nt intervention
4 Nov 2009
Macklin's Special Treatment
Jenny Macklin said she would reinstate the Racial Discrimination Act in the NT by the end of October — but that has been delayed as the Government tries to find a way around the law
On 21 June 2007 Australia became, in the words of Guy Rundle, "the first member of the Coalition of the Willing to invade itself". The Howard government's Northern Territory Emergency Response could only be implemented by suspending the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (RDA).The Rudd Government initially promised to remove those provisions of the "Intervention" legislation that clashed with the RDA and to reinstate it by October 2009; this has now been pushed back to late November. Amnesty International is campaigning to have the RDA reinstated immediately and, on 29 October, the Greens introduced legislation in the Senate to that effect.
It remains unclear, however, exactly what the Government's reinstatement of the Racial Discrimination Act will entail. There are three ways Kevin Rudd and Minister for Indigenous Affairs Jenny Macklin could elect to restore the RDA — once they finally decide to do so.
Firstly, they could remove all initiatives from the legislation that apply only to Aboriginal people.
Secondly, they could widen the scope of the legislation so that it applies to all citizens — and therefore does not discriminate on the basis of race. Last month, Crikey reported that unidentified sources had indicated the Government was considering extending income management to all welfare recipients to avoid a breach of the RDA.
And finally, they could elect to retain those aspects of the Emergency Response legislation that can be classed as "special measures" under the RDA.
Statements made by Jenny Macklin suggest that the Government is favouring this last option: "special measures". As to why there has been such a delay in restoring the RDA, speculation abounds that the legal advice that the Government sought — to determine how to retain the core of the Emergency Response without conflict with the RDA — was not as favourable as had been hoped.
So where do the conflicts between the RDA and the Emergency Response lie? The RDA was passed to satisfy Australia's obligations under the Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination (CERD). It provides for equality under the law and stipulates that persons of a "particular race, colour or national or ethnic origin: cannot be prevented from enjoying a human right or fundamental freedom enjoyed by others".
The Act does not forbid all race-based legislation, however. In the words of Tom Calma in 2004, when he was acting race discrimination commissioner, "if there are two people stuck down two different wells, one of them is 5 metres deep and the other is 10 metres deep, throwing them both 5 metres of rope would only accord formal equality".
The RDA acknowledges that some groups may require special protection to enable them to enjoy equal human rights and fundamental freedoms. It achieves this goal by providing that "special measures" passed to secure the advancement of particular racial/ethnic groups do not constitute racial discrimination. Indeed, CERD obliges states to take special measures "when the circumstances so warrant".
The question is: what constitutes a "special measure"? The general connotation is a positive one; Abstudy is an obvious example of a race-based initiative designed to secure Indigenous advancement rather than to perpetrate racial discrimination.
But things become more difficult when considering measures that restrict rights rather than enhancing them. In Gerhardy v Brown, the High Court set down principles guiding the interpretation of special measures which included:
The purported special measure must benefit some or all members of a racial national or ethnic group;
It must be entirely based on securing advancement of the group so that they enjoy equal human rights and freedoms;
It must be necessary so the group may enjoy equal human rights and freedoms;
It must be temporary and cannot continue after its objectives are achieved; and
The wishes of the members of the group are relevant to determining whether a measure is taken to secure their advancement.
Although there have been no federal court decisions on the matter, it is clear that in some circumstances, alcohol restrictions can constitute "special measures". In response to concerns raised by the Ngaanyatjarra Pitjantjatjara Yankunytjatjara (NPY) Women's Council and other Indigenous groups, HREOC produced the Alcohol Report in 1995. The report examined human rights, alcohol and racial discrimination, and concluded that the collective benefits flowing from alcohol restrictions could outweigh restraints on individual rights. It expressed the view that the "longstanding policy of the Pitjantjatjara affiliated councils ... that alcohol should not be available to members living within communities" was "not unlawful", being based on residence rather than race.
