Skip to main content

Success and Failure in Australian Indigenous Policy: Moral Dynamics and Rhetorical Registers

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Public Policy and Indigenous Futures

Part of the book series: Indigenous-Settler Relations in Australia and the World ((ISRAW,volume 4))

  • 531 Accesses

Abstract

How are ideas of failure and success used in Australian Indigenous policy? This question came to me in 2007 when I heard a philanthropist, newly involved in Indigenous affairs, tell a simple success story. The ideas of rhetorical registers and moral dynamics helped me think about what was going on. As a more established participant and analyst of Indigenous affairs, I knew that this was a fragile success story at best, and that developments at the time threatened its continuation. But that was the last thing the philanthropist or his audience wanted to hear. They were in a rhetorical register of challenging Indigenous policy, and those of us associated with it, to do better. My reaction to this moral dynamic was to move discussion into a different, more calming rhetorical register, explaining what had been done in the past to arrive at this delicate fragile success story, as I understood it more deeply. I recognised that some other more established participants in Australian Indigenous affairs had made similar rhetorical moves in the policy debates of the previous year or three, since the Howard Government’s abolition of ATSIC as a failure in 2004–2005. Northern Territory Chief Minister, Clare Martin, for example, had produced a very clear instance of the calming rhetorical register in a speech in May 2006. In this paper I will recount in more detail these events and thoughts of 2007 and develop further these ideas of rhetorical registers and moral dynamics. Policy is by nature a future-oriented, aspirational activity, trying to make our social world better. So the presence of moral dynamics and rhetorical registers within policy debates using ideas of both failure and success should be expected and welcomed. But analytic understanding of how these dynamics and registers play out over time also needs to be developed, identifying both strengths and weaknesses of different moral and rhetorical positioning.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 129.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 129.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    A third aspect of my critique in 1991 was to call into question the ‘desirability’ and ‘appropriateness’ of pursuing ‘statistical equality’ between Aboriginal and other Australians as a policy goal. This possibly had echoes of the disowned 1960s policy of ‘assimilation’ in Australian Indigenous affairs, and sat somewhat uncomfortably with the ‘self-determination’ and ‘self-management’ policies of the 1970s and 1980s. This was particularly so for Indigenous people in remote areas who in the 1970s and 1980s were engaged in the ‘homelands’ movement (Sanders, 1991, p. 17).

  2. 2.

    One regional elected Indigenous representative body survived these legislative changes, the Torres Strait Regional Authority. More Torres Strait Islanders now live outside the region than in it, however, and the representative body for this diaspora, the Torres Strait Islanders Advisory Board was abolished along with the rest of ATSIC. How the TSRA avoided the ‘failure’ label is, to my knowledge, an untold story.

  3. 3.

    See Harry Scott. ‘Job creation and ‘mutual obligation’: Tapatjatjaka Community Government Council, Northern Territory’, in Morphy and Sanders (2001, pp. 207–208).

  4. 4.

    The Tapatjatjaka Community Government Council which ran this CDEP also disappeared in 2008, amalgamated into the new and much larger MacDonnell Shire as part of the Northern Territory Labor government’s gran plan for local government reform. See Sanders (2013).

  5. 5.

    The Titjikala tourism venture was one of these success stories.

  6. 6.

    I prefer to call these general programs, but the language of ‘mainstream’ programs, and mainstreaming, is deeply embedded in Indigenous policy debates.

  7. 7.

    This basic structure of argument has been repeated twelve years on in Westbury and Dillon (2019). I have responded with a range of criticisms in Sanders (2021).

  8. 8.

    See, for example, Australian Collaboration (2007). This handbook compiled 16 instances of successful Indigenous organisations. Other examples of success in Indigenous organisations were documented from 2005 through the Indigenous Governance Awards run by Reconciliation Australia and BHP Billiton.

  9. 9.

    The reaction of my 1990 encourager and collaborator, Jon Altman, who had since become my supervisor at the ANU, emphasised the ‘valuing of diversity’ in Indigenous. See Altman (2009).

  10. 10.

    See also Maddison (2012) for another questioning of an evidence-only approach.

  11. 11.

    https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-07-30/closing-gap-targets-agreement-aboriginal-torres-strait-islander/12506232.

  12. 12.

    https://apo.org.au/node/307189.

References

  • Altman, J. (Ed.) (1991). Aboriginal Employment Equity by the year 2000, Research Monograph No. 2, Centre for Aboriginal Economic Policy Research, ANU, Canberra.

    Google Scholar 

  • Altman, J. (2009). Beyond Closing the Gap: Valuing diversity in Indigenous Australia, Working Paper No 54, CAEPR ANU, Canberra.

    Google Scholar 

  • Altman, J., & Dillon, M. (1985). Land rights: Why Hawke’s model has no backing. Australian Society, 4(6), 26–29.

