Driving home from work, I was thinking about the political implications of Howard’s announcement of a “state of emergency” [details from Brough here] in the Indigenous communities of the Northern Territory. And don’t think for a second this move isn’t highly political. A number of commenters on the Pearson thread got there before me:
Rudd is now in the same position Beazley was with Tampa. Damned if he supports it by his own base, damned if he doesn’t by a significant number of swinging voters.
-BigBob.
Mmmm… feel The Wedge™.
Another election wrapped in race baiting, paternalism…bigotry. And using the mainstream media to make it seem he CARES. It’s for the good of the Nation.
-nasking.
He’s had 11 years to starve them, drive up the negatives and drive down the positives and now he owns them.
-Phil.
Howard demonstrates “strength” and “leadership” while brushing aside “constitutional niceties” and frames the whole issue in terms of saving the kids. You can bet Claire Martin’s Labor government will wear all the blame for inaction. And how should Rudd respond? His instincts are probably to agree with Howard. But there’ll be Labor pollies who’ll speak against it. And they’re wedged as condoning child sexual abuse or something. It’s a highly simplistic and exceptionally authoritarian response to a complex problem. But it might be a highly effective response to Howard’s political problems. Is this the long awaited tipping point? Was he bluffing when he said he had no rabbits to pull out of his hat?
Comments on this thread please.
Update: Rudd’s response:
Kevin Rudd didn’t bother checking for details – he’s committed Labor to supporting the power grab.
“Children before Politics” is the Government Gazette Matt Price Blog headline.
Further update [by MB]: Or maybe Price jumped the gun. The ABC reports:
Labor leader Kevin Rudd says he will do what he can to work Mr Howard on the issue.
Mr Rudd has also asked for a briefing on the changes the Prime Minister proposes.
More: tigtog has an excellent post looking at the politics and the practicalities of the issue. As she writes, “Unlike the total beat-up of Tampa, there is a genuine problem to be addressed with respect to sexual abuse” but she asks some very good questions about the measures proposed. One would hope the Labor Party might also be able to come up with some!
FYI: Here is the text of the NT Little Children are Sacred report [pdf]. I haven’t been through it to see if its recommendations resemble Howard’s plan, but based on the press when it was released, I suspect they don’t.
Ken Parish has written a passionate post at Troppo deploring today’s events:
Today is a day of shame in Australian politics. Everyone deplores the appalling incidence of violence and child sexual abuse in indigenous communities. But there simply isn’t any quick, magical solution. The policy Howard has just announced is worse, more racist and more wildly impractical and misconceived than anything Pauline Hanson ever spouted. Kevin Rudd’s meek, kneejerk endorsement of it is almost as disgusting, and marks him unfit to lead Australia. At least Howard has the guts to announce policies of his own, however repugnant and ill-considered.
The recommendations of the NT Wild/Anderson Report have been posted by Guy at Polemica.
Around the blogosphere on Friday: [by MB] Guido doesn’t think it will be a bbq stopper, Tim Dunlop calls for a bipartisan approach, Meredith at Sarsaparilla examines what’s involved in a state of emergency, Graham Young is supportive of the plan, Andrew Leigh compares the alcohol ban to prohibition, and Jason Soon calls the plan “the return of paternalism”.
I am concerned about this, not because of niceties regarding process, but because we have plenty of evidence that developing and implementing the solutions in conjunction with people on the ground dramatically increases the chances of success (or reduces the chances of failure). Virtually every comprehensive report provided to governments into this issue over the past decade or more emphasise this point. It was a key component of the Social Justice Report tabled just last week by the Aboriginal & Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner.
Professor Boni Robertson, who compiled a similar report in relation to Indigenous children in Queensland in 1999, has been reported making very critical comments about aspects of the plan. “When is this knee-jerk nonsense going to stop and when are they going to start proper consultation with our people so that we can get it done properly?�
On the Crikey website today: Malcolm Fraser and Lowitja O’Donoghue and Richard Farmer.
More blog reaction from Mr Lefty, John Quiggin, mark at stoush.net and the view from elsewhere.
Saturday update: The latest crop of blogospheric commentary comes from John Quiggin at Crooked Timber, Surfdom and Simon Jackman, who rightly, I think, sees Howard as having one eye on his place in history. I think the reversal of the land tenure provisions originally introduced by Malcolm Fraser also has to be seen in this context.
Some interesting reflections from Elizabeth at Scarlet Words:
Unfortunately, for every thoughtful and considered piece of commentary I’ve encountered in the blogosphere, there is another article that simply exists to deliver uninformed condemnation of Indigenous people as a whole. In making special laws for a subset of our population – whether those laws are right or wrong – our government has essentially created an “open mic nightâ€? for all those people who wish to make exclusionary statements of their own. I suppose it comes as little surprise that so many have interpreted Howard’s strategy as some sort of official sanction for otherwise unacceptable racist statements.
Some more links to relevant posts at Hoyden.
Comments redirected to this thread, apropos of a post on the response to Howard’s state of emergency declaration. Just so that a very long comments thread doesn’t become too unwieldy for readers.
Comments continued from the discussion on this related thread, between here:
http://larvatusprodeo.net/2007/06/19/welfare-reform-pearson-style/#comment-378497
and here:
http://larvatusprodeo.net/2007/06/19/welfare-reform-pearson-style/#comment-378378
Casey [at 11.30pm last night on the other thread] said
the question I pose refers to the essentialisation of Indigeneity – issues of white constructs of Indigenous identity rather than a discussion of the merits of certain ‘educated’ Aboriginals.
But the two are intertwined …. and that is why some educated “indigeniesâ€? are nothing but white constructs – press the buttons and they will dance and do all sorts of tricks for you. Such people deserve pity as much as condemnation.
And that is why other educated Aborigines are such outstanding people – they bypassed the gatekeepers to get an education, they stayed true to their own values while receiving their education and since graduation they speak for themselves; they don’t need to have any whitefella tell them what to say. Such people earn the respect of everyone.
Everyone:
]
The future? That’s easy. Just talk to ordinary Aborigines – no matter what their lifestyle or who they are or where they are. Find out what they need – without having their responses filtered out by professional “indigeniesâ€? running every man-and-his-dog’s agenda. Then do whatever we can to fulfil those needs. [See. I didn’t mention ‘welfare’, ‘home/house ownership’, ‘emergency’ or the other buzz-words even once
Tigtog raised this excellent question on her post:
And given, as Mick Dodson said, there’s no discernible relationship between land tenure and child sexual abuse, what’s with that? Ideology?
I wonder if the sexual predators will be able to get out of that one by taking their victims on a boat into International Waters, and as such escaping prosecution that way ? I’m sure some Opportunist Boat Owner will turn a blind eye to such activities while making a quick buck carrying same.
Also, I’d like to apologise for my ham fisted use of the term “Poltical Pedophila”.
In comments at Tigtog someone asked what the HREOC says about this. I heard them being critical of Pearson’s Report the day it was released and I am sure that they were due to issue a HREOC Report on July the third so they have been gazumped by Brough and Howard. It would be great if they bought the release of their report forward before Brough can gain too much traction with the Pearson Report.
At the core of this is yet another ambit claim for the Howard Government’s increasingly aggressive Richelieuism. Let’s hope that it really is a “bridge too far”. Never thought I’d quote Rudd… but there you go!
Kim [this thread]:
“State of Emergency”??? What a load of cobblers! Many of these problems have been screaming out for attention for decades and nothing has been done. Yet now, in the middle of an election campaign, the boofhead who dithered and showed such an appalling lack of leadership on these issues now rabbits on about a “state of emergency” and lashes out with a shopping-trolley full of unplanned uncosted ratbag schemes.
The man is an embarrassment. Why doesn’t the Liberal Party just give him the heave-ho now and give his successor a chance to put out some workable policies before the federal election?
This isnt the 2007 wedge by any means. The reality is, Labor has Warren Mundine as it’s National President, a fine man who has espoused similar ideas – if anything, they (or at least the Right faction) own this issue above and beyond Howard.
I think you’ll find Mundine’s term as ALP Prez ended at the last National Conference where he was replaced by Senator John Faulkner, who is of the Left Faction, and will be succeeded by Linda Burney from NSW, wo, btw is Indigineous.
Tampa 2007?! I like it. Not!
This is the moment I have been fearing, the moment that Howard finds his issue and dog whistles his way to another electoral victory.
Any one who has given the most cursory glance at the report and recommendations arising from the ‘Inquiry into the Protection of Aboriginal Children From Sexual Abuse’ knows something had to be done. Implementing the recommendations from the report would be a good start.
What angers me most about Howard’s unilateral proclamation is the lack of acknowledgement of any need for consultation with any other government or any aboriginal community affected by his edict or the need to ensure the implementation of the actual recommendations arising from the enquiry.
The arrogance and paternalism that underlies his proclamation is breathtaking.
And what makes me weep is the way the Rudd just rolled over in Parliament this afternoon. Rudd is so focussed on making himself a small target on what are perceived to be Howard’s issues that I fear in a month or two he’ll be going bald, need an ear piece and be power walking.
There is a genuine problem with child sexual abuse for all Australians, not just those who are indigenous.
“State of Emergency�??? What a load of cobblers!
Graham the rodent is on a practice run.
