The stories of Indigenous people around the world too often share common threads. A history of dispossession, victimization and genocide has left a devastating legacy of disempowerment, disenfranchisement and marginalization. Disproportionately high unemployment and incarceration rates, unchecked substance abuse, epidemic levels of violence and suicide, poor educational achievement, devastating health outcomes and deep poverty are all part of their experience. So too are the often misguided and ill-informed responses of governments to ameliorate the complex problems that beleaguer these communities (Baum 2002).

Australia remains one of the few countries that has failed to deliver a treaty or formal recognition of past injustices against its Indigenous population (Ring & Firman 1998). Fundamentally a treaty (Brennan 2003) involves recognition of Aboriginal Australians’ traditional cultural rites and rituals spanning thousands of years, and their relationship to the land. More so, a treaty demands recognition of the systemic injustices that were initiated with European settlement and continue to this day (Brennan 2003). ‘It is clear that land and reconciliation are as central to improving indigenous health status as are adequate infrastructure and healthcare services’ (Baum 2002, p. 253). In the late 1990s, statistics indicated that mortality rates of Indigenous Australians were comparable to those of the New Zealand Maori in the early 1970s (Ring & Firman 1998). The improved health outcomes of the Indigenous populations of the USA, Canada and New Zealand have been attributed, in part, to the establishment of various treaties and agreements (Ring and Firman, 1998 and Brennan, 2004). Failure meaningfully to recognize the traumatic history of European settlement and its enduring legacy for Indigenous Australians will continue to be a real obstacle to securing improved health and social status for this population.

The 1967 constitutional referendum was a defining moment for the lives of Indigenous Australians (Pearson 2002). The referendum afforded official recognition of the Indigenous population by the Federal Government and granted parliamentary representation, inclusion in the national census and access to social security. Entitlement to equal pay for labour was also enshrined in this referendum. Shortly after the referendum granted Indigenous Australians equal rights, the entitlement to equal pay resulted in widespread retrenchment and unemployment. Faced with a large population who had lost their homes and their jobs, the Federal Government responded with welfare payments. The potential benefits of equal citizenship were undermined by these events and to a large extent cemented Indigenous Australia’s exclusion from the mainstream workforce and economy.

Social welfare is vital to supporting the humanitarian rights of disadvantaged community members (Baum 2002). However, the Indigenous experience of welfare over the past 30 years has been predominantly negative. The ‘passive welfare system’ (Pearson 2000), as it has been termed, delivers unconditional monetary and housing benefits to all unemployed adults. In doing so it locks its recipients into a welfare system that does not offer real employment opportunity or self-determination.

The effectiveness of the welfare system has been questioned primarily by the Cape York Institute, a think tank that aims to develop Indigenous social and economic policies. The Institute’s strategy involves the establishment of social and business enterprises in order to create real opportunities for community and economic development (Cape York Institute for Policy and Leadership 2006). Noel Pearson, director of the Institute, is a prominent Indigenous lawyer and advocate who has taken a leading role in the historical struggle for land rights and self-determination. In recent years Pearson’s focus has been on reforming the current passive welfare system, which he claims fuels the alcohol or ‘grog’ epidemic that exists in the Aboriginal communities. By breaking down the passive welfare system, Pearson (2000) believes that the rights of Indigenous Australians to take responsibility for their own lives will be reinstated.

In August 2005 we began our placement in one of these Indigenous enterprise facilities endorsed by Pearson. Within the enterprise, a work-readiness programme sought to provide Indigenous young adults with the chance to enter the workplace with appropriate skills for maintaining employment, as well as an awareness of their workers’ rights. From the outset we were aware that we would not be working in a traditional health care facility with occupational therapy support. While it is now widely acknowledged that health lies beyond the mere absence of disease (World Health Organization 1986), the Indigenous understanding of health has much to offer in furthering understanding of this notion: ‘Aboriginal health is not just the physical well being of an individual but…the social, emotional and cultural well being of the whole community. It is a whole-of-life view and includes the cyclical concept of life-death-life’ (National Aboriginal Health Strategy Working Party 1989).

In addition to reframing our perceptions of health, the conventional parameters of occupational therapy practice were also challenged. The impact of bureaucratic processes, geographical location and culture (see Ch. 4) changed the need for, and the viability of, strict timelines, tangible and measurable outcomes and individual-focused interventions (for further discussion of the dichotomy between Indigenous and Western concepts of time see Yalmambirra 2000). Finding ourselves outside the traditional framework of occupational therapy practice required us thoroughly to re-examine the profession’s role and the potential contributions that we could make in the time available to us. As a consequence of this, we made a significant shift from active therapist to participant observer. Initially this move took us well and truly out of our comfort zone, leaving us rather uncertain of the 9 weeks ahead of us. However, over time this obstacle evolved into an unexpected opportunity. Taking on the participant observer role was essential to gaining the trust and respect of the employees. This role allowed us to be immersed in the environment and experience of the work setting, and supported us to get to know the other employees. It also gave us the opportunity to develop a deeper understanding of the power of the environment to impact on the occupational engagement of communities and individuals.

Given the widespread nature of occupational dysfunction and social disadvantage within the Cape York community, we were interested in exploring the link between these two factors. This demanded a broader understanding of the environment as a prime determinant of the potential for occupational engagement and participation. Our knowledge of the concepts proposed by Townsend and Wilcock (2004) on occupational justice, and Kronenberg et al’s (2005) contribution to the political realm of occupational therapy practice, lent support to, and inspired us to reconsider the centrality of, the political and historical dimensions of environment and how these are manifest in practice.

The application of a political activities of daily living (pADL) framework (Kronenberg & Pollard 2005; see Ch. 1) as a means of addressing the political context of occupational injustice is proposed by Kronenberg et al (2005). One shortcoming, which hindered our use of the pADL tool, was our own lack of exposure to the broader understanding of health that it advocates (see Ch. 8

Stay updated, free articles. Join our Telegram channel

Join