Introduction
Aboriginal Australians have for long preserved their native cultures, which are significantly different from those of immigrants. Racial discrimination is a common phenomenon in Australia due to this difference in cultural backgrounds between the two groups. The non-indigenous Australians are the majority, and thus they have great influence in policymaking processes. The rights and privileges of the indigenous Australians have thus been overlooked, as they do not have sufficient representation in the country’s policymaking. The indigenous groups have suffered greatly in the hands of the non- indigenous groups. The challenges that the indigenous groups face include poor health, poor education, and unequal job opportunities among others (Humpage 2008).
Child mortality rate amongst the indigenous communities is high due to the ever-escalating poverty levels and poor medical cover. The marginalised communities have resorted to using drugs and other substances to counter the stress, which comes with the numerous challenges that they face in their daily lives (Glover, Hetzel & Tennant, 2004).
The indigenous groups lost their traditional land to non-indigenous communities and they were forced to relocate to remote areas. The available statistics highlight that close to 30% of the indigenous groups in Australia live in remote areas and they hardly receive government provided services (Pholi 2009). Ironically, only about 2% of non-indigenous communities live in remote areas, which is an indicator that the successive governments have neglected the marginalised groups. In a bid to overcome the indigenous disadvantage, the government, via the Council of Australian Governments (COAG), has come up with a strategy aimed at ensuring equal opportunities for all, which is referred herein as “Closing the Gap” policy (Altman, Biddle & Hunter 2009).
Thesis statement
A huge gap exists between the indigenous and the non-indigenous groups in Australia. In a bid to prevent the gap from widening further, the government established the Closing the Gap policy to help in addressing the problem. However, the policy faces criticism with analysts claiming that the strategy may not fully address the problem. This essay will thus analyse the policy and come up with a conclusion on its effectiveness in narrowing the ever-widening gap between the two groups. The essay will also give a walkover approach to the criticisms levelled against this policy in a bid to come with a strong conclusion on the issue.
Closing the Gap policy
Closing the Gap policy was formulated in 2008 by the Rudd government with the aim of ending the indigenous’ disadvantage (Humpage 2008). Its formulation followed recommendations by the justice report of 2005 that called for equal heath care services in public hospitals for all Australians including the indigenous Australians who had hitherto been discriminated for a long time (Altman, Biddle & Hunter 2009). In a bid to facilitate measurement and appraisal, targets were set in advance. The progress would be measured against the set targets before preparing an annual report. Among the key issues that the policy addressed were the provision of quality health care to all Australians, proper housing, equal education opportunities, equal employment opportunities, and the development of infrastructure in remote areas to facilitate service delivery (Parker 2010).
The policy received an overwhelming support from the international community as it was a promising move and it was expected to end racial and cultural discrimination that was prevalent in Australia. The aforementioned targets were documented in the National Indigenous Reform Agreement (NIRA) (Humpage 2008). The policy builds on the framework of unity and goodwill and it is expected to act as a bridge between the indigenous and non-indigenous communities. The policy received a major boost in early 2008 when the Prime Minister publicly apologised to the Indigenous Australians and promised that his government would do everything within its power to ensure that the gap was narrowed significantly within the shortest time possible. The key areas that the policy sought to address are as follows:
Equality in health care
Under this strategy, the governments would set aside a sum of 1.5 billion for improving healthcare. The funds were to be used in renovating the current health centres as well as constructing additional health facilities in remote areas. The health program also aimed at detecting chronic ailments at their early stages and offering the best treatment thereof (Liaw et al. 2011). Closing the gap on health would also focus on educating people on the predisposing factors of chronic diseases and behaviours that may lead to such diseases such smoking and uncontrolled alcohol consumption (Gould et al. 2014).
Early Childhood Development
In an attempt to close the gap in childhood care and mortality, a sum of 562 million dollars was to be directed towards provision of early childhood education and health care to new-borns and their mothers (Gracey & King 2009). In total, thirty-seven childcare centres were to be constructed in remote areas to take care of children from the marginalised communities.
Housing
This program aimed at reducing the problem of housing inadequacy, reducing overcrowding, and upgrading poor houses in remote and urban areas. The agreement committed the government to set aside a sum of $5.5 billion for the provision of proper housing for aboriginal communities whose abodes were in remote areas (Humpage 2008). It was designed in a manner that it would address the problem of poor housing in a span of a single decade (Altman, Biddle & Hunter 2009). The funds would also be used to construct private rental houses for the indigenous people living in urban areas. In addition, the home ownership plan was to be established to help indigenous groups acquire homes through interest-free loans.
Investments in Schooling
In a bid to guarantee every citizen the right to education, mainstream educational reforms were to be effected. The reforms were to be in line with the national education standards and 900 schools were to be established to that effect in remote areas (Pholi 2009). Proper balanced diet meals would also be provided in schools to help children from poor backgrounds continue with their studies without interruption.
New Remote Service Delivery Model
An agreement was reached to set aside $291 million towards the establishment of proper infrastructure in remote areas in the quest to open up the areas to the rest of the country and facilitate access to public services. The aforementioned sum of money would also be used in improving the quality of government services.
COAG has made efforts to implement the provisions of NIRA, as an agreement made by a cross-section of governments in the continent aimed at narrowing the gap (Humpage 2008). The agreement brought together a number of governments and they all agreed to offer financial and ideological support on how the gap would be narrowed. NIRA was charged with the responsibility of ensuring that the funds allocated to projects aimed at empowering the indigenous groups were spent for the set purpose. According to a report released in 2009 by an independent commission, the policy would not be effective in achieving its objective, since there lacked statistical instruments to measure the gap continuously as the strategy is implemented (Rigby et al. 2010). The report further asserted that the gap would practically remain persistent though theoretically it would seem to be narrowing.