It is possible that alcohol restrictions imposed under the Intervention will survive reinstatement of the RDA. Not every aspect of the Intervention, however, can qualify as a special measure. The National Indigenous Times noted sceptically that "large parts of the NT Intervention cannot possibly be classified as 'special measures', hence the government's removal of the RDA in the first place".
Compulsory income management — which involves restricting the use of welfare payments such that 50 per cent must be spent on food, clothing and rent — has been a particularly controversial aspect of the Intervention, with Amnesty characterising it as both "discriminatory and demeaning".
The Rudd Government seems firmly wedded to compulsory income management, however; Macklin maintains that it is "helping children, making families more financially secure and improving community safety by diverting money away from alcohol and gambling". These are not considerations to be treated lightly.
Macklin has expressed her "personal view ... that compulsory income management can be seen as a special measure". Others are less certain. Amnesty considers that the Government is "distorting the principle of special measures"; campaign coordinator Sarah Marland argues that while "protecting the rights of women and children to live free from violence and abuse is ... a key responsibility for all levels of government", this "doesn't mean that people in the Northern Territory have to have fewer rights, less money and less control of their own lives".
Further, the 2008 Review of the Intervention identified income management as a possible breach of the RDA. The review recommended that it be available on a voluntary basis and ought only to be compulsory on the basis of child protection, school enrolment and attendance and other relevant behavioural triggers. The blanket nature of income management may suggest that this measure goes beyond what is "necessary".
The requirement that the measure confer a benefit is also relevant. In the 1996 "Palm Island Wages" case, the Queensland Government argued that its former legislation authorising lower wages for Aboriginal people (which were in place until 1984) were special measures because they aimed to further the "development, education and training" of Aboriginal people.
It was found that these laws did not provide a benefit, that they were implemented against the wishes of the inhabitants of Palm Island, and that they denied Aboriginal workers their human rights equal pay for equal work. The decision noted that the complainants: "might well regard the administration of the Queensland laws as part and parcel of ... a government policy which was intensely paternalistic, the practical effect of which was to demean them and to lower their self respect rather to ensure their enjoyment of and the exercise of their human rights".
In short, it is uncertain whether blanket compulsory income management constitutes a special measure. The Australian Human Rights Commission noted in August 2007 that "the many expressions of disquiet, from Indigenous communities in particular, indicate that the legislative measures have not been adequately demonstrated to them to be special measures necessary for their wellbeing". In Gerhardy v Brown, the Court noted that a special measure will not bring about advancement if it is conferred against the group's will: the "dignity of the beneficiaries is impaired and they are not advanced by having an unwanted material benefit foisted on them".
One thing, at least, is certain: compulsory income management poses serious questions about the meaning of special measures and of substantive equality, the purpose of the RDA and the role of government in regulating the lives of Australian welfare recipients.
Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Reddit
Newsvine
Facebook
Kwoff
Discuss this article
To participate in the discussion Sign in or Register
The other thing to factor in here is the problems surrounding compulsory leases. Land is treated as a special case under the UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination and the RDA, and the taking of land can never be considered a special measure.
Where a measure negatively impacts on Indigenous people it must be done after consultation with and the consent of the people affected to qualify as a special measures. This was clearly not done in relation to the Northern Territory Intervention. The Social Justice Commissioner Report 2007 notes that measures cannot meaningfully be said to be for the advancement of a group of people if they are taken without consultation or consent.
on the topic of consultation, this is a very interesting article:
http://www.crikey.com.au/2009/07/07/the-truth-about-the-nt-intervention-…
The primary objective should be to protect the rights of Aboriginal children and if the government has to make special provision in the welfare system to achieve this, so be it.
In the context of the topic of this article i.e. Racial discrimination, the choice of headline "Macklin’s Special Treatment" is peculiarly offensive. I’m reasonably sure Sarah Burnside would not have chosen the headline, but most informed people can only wonder where the editor is coming from.
… a play on special measures perhaps?