APEC protests of the smallest kind will bring him to invoke emergency powers.
Personally, i believe he would happily cancel the election, if he thought he would lose and could find an excuse to do so.
Agreed, hannah. It’s been in the too hard basket for too long. But this isn’t the way to address it.
Let’s hope Howard gets the same treatment Indira Gandhi got for her ’state of emergency’ (I’m referring to her election loss, not her assassination by Sikh bodyguards, of course. I don’t hate Howard that much…)
Agree totally. The NT government weren’t even told.
The report I gather recommended a cooperative approach, building partnerships with the many many Indigenous people already working against sexual abuse, including Indigenous men:
http://www.crikey.com.au/Politics/20070621-Aboriginal-men-and-child-sexual-abuse-mending-the-broken-string.html
This approach is anything but cooperative.
I don’t know if this is Tampa ‘07, but I think Labor might have been schooled this week. The Libs have had Rudd jumping through hoops all week and then come polling day, Thurday, they pull this out.
What I’d like to know is whether Howard actually planned to make this announcement this week or did he just sniff the way the wind was blowing and made this decision on a whim?
Here is Rudd’s full Quote from Question Time:
I hope in this Briefing that Rudd & Gillard advise Ratty that he’s gone overboard ?
Frank, where you implying that the rats are leaving the ship? Sorry.
I don’t know if Rudd could do anything else. Howard’s policy seems to be not so far removed from Beattie’s approach in Queensland which I’m relatively sure is popular among lot of Queensland Labor voters. Rudd’s best bet now is to take a swipe at the actual content of the proposal and to incinuate that this wasn’t well thought out. Either that or make it a non-issue by supporting it.
The thing that worries me most about this is that it seems that Labor was blindsided. If they were going to make an annoncement on Indigenous communities now they just look like they are following the lead of the Libs.
No its not good enough. I agree.
Paternalism never is.
Please remember, while its been quite some time ago, i have been on the front lines of child protection, and it is a distressing place to be. There are some stories that will haunt you for life.
As far as my understanding goes, this issue has a significant split along gender lines, with the women in communities begging for these measures – restriction of alcohol, conditional and staggered welfare payment, even at the cost of other ‘rights’. What use, they say is land when there will be no one left to live there??
DO we negate the grass level consultations with these women because they are uneducated, don’t fully grasp the implications or real costs of these decisions and therefore dont know what they really want? Do they have a democratic right to sign away some level of autonomy, even for a while, while their grandkids recover some semblance of a childhood? Should their views be given equal weight to male academics in the city? Is maternalism the new paternalism?
GOod lord its a hard call on all levels.
Tigtog: I agree the compulsory exams appear to be yet another trauma and humiliation to inflict on these kids.
Re: Protecting kids from further harm, abuse and neglect.(and keep in mind the problem of abuse is a complex mix of substance abuse, boredom, opportunistic offending, cyclic ating out, predatory peadophilia, a breakdown of values, boundaries and prohibitive mores, and nihilism,) improvement is possible by reducing exposure the to risk factors – for example, intoxicated parents means limited supervision, reduced boundaries of care, inability to manage money or provide food to kids, etc etc. Some of these parents are only kids themselves, often with petrol induced brain damage and FAS (Feotal Alcohol Syndrome). They never really had much of a chance as parents from teh beginning.
On the other hand there are strong women in these communities who have had a gutful of this mess, and have been crying out for measures to stop the grog for many many years.
So where to now?
I dont know.
I think i have to talk to a few people who have a lot more experience and insight than me over the next few days and see what they make of the Pearson, Howard and Brough stuff.
Watching Howard on Lateline. Can’t help but feel that this is a pretext for a number of unstated policies. Tony is making the case now that this is a Howardian perfect storm on a number of fronts. Too bad he didn’t ask why Howard hasn’t done anything for 11 years.
Kim:
“But this isn’t the way to address it.”
I agree.
In fact it will make things worse because it implies [directly states?] it’s an indigenous problem.
More unbenevolent paternalism.
Who was the nunga bloke, fella in a black hat, who addressed the Press Club a few years ago on this issue [vey eloquently] and who pointedly stated that the problem was not confined to the indigenous people? And that others need not have a sense of moral superiority. Ken Dodgson [sp?]?
I had his speech on video for a while but have lost it, it would be interesting to revisit it.
I don’t think its too hard to address, just deliberately ignored.
Ah, jeez, its embarassing to be a white male [remember hannah is my dog] nowadays.
Nowadays being all my life.
Anyways I’m off on a working holiday to sunny Qld for 4-5 weeks and will be out of contact with our civilization.
Probably a good thing.
SC, As I understand this it is a six month quick fix planned at this stage. Not a comprehensive setting up of a child protection system as envisioned by Pearson even. It just seems to be a grab-bag of Howard ’s favorite theories. What happens when the six months is up?
kim
Thanks for that link Kim …i’m glad to be reminded of that. Having worked in DV more recently, i do tend to get rather jaded when i’m being intellectually lazy. There are a great many men making a huge difference. My bad for overlooking that. (and i know I get too emotional when thinking about some kids i’ve known in the past).
Perhaps Styx (10.30pm) summarises the problem with todays Howard proclamation best.
Tampa? Fuhgedabout it. It’s not 2001 any more people.
As has already been mentioned, unlike Tampa the situation in remote communities is a fairly serious and genuine problem, and Teh Crodent has seen an opportunity to seize an agenda, play on all sorts of unspoken prejudices, and drive a few wedges. But so what? It’s what he always does.
As today’s leak of Textor’s Liberal battleplan has shown it’s the hip-pocket and WorkChoices that are the real electoral issues.
Indigenous issues aren’t very high on anyone’s agenda and in the lead-up to the election this won’t amount to anything much.
Will it make a difference? I doubt it. Remember those battalions of infantry that were supposed to move in to aboriginal communities 10 years ago and clean everything up? AWOL apparently.
No probs, sc. Are you back in Oz btw?
Oh, he’s a sniffer from waaaaay back.
My apologies, that is true. My point remains, however, that Mundine’s presence and the fact that there was talk of getting him a seat suggests that Labor would be likely to own this issue in the eyes of the Australian public. Plus the fact that the situation we have is a state of emergency 11 years into the Howard Government – it’d be fairly clear in the eyes of the Australian people who has been negligent towards this issue.
You may well be right, Christine. I hope so.
Btw, here is the text of the NT Little Children are Sacred report:
http://www.nt.gov.au/dcm/inquirysaac/pdf/bipacsa_final_report.pdf
I haven’t been through it to see if its recommendations resemble Howard’s plan, but based on the press when it was released, I suspect they don’t.
Well, its hardly the first time he’s accused some darkies of being child-abusers with an election on the horizon, is it?
I support action on the issue – but the chosen method stinks of dog whistle to former One nation voters –
eg compulsory acquisiiton of land – read “Im reversing land rights”
Welfare restrictions etc – read “Not only am I not sorry for paternalist abuses of the past – I vindicate them as common sense”
Call me para, but one thing is alwys rock solid sure with the Rodent: we he couldnt actually give a shit, and its all about the politics.
So, Id be interested to know – were things quite this bad 11 years ago in the town camps? Or has it all got significantly worse under Howard?
Yup, we all got back Tues.
Family took off to Cairns tonight and left me here to freeze by myself. If he can get his hands on a 4wd, he’s off to the Laura Festival with some friends. No fair.
This is no where near as emotive as the Tampa issue. Tampa was perfect becaue it played on fear. Fear of being ’swamped’, fear of terrorism, fear of being taken advantaged of.
The Liberals were able to play this perfectly by playing on the scare campaign and potray the ALP as a party that allows everyone in.
I think Howard acted to take the initiative away from the ALP at the end of the Parliamentary session to look decisive and able to take action and to talk up its social credentials.
But unlike asylum seekers and that ingrained fear of the ‘Asian invasion’ that Australia seems to have as part of its culture, Aboriginals do not arouse fear.
The only way Howard will be able to use the ‘fear factor’ is through convincing voters that the ALP will directly threaten their financial future, or some unforseen security crisis.
Yeah bloody cold by Brisbane standards!
Interesting that the State seat of Caboolture was held by One Nation in the Hanson heyday. Brough would be hoping to muster those supporters together again too in his seat. These voters just love expressions of toughness with Police and Military activity.
Will they like it when their cousins on the dole have the same welfare policies applied to them, though? Is Deception Bay in Brough’s electorate or is it in Gambaro’s? Still, I’d have thought there’d be more than a few long term unemployed around Caboolture way.
Christine Keeler wrote:
You’ve summed it up nicely, Christine.
This is highly unlikely to impact on voting intentions.
As you said, this is an opportunity for the Government to ‘seize an agenda and play on all sorts of unspoken prejudices’ BUT Howard’s dog whistling politics has lost a lot of it’s potency in recent years as other issues have started to focus the mind of your average swinging voter, namely Work Choices.
Come election time this issue will barley register.
Precisely Steve – this is all about the coalition marginals in the Hanson corridor in outer Brisbane.
Which is in …. ‘hi im Kev and Im from’ land.
Keep it up, folks, you’ll talk me round.
Not that I’m going to get any happier about Howard tearing up land rights and most citizenship rights Indigenous people have gained with one speech.
