Red tape resistance
02.10.1999
Noel Pearson's enthusiasm has given way to frustration, writes chief reporter Tony Koch
QUEENSLAND'S bureaucrats threaten to achieve what prime ministers, premiers, mining companies and business leaders have failed to do _ break the fighting spirit of Aboriginal leader Noel Pearson.
On April 30, Pearson revealed exclusively in The Courier-Mail his visionary plan to lift Aboriginal Australia from the insidious stranglehold of welfare dependency, and empower indigenous people to take control of their own lives and destinies.
He released a paper outlining his plan. It labelled welfare as the ``poison'' which was killing his people, stripping them of the will to provide for themselves, and destroying family and community life.
The soul of his proposal was that the welfare handout culture must cease, that Aboriginal people had to accept responsibility for their own lives. Welfare money had become valueless because it had not been earned.
He drew flak from indigenous leaders for asserting that ``welfare poison'' was breaking down Aboriginal society _ a society that put tremendous pressure on community members to ``provide resources to a parasitic drink-and-gamble coterie''.
He proposed reciprocity, a philosophy with instant appeal to the political Right and particularly Prime Minister John Howard. His discussion paper was hailed as a revolutionary blueprint.
Queensland Premier Peter Beattie embraced Pearson's contribution, and pledged the support of his Government to implement the initiatives if, when analysed, they could deliver what they promised prima facie.
Pearson was heartened by the nationwide response. The only real criticism had come from some Aboriginal leaders who inexplicably argued for retention of the current, flawed system.
What Pearson sought was a partnership between Aboriginal people and the State Government, with the latter as a resource provider and junior partner. But the platform on which the whole idea was welded was that Aboriginal people were in charge _ accepting responsibility.
They had to make the decisions, albeit in consultation with government and perhaps private-sector experts _ but indigenous people had to run the show.
It hasn't happened. Pearson and his followers have encountered obstinacy from the bureaucracy _ black and white _ and precious little encouragement.
Pearson today is not the enthusiastic character he was a few months ago. He is dispirited. Absolutely frustrated.
Such is his frustration that last week he wrote to Beattie: ``It is now three months since we first discussed your commitment to strive with us to overcome the notorious problems which afflict Aboriginal society in Cape York Peninsula and we have made almost no progress in this time.
``We have not established the mooted taskforce and neither has a relationship been developed or understandings reached between our people and the state that gives me any confidence that this project will go very far.
``Whilst officers from your department's Social Policy Unit have endeavoured to assist, the project is going nowhere.
``I have harboured this ominous sense from the earliest days, and this has been the source of our reluctance to pursue a bureaucratic process that was not going to achieve any fundamental changes on the ground.
``From the first minute, even those officers sympathetic to the proposed project could not embrace the concept that the project should be about ideas, not just procedure. We need first to develop and question policy ideas and issues, not get bogged down by process and procedure.
``The bureaucracy want to smother the project with procedure from the start.
``We need to recognise that it is the bureaucracy that must bear a great share of the responsibility for the disaster of Aboriginal disempowerment. We need to move towards a more entrepreneurial approach to the challenges of Aboriginal policy.
``The bureaucracy therefore has to consciously and strictly restrain itself from its old tendencies to control and move slowly.''
Pearson spelled out specific policies he felt should be adopted in regard to health, housing, education and employment, but reiterated the difficulties he was experiencing.
``The (bureaucratic) officers seemed to be most anxious about political procedures that need to be followed than the generation of good policy ideas, as if the Aboriginal leaders of the Cape are completely ignorant of, and unmindful of, procedural considerations,'' he wrote.
``We are prepared to assume responsibility for leadership and to deal with procedural requirements _ as we have shown with the Cape York Heads of Agreement.
``From the outset, bureaucrats in the departments resisted the project. At the regional level, senior bureaucrats actively worked against the project. More than likely they now think the project is dead _ so vehement was their objection.
``There was virtually no leadership or direction in favour of the project from within the system. This resistance is, of course, extraordinary. The overwhelming response of these departments that are presiding over a social disaster has been that there's no need to change; we're on track; we're turning the corner; we're making great progress.
``The selfish and short-sighted response by the overwhelming proportion of the bureaucracy is extraordinary to contemplate, considering the scale of the problems we are talking about.
``Whilst bureaucratic resistance was to be expected to some degree, I had actually thought that the egregious problems of Cape York would prompt a bit of latitude for change.
``This hope was far too optimistic.''
Pearson wrote that Beattie's own imprimatur for the project ``did not penetrate the bureaucracy''.
``In fact, some senior officers in key agencies seemed to be reassured that the government did not envisage too much alteration to the way the departments have traditionally approached Aboriginal issues in the Cape.''
Perhaps most ominous was Pearson's observation: ``Clearly this project is in great danger of being stillborn. I believe that it is possible for your commitment to work with us to succeed, but it will require fundamental changes to be made to our approach.''
Pearson made the clear distinction that one department _ Education _ was not guilty of intransigence, but had enthusiastically embraced the opportunity to participate and co-operate.
Where Pearson has made genuine progress is in convincing the other ``partner'' _ the Cape York Aboriginal community people _ that his is the way to go.
WHEN asked for an example to illustrate his plan for indigenous people to ``enter the real economy'', Pearson grabs the nearest piece of paper and Biro, and demonstrates an ``average'' household income on any Cape York community.
It is common, for instance, for 10 people _ all receiving either wages or welfare payments _ to be in one household. Although the individual income of, say, $300 a week does not have much spending power, the combined income of $1600 obviously does.
His proposal is that incomes would be bulked, and by agreement or compulsion, a percentage would be earmarked each week for health needs, household expenses and education.
People would soon appreciate that the combined incomes would enable a household to quickly acquire ``normal'' necessities of life such as a four-wheel drive vehicle, a fishing boat, refrigerator or furniture.
He has support already to establish a Cape York Credit Union which would take responsibility for banking. Residents on remote communities would be able to select household goods from Internet catalogues.
Children would have to attend school _ and parents would be encouraged to attend the school on a roster basis to assist and take part in the education process.
Education is a particular passion for Pearson. He was shattered to learn just last week that in all of Cape York last year, fewer than five Aboriginal students matriculated with scores enabling them to proceed to tertiary education.
In attempting to analyse the psyche of Pearson, the key is education. He knows that he gained his law degree, his knowledge, his standing through somebody else recognising he had intellectual talents and then allowing him to develop them at St Peter's Lutheran College at Indooroopilly in Brisbane, and later the University of Queensland.
Although it is something of a private issue, Pearson has found a way to repay the debt in kind. Each year he gives the opportunity to a scholastically bright Cape York Aboriginal girl to board at Clayfield College in Brisbane and, hopefully, go on to university.
He is supporting three girls at the college, and one at university.
Social engineers like Pearson have a wonderful facility to confront enormous problems and see them as mere challenges _ speed bumps on the highway of life.
It would be a travesty if Premier Peter Beattie and the Queensland Government allowed an intransigent, tunnel-visioned bureaucracy to stifle a project that they refuse to confront _ because it was somebody else's idea _ and because