See the attached preliminary note from the Special Rapporteur, James Anaya’s recent visit to Australia;
http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/docs/12session/A.HRC.12.3…
He specifically states that aspects of the NT Emergency Response ‘overtly discrimate against Aboriginal peoples’ and has urged the Australian Government to ‘act swiftly’ to reinstate the protections of the Racial Discrimination Act.
Burnside observes that ‘Amnesty considers that the Government is "distorting the principle of special measures"; campaign coordinator Sarah Marland argues that while "protecting the rights of women and children to live free from violence and abuse is … a key responsibility for all levels of government", this "doesn’t mean that people in the Northern Territory have to have fewer rights, less money and less control of their own lives".’
Amnesty does not appear to me to be very mindful of certain important considerations:
1. There are a raft of other rights that need to be taken into consideration, rights which are enabled by NTER measures and which are at least as important as equal treatment in relation to welfare matters. These include the rights of people, and particularly children, to be adequately safe, free from too much stress, fed, clothed, emotionally nurtured and educated.
2. The NTER is not absolutely racially based. It applies to all people resident in certain localities in June 2007. It does not apply to most Aboriginal people resident in NT towns, nor to some other Aboriginal people. But it DOES apply to non-Aboriginal people resident in the prescribed NT localities in June 2007. This includes application of IM (Income Management) where non-Aboriginal residents were receiving welfare income.
3. It is misleading to say that people have less money as a result of Intervention. People generally have more money to spend on themselves and their families, as they have kept the same entitlements and have more ability to decide themselves how to dispose of it, as they are not being bullied to give as much of it away to drinkers and other demand sharers as was previously the case.
4. People subject to the NTER generally have more, not less, control over their own lives. What small amount of autonomy they have lost by not being able to exercise absolute discretion over the spending of half their welfare income is more than compensated for by the gains they have made in terms of control over many other aspects of their lives. These aspects include personal safety, ability to provide food for themselves and family members, ability to get advice about welfare matters, ability to control children and domestic spaces, ability to get help to deal with sexual abuse, ability to plan their lives, ability to save and budget money, ability to study and work in peaceful and supportive circumstances, ability to obtain better health care for themselves and their children, and many other important matters.
Bob Durnan
I cant help but laugh at what Bob said.
1. The NTER does not do anything for children. Many aboriginal people have their car confiscated permanantly by police because they had 1 unopened can of VB in the trunk. So families, without a car in extremely remote areas, now have no ability to take their children to school, to get health checks, or even buy food.
The new police stations in remote communities as part of the Intervetion have seen enormous pressures put on young teenagers in traditional relationships, because the police are now treating them like paedophiles. There have been numerous attempted suicides becuase of this.
2. This is completely rediculous statement. I dont see the NTER applying to any predominantly white communities! Of course it was designed to target aboriginal people.
3. / 4. The welfare quarantining applies to all people who receive it, no matter what their circumstances. So families who use their money wisely have less money, because it forces them to spend it on things they dont want to. For example many aboriginal people, like everyone else in Australia, have taken out loans on cars and other things as basic fundamental goods which allow them to live quality lives (ie access education, medical services an employment). Many now find they cant repay their loans, even though they were doing so before, because welfare quarantining completely destroyed their own autonomous budgeting. They are now in debt and being hassled by creditors in teh Courts.
The result is, that many aboriginal people who live quite normal decent lives are now being put in stressful position. The policy is working counter-intuatively, to make those Aboriginal people who were doing well fall into problems, alcoholism and other issues.
I really appreciate Sarah Burnside’s thoughtful commentary on the dilemmas that the Rudd government faces in deciding how to both reinstate the RDA while at the same time maintaining its acquiescence to clearly discriminatory measures of the Howard government to quarantine welfare payments made to people in prescribed communities (and hinterlands) and to compulsorily lease land held under freehold title. These are probably the two measures that most blatantly contravene the RDA. I am puzzled like Blake Blake by the response of Bob Durnan who in the past has been an advocate for Aboriginal rights. His superficial, emotive and anecdotal commentary adds no value to Burnside’s thoughtful and legally-based article. To perhaps reinforce BlakeBlake’s critique of Durnan:
1 There is no evidence available that anything has improved for Aboriginal kids beyond the access to medical care that they should have received as Australians from often impoverished backgrounds. Does Durnan have any evidence whatsoever that the idyllic conditions for children that he refers to were totally absent pre-Intervention or are now totally present?