Larvatus Prodeo has a tradition of “condemn threads”, here’s my attempt at starting a video condemnation thread of John Howard’s attack on indigenous rights.
Record your rejection of Howard’s plan and post it as a video responce.
I also agree it wont work for him, btw. Workchoices wont fly round Ipswich and Cabooture, no matter how many blacks he bashes.
On a lighter note: that porn ban’s going to be hard to enforce when Singtel bring TEH WIRELESS INTERTOOB to the remote town camps, innit??
(Or not)
Well, Howard made it clear to Tony Jones that middle class Darwin residents won’t have their pron habits affected…
Hang on – thats what its about!
It’s the ‘non-coreing’ of the broadband rollout.
Cant do back of Burke after all. Blacks’ll get TEH PRON!
Unless Helen Coonan mandates the PC’s in those computers have suitable firewall and other filtering measures installed.
But any smart purveyor of PrOn can easily bypass that by concealing the said materials on DVD’s with non porn labels and cases. That’s unless they will have the Porn Police insisting that they view EVERY tape/dvd brought in
Mna, I am such a role tonight. Seeing through the rat-like ploys with night vision.
One step of ya Rodent!
Erm, …. ah you know what I meant.
Oooh, Great Loophole, I can see those pesky blacks shacking up with the Darwin Middle Classes so they can get their Pron fix, and invite the Rellies over for “Secret PrOn Business”
Ken Parish has written a passionate post at Troppo deploring today’s events:
See my post on this issue here (if Troppo doesn’t crash yet again).
Howard’s got the distractions he needed.
Perhaps we also need to focus on the Honorable Phillip Ruddock’s office compiling ‘dirt’ on their enemies/opponents. The McCarthy aspect to it.
And the fact that this social obligation stuff related to the Aboriginal families might eventually lead to the more troublesome youth (their words) being put in American style ‘boot camps’…& community service programs that evolve into a ‘National Guard’…that is eventually spread to youth from all backgrounds so as not to ‘discriminate’…& before you know it, YOUR TEENAGE KIDS & those in their early 20s, either end up in prison & losing their vote because there is no Canada to run to…or in the Middle East…fighting the ‘pesky’ Islamic Extremists.
Worth thinking about. It’s all part of a Grander Plan methinks. Hup! Hup! Hup!…
(Cue soundtrack from ‘Full Metal Jacket)
Ken Parish had this to say at club troppo.
“The policy Howard has just announced is worse, more racist and more wildly impractical and misconceived than anything Pauline Hanson ever spouted. Kevin Rudd’s meek, kneejerk endorsement of it is almost as disgusting, and marks him unfit to lead Australia. At least Howard has the guts to announce policies of his own, however repugnant and ill-considered.”
So there you go if Rudd had of got the idea first that would have put him ahead of Howard. It is an original way to look at it.
Politically Rudd didn’t have much choice today but to seek further briefings and buy himself time to assess the situation. You could have only imagined how it would have been treated if he rejected the idea out of hand.
Harden the fuck up, TEH LEFT. What makes you think every pronouncement of the PM&C is about you? What makes you suspect the pressure of a Government wedge in each split infinitive and mixed metaphor?
If Labor loses it’ll be because they’re shit in a general all-encompassing sense, not because of one isolated Bill.
No, it was more recent than that, I believe, CK. The infantry-plan was around 2002 or 2003 or so, though I’m too befuddled by drink and hard living to be precise. And it certainly called for nothing like a battalion-strength force, IIRC.
Me? I’d love a bit of liberal interventionism, to see a few doors kicked in, to watch a few old blokes led away in steel bracelets, and for the Commonwealth AG’s dept with each State Government to commission maurauding circuit courts to legally whup the country North of the Brisbane Line flat of outstanding prosecutions.
That, though, that’d require policy aimed at the perpetrators of abuse rather than the victims.
I just saw Howard on Lateline too. What’s to complain about? He deliberately chose not to only give the mildest criticism in passing of the Northern Territory government, indicating that it was really a matter above politics. He appeared genuine enough in wanting to be seen as someone finally taking some major steps to address the matter.
As to all of the people complaining “why did it take 11 years?”, I assume you are going to make the same complaint about all of the Labor State governments which have been in place over roughly the same period? Everyone knows it is not exclusively a NT problem, and the slow reaction of the NSW government to its own 12-month-old report was featured on Lateline tonight too.
Anyway, the reactions of many people here to the Howard plan itself indicates why governments are slow to take ’strong’ action: because they will face strong criticism on civil rights and other ideological grounds. Given the types who comprise the party, this is a bigger problem for Labor governments. But I don’t think it could be said that Liberal governments are completely insensitive to such issues. (Fraser did introduce the NT Land rights laws, after all.)
As to Howard using this as a political ploy: well he didn’t engineer the publicity last year on Lateline that kicked off the current report, did he? Howard haters always assume everything he does is for cynical political advantage. You will never think he has done anything for the “right” reason, and I have long realised there is no point in arguing with you about this.
Finally, a couple of post here have expressed outrage about the medical examinations. Jeez, I think we can gather from the inquiry report found that many (most?) aboriginal children in the worst communities are exposed to sexual acts of all kinds, both as porn and in real life, and consensual sexual activity frequently starts as young teenagers. I find it hard to believe that such teenagers are going to face any great embarrassment over a medical examination done professionally (and why wouldn’t it be?) that may well disclose disease that could otherwise have been undetected for years, and (presumably) have affected their fertility. Are you forgetting the extent of STD’s in aboriginal communities? Yes, it is “paternalistic” for such a health measure to be imposed; it also makes a lot of sense in their situation.
Maybe that’s because there are strong grounds for such criticism.
Lauredhel pointed out to me that the “ban the pr0n” response is an implicit endorsement of the view that hardcore porn actually causes child sexual abuse.
Is this the first time a legislature is relying upon that connection? And upon what evidence are they drawing?
None. Heffernan, probably. Or to make sure Steve Fielding votes for the legislation.
Experience.
AS for fears of Labor losing, not over this pissy excuse for a ‘wedge’.
Fair dinkum, these days, in the squat space where a dab-handed political master once powerwalked in a tracky, I just see a hapless, clueless old git.
Dare I whisper it – he’s overrated. The general in his labyrnith, with a herniated testicle.
No longer to be feared. Past it.
I Believe it was as a result of this quote from the Report.
You know, (homespun story warning): when I was a kid, a shop run by enterprising non-indigenous types on Russell St used to sell flavoured metho to the Musgrave Park blacks.
Just wondering – how many of these ‘ere pubs were run by local indigenous folk?
Is it that they dont have enough control over their communities?
“Is this the first time a legislature is relying upon that connection? And upon what evidence are they drawing”
The Report. The Report considers the effect of unrestricted and pretty continuous porn viewing by all ages in a situation of of near universal substance dependence and general social dysfunction. It offers graphic examples of little kids acting out porn scenarios. It’s a world away from Fred Nile predicting doom and destruction because North Shore teenagers are checking out Nude Celebrities.Com.
I’d recommend reading the Report, in fact.
And Musgrave Park of course, Lefty E, was where Daniel Yock was arrested before the 17 year old dancer died in custody in a paddy wagon in 94. No one ever brought to justice. I was at the march to police headquarters where a ton of people got bashed.
The Jubilee Hotel in the Valley used to sell chilled metho too back in 85.
In many ways, Howard’s current tactics are straight out of the Joh playbook.
I wonder if he’s counting on some protests against his state of emergency.
Hmm, so according to Lateline Mal Brough was “a former Military Man”, which may explain his motives behind taking over towns etc.
Geoff, Kim linked to the report before, but here’s the link again in case it was missed by anyone:
http://www.nt.gov.au/dcm/inquirysaac/pdf/bipacsa_final_report.pdf
I agree.
steve asked:
The strategy, according to Brough comes in three stages: stabilise, normalise and exit.
I think the two overriding factors in this one are the fact that an adequate response to the report is clearly beyond the resources of the NT Government and, secondly, Brough’s military background. He’s been emphasising the:
Hence the emergency. He’s come up with a kind of invade, occupy, pacify strategy.
The overview and the 97 recommendations of the report Kim linked to (pdf) show that the report was written by people who understand the problems and the difficulties of implementation. They suggest the 15 years will be required “to make some inroads”. It’s all about consultation with the communities, community ownership and empowerment. They stress that there is no quick way. Programs, skills and structures need to be built over the long term.
Beyond that I don’t really want to comment because I don’t know enough. Brough seems to me well-intentioned and will be able to round up the funds to make an impact. It’s the nature of the impact that worries me.
But Brough will give it a brief hit, declare it a success and move on with the job barely begun. That’s the optimistic scenario.
Yes, I was struck by the story on 730 report the other night about the great improvements in one town in which the pub was closed down.
The good news story closed with a offhand line about the non-indigenous operators of the hotel applying for a new licence.
Who’s been making the money out of misery in these towns? Is this really a story of “non-intervention in self-governing black communities having failed”?
Or did the government-licenced private sector Arthur Dalys just step on in where the missions left off in the 70s?
Sounds like General Petraeus talking about the Surge!
And The Shemaham has Spoken:
The extent of these incursions on property rights, individual freedoms and cultural mores – with strict bans on grog and pornography and controls on payments and jobs – would have been unthinkable even two years ago.
