No one could deny that there needed to be urgent action taken by the Federal Government on the issue of violence in Indigenous communities. The “Little Children are Sacred” report is the latest in a line of similar official reports, the first being by Professor Judy Atkinson in 1989 for the National Inquiry on Violence. These reports have been added to over the years by tomes of evidence, outlining the crisis occurring in Indigenous communities across Australia.

 

The announcement by John Howard on Friday 22^nd June, 2007 has been seen by various commentators as ‘long-overdue’; ‘cynical’; ‘a wedge’; ‘the wrong approach’; ‘the right approach’; ‘punitive’; ‘ill-conceived’; ‘Tampa 2007’; ‘Howard’s rabbit’ (in reference to his recent electoral annihilation comment that he had no rabbit o pull out of his hat), plus a number of other views too wide-ranging to summarise here.

 

Whatever the public commentary, there is no hiding the profound sense of urgency felt by the report’s authors, and illustrated in words such as this: 

 

“We have an enormous amount of knowledge and experience about the problems. It should now be applied. There is no more time for us to wring our collective hands. Both Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal Australians have tended to despair about the difficulties instead of individually or collectively exercising some leadership. We are positively convinced that unless prompt and firm decisions are made and leadership shown at ALL levels of society, real disaster faces Australia within a generation” (Wild and Anderson, 2007, pp 6 & 7).

 

In reference to the Noel Pearson quote above, the question must be asked – how does this plan from the Howard Government support people to get back on their feet and take charge of their own families?

 

 

Regardless of any analysis or political slant that will be placed on Howard’s intervention, we must remain utterly and completely committed to ensuring that the rights of children are paramount in our consideration of any response.

 

We know that child abuse is not a syndrome that is somehow vested in Aboriginal culture; we know that many non-Indigenous children are victims of child abuse and we know that non-Indigenous people are perpetrators of this same kind of abuse. Indeed a recent UN report estimated in 2006 that 200 million children across the world have been sexually abused and almost 300 million have witnessed domestic violence. In Australia, the report estimates that up to 600,000 children out of a total of 4 million children under the age of 14 have been the victim of some form of violence.

 

BUT faced with a succession of reports from Queensland, NSW and WA, a national summit on Indigenous community violence, and calls for action from Indigenous and non-Indigenous people alike, we must find a way to tackle this crisis for the sake of our Indigenous children whose lives are being ruined in these deleterious circumstances.

 

Anyone who has lived and worked in a remote Aboriginal community cannot help being overcome by the pervasive sense of powerlessness of those men and women, who for so many years have argued for government support and intervention in this issue for the sake of their children and grandchildren.

 

The sad statistics of child abuse, both physical and sexual are thus that the victim of the behaviour, unless treated, is more likely to become a perpetrator, thus perpetuating the cycle as the abused become abusers. Statistics tell us that 20 to 50% of adolescents who have sexually abused children were victims of physical abuse and between 40 to 80% were sexually abused. All evidence points towards the fact that children who abuse others are more likely to have been victims of abuse.

 

All of the evidence in all of the reports from across the years provides a compelling reason for action. The question is what type of action is appropriate action? Will the Howard/Brough proposition serve to make the changes that we all desire – the restoration of peace and order, the protection of children and the ability for people to lead a rewarding and fruitful life?

Below is an overview of some of the issues with this approach.

 

This approach which is based on the notion of engendering responsibility in Aboriginal people appears to do the opposite. The approach of importing expertise in to a community without establishing local links, implies that there is no expertise locally and insults those who have been working on the ground dealing with these issues locally for many years.

 

In addition, there is a real risk in isolating and further alienating people from a process which is meant to engage them. For example, the visit by the ‘scoping mission’ to the Santa Maria community on the 27^th June, 2007 was reported by the Australian (28^th June) to have excluded two leaders who were experts on the issues of youth, lawlessness and sexual abuse, who were not contacted and who were absent at the time of the visit by the ‘scoping’ team. It was further reported that this team went about their task ‘with as much secrecy as they could’.

 

The key question here is – how do we seize the ‘Right to Take Responsibility’ when this massive intervention by the Federal Government does not engage Aboriginal people in the process? 