2 The inclusion of a handful of non-Indigenous folk in Intervention income quarantining measures has had media coverage and has not been ‘rectified’. It was an place-based accident, not an indication that measures were being applied to non-Indigenous Australians; this is convenient reconstruction of policy intent that is quite disingenuous.
3 The quantum of money available to people pre and post-Intervention is relatively similar. It is likely that where CDEP has been abolished and people have not registered with Centrelink actual cash flow to regions has declined. It is also likely that where CDEP has disappeared and has not been replaced by public sector funded jobs, incomes have declined. In some places bullying by drunks is a problem, but this has little to do with the institution of demand sharing that is a form of claiming made from some categories of kin, in accord with customary norms, whether sober or drunk. Durnan should re-read Nicolas Peterson on demand sharing before applying his constructs in a ‘pop anthropological’ manner.
4 I am not convinced that the loss of individual autonomy inherent in income quarantining irrespective of behaviour is compensated for by other Intervention positives. On one hand this is mixing issues of rights with issues of empirical evidence that are not provided by Durnan (or the Australian or NT governments). On the other hand there is growing evidence even in government sponsored reports like the latest Australian government report on Closing the Gap in the Northern Territory (http://www.fahcsia.gov.au/sa/indigenous/pubs/nter_reports/Pages/closing_…) that was very quietly posted by FaHCSIA in late October 2009 that things are not going as well as might be anticipated.
I would like to add that alcohol has never been banned in prescribed communities or on Aboriginal land, this is a myth, communities that had either Alcohol Management Plans or licencing arrangements in place at the time of the Intervention retained then, while most prescribed communities were dry before the Intervention and remain so, the actions of some law breakers, while and black aside.
In NT communities that I have visited in central Australia and the Top End I have seen some increase in the bare minimum of citizenship entitlements on the basis of need that I would expect. I have also seen deep despondency associated with disempowerment. I remain puzzled why Durnan feels the need to be an apologist for the Intervention and the Rudd government, perhaps he feels the government’s spin machinery needs his assistance? I would really welcome any factual evidence that he has, that I do not have, of improved outcomes for Indigenous Australians in the NT from this expensive ‘emergency’ intervention that seems to be progressing, if at all, at a snail’s pace.
The thing that makes me stand against the NT "inter-vasion" is where does the Governments think or get the idea that this alcohol and child abuse is limited to just the remote Indigenous communities that reasoning within itself is discrimatory
Take a look with your eyes open and have a look at the child abuse, peadophilia, violence, drug and alcohol abuse in the so-called non remote communities of the rest of the country
Not only welfare recipients but also workers of all colours and creeds are using alcohol and drugs while thier children suffer
It is time that governments stopped the isolation of one sector of our Nation and had the guts to intervene across the entire of the peoples
This would meen interfering with thier main electorial base and wouldn’t be good for the prospects of re-election
Towns across this entire Nation have drug,alcohol,violence and child abuse running rampant
Corruption is entertained in all sectors of life and nothing is being done to stop it
"Any nation that does not care for and protect ALL of its children does not deserve the right to call itself a nation" Nelson Mandela
Thanks from Dave
Bob Durnan
I see that the revered Professor has conferred an honorary degree in Pop Anthropology on me.
It will be difficult for most readers to appreciate how proud this has made me feel.
I am humbled that he bothers to expend his extremely valuable time on consideration of my emotional and intellectual needs.
Therefore, I have decided to seek his expert tutelage in supervising me in undertaking a doctorate in Advanced Condescension.
I hope to commence my research quite soon, under his close and forceful command, if he is willing to accept my application.
I am willing to obtain a peg leg, eye patch, moulting parrot and new season pirate hat at my own expense, if this will facilitate my request.
