The Relationship Between the Social Work Profession and Indigenous People Essay Example

The Relationship Between the Social Work Profession and Indigenous People Essay The relationship between the social work profession and Indigenous people has been a problematic one. Discuss with reference to Stolen Generations. Social work is a complex and broad field and the relationship between social workers and Indigenous Australians can be equally intricate and difficult to navigate. The theme of this paper will be; ‘understanding the relationship between the social work profession and Indigenous Australians’.A priority will be placed on analysing the historical relationship in reference to social work practice and related Government policy. Firstly, the history of social work and Indigenous policy will be discussed in relation to present work in the welfare sector. Historic Indigenous policy will be used to illustrate the paternal nature in which the Australian Government has related to Indigenous Australians. The experiences of the ‘Stolen Generation’ will then be outlined and the consequences detailed.It will be argued that the process of forcefully removing children from Indigenous families has resulted in distrust towards human service practitioners and institutions. Contemporary approaches to managing Indigenous disadvantage will be examined in reference to the Northern Territory Emergency Response. It will be argued that these latest efforts by the Australian Government continue in the punitive and strong-handed nature of previous strategies. In conclusion a summary of the findings of the paper will be provided.It is important to analyse the philosophical and ideological foundations of the Social Work profession when examining the role social workers have played in the implementation of the Protection Acts, the Stolen Generation, and the Northern Territory Emergency Response. An acknowledgment must be made that the profession originates from a Judeo-Christian and European perspective, and rarely takes into consideration Indigenous customs and traditions (Chenoweth amp; McAuliffe 2008).The history of so cial work is also important because it may identify reoccurring social themes, and provide you with an understanding of how history has shaped contemporary human services (Chenoweth amp; McAuliffe 2008). Chenoweth amp; McAuliffe (2008, p. 27) state that ‘at a fundamental level, many social problems are not new although they have manifested in different forms throughout history’. Ife (2008, pp. 164-166) argues that ‘the study of history is important to social workers’, and outlines four reasons for this importance.Firstly, that a historic perceptive emphasises that things can and do change. The second reason is that ‘the study of history can be seen as the study of the struggle for human rights’ (p. 165). This is important in that without a historical understanding people can lack the commitment to exercise human rights for which previous generations fought, and sometimes died for. The third reason is that a study of history assists in deconstru cting the ‘western enlightenment tradition within which the human rights discourse was framed’ (p. 65), and finally that history extends human rights practice onto issues of intergenerational justice, in that the present generation is responsible for preventing future human rights abuses, and also addressing past abuses. In order to gain an understanding of the relationship between Indigenous Australians and social workers we must examine the forms of contact they have had since 1788. Before the development of the social work profession in the 1920’s Indigenous Australians had already been in contact with European colonisers for over 120 years (Gilbert 2005, Chenoweth amp; McAuliffe 2008).Australia started looking at its social policy around the time of Federation and Indigenous peoples has already suffered constant human rights abuses, had their children removed, been dispossessed of their lands, and moved to missions (Gilbert 2005). The protectionist approach a dopted by the Australian Government in the 19th and early 20th Century resulted in the establishment of missions, reserves and institutions in all states and territories, with the clear purpose of ‘controlling Aboriginal people and their movements’ (Gilbert 2005, p. 64, Commonwealth of Australia 2011).Policy then moved towards more assimilationist strategies in which attempts were made to convert Aboriginal Australians into ‘responsible citizens’ (Gilbert 2005, Haebich 2000). The protectionist and assimilationist policies share the core values that Aboriginal culture is inferior and on its way to an ‘evolutionary end’ (Gilbert 2005, p. 64). The predominately Anglo-Saxon values present in the welfare system have resulted in a lack of understanding of Indigenous disadvantage as well as cultural values and traditions (Chenoweth amp; McAuliffe 2008). Chenoweth and McAuliffe (2008, p. 8) state that Indigenous populations have handed down by word of mouth, rather than