In defending a controversial decision by WA Premier Colin Barnett, who announced last November that the State would be closing around 150 of its remote Aboriginal communities, the Prime Minister stated that government cannot ‘endlessly subsidise lifestyle choices if those lifestyle choices are not conducive to the kind of full participation in Australian society that everyone should have …’
On hearing this, I was stunned at the crassness of the remarks. The cavalier use of the term ‘lifestyle choice’ is totally inappropriate when referring to the people who will be affected by the proposed closures.
As WA Opposition spokesperson Ben Wyatt has remarked, the PM’s words suggest that the Aboriginal people affected have made a mere ‘sea change move’. There has been a torrent of criticism aimed at Mr Abbott, among the most incisive coming from Noel Pearson who knows first hand the complexity of bringing about change in remote and disadvantaged communities. He challenges the government to address a number of questions regarding this issue.
The Prime Minister refers to ‘full participation’, but his meaning is not clear. Significant numbers of Indigenous people who are not living in remote communities can hardly be said to enjoy full participation; indeed, nor can many non-indigenous urban dwellers. Reliable water and electricity supply, health, education, housing, etc. are services all Australians should expect, wherever they reside; such provision in the communities being targeted, has, for a considerable time, been paid for by the Commonwealth and the State, jointly.
When he announced WA’s intention to close a number of small communities, Mr Barnett cited the Commonwealth’s decision to withdraw support, leaving the State solely responsible for essential services a cost it could not be meet. The Premier claimed that over 100 of the WA communities in his sights average five residents only. (More recently, following sustained criticism from many Aboriginal and other quarters, he argued that closure was a way to address violence and child abuse.)
That some people stay in remote communities, despite the limitations they encounter, attests to strong and enduring attachments to family and land. There is a degree of attrition as some people move to cities or towns, because of the need for medical care, or the attractions of urban centres.
While it is reasonable to enter into public discussion about the prospects of small remote communities, any suggestion that this is a simple choice for residents, is offensive. It also shows ignorance of history,