I await his decision with some anticipation.
Bob, I am not sure that a public debate on your scholarly merits is a valuable investment of our time.
I would not accept you as a student on three grounds:
1 Your inability to seriously engage with critical feedback. I was not proposing to confer an honorary, or any other, degree on you, merely suggesting that if you use technical terms like ‘demand sharing’ do so with some rigour.
2 Your inability to read the available literature, in this case the government’s own report on progress in Northern Territory prescribed communities that surprisingly seems to provide evidence at loggerheads with yours that is asserted not demonstrated.
3 Your inability to consider an issue without a pre-determined view.
My personal view is that race-based laws are unacceptable in multicultural liberal democratic Australia. My professional view is that there are additional strong grounds for abolishing such laws because there is little statistical evidence that they are working at a broad level, although I do not preclude the possibility that the NTER Intervention is making some positive diference in some circumstances to some members of prescribed communities. This probably strengthens the case to make such measures voluntary rather than blanket. Like the Productivity Commission in its latest Overcoming Indigenous Disadvantage report I am of the view that improvements will not result from top down coercive goals and measures imposed by the state. A participatory community-based approach reflecting local aspirations, as well as equitable needs-based support (that is still not occurring) will be essential to ensure sustainable outcomes.
Apologies if my response is not as light-hearted as yours.
hi bob durnan,
i’ve googled you and i see that you have done years of work on communities, so while i don’t accept all of your points to be generally true, i’m willing to believe that you speak from personal experience and what you say is accurate about the experiences you have had.
given your extensive personal experience, perhaps you can go one step further and answer another question about the intervention that i have long wondered about: how successful has it been at breaking down existing corrupt power structures within the communities you have worked in?
my own (limited) experience suggests that internal corruption (on councils etc) that benefited one group or family was a major problem in remote communities prior to the intervention. i have often wondered how federal government intervention affected this, and whether this national scrutiny, in a sense, was working to shine a light on and eradicate these practices.
My other question to you would be this: if the intervention has had an impact on these practices, would you say this is one of the main reasons that you believe the intervention to be ‘working’?
thanks for your time
Watched messagestick on ABC today and most asked said it was/has failed and led to even more hardship
Jack03 nothing has stopped all the corruption amoungst the Lands
Councils etc
It has eased to a degree with the remodelling and despensing with the old ATSIC but this corruption and rip offs wasn’t only limited to the so-called remote areas it occurred in all areas
Nothing is going to get rid of all the corruption and rorts, because it hasn’t been achieved in the rest of Society so why would you think our mob could eliminate it any better than the rest of Government and Departments in Society
Have a look at the corruption being exposed in NSW with the politicians, town councils etc then remember that ain’t our mob
Thanks
From Dave
Some replies to the questions about my comments:
To jack03:
Re: “how successful has [the Intervention] been at breaking down existing corrupt power structures within the communities you have worked in?”
My answer is that it was initially fairly successful, particularly in relation to a number of notorious non-Aboriginal operators, but stalled when trying to deal with some of the more difficult cases, especially those in some of the structures that have independent cash flows from mining royalties and other sources. Ultimately FaHCSIA’s (and the politicians’) unwillingness to confront some of these situations head on means that some powerful individuals, certain businesses, as well as some service organisations, retain major problems of the type that you mention.
The early successes greatly reinforced my respect for the Intervention, or at least for some of its features (I have little or no respect for some aspects, such as the employment, training and enterprise creation strategies), and I can see now that to overcome some of the worst remaining semi-feudal situations in which those with power are exploiting their countrymen in very destructive ways, there needs to be some much tougher action, and the Intervention actually needs to be tightened up in some places to achieve this, or we are likely to see more decades of serious dysfunction and stagnation in certain communities.
To BlakeBlake:
You may be laughing, but it may be you who is having problems thinking straight on these issues, rather than the NTER people.
I have visited 12 central Australian NT Aboriginal communities in the last 6 weeks, discussing relevant issues with community leaders and health staff, and there has been pretty well unanimous agreement amongst those to whom I spoke that the health of children has improved significantly.
