Change - the hardest word

The Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison, today informed us in a speech he will give about the Closing the Gap Report that he is "very hopeful that a new approach that's more locally-led and more collaborative will take us much further than the top-down, one-size-fits-all, government-led approach ever could. We know that when Indigenous people have a say in the design of programs, policies and services, the outcomes are better - and lives are changed." 

- The Guardian, 12/2/2020

When Australian government representatives speak about their hopes for our First Peoples (what about the hopes of Indigenous people for themselves?), very subtle and usually unspoken biases and 'leanings' are present (like people who have lived with scoliosis all their lives and have forgotten about it). Actually, we all have them when we express our opinions. This is natural and unavoidable. However, those present in the public utterances of our politicians deserve some scrutiny because they purport to show us the way in this country.

Let's take the passage above, a section of a speech expected to be given by Scott Morrison after this news appeared in The Guardian. According to him the old approach wasn't very locally-led or collaborative and really didn't get very far because it was directed top-down by the government, without differentiation and, apparently, without much say by Indigenous people.

Wow!

A bit of a failure then, if you ask me. And this has been going on for decades (generations if we tell the truth).

So, what is the bias lurking beneath this statement?

I'd like to pick a couple of his expressions. Morrison suggests that this new approach will take "us" much further. Who is the "us" he refers to? Does he mean all Australians, politicians, the government, all Indigenous people? I'm a bit unclear about this. Had he actually said it will take the government much further, there would have been an outcry led by Indigenous Australians, and rightly so. But he didn't. Had he, alternatively, said every citizen of Australia, I'm sure many of those citizens would have no idea what he was talking about. But he didn't. 
A pity.

Moreover, where is the "much further" he thinks the new approach will take us? In what direction? Further than what? Does this mean the same thing to Indigenous people as it might to non-indigenous people? The answers to these questions lie at the root of what is intended here, in my opinion. And if these answers are not clear and not clearly articulated, any "new approach" will trickle into a thirsty desert. I strongly suspect that Indigenous people have a different idea about their future than we who are non-indigenous.

The second point I want to consider lies inside the phrase "...Indigenous people have a say..." This smells of paternalism. Oh, not on the surface because we can all agree that having 'a say' is a good thing, but there is a deep assumption that one section of society (the IN group) has the power to give another section (the OUT group) a "say". In this case, Scott Morrison unconsciously assumes he belongs to the IN group, the one he leads.

Oh, sorry. There's a third idea I want to point out: "lives are changed." I suggest that Morrison means that Indigenous "lives are changed". Not anyone else's. Not even his. Think about this - indigenous lives need changing, but the rest of us don't need to change. Is this what he means, I wonder? Is this the subtle bias he carries?

Or ...

Could he mean that when all Australians work together with mutual respect and dignity, understanding and humility, openness and generosity of heart, ALL OF US ARE CHANGED?

Could he?