[csaa-forum] Howard's New Tampa

[l.gunders at uq.edu.au]

Hi all,

I too have listened to the speech and share John Tebbutt's concern.  
Having studied the discourses that Howard and his ministers rely on in  
relation to (white, mainstream) welfare, I'm inclined to think that  
Pearson is being naive in thinking that money taken away from the  
parents will be readily handed over to grandparents and other  
relatives that do have the children's interests at heart.

The other thing that struck me from listening to the speech was that,  
by Pearson's own admission, his family was one that had resilience and  
offered encouragement to its children. He seemed to be on much less  
certain ground when speaking about the need for dealing with the  
legacy of trauma over generations. Many adults who have been given  
coping strategies and encouragement while growing up, it seems to me,  
grossly underestimate the long-term psychological impact that comes  
from not having this advantage, particularly when ongoing poverty is  
an issue.

Lisa Gunders
PhD Candidate
University of Queensland

Quoting John Tebbutt:

I've listened to the speech and looked at the article but the more I see about the Pearson solution the more concerned I am about that it (especially his concept of a Family Commission ­ a new moral inquisition).

(For Pearson on the Cape York Institute report including a link to the  
report see: http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2007/s1956147.htm)

The role of "left progressives", could be worthwhile to explore  
although I'm wary of too much 'privileged' hand wringing. Ironically  
(inevitably) arguments about "moral superiority" are couched in moral  
terms (the 'children-at-risk' discourse is a classic example: "how can  
you talk politics and culture when children are being abused").

In regards to the current intervention first, for me, is the  
understanding that the Howard government has not advanced indigenous  
rights domestically or internationally. The record is appalling from  
Wik to the dismantling public institutions to indigenous development  
(replacing ATSIC with ATSIS and rolling indigenous issues into Family  
and Community Affairs). At the same time Howard's antipathy to the NT  
land rights act is well known.

So in assessing the recent intervention I sit with the cynical (which  
it seems includes many of the socially conservative see Melbourne's  
Herald-Sun:
http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,22000375-661,00.html).

I think it's legitimate to look at the politics of Pearson's support.  
The children-at-risk argument is never innocent even if we agree with  
its moral basis. And is this all there is? Pearson's 90% argument  
clearly stakes out a populist position while his constant exhortation  
to "get real" about issues resonates with Howard's own 'practical  
reconciliation'. And Pearson himself makes clear that this is an  
opportunity to push his solutions in Qld and NT.

In regards to these solutions I'd make two points:

1.I question practices such as conditionality on state payments to  
unemployed, carers, people with disabilities, remote communities. This  
is more often than not a regime of punishment (Centrelink's mutual  
obligation is a good example). Successful conditionality requires  
massive intervention and monitoring. I'm not convinced that it will,  
as Pearson has argued, empower indigenous elders.

2.We need to examine how the discourse of 'welfare dependency'  
psychologises social conditions. Cases of 'welfare dependency' can be  
documented but I doubt the concept can be generalised as a social  
condition which, in the end, tends to refuse 'remoteness' and other  
place-based conditions as sites of legitimate dwelling.