This is hardly surprising, since Income Management (IM) of half of welfare income has meant a greatly increased amount of income being spent on food in the prescribed communities. (On top of that, an extra $189 million for health in prescribed communities has been provided so far, to the end of June 2010, from DoHA for its share of the NTER Intervention funding, with an extra $60 million or so being promised for the next financial year; and a large amount has been spent by FaHCSIA on basic repairs to houses, which would have helped improve the kids’ health.)
Data from the NT Health Dept’s 2008/09 Healthy School Aged Kids (HSAK) annual health checks, not yet published, should more clearly expose whatever trends exist. Certainly, data from some of the community-controlled health services indicates the trends are good.
In particular, ‘failure to thrive’ figures seem to have nose-dived.
Any observers with functional eyes and memory cells will attest that weeping ears and running noses amongst the kids have been greatly reduced.
Re the confiscation of vehicles: The NTER legislation does not provide for confiscation of vehicles which are illegally transporting grog – this is a provision of the NT’s own legislation, which pre-dated the NTER laws by many years, so don’t blame ‘the Intervention’ for this. The police decide under which legislation to press charges when they apprehend people illegally transporting grog.
Re the NTER and non-Aboriginal residents: I didn’t say that the NTER applied to any “predominantly white communities”. I simply pointed out that it applied to non-Aboriginal people living in all prescribed communities.
Re the NTER and IM: The NTER does not force “families who use their money wisely …to spend it on things they don’t want to”. If they can’t find enough things other than grog, nicotine, porn, illegal drugs and gambling that they want to spend half of their welfare money on, it encourages them to save that money for things like holidays, their kids’ education, or a new car: it doesn’t force them to spend it. It actually encourages people to save or pay off their debts for the cars and the other things you mention. I suspect that you do not have much first hand experience or knowledge of how Centrelink actually provides assistance to its clients in relation to IM.
To altmanj:
You are puzzled by my allegedly “superficial, emotive and anecdotal commentary” which you think “adds no value to Burnside’s thoughtful and legally-based article.”
Well, as my comments were about the words of an Amnesty spokesperson quoted by Burnside, it is just a matter of opinion whether I added value to her article.
However, I would like to take issue with the allegation that my comments were emotive. Superficial? Maybe. Anecdotal? In part. But emotive? I think not. My comments were low key opinions, and factual.
It may make you upset to see your pre-conceptions challenged, but those are your emotions, not mine.
It is absurd for you to claim that I imply there were “idyllic conditions for children … [which] were totally absent pre-Intervention or are now totally present”.
I referred to, or implied, no such totality. I simply asserted that adults and children are entitled to expect a number of other equalities, not just parity of welfare entitlements. No idyls.
Similarly, you distort my mention of “demand sharing”. I am not an academic anthropologist, and I am free to use contemporary terms in the manner in which they are conventionally used, without being disparaged by you. Whether you like it or not, the term has entered current debate with a contemporary meaning: the generalised demanding by relatives and others that resources be shared, regardless of the traditional restrictions on such demands. Hardly surprising, given the multifarious indications of the collapse of traditions and traditional authority in most families. Customary norms no longer have much to do with most of this demanding.
Then you dispute my claim that many people may now have more control over their lives, by seeming to question whether there is any evidence to back my assertion. This is petty, as the increases in policing, health servicing, educational services, Centrelink advisory and counselling services, Family and Childrens Services staff and food consumption, as you well know, support my assertions about improvements to “personal safety, ability to provide food for themselves and family members, ability to get advice about welfare matters, ability to control children and domestic spaces, ability to get help to deal with sexual abuse, ability to plan their lives, ability to save and budget money, ability to study and work in peaceful and supportive circumstances, ability to obtain better health care for themselves and their children, and many other important matters.”
Your misconstruals of my comments speak for themselves, and I will make no further efforts to correct your distortions.
