editorial
14 Oct 2008
Can We Get it Right This Time?
The report of Rudd's review into the NT Intervention will come as no surprise to many. So why did Labor back the slap-dash policy in the first place?
The report of the Northern Territory Emergency Response Review team, headed by West Australian Indigenous leader Peter Yu, has just been released and its findings come as no surprise to anyone who has taken even the most cursory interest in the Intervention's rollout.The blanket measures applied to 45,550 Aboriginal people living in the Northern Territory have caused anger, hurt, increased racism and confusion, the Report finds.
As well, it found that the Intervention's lack of consultation with the very people it was supposed to help has diminished its own effectiveness.
The Report recommends that compulsory income management be scrapped, that the number of police in communities be increased, that rent be paid to Aboriginal owners of land subject to five-year leases, that the Racial Discrimination Act be reinstated, and above all: that Aboriginal people be brought into the consultation process about the policy's redesign.
These recommendations are all welcome.
The question that now needs to be asked of the Rudd Government is this: did such a hastily designed policy as the Northern Territory Emergency Response even deserve to be reviewed? More time went into the review process than went into the drafting of the legislation in the first place.
If the Rudd Government believed the Intervention to be a good policy, surely it should have given it longer than 12 months to judge whether it was producing positive outcomes. If Rudd believed it to be a bad policy, why didn't he go to last year's election pledging to scrap it?
In fact, most if not all of the Review's findings were abundantly clear prior to the Federal election. The week before the election, newmatilda.com reported from Alice Springs on the rollout of compulsory income management in the Aboriginal "Town Camps" around Alice: "It is the blanket nature of the [income] quarantining that has caused the most protest," we wrote.
As with so many of the Intervention's measures, compulsory income management was welcomed by some Aboriginal people in prescribed areas — but for many it was a deeply insulting gesture, and turned out to be counter-productive.
Earlier this week newmatilda.com spoke to filmmaker Vincent Lamberti, whose film Intervention (made in collaboration with Tangentyere Council) presents the most comprehensive picture yet of the effect of the Intervention on Town Campers.
"Because the [Intervention] is an across-the-board measure, and doesn't discriminate — it does on race, but not according to individual behaviour — you're essentially being punished because of what your neighbour may have done, or what your neighbour may continue to do," Lamberti told newmatilda.com.
"That's a huge disincentive to people who are actually conducting their lives in a functional manner, and know how to look after their kids and don't drink — and there are a lot of Town Campers who don't drink."
Yu's team found "a strong sense of injustice" among Aboriginal people living in Intervention-affected areas that they were being blamed for problems that had in fact arisen from "decades of cumulative neglect by governments in failing to provide the most basic standard of health, housing, education and ancillary services enjoyed by the wider Australian community".
Lamberti agrees: "Always it seems that Aboriginal people living on town camps or in communities have to give away something to gain something: Okay, great, we're getting this extra police presence, it helps us to control the town camps, we can get rid of drunks more easily, we feel a little bit safer. But on the other hand, police can then indiscriminately use that power, and abuse it. So it's almost this trade-off that has to take place."
"No other part of Australian society is subjected to that — where to receive basic human rights you have to pass up some freedoms."
Rudd and Macklin were well aware of much of what they have now being officially told by Yu and his team. But in their determination not to be wedged on the issue by the former Howard government, they wouldn't say it.
Millions of dollars have now been squandered. Once again, Aboriginal people have been used as a political football.
So, Rudd and Macklin, you have your report, which tells you what Aboriginal people have been telling you since Day 1 of the Intervention.
Now what are you going to do to address this "national emergency"?
Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Reddit
Newsvine
Facebook
Kwoff
Discuss this article
To participate in the discussion Sign in or Register
Harry Morton Yes indeed and they are importing Pacific Islanders to work on farms and the like with hundreds of Aboriginals and TI’s more than capable to work. They have done this in the recent past on cane farms and track laying in NT and WA after working in cane where a TI gang were record winning in length of track put down per day.
I think this article is way over the top in its criticism of Rudd’s review.
