30/2 Practice Article #4: Vanstone 'Choosing is hard, but its still a lifestyle choice.'

Choosing is hard, but it’s still a lifestyle choice

Amanda Vanstone
Published: March 16, 2015 - 12:00AM

Instead of attacking the Prime Minister over his choice of words, we should tackle the issue of funding remote communities and how we can best maximise the opportunities for young Indigenous Australians.

 

 

We say we want to see a more rational and conciliatory political process with less bif bif and more substance. One example from last week has shown how hard that will be to achieve.

The Prime Minister made a statement about no longer funding lifestyle choices in indigenous communities. The response has been an overwhelming "Let's kick Tony"  rather than "Let's address the issue of funding extremely small remote communities."

"The priority should be Indigenous children's future." Photo: DAVID GRAY
 

So keen are some to attack Abbott that the debate became about the PM rather than the substantive issue. The PM's critics had a choice to attack him or  discuss the substantive issue. Their choice speaks volumes about them.

The attacks on him reveal two fairly common aspects of political debate today. First, the default position is to attribute the worst intentions to the speaker. Abbott's use of the words "lifestyle choices" was unwisely risky. It gave his critics the opportunity to accuse him of  thinking the choices are no more difficult than a whole range of lifestyle choices we all regularly make: whether to walk to work or not, whether to drink less coffee or whether to live at the beach and commute to work. Anyone who knows Abbott's long standing interest and commitment to first Australians knows he understands the very difficult choices many face in remote areas. 

The second aspect is the now common Australian tendency to take offence whenever possible. The process is: claim offence has been taken, claim it was either intended or that a reasonable person would expect offence to be taken, and then seek some sort of redress. Assuming the position of victim allows you to attack the speaker as being nasty, evil, out of touch.

Does anyone really suggest that Indigenous Australians in remote areas don't have any choices? The choices they have for the most part are hard ones, really hard. For many Aboriginal people the choices are hard. None of the options may be ideal, but nonetheless, choices have to be made.  Choices they are, and they are often about lifestyle.

One pathetic attack against Abbott alleged that by querying the need to fund some very small and remote communities he was showing he did not understand the strong cultural affiliation Indigenous Australians have with the land. Nobody I know doubts that affiliation, least of all the PM. To retain that affiliation, it does not mean they must live in an extremely remote area with very few people with an expectation that power, water, health and education services will be readily available. Most indigenous Australians live  in towns and cities. They haven't lost their indigeneity because they are in urban areas.

A very small  percentage live in remote Australia. The communities are not generally very large and are dispersed over enormous distances. Where they have missed out on some educational opportunities and health care, their options are nowhere near as bright as those available to other Australians. But even then it is hard to honestly say that the only choice is to live in extremely small communities. Sometimes groups move out of towns to try and keep kids away from drugs and alcohol, but doing so  may well limit the services and thus opportunities for young children. It's just one example of  hard choices – where neither is ideal, but a choice has to be made nonetheless.

Some live in one community for a good part of the year and move to out stations for the remainder. It is a very expensive lifestyle when power , housing and other services are needed. Even with generous funding the fact remains that services in one place mean there can't be services elsewhere. Governments have to give good value to indigenous Australia, not better value to some and less to others.

Spare a thought for those who because of long term displacement from their traditional lands, are living in remote communities where the traditional owners are from other clans. If they  belong to the clan or family of the traditional owners life may not be peachy.  Which families do you think get first access to housing, health care and any other benefit the elders control? In many of these communities there is not the slightest expectation of equality. Those whose accident of birth and geography gave them advantage, use it.

The perspective that is most important to me is that of the children. Imagine an indigenous kid at 15 who has been living in a remote place and travelsto out stations regularly. In the process she has little education, inadequate healthcare, and maybe doesn't realise a pair of glasses would make life a lot easier.  Consequently she has  fewer opportunities than others. Can you look her in the eye and happily say that's her lot in life because we were too weak to insist that she had proper care, education and protection that should be the birthright of every Australian?

The reality we all have to face is that we do not have a blank canvas. We must deal with life as it is, with the hand we have been dealt. Indigenous Australians, especially in remote areas face hard choices. So do governments.

It is just a fact of life that schools, health care and other services cannot be provided everywhere for extremely small numbers. It is equally true that parents must  make education and care of their kids a priority.

 Our priority should be the long-term opportunities for children. Some might say that we should do everything we can to help small remote communities live as they do now. I say if you think that's in the best interests of the children, fair enough, but I just cannot believe you will be able to put forward a credible argument. The ultimate question is not how would these communities like to live today, but how can we maximise the opportunities for young Indigenous Australians?

Amanda Vanstone was a minister in the Howard Government.

This story was found at: http://www.theage.com.au/comment/choosing-is-hard-but-it8217s-still-a-lifestyle-choice-20150313-14377x.html