Criticism
The ‘Closing the Gap’ policy received different criticism from disparate quarters. Firstly, not all stakeholders were involved during the formulation process of this important policy and in setting the targets upon which it hinges. For a policy like the one in question to function effectively, there should be direct involvement of the subjects who are set to benefit from it (Pholi 2009). Critics hold that the indigenous groups, who are the beneficiaries, were not consulted during the formulation process of the policy. The Productivity Commission revealed that the policy makers did not consult the marginalised groups at any stage during the formulation process (Pholi 2009).
The strategy would work better if it were built upon the actual needs of the beneficiaries. The policy is thus a top-down strategy, which is purely non-participatory, and thus it cannot achieve its set objectives, both in the short term and in the long term.
Secondly, the policy, albeit a promising solution to the problem of inequality, does not offer short term solutions to the problem, but rather its benefits are set to accrue in the long term. Additionally, the policy, according to the Prime Minister’s speech of 2008, aims at halving the gaps as far as illiteracy, health, and unemployment issues are concerned as opposed to the full eradication of the gap (Pholi 2009). Thirdly, the proper appraisal and regular feedback is essential for the success of any policy (Rigby et al. 2010). The Closing the Gap policy has been criticised for lack of proper statistical measures to measure the progress (Pholi 2009).
Critics say that funds allocated to certain projects are prone to embezzlement due to lack of independent appraisal committee to deal with accountability issues. Critics have also cited politicisation of the process as a major drawback adding that the work of implementing the policy should be left to experts in that field.
The last critic worth mentioning is that the policy does not recognise cultural diversity. The policy clearly states that its aim is not only to offer quality health care and education to Australians, but also to enhance change in behaviours so that they are consistent with the positive norms. The term ‘positive behaviours’ in this case is taken to be those of the majority, viz. the non-indigenous, which is an indicator that the policy does not recognise cultural and religious diversity. Australia has a history of modernisation paradigm (Holmes 2006) and this policy is not an exemption as far as closing the gap is concerned.
From previous census reports, the indigenous groups’ cultural practices and beliefs are inconsistent with the western culture, and thus adopting uniform measures to control the widening gap would somehow infringe the rights of the subjects. The policy aims at unifying the rights and responsibilities of all Australians and forcing uniformity in social norms is impractical in a society like this one dominated by people of different cultural backgrounds.
Conclusion
Non-indigenous communities, who got into Australia through immigration, dominate Australia. The immigrants own and occupy most of the productive land, thus leaving the remote areas to indigenous groups. The marginalised groups are sparsely scattered in the remote areas and they are reluctant to abandon their cultures. Due to differences in race and culture, the group has faced discrimination and attempts by successive governments to unify service provision have failed. The gap between the two distinct communities has widened since independence and it is expected to widen further if appropriate steps are not taken in time.
However, the Australian government has adopted a policy, viz. the Closing the Gap policy, which attempts to narrow the gap. However, the policy’s goals tend to infringe the rights of the marginalised groups due to its insistence on homogenisation. It fails to recognise cultural and geographical diversity, thus making it impossible to provide a permanent solution to this problem. The neoliberal state is reluctant on investing on projects in the small-dispersed marginalised communities.
Therefore, the policy may not deliver the expected results since it is non-participatory and top-down in nature. On the provision of quality education, the policy aims at providing the same standards to all people including those in remote areas. The policy should be reviewed to accommodate other forms of education other than insisting on uniform national standard of education. Therefore, in my opinion, the policy should be redesigned in a bid to suit the needs of the beneficiaries failure to it might fail to yield the desired results.
Reference List
Altman, J, Biddle, N & Hunter, B 2009, ‘Prospects for ‘Closing the Gap’ In Socioeconomic Outcomes for Indigenous Australians’, Australian Economic History Review, vol.49 no.3, pp. 225-251. Web.
Glover, J, Hetzel, M & Tennant, S 2004, ‘The socioeconomic gradient and chronic illness and associated risk factors in Australia’, Australia and New Zealand Health Policy, vol.1 no.1, pp.8-15. Web.
Gould, G, Watt, K, Stevenson, L, McEwen, A, Cadet-James, Y & Clough, A 2014, ‘Developing anti-tobacco messages for Australian Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples: evidence from a national cross-sectional survey’, BMC public health, vol. 14 no.1, pp.250-271. Web.
Gracey, M & King, M 2009, ‘Indigenous health part 1: determinants and disease patterns’, The Lancet, vol. 374 no.9683, pp. 65-75. Web.
Holmes, J 2006, ‘Impulses towards a multifunctional transition in rural Australia: gaps in the research agenda’, Journal of rural studies, vol. 22 no.2, pp.142-160. Web.
Humpage, L 2008, ‘Relegitimating neoliberalism? Performance management and indigenous affairs policy’, Policy & Politics, vol.36 no.3, pp.413-429. Web.
Liaw, S, Lau, P, Pyett, P, Furler, J, Burchill, M, Rowley, K & Kelaher, M 2011, ‘Successful chronic disease care for Aboriginal Australians requires cultural competence’, Australian and New Zealand journal of public health, vol. 35 no.3, pp. 238-248. Web.
Parker, R 2010, Australian Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander mental health: an Overview. Web.
Pholi, K 2009, ‘Is’ Close the Gap’ a useful approach to improving the health and wellbeing of Indigenous Australians’, Australian Review of Public Affairs: Journal, vol. 9 no.2, pp. 1-13. Web.
Rigby, W, Duffy, E, Manners, J, Latham, H, Lyons, L, Crawford, L & Eldridge, R 2010, ‘Closing the Gap: Cultural safety in Indigenous health education’, Contemporary nurse, Vol. 37 no.1, pp. 21-30. Web.