The Prime Minister would not have been able to move in such a comprehensive fashion unless the debate on indigenous rights had turned 180 degrees and the lives of children were at stake.
The sexual abuse of children, even infants, is the reason of last resort which has finally prompted a massive response to the neglect of indigenous Australia.
While the federal Government’s plans to take control are overpowering and unprecedented, with a heavy, uncompromising and unapologetic emphasis on law and order through paternalism, there is a sense their time has come.
Federal Labor’s immediate response has been in-principle support despite the obvious incursions on individual rights, a turning back of some Aboriginal land rights and an unprecedented government acceptance that pornography contributes to child abuse.
There is little doubt that the timing of the announcement was affected by the parliamentary sitting in an election year.
But there is equally little doubt that Howard has been working towards a final phase in his years of political combat on indigenous health, reconciliation and land rights.
Where are the libertarians I wonder?
Really, he fought in that war?
Which side was he on?
I´m glad you said that Mark, I was thinking the same thing. The whole plan reeks of the same sort of slap-dash night before policy as TeH Surge.
I´ve been thinking about this for a few hours and I´m not really sure what else Rudd could do. Given that the government has been a bit shy on detail I don´t think that dismissing this action out of hand would have played well, especially given that Rudd has been taking it from all quarters this week.
On the other hand, I hope the Labor party picks this plan apart for all it´s worth. I want to see a debate, I want to see Rudd questioning why Howard thinks this is the correct path of action. Taking away anyone´s rights should never be done on a whim and I want to see the Labor party standing up and saying that.
The government hasn´t presented a strong argument as to why this plan should actually work. Labor has to make the discussion not about action for action´s sake but rather about why Howard thinks he can suddenly solve this problem. I mean, if this is such a great course of action why didn´t they try it earlier. Did they need to wait till they were tanking in the polls to act?
In a strange irony it’s National Aboriginal Day in Canada:
http://www.ainc-inac.gc.ca/nad/index-eng.asp
The Canadian attitude towards First Nations couldn’t be a bigger contrast. Not only is there a territory in the North with a legislature and its own spending powers, large settlements have been made, and there’s been much recognition of the wrongness of the Canadian equivalent of the stolen generation – the “Residential Schoolsâ€?.
Crap, I was channeling the anti-Shannahan. Aparantly it´s all obvious, Howard was waiting for the tide of public opinion to turn against him so that he´d HAVE to act on an issue that he´s shown little regard for over the years.
Oh, and well said Mark. Nothing like a conservative government that believes in concentrating power.
And here in Australia it will be NAIDOC Week between 8 to 15 July
And I hope the various Marches planned will highlight how dopey this plan is and they send the Govt a VERY strong message these draconian measures are unacceptable.
Funny he announced the MPs’ pay increase a day before this, eh?
MrLefty, it´s not just the pay increases. Howard has had a new story out every day this week. I suspect that they wanted to catch Labor completely off guard with this. Oh, that and this distracts beautifully from the whole printing expense fiasco in Queensland at the moment.
Heh, I have on Video the excellent Documentry on the 1996 Election Campaign, where Working Dog’s Santo Cilluaro tails Keating, and there is a priceless scene of Keating attending a function in WA where there is this lone Liberal Yoof, carrying on about “A Vote For Labor is a Vote against State Rights” (Paraphrasing)
I wonder how this young person now feels ?
Yes, Kim, and those policies you mention have led to wonderful outcomes for the First Nations people.
http://www.afn.ca/article.asp?id=764
well that’s all she wrote.
All over people.. Nothing to see here.
Next week a ’special’ newspoll..
just watch.
Paulus, that just shows there’s no magic wand. As Brian said, the report to the NT government suggests with luck some improvement might take place over 15 years. The Canadian approach is recent, but it’s not some knee jerk authoritarian political fix driven by a militarist moralist.
“We do need to legislate and our advice is we can implement all of these things provided we’re willing to make amendments to those two pieces of legislation,â€? he told ABC TV.
I hope someone in the NT mount a High Court Clallenge over this
No Transcript as yet, but streaming video of Ratty on Lateline
I was thinking the same Kim. As a past resident of Canada I’ve witnessed some of the problems in the Indian communities there…& the poverty…but i don’t remember such a draconian reaction as this…apart from the ‘Oka Crisis’ (which I read about):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oka_Crisis
Helping children is essential…but allowing a situation to get this bad, in some ways contributing to it…& then going for an UnDemocratic, ‘painting everyone w/ the same brush’ (60 communities…unbelievable!) approach, & even stating you’ll use the Army…by Crikey what has this Country come to?
I’ve been using the term ‘intentional negligence’ for years now…wherein Corporate Totalitarian Governments intentionally ‘look the other way’, sometimes feed a problem…so that a situation reaches crisis point…& then they can intervene by way of FEAR tactics, via the Military Industrial Complex & Police State tactics…bring in Right-Wing religious groups & strip individuals of their Rights, Land…& some, their Vote. Think Hurricane Katrina, 9/11, the Iraq War…& in the long run it’s the Corporate Aristocracy that gain the most…whilst their lackeys like Howard & Bush tell us its about caring for the children, about freedom, about love for Democracy.
But it’s not. It’s wicked.
But unfortunately this strategy is so ethically, morally loaded…& the propaganda is so intense…& the REAL GROTESQUE AGENDA so difficult to discern from the CARING aspect because so many decent people are fooled & brought on board…it confuses the general public…at least long enough to create political wedges, draw back in the base, strip essential rights, disempower some voters…& too often gets these wicked politicians across the line. Only intense scrutiny…& breaking the issue down into sub-topics…& investigating the instigators in-depth, & rapid, gutsy reporting, leads to a clearer perspective. But usually by then…the damage is done.
Imho, Australia will regret the day it allowed this Corporate Totalitarian Federal Government to trample on their Rights…& create more bigotry, racism & fear by way of trickery & sound-bytes & howling radio spin jocks & a biased or gutless media.
Hopefully the children of these communities can be helped. But if they end up in the arms of extreme religious swines who also end up abusing them, or being mistreated in hostels, or boot camps…or killed & wounded in Iraq…by God, how will the people live w/ themselves?
Plus ce change…sigh.
I’m sorry…i want these children helped…but i have NO trust in this Government since the ‘Children Overboard’ lies, the abuse of children in detention camps, the AWB scandal…the list goes on. Hopefully some good will come out of this. Much needs to be done. But such EXTREME measures looks Draconian. Frightening. And where will it stop?
It’s not surprising they’re attempting to crush the Unions simultaneously.
What I heard in Howard’s words tonight was “stuff Democracy!…stuff Liberty!…stuff Individualism!…stuff Land Rights!…stuff Rationalism…WE ARE COMING TO GET YOU!…whether you like it or not…only we know what is RIGHT for you. And no other voices will be tolerated!”
memory of Cybermen perhaps?…or Dictators?…Roman Empire?
Howard makes Pearson look moderate & rational. hmmm…
Paulus…primarily because of ‘intentional negligence’…& the exploitation and scams used by rampant capitalists..& being used as a ‘wedge issue’ by some creepy provincial & federal governments…& construction & perpetuation of negative portrayals by the media. Same as here.
Nothing will change until the ‘greed for gain’ types (AKA ‘the gung-hoers’) & their finger-pointing religious mates (AKA ‘moral guardians’) & corrupt media mates (AKA ‘Enablers’) & the Ruling Class (AKA ‘Elite’) are changed from within…& go thru the ‘enlightenment’ stage.
Solve a problem in a firm but friendly manner i reckon. Show positives, not negatives. The ‘big stick’, heavy handed approach is just plain wrong & will produce enormous resentment…& resistance.
Just what the desperate on the Right ordered eh?
Replacing one kind of FEAR in a population w/ another type of FEAR…one kind of ABUSE w/ another kind of ABUSE is no answer. The problems & suffering will just mutate. Think of ‘the Stolen Generation’.
Brough Love ?
Eww.
Geoff Honnor,
I was aware of the disturbing descriptions in the report about kids acting out porn scenes, I just wondered if they had anything more rigorous than that to go on. I’m not so much totally anti-sex-industry as a sex-industry-skeptic, so the idea of exploitative porn being banned anywhere kinda brings a song to my heart, but I wonder at the broader implications.
If the Howard govt places into legislation an explicit link between porn and child abuse, then anti-porn activists will push for extension of the anti-porn provisions more widely just like the conditions on income support are going to be extended more widely. What about Family Court decisions? If there’s law about a connection between child abuse and pornography, then how long before it is argued and perhaps upheld that anyone with a porn video is an unfit custodian for their own children?
Well it seemed ironically amusing at 5.48am , with a night of jet lag induced insomnia behind me.
SC, I can relate!
Actually, the willfull exposure, and to some extent the neglectful exposure of children ( particularly to kids under 10) to hard core pornography, is often raised as a factor in assessing parental capacity to protect a child in custody disputes, as is failure to secure a baby properly in a car seat.
THe arguement here, and i’m just taking a stab at it without knowing the details, is not so much about exposure to porn leading adults to abuse children (lets leave that hot topic for another time), the issue as i understand, is the lack of protective measures being provided to kids who are being exposed to material without having the emotional or cognitive capacity to process and contexturise it. Meaning: little kids are acting out what they see, in the absence of a supportive and safe environment; they will experiement and play out themes without the mitigating influence of convention, and responsible adult guidance around context, (i.e. where its appropriate to masterbate, for example ). The problem is then exacerbated when the breakdown of boundaries means kids are socialised into this situation, knowing nothing else, therfore not grasping that while peer exploration is relatively normal experience, intergenerational and child sexual contact is not.