To David Grayson:
Equality and equity are the issues here: you are over-looking the fact that the documented levels of most of these things (“child abuse, peadophilia, violence, drug and alcohol abuse”) are much higher in the NT Aboriginal community than in the non-Aboriginal communit. This puts some onus on the governments to try to bring the high rates down to somewhere closer to the levels endured by non-Aboriginal people.
Bob Durnan
Bob Duman,
"To David Grayson:
Equality and equity are the issues here: you are over-looking the fact that the documented levels of most of these things (“child abuse, peadophilia, violence, drug and alcohol abuse”) are much higher in the NT Aboriginal community than in the non-Aboriginal communit. This puts some onus on the governments to try to bring the high rates down to somewhere closer to the levels endured by non-Aboriginal people."
Bob,
I would like to see your statistics on this as in my travels of urban areas these things are reasonably prevalent in communities of largely non-aboriginal communities
The onus should not be put on governments to bring it down to somewhere closer, The onus should be on the Governments to STOP IT COMPLETELY in ALL communities
Equality and equity is exactly right if good enough to do it in Indigenous communities good enough to do it in non-indigenous communities
Old saying " what’as good for the goose is good for the gander"
Also years ago when there were aboriginal camps around country towns it was many of the whites that took the grog to the camps and abused the kids while the aboriginal parents got drunk on the grog supplied by the whites of the towns
Quote; "Any nation that does not care for and protect ALL of its children does not deserve to be called a nation" Nelson Mandela
Thanks for you time
Dave Grayson
Bob Durnan
I apologise for the mispelling of your name
Please accept my apology it is just that I get a little short sighted when there is an "r" followed by an "n" they appear at times like an "m" it maybe my eyes are going a little or just the old screen that I have
Thanks from Dave
Dave
Here are some links that will help you explore these issues:
The Report on the health and welfare of Indigenous Australians
The AIHW/ABS Report: "The Health and Welfare of Australia’s Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples 2008, Tuesday 29 April 2008. Data on the health and welfare of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians shows that Indigenous children are over-represented in the child protection system with the rate of Indigenous children on care and protection orders six times the rate of other Australian children." This report by the Australian Bureau of Statistics and the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare reveals some shocking facts including the plight of many Indigenous children. The full report is available at www.abs.gov.au or www.aihw.gov.au
From "Indigenous Children 6-Times More Likely to Be Abused (Update1) By Michael Heath.
July 2 (Bloomberg) — Indigenous children are almost six- times more likely to suffer abuse than other children in Australia, according to a report today that shows cases in Aboriginal communities have more than doubled since 1999.
The government-commissioned study titled “Overcoming Indigenous Disadvantage” found few improvements in the plight of Aborigines in the past decade. The indigenous homicide rate was seven-times higher than in the rest of the population, while Aborigines were 13-times more likely to be jailed.
Alcohol, Pornography
Today’s study examines social and economic trends among Australia’s Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in the eight years from 1999-2000.
During the period, cases of child abuse or neglect of indigenous children rose to 35 per 1,000 from 16 per 1,000. The rate for other Australian children rose to six per 1,000 from five in the same period.
Forty-one out of every 1,000 indigenous children were subject to care and protection orders, compared with five out of every 1,000 non-indigenous children.
Domestic Violence
The study showed hospitalizations from domestic violence were 34-times higher in indigenous communities. The imprisonment rate for indigenous women and men has increased by 46 percent and 27 percent respectively since 2000, according to the report.
The study found that indigenous literacy and numeracy levels haven’t improved. Thirty-six percent of indigenous 19- year-olds completed high school in 2007, compared with 74 percent for other Australians.
Of 49 indicators in the study, there was insufficient data on 50 percent to determine a trend, while 30 percent were unchanged or getting worse and 20 percent improved.
To contact the reporter on this story: Michael Heath in Sydney at mheath1@bloomberg.net. "
Hope these reports are of help.