I was totally against the intervention on the basis that its lack of community consultation, was a top down approach and would therefore stall long term community development.
This would be regardless of whether or not it could stop any child abuse in the short term. This opinion however, was one based purely on my experience through study and general gut feel. I had no evidence to back it up.
Out of all the measures in the intervention, some will and should be kept. Most, particularly the ‘approach’ should and will be discarded. I have no problem with the government waiting to collect some evidence before forming a proper policy this time.
At least, if anything, perhaps the ideology of top down approach can be put to bed. As for the practical ins and outs, so to speak, the opinion was not as obvious and clear cut as this article makes out.
But it was glaringly obvious and clear to many, particularly in the communities. The fact that it is taking so long to satisfy the government of the travesty of intervention clearly indicates that they still don’t get it.
Oh dear, whatever the solution, could we just please hurry up and put a stop to all the pain and suffering!!
I heard on the radio yesterday that in a remote Aboriginal community, the NT government sent a plane to fly kids with urgent dental problems to where they could get help. But the plane could only carry 12 kids and the rest have to wait until March/April next year for another plane.
Meanwhile the Rudd govt. can find $10 billion to prop up the economy that has been damaged, if not destroyed, by the proponents of the free market. Those who also insisted on ‘mutual obligation’ from Aboriginal communities and others on welfare. They don’t seem to be clamoring for that now.
Helen Smith
On the surface it would appear reasonable as Rockjaw asks, to ‘just stop the suffering’. The problem with this plea is that to genuinely stop the suffering we would have to go back in time to stop our ancestors from killing the majority of the Indigenous population, by gun or disease.
Then we would need to arrange a proper treaty with the people we violently disposessed. We would also need to change our whole approach to damaging government policy over the last 200 years, including the intervention, which goes further to reducing the capacity of Indigenous people to deal with the dysfuction in their communities.
There is no silver bullet to this problem, many generations in the making. The assumption we can change things by a specific intervention is exactly the sort of thinking that got us into this mess in the first place. Our first ‘intervention’, after all, was in the form of attempted genocide.
The solution is long term, and may take as long to really fix as it took to make. It is likely that self determination will need to be part of the solution, and genuine reperation for lost wages and lands. The removal, in attitude and action, of any sense of superiority leading to patriarchal and imposed ‘interventions’ is surely another.
To these original Australian citizens and much abused traditional owners of this land the only ‘special treatment’ required is increased access to justice and fairness within the same system we all enjoy.
Not just increased access to justice and fairness, dear old Dr Dog, but also to education, human rights and health-care.
As Helen said (I’m not quoting her here, merely opining in my own style), if the government can find AUS$10 billion to prop up the economy, surely to God they can stump up a few dabs to get some Aboriginal children to a dentist? Surely?
Harry, just a little query from a non-Australian; TI = Torres Islander(s)?
As there is zero differences between the 2 tired old parties it was most likely unwritten Labor policy but the Liberals did it for them so they kept it. Any idiot can see thats what happened. The question now is what is the ALP going to do about it? The Greens should be pressuring them to take drastic action and repeal it or the they wont pass certain legislation. Thats what needs to happen.
Hi Luke,
I have no problem with the government collecting evidence before it forms a policy either - my point was that a policy based on absolutely NO evidence should have been scrapped from the outset.
The Intervention, as a policy, was nothing more than election wedge by the Howard Government. And it failed.
I agree that Rudd probably had little choice other than to go along with the policy - and in fact, many of the aboriginal advocacy groups that i spoke to prior to the federal election were allowing this to happen in a sense, by taking a "vote now, ask questions (of the ALP) later" approach. There were very few people demanding election promises on the intervention out of the ALP - and this was no coincidence. If Rudd had spoken against the Intervention before the election, Howard would have used the fact to back him into a corner.
I just think it’s extremely unfortunate that the lives of some of the most vulnerable people in the country had to be messed with to prove a political point. But of course it’s not the first time Howard has done this. Think Tampa.
Unfortunately in this case millions of dollars have also been wasted. The amount of money spent on the administration of welfare quarantining alone should be a national concern. The fact that there is still a town camp in Alice Springs without a single house in it should be a national shame.