This has a plethora of implications, not the least respect for and ownership of your own body, and understanding the difference between consensual and unconsensual sexual contact.
I could be way off track, as i’ve only read snippets of the report, but i’m guessing thats where this idea is stemming from.
Is that any help?
Not having much time for kiddy fiddlers, I have little objection to something, finally, (hopefully) being done.
Cute that the morally bankrupt in here are wringing their hands & waffling on about how it is actually about them. It is about the kids & the defenceless.
For those who are talkers, in “careers” which do not involve the use of kinetic energy, or where day by day tangible results need not be produced to remain solvent or employed, what the Prime Minister has done is called “action”.
..or , leaving aside morality, and just thinking legality, driving a car is fine. Allowing your 3 year to drive it, is not.
Thanks for the explication, SC. I’m on page with that reasoning entirely, and had heard much of it argued before. Howard’s plan as so far explained however has none of this nuance about the exposure of kids to porn, looking at it case by case as endangering children. It’s a blanket ban on porn whether kids view it or not.
SATP, I’m on board with the PM declaring the sexual abuse of indigenous children in remote communities as a national emergency. Good.
The solutions offered thus far seem far more about being seen to punish people rather than effectively prevent abuse.
Ken Parish raised one very strong point: how is removing the entry permit system for Aboriginal lands meant to help? Won’t it just mean that the white predators (miners etc) who are already a problem will now have totally unfettered access to the communities?
(Steve at the Pub)
Yes, we know a great deal about what happens when John Howard calls “action”:
http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2003/s852962.htm
Lest we forget.
I’m just wondering if it wouldnt hurt for us to possibly put a bit of attention on the mining companies, and the staff who work for them…. Like perhaps calling for them to explicitly re-affirm their intolerance of staff who breach community standards toward kids, women or communities in any form. Applaud those who have proactive stances, pressure those that dont.
For all the bad press, some of these companies really do invest in the communities and have a genuine concern for the triple bottom line…..but nothing like a bit of focussed attention every now and then to keep ‘em on track. Some of their staff somewhere are doing their companies a great shame.
11 years later, SATP
It was always my understanding that exposure to pornography can constitute abuse in and of itself. I think it’s perfectly reasonable as a rule, and that anybody who does it should have to go through the usual processes.
The transcript is up at Lateline, I think Tony Jones nailed it here.
Ergo, wedge and he gets one last shot in the dying days of his Govt to do what he’s always wanted and the rest of the party be dammed. On reflection and a nights sleep, this is the last gasp.
The bigs are saying that Howard is energised by this, I’ll bet. It must be energising to damn the torpedoes and do what you’ve always wanted to do. And if he wins?
That is a quote from the Little Children are Sacred report which goes on to make 97 recommendations. Only 9 of those related to alcohol and one to the availability of pornography. The recommendations about alcohol were mainly to do with tightening the regulation of licensees and alcohol rehabilitation. In effect Howard has implemented one out of 97 recommendations of this report.
And nothing has changed, except that Howard has used the report as an excuse for the biggest attack on indigenous rights in living memory.
Many people think of child sexual abuse with the mind of a child, talking of evil and refusing to look at actual evidence. Paedophilia both situational and otherwise is very accessible to treatment, more so than rape, yet we have not heard of any plans to implement offender treatment programmes for the white and indigenous offenders, nor have they announced any increase in treatment programmes for the abused. Of course the harder issues to tackle are the social equity issues that lead to situational abuse; employment housing education and so on and none of these issues have been addressed. How utterly disgraceful.
Just heard Howard talking to Jon Faine, where he described the measures as “taking grass-roots control” of the communities because something has to be done and the Territory government and the communities themselves weren’t actually getting it done.
The idea of a Prime Minister who thinks a government can, and should, take “grass roots control” of anything is a bit disturbing, eh?
I’ll have to keep an eye out for the transcript.
Sorry for horrible formatting.
Even the cheersquad is beginning to have doubts on the practicality of it all.
Maybe I misheard the report, but nobody has mentioned that Howard also suggested that this approach would be eventually extended to all welfare recipients. Which, to be fair to him, is consistent with his general and long held and deeply authoritarian view that people on state support are useless pathetic parasites who need to be told how to behave and which choices they should make.
I think he sees this, in part, as an opportunity to further intrude into the lives of the poor and unfortunate, and impose more his nasty little morality play ideology on them.
“National emergency”? Just before an election? Which gives him an opportunity to gain further control over other people’s lives?
Call me a hardcore cynic, but how convenient.
Howard’s paternalist authoritarian cultural policy to clamp down on vice in remote Aboriginal communities is surely a step in the right direction. The nation state has to step in to restore family values.
This is also a well-deserved slap in the face to the libertarian cultural policies propounded by Wets. Self-determining diversity is not working for Aboriginals, unless you call broken-families, substance abuse and child abuse “working”.
The root cause of the child abuse problem is that Aboriginal men in these areas cant get meaningful work, and therefore cant be providers and protectors of womenfolk and children. Having lost self-respect they get up to no good. “The devil makes work…”
Right wing cultural paternalism (”lawfare statism”TM) also needs to be complemented by some left wing fiscal interventionism (”workfare statism”TM). A strong dose of national statism will help to integrate unruly minorities.
I’d like to believe this is the last gasp, Phil. Meanwhile, there are people who get to live with this in its implementation.
Once again, su is totally correct. This is the biggest attack on indigenous rights in living memory, and the report is being used as a pretext.
I agree with you Gummo, the idea of ‘grass-roots control’ is not a heartening concept.
That is absolutely false. There is no one “root cause”. Instead there is a complex nexus of predisposing factors, including the perpetrator’s own, often violent, upbringing.
Hate to be a quibbling pitnicker Guido, but I disagree. It’s every bit as emotive, but the emotions being played to are different. It’s a combination of sanctimony – we’re doing it to protect the innocent – and that will to punish that Nietzsche identified. Of course we should piss on these people – we’re doing it for their kids!
It’s a nasty, racist little program, presented in language carefully chosen to make it sound OK to be a racist – because in the end it’s for the benefit of the inferior people.
Excuse me, I have to get to the vomitorium before I mess up my screen.
Listening to the radio this morning about this issue, it is very clear that this was a “secret” plan. There was little consultation and the complex details of what they are proposing have not been investigated. It is a shallow plan. If the government was really concerned, consultation and implementation would have started years ago.
So the wedge has worked. I am now 100% certain which major party will be last.
Adam Gall:
I have obviously been insufficiently clear. I totally agree that the exposure of children to pornography constitutes abuse. I have never meant to appear to argue otherwise.
Howard’s plan points the finger at any adult who watches pornography as contributing to child abuse whether children are watching it or not. This is the possible precedent-setting aspect which concerns me: that merely been known to watch pornography, with whether children actually are exposed to it being irrelevant, is going to become grounds for contesting child custody (and potentially for removing children into foster care).
Having hopefully made my position totally clear now, the pornography ban as infringing on freedom of speech/action is far from my major concern with the proposed legislation. I’m far more concerned about its total failure to address the problem of non-indigenous sexual predators, the lack of emphasis on education other than as a way to punish indigenous adults, and its “sideways swipe through the land rights system”.
For whoever wins this will be nothing more than a poisoned chalice. The federal government will now be responsible for anything and everything that goes wrong in those communities.
I agree with you Gummo, but my point is that this is not a ‘Tampa’. My comment was about whether this legislation would resurrect the Coalition fortunes as much as the Tampa did and in my opinion it won’t because there is no ‘fear’ involved in this.
Remember when Howard had a map of Australia where it would show all the white-owned lands which would be taken over after the Mabo legislation – now that’s a fear campaign. That is designed to strike fear in the self-interest of the voter.
But taking over Aboriginal land, inspecting children for sexual abuse won’t resonate as much.
Of course Howard did this for political purposes as anything else. It tries to take over a ‘Labor stronghold’ by portraying itself as a protector of Aborigines children etc. It also concoct an ‘emergency’ (obvioulsy we can’t have 9/11 and Bali bombings all the time) which makes the government look like a government: Decisive and ready to take action and portray the opposition as just having to go along. So I can see some benefits flowing to the Coaltion electorally, but no where near the Tampa.
Regarding Labor it will be fascinating to see how they play this. The other electoral benefit for the Coalition is that it may lower Labor’s primary vote as some of my fellow lefty voters may be outraged that ‘Kevin kowtowed’ and switch their vote to the Greens.
I still think at this stage Labor did not want to react instinctivly negatively to the proposals otherwise the government would have pounced on the fact that they ‘want to allow children to be raped’ etc. etc. And that would create more of a Tampa situation.
The beauty of Tampa for the Coalition is that it disaffected two key electoral components of Labor voters. The ‘battlers’ who thought that Labor was soft on queue jumpers and the inner suburban left set that thought that Labor kowtowed to Howard. This legislation will outrage the inner suburban left, but I think will be minor in the marginal, mortgage outer suburban battler areas, apart from the fact that Howard will look like a decisive leader.