 

 

“…in the end parent’s responsibility for the welfare of their children is the greatest responsibility of all” (John Howard, Press Conference 26.06.07).

 

Does this responsibility extend to protecting your children from unnecessary and potentially invasive sexual examinations?

 

Medical experts have expressed serious concern about the approach of conducting physical examinations of all Aboriginal children for signs of sexual abuse for a number of reasons. Firstly, genital examination of children who have not been abused is nigh on akin to abuse itself. Secondly, genital examination of children who have been abused must be handled sensitively, lest they further exacerbate the issue.

 

Health experts have also said that if there were evidence of a high prevalence of sexually transmitted infections, ‘it would do less damage and probably result in greater coverage of the target group if all children were treated with appropriate antibiotics, without preliminary examination.’ (Konrad Jamrozik, Professor of Evidence Based Health Care, University of Queensland, Crikey, Tuesday, 26^th June, 2007).

 

The Australian Medical Association, whilst supporting Howard’s action, has expressed concern that medical checks must be done in consultation with local elders and follow community protocols (AMA media transcript, 22^nd June). They have also raised a number of other issues, such as the provision of training, cultural awareness, proper remuneration, and flexible working conditions (AMA media release, 22^nd June) for their members.

The AMA further stated that “It is our goal to put in place a quality health checks program and comprehensive primary care services that the Indigenous community will want to access.” (22^nd June). Hopefully the AMA will consult with the National Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Services (NACCHO) and assist in the implementation of models which are already known to work and have produced many positive outcomes, but which have languished due to lack of Government support and action.

The Government has shifted his position since their initial announcement, now stating that they will take advice from health professionals about the nature of the checks. However an important issue remains outstanding. According to the Minister, information on abuse will be fed through to the relevant authorities. This is absolutely right and correct. However, one must ask what has happened to the tomes of this type of information which has been fed to authorities before? What will the response of the relevant authorities be once these checks are completed? Will Aboriginal children in need receive the medical support that they require and how will this be provided in many of these remote communities?

 

 

The Government proposes to quarantine 50% of peoples’ cash welfare payments and instead provide them in the form of restricted access food vouchers or cards with which to purchase food-stuffs. This approach is a global approach which enforces restricted access to cash on all people living in the targeted communities, regardless of whether they are able to manage their money or not.

 

There are a range of issues with this approach. Firstly, how does the Government propose to ensure that there are adequate supplies in community stores to ensure that people are able to spend their money on ‘food and other essentials’ when in many remote communities food and other essentials are not readily available? Secondly, a similar model has been trialed before by an Aboriginal organisation in Central Australia, with the unintended consequence of vouchers/cards being turned in to a type of currency to be traded for grog and other items, exemplifying why it is incumbent on the Howard government to consult with organisations in the roll-out of this strategy. Thirdly, even if this solution were appropriate, it is only a short term measure, which further perpetuates people’s dependence on a system. It does not engender behavioural change. Nor does it facilitate a process of transferral of more responsibility to those who prove they are able to manage their money.

 

This policy is one which is based on the proposals of Noel Pearson’s ‘A Hand Up, Not a Hand Out’ policy proposal for the reform of welfare payments in Cape York, however there are some significant differences. Whilst not advocating for Pearson’s plan, it is interesting to note where his proposals differ from the Government’s proposals for the NT. Below are a few of the significant differences: 

·    Pearson’s plan proposes a governance mechanism, the Family Responsibilities Commission, made up of local elders (who are JP’s) and a retired magistrate;

·    it proposes a staged process of intervention – identification, warnings, family conferencing, issuing a directive to seek support, issuing a compulsory directive to seek support, issuing a directive to make welfare payments conditional, issuing a compulsory directive to make welfare payments conditional, and issuing a compulsory directive to redistribute welfare payments to another parent or care-giver in the case of family payments;

·    it proposes the roll-out of the Family Income Management System (FIMS) which is support infrastructure aimed at financial capacity-building;

·     it proposes an appeals process (although it is legal and cumbersome, through the Administrative Appeals Tribunal);

·    it proposes additional social infrastructure supports and interventions, such as family group conferencing and youth justice conferencing.