Bob Durnan
Bob
I will explore the links sudjested but here is something to chew on
My child was removed for the allegation of Bashed and starved,
Court transcripts can show that DoCS didn’t believe this
Then the allegation of emotional abuse after 6 weeks away from parents with near no access and was supposed to be only as a 2 year old in learning when only 31/2 years old and had already taught himself to play a few notes on the Didge with a cardboard tube
Three years in care couldn’t wipe his own bottom at 61/2 years of age
Entered grade 7 doing reading and spelling from grade 2 and maths from grade 3
This is but one example how many more of our mob are the same way?
I was removed from my mum at 61/2 years of age I did get a "White" education but went on to do all the stupid attention seeking rubbish grog,drugs,fighting and gaol because I missed my mum and yearned for my culture
No one can fix problems one can only fix causes, fix the causes then no problems
But thanks for the links and I will now take time to read them
By the way if you have any doubt about the fore mentioned case contact me direct on graysond49@yahoo.com I will be more than willing to send you the evidence
Same Quote "Any nation that does not care for and protect ALL of its children does not deserve to be called a nation" Nelson Mandela
Thanks for your time
From Dave
Hi bob,
Thanks for your time in answering my question. If these kinds of corrupt and ‘semi-feudal’ practices are still a major problem, as you say, then shouldn’t they be the subject of as much scrutiny and attention as the other more widely discussed problems in communities: alcohol abuse, malnutrition etc?
This is especially the case since a problem such as corrupt leadership has the potential to cause and perpetuate many others. Corrupt practices are also much easier to identify than say, personal income mismanagement, and should therefore be easy for the Government to weed out.
I guess what I’m asking you, as a supporter of the intervention, is: shouldn’t the intervention policy have acknowledged this problem and had some provisions in place to deal with it? And how much change can really take place in these communities if this problem is not addressed at its root?
Cheers jack
Why doesn’t everyone come totally clear on the whole social ideals and changes going on
The Indigenous is the last domain of male dominant rule
For the total acceptance of the rule of femininity then the structure of the Indigenous culture must be altered as well
That is one of the main underlying reasons of the inquiry into the Provacation laws in QLD and its use as a defence in serious assault cases
This was also behind the Violence against Women campaign so the easiest way to cover the hidden agendas is to place the argument up that the governments are interested in the betterment of the whole community whilst covering the hidden agendas this is why the corruption that still continues is not being dealt with and the abuse of children across the whole of society is not being stopped
We talk of political correctness and anti-discrimination but the parliaments and governments practice this in every state at every level
All governments have a Minister for womens affairs but where is the equal counterpart, Minister for mens affairs this is sex discrimination at all levels of governments
It is time that equality was a two sided track this way we can then concentrate on the issue at hand the STOPPING OF CHILD ABUSE
I once again leave you all with the same quote
"Any nation that does not care for and protect ALL of its children does not deserve the right to call itself a nation" Nelson Mandela
Thanks from Dave
Well said David Grayson, that is exactly right, discrimination is within the government & the manipulation of the law is their main objective. They don’t want to address the discrimination laws, they support the Catholic ideology of social unrest & the support of religious charity based institutions, especially ones they can use on the indigenous population to make them feel insecure.
Thank you all posters. Very informative. in my day the ‘black boyers"
grabbed all the limelight and oxygen and controlled the funding. I hope the lot of the average joe and jill escapes this curse and improves with the intervention.
EarnestLee, wouldn’t it be better to support people with understanding & moral support rather than racist commentary? I wonder if that’s what the Koori’s thought of us white oxygen hogging gubbahs in the day’s of planting the flag on our, I mean their land.
EarnestLee
First explain your term "black boyers"
Second why would the average joe and jill be better off by under a system that takes them back to the time of "flour and sugar rationing" ideals
Would you be acceptable to someone or government taking your money and saying now here is a "quid" to go to the shop 50 mile down the road and buy yourself some food but your car is broken down so you haven’t got the money to fix it so start walking
I don’t think you would be to happy with that approach
Next why only concentrate on the Indigenous when every bloody pension day there are whites and others in the towns and cities spending money on grog, drugs and gambling,
Why shouldn’t these people be rationed thier money also?
Thanks Dave