But it is not a BBQ stopper.
I susoect that Kevin Rudd, Jenny Maclin etc. will be going over the policy say that it is good that Howard finally does something but suggest alternatives.
Yes you lot, with a few exceptions, can clearly whine about civil liberties and “rights” but I have not seen one viable alternative plan from any of you. So how about you step up to the plate and tell us what c an be done instead…
Cue stunned silence from the collective left.
That’s bang on Guido.
Here’s 97 suggestions.
Iain,
The Howard plan doesn’t amount to anything more than “throwing token amounts of money at the problem hasn’t worked, so we’ll try throwing abuse at it instead”. Rather like your approach to political discussions.
Yep, you can be sure of one thing with the Rodent: the policy itself will be underworked, full of holes, back of a napkin job – whereas the politics will be fully Textor- focussed.
But RUdd aint Beazley. He’ll
1. agree with the broad thrust, killing the government momentum
2. Pore over the details, find them lame and wanting in basic aspects (Rudd IS a policy man)
3. Suggest, constructively, how to improve the dog’s breakfast
4. Make Howard look rushed and silly
5. Release his own new policy, distracting the government
5. Win the whole round, again.
AS for Indigenous people, well, they’ll just got to ride out 6 months of whatever bollocks Howard produces here. Even if he wins, he’ll lose interest after November.
Jack Strocchi: “The root cause of the child abuse problem is that Aboriginal men in these areas cant get meaningful work, and therefore cant be providers and protectors of womenfolk and children. Having lost self-respect they get up to no good. “The devil makes work…â€?
___
So, this means we can also blame child sexual abuse on women for getting uppity and undermining teh menz by attempting to self-determine the course of their lives, right? Awesome, I’ll go start sewing the scarlet letters, you bang together a dunking chair and try and find a dam with a few feet of water left in it. We’ll have the evil witch/temptress problem sorted in no time!
Amazing how most of the discussion is how this will affect Howard/Rudd politically, but not how it will help the children,
So long as Rudd wins, right?
As Steve pubman pithily puts it
For those who are talkers, in “careers� which do not involve the use of kinetic energy, or where day by day tangible results need not be produced to remain solvent or employed, what the Prime Minister has done is called “action�.
Chrisl, it won’t help the children because it’s bollocks http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21947639-601,00.html
Yeah, excuse the cynicism Steve and Chris – but Howard couldnt give a rats arse about any of it. He’s made that abundantly clear for a decade. He only intervenes in black issues where there’s white votes to pick up.
He’s the original culture warrior, and its all about way the politics plays for him – all about him and Rudd.
I strongly suspect that wont lead to a well-thought out policy approach to the issue itself.
A minor point: isn’t restricting access to alcohol routine community council practice in the NT? Where is the indignation in relation to those pre-existing breaches of individual rights?
This latest misguided plan is almost guaranteed to fail, but these appeals to liberty are a bit rich.
Cheers
BBB
Volunteers wanted.
Actually Christine K the article you linked to says that Howard hasn’t gone far enough
Tony Hobbs, chairman of the Australian General Practice Network, urged the Government to go further with the reforms.
So bollocks to your bollocks
I don’t know enough about this complex issue to comment.
Except on a legal point.
Howard and Brough lie when they say they have no power to act in the States. Do they forget we have been commemorating the 1967 referndum? They have broad power over Aboriginal land and people, wherever they happen to be.
Why then not use it? Can only be a political wedge against State ALP govts, or fear of entangling white interests/communities that are more integrated with indigenous communities in the States than the Territory.
Jack Strocchi: “The root cause of the child abuse problem is that Aboriginal men in these areas cant get meaningful work, and therefore cant be providers and protectors of womenfolk and children. Having lost self-respect they get up to no good. “The devil makes work…�
Your vision of an arcadian world which features the return of masculine rule, where a man empowered by his work, can then afford to offer protection instead of abuse is a bit simplistic dont you think?. Child abuse knows no boundaries, as evidenced by the recent arrest and conviction of Patrick Power QC in NSW and countless countless other men in positions of power and responsibility. Clearly, they can be white and have jobs. The racing of child sex abuse as an Aboriginal problem only is getting a bit out of hand. A great proportion of sexual abuse occurs within families, irrespective of race, and is not reported. Sexual interest in children arises from a plethora of social ills and is inter-generational. Men are not generally ‘driven’ to pedophilia cause they dont have a job. It has been suggested that it takes something tragic and severe to happen early in a man’s life, (often he himself has been abused) to set his sexual preference for little children. When you get to the abuse of babies, then you are starting to look at people who are severely disturbed. Its not about a job, you know? Its not about disempowerment. But since you seek to reduce the complexity of this issue to a “root” cause, you could argue, with some serious conviction, that these social ills do find their beginnings in the violence of original colonisation in this country, which devastated communities in such away, that they are still affected today. You could argue with even more serious conviction, that they are continued by the neo-colonial impulses of the present govt which seeks to return aspects of the original policies which caused the probs in the first place. But mostly you could argue this govt is using this as the impetus to turn the polls back to them and they are shamelessly using these victims to do it.
“Volunteers wanted.”
So he won’t even cough up the funds for his grand rescue plan? How big of him. Some “national emergency”.
How about using some of that endlessly promoted massive budget surplus, John? If this is a genuine emergency then it is entirely justified expenditure. I’m sure the outraged upper and middle classes whose support he is trying to win will be happy to forgo their next tax cut to help out.
Where is the plan for treatment of alcoholics and a decent Housing Policy?
AMA reaction. It looks as tough it is all beginning to turn into a logistical nightmare.
Around the blogosphere on Friday: [by MB] Guido doesn’t think it will be a bbq stopper, Tim Dunlop calls for a bipartisan approach, Meredith at Sarsaparilla examines what’s involved in a state of emergency, Graham Young is supportive of the plan, Andrew Leigh compares the alcohol ban to prohibition, and Jason Soon calls the plan “the return of paternalism”.
…and Dave says (misquoting The New Pornographers)
he has arrived
too late to play
the bleeding heart show
Here is a selection of responses telling of likely reaction in the Northern Territory
Chrisl, the post referred to whether the proposed legislation is another ‘Tampa’ so of course the discussion tends to be in the direction of how this proposal plays politically.
If you follow other links there is plenty of discussion about the implications of Howard’s proposals on Aborigines children.
Andrew Bartlett:
The real focus from Labor on this issue should be that John Howard has had 11 years in office to deal with this issue and is only now dealing with it. The thing about drastic “wedges”, as some have named them, is that the credibility of those taking them is greatly diminished by incumbency and the looming election. Australians should be informed of this by a competent opposition. This is the first real test for Kevin Rudd, carefully orchestrated as it has been between allegations of union “thuggery”.
Phil quoted from Tony Jones at Lateline:
http://larvatusprodeo.net/2007/06/21/tampa-2007-edition/#comment-378648
This playing out of the politics is already evident in some right wing comments on this and other blogs.
I’m inclined to think that those who say that Howard has seized on a chance to implement two longstanding goals – the end of land rights, and a massively punitive welfare system – are right. Even Shanahan alludes to that.
Now Peter Lindsay wants to score political points over Palm Island.
That wouldn’t be the first time. He’s previously proposed compulsorily moving all Indigenous people off Palm Island (provided they go somewhere else other than in his electorate) and giving the Island to developers.
Lava Prodders: I agree that any action needs to be consultative, and that Howard’s plan is clearly not. I share your concern with his top-down approach. I also suspect there is wedge politics involved. But I also agree with Sublime Cowgirl (and, gasp, even SATP), when they write that something (anything) needs to be done. The status quo is clearly not working, and you seem to be missing this point. The trogs are right when they point to your silence on any alternative. The LP reaction to Howard’s ‘Brough love’ mirrors its ad hominem attack on Noel Pearson. Just because Howard agrees with Pearson does not, per se, invalidate Pearson’s plan. And, just because Howard proposed this plan, does not make it a bad plan (though I suspect it is).
I also take issue with your downplaying of some of the very real issues facing Aboriginal communities like pornography and alcohol. Su writes (somewhat disingenously)that only:
“9 of those [recommendations] related to alcohol and one to the availability of pornography.
The report, however, states at the outset that
“we are further persuaded that unless alcoholism is conquered, there is little point in attending to any of the other worthwhile proposals in this report. It is a priority!”
Look, this is probably not the right way to tackle what is a very serious issue, however first we need to stop pretending that there isn’t an issue
I don’t think anyone’s pretending there’s no issue, hugo, and I don’t see that supporting the implementation of the NT report in a consultative and cooperative way with the input of the communities themselves doesn’t constitute an alternative policy response. To suggest that we should come up with a comprehensive policy in blog comments seems a bit unrealistic. We’re bloggers and commenters, not experts in this area.
And I disagree that I’ve made an ad hominem attack on Pearson. You really have to follow all the links to my previous posts over some years on Pearson’s approach to understand the basis for my criticism.
alcohol abuse and related issues are a problem everywhere in Australia, especially with road fatalities and injury. the culture of the masculine alcohol-based sociality needs some kind of shake up more generally. like many other comments in this thread regarding sexual abuse being a broader problem, there is a logic at work in Howard’s movement of divide and conquer. there are 20 million people in Australia, aboriginal communities are not the problem. They have the same problems as other communities. If he meant any of this then Howard would be attacking the particular problems, not conjoling particular communities.