writing down, their own ways of addressing these notions of â€Å"helping†, and this has resulted in a lack of understanding or an reluctance by human services organisations to attempt to understand them. The historical relationship between indigenous Australians and social workers has a major effect on social work practice. History has the ability to feed life into contemporary social work through reflection on the past, through knowledge of where the profession came from, and through considering past mistakes (Chenoweth amp; McAuliffe 2008).An example of the importance of studying social work history can be shown through the ‘Forgotten Australians’ and ‘Stolen Generation’. These are survivors of the institutional care system in Australia up to the 1970’s, with many of them being Indigenous Australians. They experienced many forms of abuse such as; separation, abandonment, deception, neglect, sexual assault, brutality and m uch more, along with a lack of post-care support (Harrison 2008, Haebich 2000). The historic abuse of these rights is linked to present issues such as; mental health problems, substance abuse and family violence (Harrison 2008, HREOC 1997).There is also a direct correlation between the removal of Aboriginal children and a loss of connection to Indigenous culture. As Aboriginality has not been positively affirmed many children experienced contempt and denigration for their Aboriginality, and even developed a sense of self-contempt (HREOC 1997). Although many would consider that discriminatory laws are long gone, the act of removing Indigenous children from their family’s remains through the child welfare and juvenile justice system due to entrenched disadvantage (Pugh amp; Cheers 2010).The historic treatment of Indigenous groups was not to pursue values that might lead to self-determination or independence, but to assimilate them into mainstream society (Gross 2003, cited in P ugh amp; Cheers 2010, p. 60). Haebich (2000) states that ‘Aboriginal child removal emerges as constituent with the processes of dispossession, depopulation and destruction of Aboriginal societies and cultures’. The Alliance for Forgotten Australians (Harrison 2008, p. 13) states that ‘involving Forgotten Australians and their families in the design of programs aimed at assisting them will show respect, reassure and not re-victimise them’.It’s important that social workers acknowledge how prior events influence present issues and understand that members of the ‘Stolen Generation’ may be apprehensive about connecting with welfare services (Harrison 2002). There may be fear of being institutionalised once again. Even if a worker/services approach is ‘pleasant or friendly’ the memory of their powerlessness and abuse is likely to provoke resistance and fear (Harrison 2008, p. 14). Social workers must work with them and their fami lies to deal with their fears, remain attentive to their history and needs, and involve them in decision making processes (Harrison 2008).Contemporary policy regarding the management of Indigenous disadvantage exhibits a similar approach in which the Government attempts to control Indigenous Australians lives, and assimilate them into mainstream society. Following the Little Children are Sacred Report to the Northern Territory (NT) Government in 2007, the Australian Government implemented a policy in response to evidence of the abuse and neglect of children in Indigenous communities in the Northern Territory (Northern Territory Gov. 2007, FaHCSIA 2009).This was the Northern Territory Emergency Response (NTER) policy, often referred to as the NT Intervention. To intervene in these issues the Federal Government implemented a range of measures to, ‘protect children and make communities safe’, and ‘create a better future for Aboriginal people in the Northern Territory ’ (FaHCSIA 2009). These measures include but are not limited to changes to law and order such as more Police presence and the ban of alcohol and pornography in designated areas, as well as changes to Indigenous land rights. Increased support for families through additional services and welfare workers.Welfare reform including compulsory income management of half of peoples welfare payments, as well of measures to improve health and enhance education (FaHCSIA 2009). People from many backgrounds, including Indigenous representatives agreed that an emergency response was necessary in the NT (ANTaR 2010), however The NTER has been criticised in two main areas. Firstly, that there was a lack of engagement with Indigenous peoples in the development and implementation of the policy, and secondly that there are distinctly discriminatory aspects to the policy (Anaya 2010, ANTaR 2010).Government action to address the situation in NT communities may certainly be needed, but those critic al of the NTER argue that it was implemented without negotiations with the Aboriginal people it affected, and that the voice of Aboriginal people had not been heard (ANTaR 2010, Mazel 2009). It is argued that to ensure