KCP - Catholic Diocese of Broome

There have been a number of Shared Responsibility Agreements put in place between the Federal Government and individualIndigenous communities throughout Australia, a number of them in the Kimberley. The latest to come to light in the Kimberley is one with the Kalumburu community. It appears that this agreement involves the provision of breakfast to children in return for their attendance at school. The most publicised one involved the provision of a petrol bowser in Mulan in return for the children being showered daily and having their faces washed twice a day to reduce the incidence of glaucoma.

In a joint statement last December, Noel Pearson and Pat Dodson expressed their concern in relation to these Agreements and the potential they represented for altering the way that a group operates to fit in with Government policy. They warned:

"Social engineering" is unavoidable when governments attempt to
influence social and economic behaviour through their programs
and policies. Great caution needs to be exercised when social
engineering is proposed.

None of the issues involved in these agreements is simple. Children need to be taken care of; they need to have access to a basic education; parents need to play their part in encouraging their children to go to school – it is after all mandated by law. There is a definite need to address some of the apparent poor parenting practices that exist in some Indigenous communities. However, all care needs to be exercised in order that white middle class values and expectations of what is ‘good parenting’ are not imposed on another cultural group without a reasonable process of dialogue, discussion and an agreed set of basic principles.

Pearson and Dodson go on to make the following point:
It does not make sense to reward parents for doing something for which parents normally need not be rewarded. What message is the government sending: that if you look after your children, you will be rewarded? And when the rewards end or the incentives lose their attraction, can parents then revert to their previous
irresponsibility?

It also seems to be critical that there be some logical connection between the obligations expected on both sides of the agreement. Provision of the means to obtain fuel and ensuring family hygiene seem to have little logical connection.

Another group (Kim S Collard, Heather A D’Antoine, Dennis G Eggington, Barbara R Henry, Carol AMartin and Gavin H Mooney – in the Medical Journal of Australia, 12 April 2005) also have reservations about these agreements. Their concern is about
confusing the provision of what is a person’s due as a basic human right with discretionary Government generosity.

They say that ‘there are also human rights issues, and the need to avoid solutions that discriminate against Indigenous people. For example, it would be discriminatory if the “rewards” involved in mutual obligation agreements only provide Indigenous people with access to infrastructure that other Australians expect or take for granted (which, incidentally, is the case for petrol bowsers).’

With the intention to link these Agreements with changes to the provision of a revamped CDEP, it is high time for some honest brokering between Government and Indigenous communities; a role that the new National Indigenous Council might well be able to fill.