It is the Johnny come latelies who have a major problem Hugo, would you enlighten us as to how a six month alcohol ban can be seen as anything other than political expediency?
glen
The problem in these particular remote communities is a total lack of masculine culture, not an excess.
The argument for Howard’s particular plan seems to be the classic:
* We must do something
* This is something
* Therefore we must do this.
As to the merits or otherwise of this plan, it strikes me very much as a pseudo-military occupation plan imposed without seeking the consent of the occupied, and with the vague idea that in a few months everything will be OK and we can leave again. That’s worked wonders the last time we tried it overseas…hasn’t it? :/
The Central Land Council response is scathing.
Mark, I never suggested that you made the attacks. On balance, however, it is pretty clear that most bloggers here consider Pearson to be Howard’s stooge. I take your point about supporting the NT report, though.
Glen. Your comment is sympomatic of the blinkerdness I referred to in my previous post. I am not suggesting that there is not an alcohol problem in mainstream australia. But the NT report explicitly links the consumption of alcohol (which, BTW, in the Lower Top End is 74.5% higher than the national average) with the abuse of Aboriginal children.
Thanks for the compliment, steve. I think my previous post makes it clear I think Howard’s plan has the whiff of expediency. But do you seriously advocate doing nothing?
Apologies, hugo. I thought you were referring to me as I wrote the most recent post on Pearson.
Hogo, I couldn’t think of anything worse than doing nothing for eleven years.
Steve, I take your point. But that is not an argument for continuing to do so
I’ll repeat what I’ve said at other comment threads, including my own.
The conservative commentariat are running amok like the Puritans during the Salem witch trials.I agree on the need for welfare reform but rule of law, equality under the law and due process takes precedence. Treating all parents as child molestors and alcoholics isn’t consistent with this.
On the Crikey website today: Malcolm Fraser and Lowitja O’Donoghue and Richard Farmer.
Is the on-hold Jabiluka uranium mine not in the NT? Having control of Aboriginal lands would certainly come in handy if you were planning, say, oh I don’t know, a nuclear power industry perhaps…
Chav, we hardly need easier access to uranium to get nuke power up and running.
Unless you think they’d be putting an enrichment plant up there. Lots of jobs for Aboriginal physics PhDs there, I guess.
Jason Soon on 22 June 2007 at 1:34 pm
Conservative nationalists can take some credit for raising the alarm on this. And for mustering the will to take the strong measures needed to combat this awfulness.
Its all very well for Jason Soon to bleat about “rule of law, equal rights” and the whole liberal mantra. Liberalism is about due process for good progress. It is not just a fetish for freedom, come what may.
Liberalism creates the presumption individual autonomies are willing and able to look after their own affairs. But the presumption is rebutted when there are systematic incidence of self- or other-harm. In that case institutional authority should step in, wheter it be familial, parochial, provincial or national.
Pretty clearly the massive incidence of child sexual molestation in remote Aboriginal communities demands a strong paternalistic and authoritarian intervention of the national state.
Unfit mothers need to feel the firm smack of government. And unemployed fathers need jobs, even make work jobs, to become bread-winners and get back their self-respect.
There is hope for Aboriginals, spiritual hope through art and financial hope through mutual obligation welfare. But we need to ditch the last 30 years worth of ideological garbage.
Oh come now FDB, with booming demand for nuclear energy corporate Australia will need all the uranium they can get!
This is Howards domestic war, the foreign one is not going well enough(vote loser) to satisfy his ego,so lets have a war on the vulnerable, show ‘em no mercy, plenty of votes from the Abo haters and uninformed, use shock and drama. Not a caring and consultative approach that only time will resolve, nah, no mileage in that, it’s nearly July, drop some of these in and quick..
Hey JG, you didn’t answer my question on another thread http://larvatusprodeo.net/2007/06/21/laughing-at-with-the-advertising-standards-bureau/#comment-378517
“Call me para, but one thing is alwys rock solid sure with the Rodent: we he couldnt actually give a shit, and its all about the politics.”
You’re para. It’s the achilles heel of passionate lefties; the old “Nobody can disagree with me in good faith” attitude. The electorate will simply not fall for it, hence Howard for 11 years and probably 14 years. Unionists/lefties/lefty unionists, too to much say said too often. The ALP that will get elected is the ALP which appeals to people just like Howard, only not as much.
This is obscene. After 11 years of inaction, Howard suddenly becomes aware mere months before an election. What a moral cesspit that guy is.
Children are at risk throughout the country and the catalyst is most certainly poverty. I challenge anyone to investigate the prevalence of child sexual abuse in poor ‘non-aboriginal’ communities.
I’m with Jason Soon on this one.
Howard may have thought that he wedge the left.
But in fact Howard has wedged the right.
Neo-liberals are now forced to hold their noses while supporting a man who has instituted the most breathtaking assault on individual liberties since the introduction of conscription in 1964.
I’ve added [Aboriginal] to Jason’s very apt comment to highlight a point.
Who is an Aborigine? Does a certain percentage of non-aboriginal blood relieve this legal requirement? If so, how much? The Nuremberg Laws had a formula. Has Howard adapted it in some way?
Are only township Aborigines to be subjected to this procedure? If not, why not?
This procedure is socially impractical and serves no purpose but to excite the self-righteous prurience of racists.
Run as fast as you can neo-liberals, else Howard will destroy you.
Alex, In Queensland the CMC has done this years ago and a whole Government Deptartment has been formed to deal with the issue.
Exactly. An act of government intervention on such a scale that were it perpetrated by a Labour government, even the most vociferous supporters would be howling from the rooftops in protest.
Once again the arch hypocrisy of many conservatives is apparent for all to see.
I was aware of that but alcohol does not cause child sexual abuse, nor is it caused by access to pornography; these are just two of the many facilitators of abuse. Complex problems require complex solutions implemented over generations. This problem will not be fixed in our lifetime. White people with good jobs and no alcohol or substance abuse issues still sexually abuse children. It will require generations to undo the nexus of violence and abuse in our own community. Believe me, the very last subject on which I would wilfully misrepresent the facts is child abuse. I am not in least bit interested in how this issue will be kicked around by the politicians, I am passionately concerned about influencing people to institute policies to prevent it from occurring.
A more international view.
One thing that stood out to me yesterday when Howard announced his grand plan was” next thing he’s going to tell me how to shear a bloody sheep”, I lived in the Territory for some time and know these people, and I’ll tell you folks, this is a Howard beat up and all it will cause is damage.The problem is there, has been for years, action of the appropriate order should have been ongoing way before this crap he has “suddenly found remorse,and sprung into action”and laid out to the VOTERS. Hate the expression however, give me a break….
It won’t be long before Howard’s imperial choir, the conservative commentariat, turns the spotlight of self-righteous outrage onto the A.C.T.
Our beloved Chief Minister, Jon Stanhope, will soon be reported as presiding over “the porn capital of Australia”, allowing the sale of X-rated movies to Aboriginal communities in the NT. Someone else to blame!
That is, besides the Aborigines, the State and Territory Labor Governments, the NT police, the psychotic left, Gough Whitlam and Nugget Coombes….
I think this is one for Piers Akerman, who regularly likens Canberra to a Giant Socialist Collective (shudder).
“It is highly hypocritical of John Howard to call on WA to follow his lead when this State Government has been actively addressing the issue of child abuse in Aboriginal communities since 2002 – largely without Commonwealth support,â€? he said.
“The WA Government established the watershed Gordon Inquiry into domestic violence and child abuse in Aboriginal communities in January 2002.
“Later that year, we allocated $75million towards implementing the recommendations of the inquiry and sought support from the Howard Government.
“The then Premier, Geoff Gallop, sent a copy of the Gordon Report to Mr Howard telling State Parliament that ‘ … the human tragedy it reveals demands a national response as well’.
“However at the time the Federal Government provided nothing but platitudes.
“Therefore the timing of Mr Howard’s announcement, just weeks away from a Federal election, has to be treated with a degree of cynicism.�
I wish Rudd had Carp’s Balls
Howard’s footdragging exposed.
From Shamaham’s Blog comments:
Frank, good find. I think bernie sums it up beautifully.
Megan
I am not sure this attitude is anything but racist. Are you trying to argue that only John Howard can fix these problems? And they should have been fixed by now by him?
Warren Mundine on sbs now broadly supporting the initiative…..
Saying he is “happy to give the govt a go, to give them a bit of leeway, and [I] dont want to be critical cause the problems are so big.
On the question Re land leases….”i’m a bit concerned, but at the same time i am more concerned about the kids, and i’m prepard to work with the govt and not take a ctitical stand on this…”
Mundine is a member of the ALP Right, so I’m not surprised there. But Ratty has successfully pitted black against black over this issue, hence Mundine’s response.
I’ve noticed that Noel Pearson and his Cape York cooleagues have been strangely silent since the Announcement – have they finally cottoned on to the fact that Howard & Brough have used them to screw Aboriginal Australia ?
Speaking of Noel Pearson:
He also has a go at John Stanhope as well.
Fair response from Noel in such highly emotive circumstances i think.