    Google Scholar 

  • Altman, J., & Hinkson, M. (Eds.). (2007). Coercive reconciliation: Stabilise, normalise, exit Aboriginal Australia. Arena Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Antonios, Z. (1997). The CDEP scheme and racial discrimination: A report by the race discrimination commissioner, Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission, Sydney, December.

    Google Scholar 

  • Australian Collaboration. (2007). Maps to success: Successful Strategies in Indigenous Organisations, Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies, Canberra.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bacchi, C. (2009). Analysing Policy: What’s the problem represented to be? Pearson Australia, Frenchs Forest NSW.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bovens, M. (2010). A comment on Marsh and McConnell: Towards a framework for establishing policy success, Public Administration, 88(2), 584–585.

    Google Scholar 

  • Colebatch, H. (2009). Policy (3rd ed.). Open University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Department of Families, Community Services & Indigenous Affairs. (2007). Living in the Sunburnt Country – Indigenous Housing: Findings of the Review of the Community Housing and Infrastructure Programme, Price Waterhouse Coopers, February.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dillon, M., & Westbury, N. (2007). Beyond Humbug: Transforming indigenous engagement with indigenous Australia. Seaview Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Edelman, M. (1972). Politics as symbolic action: Mass Arousal & Quiescence. Markham Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Edelman, M. (1977). Political language: Words that succeed and policies that fail. Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fischer, F., & Forester, J. (Eds.). (1993). The argumentative turn in policy analysis and planning. Duke University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gordon, Z. (2010). Deconstructing ‘Aboriginal welfare dependency’: Using postcolonial theory to reorient Indigenous affairs. Journal of Australian Indigenous Issues, 14(2), 14–29.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hand, G. (1987). Foundations for the Future: Policy Statement. Australian Government Publishing Service, Canberra, July.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hannaford, J., Huggins J., & Collins, B. (2003). In the hands of the Regions: A new ATSIC, Report of the Review of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission, Canberra.

    Google Scholar 

  • Howard, J., & Vanstone, A. (2004). Transcript of the Prime Minister, Joint Press Conference with Senator Amanda Vanstone, Parliament House, Canberra, 15 April.

    Google Scholar 

  • Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission. (1997). Bringing them home: National Inquiry into the Separation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Children from Their Families. Sterling Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hunt, J. (2008a). Stress indigenous positives: The Rudd Government should forget the failures of the past and build on success stories, Canberra Times, 29 February.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hunt, J. (2008b). Failure, Evidence & New Ideas. Topical Issue No 1/2008b, Centre for Aboriginal Economic Policy Research, ANU, Canberra. http://caepr.cass.anu.edu.au/sites/default/files/docs/Hunt_Ideas_0.pdf

  • Jennett, C. (1988). Aboriginal Affairs Policy. In C. Jennett & R. Stewart (Eds.), Hawke and Australian Public Policy (pp. 245–283). Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Latham, M., & O’Brien, K. (2004). Opportunity and responsibility for indigenous Australians: Statement by Federal Labor Leader and Shadow Minister for Indigenous Affairs, Canberra, 30 March.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lukes, S. (1974). Power: A radical view. The Macmillan Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Macklin, J. (2008). Closing the Gap – Building an Indigenous Future, Minister for Families, Housing, Community services & Indigenous Affairs, Address to the National Press Club, 27 February.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maddison, S. (2012). Evidence and contestation in the indigenous policy domain: Voice, ideology and institutional inequality. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 71(3), 269–277.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Majone, G. (1989). Evidence, argument and persuasion in the policy process, BookCrafters, Chelsea Michigan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marsh, D., & MConnell, A. (2010). Towards a framework for establishing policy success, Public Administration, 88(2): 564–583.

    Google Scholar 

  • Martin, C. (2006a). ‘Eyes Wide Open’: Keynote Address of Aboriginal Affairs, 7th Annual Fraser Lecture, Belconnen Labor Club, Canberra, 31 May.

    Google Scholar 

  • Martin, D. (2006b). Why the ‘new direction’ in Federal Indigenous affairs policy is as likely to ‘fail’ as the olds directions, Topical Issue No.5/2006b, CAEPR ANU, Canberra. https://caepr.cass.anu.edu.au/research/publications/why-new-direction-federal-indigenous-affairs-policy-likely-fail-old-directions

  • McGrew, A. G., & Wilson, M. J. (1982). Decision making: Approaches and analysis. Manchester University Press in association with the Open University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morphy, F., & Sanders, W. (Eds.) (2001). The indigenous welfare economy and the CDEP scheme, Research Monograph 20, CAEPR ANU, Canberra.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oscar J., & Little, R. (2018). Time to reset Closing the Gap: ‘policy paralysis is not an option’, The Mandarin, 8 February. https://www.themandarin.com.au/88187-closing-the-gap-urgent-need-to-reset/

