 55 2.1.2 Neoliberal Organisations 58 2.2 Neoliberalism, 1971–1979: Protecting Global Elites 59 2.3.3 Neoliberalism since 1979: The Spread of Free Market Capitalism 60 2.3.1. Globalisation 60 2.3.1 Technological Advances 62 2.3.2 The Neoliberalisation of World Politics in the Anglophone World 62 2.3.2.1 The United States 64 2.3.2.2 Canada 67 2.3.2.3 Australia 69 2.3.2.4 New Zealand 71 2.2 Conclusion 75 7 3. NEOLIBERALISM IN AUSTRALIAN INDIGENOUS POLICY 77 3.1 The Settlement Era 79 3.1.1 Dispossession 80 3.1.2 Protection 81 3.1.3 Assimilation 83 3.1.4 Integration 84 3.1.5 Settlement and Land 87 3.2 Neoliberal Transition 87 3.2.1 Transitioning to Neoliberal Indigenous Policy: Hawke/Keating to Howard 88 3.2.2 Questions of Sovereignty 91 3.2.3 Native Title 91 3.2.3.1 Native Title as a Function of Settler Hegemony 92 3.2.3.2 Native Title Amendments 94 3.2.4 Treaty 95 3.2.4.1 Howard’s Treaty: ‘No Deal’ 95 3.2.5 Representation 96 3.2.5.1 Hawke/Keating and Consent: ATSIC 96 3.2.5.2 Howard’s dismantling of ATSIC 96 3.3 Settler Responsibility: Response to Resistance 98 3.3.1 The Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody 98 3.3.2 The Apology to the Stolen Generations 99 3.4 Neoliberal Indigenous ‘Responsibility’: Evaluation, Intervention, Negotiation 101 3.4.1 Closing the Gap 101 3.4.2 The NT Intervention 104 3.4.3 Agreement-Making 109 3.4.3.1 A Brief History of ILUAs 112 3.4.3.2 Agreement-Making and Settler Colonialism 114 3.5 Reconstituting Reconciliation 114 3.6 Current Indigenous Policy 117 3.7 Conclusion 119 4. THE NOONGAR NATIVE TITLE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT 121 4.1 Structure of the Noongar Agreement 122 4.1.1 History 122 4.1.2 Administrative Accountability 125 4.1.2.1 Six Regional Corporations and the Noongar Boodja Trust 125 4.1.2.2 Land Development and Indigeneity 127 4.1.3 Participation through Partnerships 128 4.2 Representation, Land Use Agreements and the Agreement-Making Regime 131 4.2.1 Representation 131 4.2.1.1 The South West Aboriginal Land and Sea Council 131 4.2.2 The Noongar Agreement as six individual Land use Agreements 136 4.2.3 Agreement-Making Regime, Structural Imbalance and Reciprocity 139 4.2.4 Settler Colonial Implications of Agreement-Making in a ‘Third’ Space 140 4.3 Identity: Resistance as Assertion of Indigenous Responsibility 142 4.5 Conclusion 145 5. TREATY AND RECOGNITION IN VICTORIA 147 5.1 History of Treaties within Australia 149 5.1.1 Treaty in Victoria 151 5.2 The Uluru Statement 153 8 5.2.1 The Uluru Statement and Differentiated Citizenship 154 5.2.2 Government Response to the Statement 155 5.3 Victorian Treaty: The Process 156 5.3.1 Treaty Defined 157 5.3.2 Representation: In Pursuit of a Homogenous Aboriginal Polity 157 5.3.2.1 Blueprint for an Aboriginal Representative Body 163 5.3.2.2 Community Reaction to the Model 166 5.3.3 ‘Fair’ Negotiation 168 5.3.3.1 Negotiations and Power 170 5.3.4 Settlement of Claim (Self-Determination) 171 5.4 Constitutional Recognition and Sovereignty in the Victorian Treaty Process 172 5.4.1 Treaty without Recognition? 173 5.4.1.1 All Treaties are Agreements, Yet not all Agreements are Treaties 174 5.5 Treaty as Agreement-Making: Neoliberalism Transforming the Indigenous Estate 175 5.5.1 Neoliberal Representation 176 5.5.2 Neoliberal Development 177 5.6 Constitutional Recognition: A Lesson from Victoria 181 5.7 Decolonisation: Addressing Colonial Power Structures 184 5.8 Conclusion 184 6. HYBRID SPACES, RESPONSIBILITY, RESISTANCE: REDEFINING THE PUBLIC SPACE 187 6.1 Universal Neoliberalism: Responsibility and the Transformation of Space 189 6.1.1 Neoliberal