 

On the other hand, the Governments proposal:

·    is interventionist in the extreme, imposing a blanket solution on all Indigenous welfare recipients;

·    has no supporting community-based governance mechanism;

·    is not underpinned by any form of financial literacy training; 

·    proposes no mechanism for appeal; and

·    does not propose to provide any supporting social infrastructure.

 

The Government’s plan also proposes that additional money can be docked from people’s pay to pay for children’s meals and if their children do not attend school.

 

The key question here is how will the Federal Government account of the quarantining of welfare funds and will this be a transparent process where money spent on food and services will be at least equivalent (to welfare monies quarantined). There is an historical context which rightfully makes people anxious about Government control of Indigenous monies. Overall, we are not convinced that individuals who are responsibly caring for their children and themselves should suffer the indignity of such paternalism.

 

 

The most crucial issue in relation to this element of the plan as announced so far is ensuring the provision of schooling in areas where no school is available. In addition to this, the linking of welfare payments to school attendance has been shown by the Federal Government’s own research (see DEWR ‘Hall’s Creek Engaging Families Trial’ Evaluation Report) not to be an effective strategy to encourage school attendance. Aside from the lack of actual schools in remote Northern Territory communities, there are a number of crucial issues which need to be addressed, including:

 

·    Who will report the non-attendance of children to Centrelink?

·    What if children attend school for half a day and then leave?

·    What if children have a valid reason (such as being bullied) for not attending school?

 

Additional recent experiences of this Government’s policies of coercion in relation to getting Aboriginal children to attend school, namely the Wadeye ‘no school – no pool’ approach tells us that they also must have a plan to fully staff and resource schools when they are flooded with children. The Wadeye experience saw hundreds of students turn up at the local Catholic school (there is no Government school in the town) only to be faced with lack of classrooms, a lack of teachers and no resources to provide them with.

 

Professor John Altman from the Centre for Aboriginal Economic Policy Research (CAEPR) at the Australian National University has today released the following rough costings on the provision of education services for the 60 targeted communities. He states in Crikey:

On education, just focusing on the so-called prescribed communities, the NT Government estimates that there are 8000 enrolled indigenous students in these communities, but attendance is only 60%. It is also estimated that 2000 children are not enrolled. If 10,000 students went to school an extra recurrent allocation of $79 million per annum would be needed and a one-off allocation of $295 million for extra school infrastructure and teacher housing, an extra $690 million over five years and that is for remote communities only.

 

And so, the questions remain: what is the Government’s long term plan for the provision of high quality public education in remote Aboriginal communities in the Northern Territory? How can the Government punish parents for not sending children to school when there are no schools to send them to?

 

Further to this is the failure of the Howard Government to address serious issues in relation to Indigenous Higher Education as a part of the ‘intervention’. The 2005 Higher Education Report, released on the 16^th of January 2007 shows that:

 

 

The report notes that continuing declines in Indigenous involvement in higher education will perpetuate disadvantages experienced by Indigenous Australians and hinder their full participation in Australia’s economic and social developments.

 

Issues that impact on successful outcomes for Indigenous education include and affect all areas of the community, families and individuals. The issues raised as priority areas for the Commonwealth Government are still directly influencing how community view education as a whole. Providing restriction to welfare in particular will not assist Indigenous communities and may in fact be more harmful.

 

In providing an answer to a journalist’s question ‘Prime Minister, why have you judged it necessary to take control of land bestowed under the Aboriginal Land Rights Act (ALRA)…?’ Howard responds that he would not have the authority to do what is needed without the abolition of the ALRA. Much has been made in the commentary of Howard’s motives in relation to the ALRA. Warren Mundine tells us in today’s Melbourne Herald Sun (29^th June) to trust Howard. Howard and Brough have said they are not interested in selling off the main street of Mutijulu.

 

However, let us not forget that John Howard as leader of the Opposition in 1996 held up a map of Australia on national TV and said that if the tide were not stemmed Aboriginal people would very soon control more than half the country. He was also the man who gave us the ‘10 point plan’ to amend the Wik legislation. As with Industrial Relations, John Howard is and always has been ideologically opposed to the notion of Aboriginal land title. He has also been a recent advocate of the expansion of uranium mining in the Northern Territory and his Government has announced a site for nuclear waste disposal.