  • Rothwell, N. (2007). Clare on the back foot, The Weekend Australian, 27 October.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rowse, T. (2012). Rethinking social justice: From ‘peoples’ to ‘populations.’ Aboriginal Studies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rudd, K. (2008). Apology to Australia’s Indigenous Peoples, Commonwealth of Australia, Parliament Debates: House of Representatives.13 February.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sanders, W. (1985). The Politics of Unemployment Benefits for Aborigines: Some Consequences of Economic Marginalisation, in D Wade-Marshall & P Loveday eds Employment & Unemployment: A collection of papers, ANU North Australia Research Unit, Darwin, pp. 137–162.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sanders, W. (1988). The CDEP scheme: Bureaucratic politics, remote community politics and the development of an aboriginal ‘Workfare’ program in times of rising unemployment. Politics, 23(1), 32–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sanders, W. (1991). Destined to fail: The Hawke government’s pursuit of statistical equality in employment and income status between Aborigines and other Australians by the year 2000 (or, a cautionary tale involving the new managerialism and social justice strategies. Australian Aboriginal Studies, 1991(2), 13–18.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sanders, W. (1993). The rise and rise of the CDEP scheme: an Aboriginal ‘workfare’ program in times of persistent unemployment. Discussion Paper No. 54, CAEPR ANU, Canberra.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sanders, W. (1997). How Does (and Should) DSS treat CDEP participants? (What are these allegations of racial discrimination?), Social Security Journal, December 1997, 19–30. Also available as Discussion Paper No. 149, CAEPR ANU, Canberra.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sanders, W. (2004). ATSIC’s achievements and strengths: Implications for Institutional Reform, Journal of Australian Indigenous Issues, 7(3) 2004: 14–21. Also available as Topical Issue No. 10/2004, CAEPR, ANU, Canberra. https://caepr.cass.anu.edu.au/research/publications/atsics-achievements-and-strengths-implications-institutional-reform-atsics

  • Sanders, W. (2008). In the name of failure: A generational revolution in Indigenous affairs. In C. Aulich & R. Wettenhall (Eds.), Howard’s Fourth Government: Australian Commonwealth Administration 2004–2007 (pp. 187–205). UNSW Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sanders, W. (2010). Ideology, Evidence and Competing Principles in Australian Indigenous Affairs: From Brough to Rudd via Pearson and the NTER, Australian Journal of Social Issues, 45(3): 307–331. Also available as Discussion Paper No. 289/2009, CAEPR ANU, Canberra.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sanders, W. (2013). Losing localism, constraining councillors: Why the Northern Territory supershires are struggling. Policy Studies, 34(4), 474–490.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sanders, W. (2014). Experimental governance in Australian Indigenous affairs: From Coombs to Pearson via Rowse and the competing principles. Discussion Paper No. 291, CAEPR ANU, Canberra.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sanders, W. (2016). ‘Reframed as Welfare: CDEP’s fall from favour’ in Kirrily Jordan ed Better than welfare? Work and Livelihoods for Indigenous Australians after CDEP, CAEPR Research Monograph No. 36, ANU Press, Canberra, 2016, 31–49.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sanders, W. (2017). Three accounts of the emergence of the remote jobs and communities program: Changing timeframes and types of actors. Australian Journal of Political Science, 52(2), 272–287.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sanders, W. (2021). Big Picture Essays on Australian Indigenous Policy: Deep Structures and Decolonising, Policy Insights Special Series Paper No.5, CAEPR ANU, Canberra.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sanders, W., & Hunt, J. (2010). Sorry, but the Indigenous affairs revolution continues, in C Aulich & M Evans eds The Rudd Government: Australian Commonwealth Administration 2007–2010, ANU E Press, Canberra.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scrymgour, M. (2007). Whose national emergency? Caboolture and Kirribilli? Or Milikapiti and Mutitjulu? Charles Perkins Oration, University of Sydney, 23 October.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spicer, I. (1997). Independent Review of the Community Development Employment Projects (CDEP) Scheme. Office of Public Affairs.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stone, D. A. (1988). Policy paradox and political reason. Scott.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sullivan, P. (2011). Belonging together: Dealing with the politics of disenchantment in Australian Indigenous Policy. Aboriginal Studies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Watego, C. (2020). The ‘new’ Closing the Gap is about buzzwords, not genuine change for Indigenous Australia. The Conversation, 31 July. https://theconversation.com/chelsea-bond-the-new-closing-the-gap-is-about-buzzwords-not-genuine-change-for-indigenous-australia-143681

  • Westbury, N., & Dillon, M. (2019). Overcoming Indigenous Exclusion: Very hard, plenty humbug, Policy Insights Special Series Paper No.1, CAEPR ANU, Canberra.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yanow, D. (2000). Conducting interpretive policy analysis. Sage Publications.

    Book  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Will Sanders .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2023 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Sanders, W. (2023). Success and Failure in Australian Indigenous Policy: Moral Dynamics and Rhetorical Registers. In: Moodie, N., Maddison, S. (eds) Public Policy and Indigenous Futures. Indigenous-Settler Relations in Australia and the World, vol 4. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-9319-0_3

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-9319-0_3

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore

  • Print ISBN: 978-981-19-9318-3

  • Online ISBN: 978-981-19-9319-0

  • eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics