INDIGENOUS POLICY PERCEPTIONS: AN ANALYSIS OF PARLIAMENTARY HANSARD FROM 1961-2012

Juliet Checketts

Social Anthropology PhD student

METHOD

Immersed reading and critical analysis of parliamentary debates:

Assimilation policy: 20th April 1961 House of Representatives

Northern Territory Emergency Response: 7th August 2007 House of Representatives 13th, 14th, 15th,16th August 2007 Senate

Stronger Futures: 27th February 2012 House of Representatives 21st March, 9th May, 28th June 2012 Senate

PERCEPTIONS IN PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES

Culture has negative/barrier aspects to it

Cultural difference, is problematic and must be eliminated or modified.

Ideas of the ‘good life’

Ultimately of western orientation including values, beliefs, and norms.

Perceptions establish a ‘Regime of Truth’: a discourse that is spoken of as fact and represented at ‘truth’.

PERCEPTION 1: DIFFERENCE AND A NEGATIVE BARRIER CULTURE

1961: Cultural difference

seen as ignorance and naivety.

Polices would lead to absorption into settler society and disappearance of aberrant culture.

2007 and 2012: Cultural difference

blamed for causing crime, disorder, and dysfunction.

Culture vilified, denied of worth, recognition, and respect.

Policies will alter behaviour and lead to incorporation into mainstream society.

CULTURAL BARRIERS IN 2007/2012

Cultural practices, such as ‘sorry business’ Language; inability to speak English Geographical isolation/separation Culture ‘cloaks’ (prevents) people from

realising their true desires Culture contributes to a sense of

‘hopelessness’

PERCEPTION 2: THE ‘GOOD LIFE’

It is an vision for Indigenous Australian futures. It is founded on western cultural norms and

values; it is achieved when these flourish. The version of the ‘good life’ is not challenged nor

questioned; there is no alternative. Remote indigenous living is its antithesis

Examples: 1961: policy would lead to proper, decent,

productive, and ‘happy’ lives 2007/2012: policy will develop communities along

mainstream township/city norms and values, thus the ‘good life’ will naturally follow.

PERCEPTIONS AS REGIMES OF TRUTH

Is not universal, it is temporal and culturally specific; a construct of the society that produces it.

Is identifiable, able to be seen and observed in daily life

Does not pre-exist, rather, new knowledge or truth comes into ‘existence’ because there is a change or transformation in what people decide will be considered ‘truth’ at different moments in time.

Marks a new era consisting of knowledge that is recognised, accepted and acted upon as being ‘true’

Are present in every society There are certain ways to

decide what it will include/exclude. As well as specific people who hold a status to decide this and identify it.

It is authorised by someone as being ‘truth’

Use of particular methods and techniques to gather information

Truth Regime of Truth

INDIGENOUS POLICY REGIMES OF TRUTH

Parliamentarians distinguish and define what truth is/ is not.

They are the authorities on ‘truth’, often only needing to site personal experiences as evidence to legitimate their claims.

What counts as ‘true’ is their perceptions of indigenous people, communities, and culture; and/or,

Other selected authorities’ that match their own ideas such as Noel Pearson and Warren Mundine (cited often), whilst other evidence is silenced, for example most anthropological scholarship.

SUMMARY

Regimes of Truth can resurface in Indigenous policy debates

Perceptions of Aboriginality are articulated and presented as ‘truths’:

1. Culture as a negative barrier2. Policy will enable the ‘good life’ to flourish