Mainstream or Customised?

If there’s one never-ending debate in indigenous affairs it must be the choice between ‘mainstream’ or ‘customised’ delivery of services to indigenous people. Put simply, mainstreaming says that 1 set of rules is applied to everyone. The same benefits, the same laws, the same responsibilities. 

The proponents of this approach argue that disadvantaged communities or groups ultimately suffer by having a distinct set of rules applied to them. The latest offering is from John Watson from The Age 

An example of a customised solution might be the CDEP scheme that employs indigenous people in remote communities to clean up the streets. Given the lack of employment opportunities the theory is that it’s better to require welfare recipients to perform some service in return for a wage, rather than simply handing out the dole with no return obligation.

Mainstream theory would suggest that the ‘clean-up’ jobs are really only ‘pretend’ jobs that would not exist in mainstream society. Possibly in mainstream they would be performed by offenders operating under community orders. The theory is that by creating such ‘pretend’ jobs you are entrenching inequality as the worker is performing a role that does not develop skills in the mainstream marketplace.  So abolish the role and apply the same standards that apply to ‘everyone else’. Mainstream policies really imply you need to ‘shape up or ship out’ – to whitefellah standards and culture.

But these issues are never so simple. Current Centrelink rules may require a job-seeker to attend 10 job interviews within a fortnight in order to qualify for the dole. How would that restriction work in a remote community where there may be 50 jobs for 700 people?

Mainstreaming also implies that the same facilities and services are to be available to all. Is the government going to build hospitals, schools, child care centres, police and fire stations in every remote community? 

Most feedback from indigenous communities favours local solutions. Customised solutions that are a result of listening to the local elders and implemented in response to local needs are usually more successful. They empower the community to be involved and to take responsibility. The Mt Theo program, http://www.mttheo.org/home/mt-theo/the-mt-theo-story/ that ended petrol sniffing at Yuendumu is a good example.

Watson makes the point that the overall cost of existing programs is significant. Is it possible that we owe indigenous Australia the cost and effort involved in developing localised solutions across the country? Rio Tinto are doing it  when they factor in sorry business into indigenous employment arrangements. No mainstreaming there. But they are displaying a lot of respect for indigenous culture.

Epilogue :  Read about Twiggy Forrerst from the Australian Employment Covenant. Are these 'real' jobs ? It may be that the 60,000 are only 'pledges' but you cant argue with 10,501 off welfare benefits. This is amazing and holds lessons for all employers and government if it's true.