 

 

The ALRA enables Aboriginal landowners a right to veto mining and other activities on their lands. It is proposed by some commentators that Howard, having amended the ALRA once to negate the NT Aboriginal Land Councils’ roles in the collection of royalties, will pursue in this further round of amendments, changes which will remove the right of Aboriginal land owners to veto mining exploration and activities.

 

 

Grog will be banned in all of the targeted communities. A blanket ban on grog without ensuring the full provision of support services, including rehabilitation services, are in place has the potential to further exacerbate law and order problems. Additionally many of the Elders from the effected communities are interested in whether these bans will extend to the regional centres because that’s where community members will go to access alcohol. This will impact upon the ability of those regional centres to provide adequate support and services to those who have moved.

 

 

It is difficult to condone the ways and means as to which the Howard Government has deployed the army and the Australian Federal Police to this task. However, had the tactic by the Government been played out differently, and the concept introduced as a part of a ‘peace and social order restoration’ approach which was consulted with Aboriginal leaders, the response from Aboriginal communities and leaders may have been different. After all, the army has worked successfully in many communities on infrastructure projects, and Australia’s unarmed Federal Police have played an exemplary role in countries such as East Timor in times of turmoil.

 

 

When questioned on the ‘Insiders’ (ABCTV) on the 24^th June about his response to a Catholic Bishop’s statement that the Government should not go in to this with a ‘Bully-boy’ attitude, Mal Brough replied: “I agree with him entirely. Some people have tried to paint this as bully-boy. A bullyboy is a standover merchant, not someone that stands by you protecting you and looks after your child…”

 

However, a quick scan of the words that John Howard chose in making this announcement belie the notion that there was no hint of political opportunism in the tactic:

 

·    We’re going to enforce school attendance;

·    The Commonwealth Government will take control of townships;

·    We’ll require intensive on the ground clean up of communities.

 

And the list goes on.

 

Today (29^th June, 2007) Crikey has reported the Government’s directives to CDEP organisations and Land Councils respectively as:

 

 

And

 

 

 

Further, the Crikey editorial provided the following commentary:

 

 

 

 

As Jeff McMullen commented in his speech ‘The Children of the Sunrise’ delivered to a national education conference at the Australian Catholic University in Sydney on the 25^th June, “Mal Brough has been determined to find a way of imposing government control on this community and others because the minister believes this is the only was to save people from themselves.”

 

Tellingly, the report, Little Children Are Sacred, upon which this intervention is justified, quotes Fred Chaney, former Minister for Aboriginal Affairs in the Fraser Government as saying:

 

And then goes on to state:

 

The thrust of our recommendations, which are designed to advise the Northern Territory Government on how it can help support communities to effectively prevent and tackle child sexual abuse, is for there to be consultation with, and ownership by the communities, of those solutions. The underlying dysfunctionality where child sexual abuse flourishes needs to be attacked, and the strength returned to Aboriginal people.
Ampe Akelyernemane Meke Mekarle  Little Children are Sacred Report into Child Sex Abuse, Rex Wild & Pat Anderson, co-chairs, p. 21

 

 

The ACTU was represented at a forum of Aboriginal and civil society organisations in Canberra on Wednesday, 27^th June. At this forum, working parties were established to develop an alternative plan to Howard’s.

 

Indigenous community leaders expressed their desire for support from Unions, not only in terms of immediate help, but also in terms of future assistance, particularly in training, assistance with the media, organising meetings, monitoring the roll-out of the plan, and political advocacy with the ALP. It is clear from these announcements that Indigenous Australians and Trade Unionists are in the same situation with the Howard Government. It is a Government which has allowed its ideological position to get in the way of enabling people to participate actively in democratic processes.

 

Clearly, the most immediate thing that Unions can do is engage with Indigenous people and communities. Our campaign to see off the Howard Government and have respect and dignity re-established through legislative rights of working Australians has parallels for the respectful pursuit of long term solutions to the serious issues faced by Indigenous Australians.  Our respective futures depend on it.