racial equality, the protection of human rights and any possibility of a sustainable community development strategy, the Government must prioritise the inclusion of Indigenous peoples in the development and control of these policy outcomes (ANTaR 2010, Mazel 2009, Phillips, Franklin amp; Viswanathan 2011).ANTaR claim that the NTER ‘has created additional barriers to self-determination for Aboriginal people and organisations’ (ANTaR 2010, p. 6). This separation of Indigenous people from the policy development and implementation processes links with a history of systemic exclusion dating back to the time that ‘white people’ settled in Australia (Anderson amp; Perrin 2006, Attwood 1992). There can be no doubt of the way in which our history has and continues to influence Australians identities of ‘self’ and ‘other’, as well as the relationships between the two (Coates 2004). Mazel (2009, p. ) describes ‘the way in which the dynamic of difference, or the understanding of difference as otherness which lies at the heart of colonialism, continues to prevail in Indigenous affairs and underlies the latest efforts of the Australian government in the Northern Territory’. United Nation reports found that the NTER legislation; ‘limits the capacity of indigenous individuals and communities to control or participate in decisions affecting their own lives, property and cultural development, and it does so in a way that in effect discriminates on the basis of race, thereby raising serious human rights concerns’ (Anaya 2010, p. ). The fact that the Racial Discrimination Act was suspended to allow this legislation to pass shows that discrimination was occurring (Anaya 2010, Phillips, Fra nklin amp; Viswanathan 2011). The Federal Governments own review in 2008 found that ‘experiences of racial discrimination and humiliation’ were common and should be of ‘great concern’ (Australian Government 2008). Whilst analysing the discourse and implementation process surrounding the NTER, it can be seen that the paternal and punitive nature of the policy can be understood as continuing the historically Anglo-Saxon ideals of the Australian system of welfare.It can be argued that forcing these ideals upon indigenous communities will perpetuate the existing relationship of apprehension, doubt and mistrust between Indigenous Australians and Social Workers, as well as Indigenous Communities and the Federal Government (Anaya 2010). Indigenous people have expressed their concern that the heavy-handed Government response in the NT may result in another generation of children being removed from their families and communities (Dodson 2007). Dodson (2007, p. 5) ar gues that these fears of a new ‘stolen generation’ are legitimate ‘especially for those people who live and survive as members of the stolen generation’. This paper has explored the relationship between the social work profession and Indigenous Australians. The philosophical and ideological foundations of the Social Work profession have been examined and it was found that the Judeo-Christian and European perspective of the profession have left little room for Indigenous customs and traditions.It has been argued that reflecting on the historical approaches of welfare services and Government policy increases the likelihood of making informed and ethical choices in a contemporary context. A brief summary of historic Indigenous policy has been used to illustrate the heavy-handed and paternal nature in which the Australian Government relates to Indigenous Australians. The experiences of the ‘Stolen Generation’ have been outlined and the consequences detailed.It was found that the ‘Stolen Generation’ were subject to a range of human rights abuses that have had negative consequences both for the victims, as well as on the relationship between Indigenous Australians, social workers, welfare services, and Government institutions. Due to the experiences of the ‘Stolen Generation’ Aboriginal people are likely to be resistant and fearful towards welfare services and Government institutions.The NTER has been used to demonstrate that contemporary policy shares similar values to historical Indigenous policy. In that, Aboriginal culture is inferior to mainstream society and it is the role of Government to intervene, and control in an attempt to make improvements based upon Government set benchmarks. It has been argued that the Governments approach in the NT perpetuates the distrust between Indigenous people and social work practitioners.In the hope of successful outcomes, and improved relationships social worker s must be considerate of Indigenous peoples’ history and needs, work with them and their families to deal with their fears, and involve them in decision making processes. References Anaya, J 2010, Observations on the Northern Territory Emergency Response in Australia, United Nations, viewed online 4 April 2012, lt;http://www. un. org. au/files/files/United%20Nations%20Special%20Rapporteur%20-%20Feb%202010. pdfgt;| Anderson, K amp; Perrin, C 2006,