I look forward to Rudd’s evidence-based policy.
cheers marni
Hard to argue with most of the recommendations. So what do we do now? Implement them!
The role of education was identified as a major factor but the review had no expertise in this area. If we are to transform CDEP jobs then education and training are critical. It was frustrating to see Year 12 graduate in Maningrida and then find that their only construction employment opportunities were CDEP, not apprenticeships.
Kevin Rennie
http://laborview.blogspot.com/
"More time went into the review process than went into the drafting of the legislation in the first place."
From my understanding the intervention plans were taken straight from The Benelong Society. All they were waiting for was an excuse which came with The Little Children Are Sacred report, which explains why the intervention papers did not mention children once.
Promted by Marni Cordell’s article I have just read the summary of the Report which states the followingt
"Support for the positive potential of NTER measures has been dampened and delayed by the manner in which they were imposed.
The Intervention diminished its own effectiveness through its failure to engage constructively with the Aboriginal people it was intended to help.
Despite these very significant drawbacks the Review Board has observed definite gains as a result of the Intervention. It has heard widespread, if qualified, community support for many NTER measures.
Aboriginal people welcome police stations in communities previously dependent on periodic patrols. They want to work cooperatively with police to build greater security and stability in their homes.
Similarly, there is support for measures designed to reduce alcohol-related violence, to increase the quality and availability of housing, to improve the health and wellbeing of communities, to advance early learning and education leading to productive and satisfying employment—these matters are uncontentious.
The benefits of income management are being increasingly experienced. Its compulsory, blanket imposition continues to be resisted, but the measure is capable of being reformed and improved.
People who do not wish to participate should be free to leave the scheme. It should be available on a voluntary basis and imposed only as a precise part of child protection measures or where specified by statute, subject to independent review. In both cases it should be supported by services to improve financial literacy.
Income management is in many respects representative of other NTER measures. If it is modified and improved, then the resistance to its original imposition might be negated.
The Board has examined the operation of all NTER measures and made recommendations to improve their effectiveness and fairness."
Surely this justifies the review of the intervention rather than its immediate scrapping when the Rudd government came to power.
Worth reading Paul Toohey’s report on the initial draft report if you haven’t already:
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24499037-601,00.html
"THE draft report of the review into the Northern Territory Emergency Response was a damning indictment of the intervention and a dramatically different document from the official version the federal Government released on Monday, which now claims to support the intervention."
It now looks as though the Government may ignore the advice of its own review team..
"Indigenous Affairs Minister Jenny Macklin has given her strongest indication that the federal Government is considering keeping the controversial income scheme."
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24513646-5006790,00.h…
I was hoping that some politicians are watching the series ‘First Australians’ on SBS. Obviously Macklin isn’t one of them.
One would hope that wouldn’t one hsmtih. I have been watching, and think that it couldn’t hurt for every Australian to be tied up if necessary and shown the whole series.
We have tried every possible method for destroying the Aboriginal people and yet they abide. Every time we intervene we do it from the mistaken perspective that we know what is right this time. Every time we we screw it up.
Perhaps it is time to stop intervening so much. despite self destrcuctive elements within Aboriginal culture they could not possibly do the damage to themselves that we have wrought over the last 200 years.
Negotiate a treaty. Allow self determination. Replace at least some of the lands and resources we stole.
Anything else remains patriarchal, disrespects the culture and individuals within that culture and will fail.
Macklin has rejected her own review panel’s recommendations…
"The Australian Government will continue comprehensive, compulsory income management as a key measure of the Northern Territory Emergency Response (NTER) because of its demonstrated benefits for women and children."
It now looks as though the Intervention will continue as is for another year. 12 months is apparently not long enough to ascertain whether the Intervention was working.. No kidding, so why did they commission a review?
Macklin has described this period as the "stabilisation phase", and as justification for extending it she has used the Review team’s description of the situation as "sufficiently acute to be described as a national emergency".
Read more here
http://www.jennymacklin.fahcsia.gov.au/internet/jennymacklin.nsf/content…