Yeah, Noel’s onto them there. Howard’s gone straight to ‘lousy little sixpence’ territory here.
This policy is a dog. Good thing its only got 6 months to go.
Crikey had an enormous list today of NT communities that have already banned or strictly regulated alcohol. Go have a look – that part of the jobs almost done, without some massive, indiscriminate policy of withholding Aboriginal incomes, regarldless of whether they are involved in the target problem or not.
Thats outrageous.
Incidentally, Id say the policy falls foul of the Racial Discrimination Act 1974. It should be challenged. I think the pensions restriction at least would fall over in a court.
Here’s a wild idea – how about those moral dwarfs do something that targets the problem, and the actual offenders? (which I understand includes a number of predatory whites, who will still get their full pensions to blow on booze and childporn).
I think Brough has intimated they’ll introducing a number of legislative amendments.
Amend the RDA to make Racial Discrimination lawful – wouldnt be the first time
And yes, they can do it, but they’ll almost cetainly owe compensation under the RDA to the racial group losing the rights (i.e the same amount they wont be getting now compared to non-indigenous peoples) – so legal action is definitely worth pursuing.
As policy makers, Howard et al are seriously 3rd rate.
Great ambo chasers and headline grabbers though.
Does anybody actually get the implication of the present situation?
That technically, should the same standards of care and protection be applied in these communities tomorrow, as they are now applied in the general community, we would have so many kids taken from their parents into foster care there would not be enough culturally appropriate placements to put them, leaving two probable options, large group homes, or white foster care. Reminiscent of any other social policy you can recall?
So given we dont go down that road again, we as a nation either sit around and keep talking for a few more years while more and more kids are (sometimes irrevoccably) harmed, (i’m assuming from what has been written, that most people here arent familiar with attachment theory) or we stop and say, black kids are worth as much as white kids, and we are prepared to intervene and wont let these people kill themselves in slow motion.
Its been said above that ‘alcohol doesnt cause child sexual abuse”, but i can assure you at very least that it can lead to serious neglect, and a failure to protect children from harm such as this. THere are also a myriad of symtoms that can be seen as a result of alcohol related brain damage and FAS, such as poor impulse control that reduce the ability to act in appropriate and responsible ways.
Perhaps we need to be reminded, that as brutal as it sounds, as Warren Mundine said, poverty does not cause you to rape you children.
Joe2 said
You bet! And all troublemaking boongs, do-gooders and anyone else who doubts the motives behind the Howard Aboriginal Emergency will be dragged off to Christmas Island, to a revamped Baxter, to Macquarie Island recidivist gulag or else “rendered”.
Well of course there is one way around it, and it’s this http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21949116-601,00.html
I suspect we could be in for a huge round of welfare reform.
SC,
You seem to be all over the place to me. But then so is this policy; Ken Parish has very nicely skewered some of its contradictions, such as the fact that under the guise of “helping the kids” it actually raises costs for their parents.
One fact that’s come out in discussion at Club Troppo is that the majority of the communities that will be subjected to this regime already have control on alcohol in place. And then there’s this comment at Troppo which suggests that the alcohol ban might prove counter-productive anyway, in communities where petrol sniffing is a reradily available alternative.
Interesting stuff about attachment theory though. Good to see that someone’s worked out in precise detail how it is that parents stuff up their kids.
That sounds more likely CK.
I dont think they’ll actually get away with aspects of the current proposal.
Yup. Food stamps all round.
I wonder if it will extend to EVERYONE who gets the Family Payment benefit – Can you imagine the outcry from “Howard’s Battlers, as well as those who voted for him after getting the “Baby Bribe” if Ratty mandates that those monies can only be used for their offspring and NOT to buy the latest Plasma Home Theatre System ?
Peter Yu from the Kimberley Land Council says there is no doubt resources are needed to deal with serious issues in Aboriginal communities but he’s described the government’s methodology as worrying.
“I would suggest that it’s fairly heavy-handed and it’s something that would not be tolerated in the major community,” he said.
“There is something missing in terms of the involvement and participation of the community itself in terms of how this might be done.”
The Chief Executive of the Aboriginal Legal Service in WA, Dennis Eggington, is also concerned with the Prime Minister’s approach.
He says, while Western Australia is working on solving problems in Aboriginal communities, and more needs to be done, WA does not need Federal intervention.
“What’s at threat now is our civil right to be self-determining and manage and look after our own affairs,” he said.
“It’s a worrying trend when the Prime Minister of this country has decided that we no longer should be able to do that and he’ll step in as big brother and control Aboriginal people’s lives again.”
A couple of points late in the discussion. I believe it will be BBQ stopper. Child sexual abuse and paedophilia are both hot topics in the popular press and on television news and current affairs. So is public drunkenness and violence within indigenous communities.
So Howard’s edicts will be discussed and I believe the discussion will be positive. It will also play to Howard’s strong hand as a decisive leader, willing to make the ‘tough’ and ‘unpopular’ decisions. It also plays to the inherent belief in the inferiority of Australia’s indigenous population.
Any criticism of Howard’s edicts is on a hiding to nothing. I watched Joe Hockey tonight spinning for all he was worth that any criticism of Howard’s edicts is tantamount to supporting child sexual abuse.
The frustration for me is that I agree something had to be done. And on the face of it, Howard’s edicts are, in the main a good first step as a circuit breaker until more long term strategies, based on full consultation with the communities, can be developed and implemented.
But I have no belief that Howard will remain involved in the long term. As soon as the election is out the way and Howard is one again ensconced in Kirribilli House, most of the pillars of his program will be withdrawn, accept the increased police presence; the continued occupation of the community land and the changes to the welfare system.
It also makes me angry that over the course of 11 years Howard has pulled the rug from under the Indigenous community, withdrawing support for reconciliation, disbanding ATSIC without replacing it with a suitable peak body, ignoring every report and request for assistance to date. The sheer effrontery and hypocrisy of Howard’s stance beggars belief.
Because by simply going after the offenders means you are waiting for the offense to happen first. Self-defeating.
Guess so Wbb.
Maybe we should all be on live cameras, with movement tracers. Just in case.
After all, law – abiding citizens will have nothing to fear.
Im sorry, Rodent – I just dont see why non-abusing Aboriginal parents should have their pensions quarantined. Nor do I see the logic behind the wholly-irrelevant- to-sexual-abuse extra violations of aboriginal people’s rights.
I mean, lets face it, you could probably justify a gas chamber with a paedophilia scare out front.
But anyway, Im just playing your wedge game here arent I.
So go for it – good luck, we’re right behind you. We know you care deeply about black Australia, and this isnt all about you and the election.
And close the door on yer way out in November,
you f*cking piece of dirtmate.GUmmo, all over the shop, hey?
I’m not the most academic of commenters, in case y’all hadnt noticed
This thread did become clouded by the convergence of the Pearson report, the Little Children report and Howards proclamation, which i think messed things around a little in my mind, and more than a few others, to be honest.
I guess to summarise my positions are:
Little children are sacred report – sadly the findings didnt surprise me. I support the authors and their recommendations for action.
The Pearson perspective – here’s a man from Hopevale who has a bit of experience in transending the prevailing depair of his some of his peers. We might not agree with his economic solutions, but at least we owe him some repect. We seem to have pigeon holed in our minds that an appropriate and authentic model for aboriginal communities (or aboriginals for that matter cc the snipe about Neville Bonner ) is necessarily (stereotypically) left wing and welfare dependent. i like that he makes us think outside the dominant paradigm.
Howards proclamation – As i’ve said in this thread before, it may be authoritarian, and unnecessarily reactive, but something serious has to be done, and the knee jerk response to belittle it (i.e. describing it as political opportunism, or even political peadophilia, for instance) seems to be mirroring this reactionary behaviour, and undermines the severity of the problem. Yes i’m a bit torn over what to make of it, given the top down approach, but i am /was keen to hear what those for whom it affects think of it. Though, its ludecrous to equate it with cultural genocide, as i’ve heard said and implied. To sit around doing nothing, just might be.
Sorry for the emotion.
Some kids you never forget.
Even after they are dead.
WEll, here’s a better proposal, since Ive been so negative:
Commonwealth funds a host of doctors and social workers work in, or at least go round the communities regularly.
The sexual abuse squads, including local coppers, work with community and elders to target offenders, and problem behaviours
Fund Aboriginal host families in the area. Give them a proper wage to foster at risk kids. Remove any kids at risk
Mandatory reporting of suspected abuse – at which point you slap on the pension quarantine and other draconian measures onto the individuals in question. I’ll support that.
What do you know – NOW we’re actually targeting sexual abuse and sexual abusers in aboriginal townships.
Not just targetting ‘blacks’ for a cheap wedge vote.
Everyone:
[1] Smart tactic ….. just make everything so black-and-white. If you condemn Howard’s Aboriginal Contingency then you are seen as favouring the ill-treatment of dear little kiddies. If you go along with the Howard Election Stunt you are a fool and everyone knows you are a fool but everyone says you are a fine fellow. It’s a lose-lose situation for the voters …. and a lose-lose-lose-lose-lose situation if you are an Aborigine.
[2] The whole thing looks to me like a move to re-steal Aboriginal land and to reimpose the bad old system – possibly for the benefit of certain parts of the mining industry. Despite all the mock concern and all the wonderful statements ….. children, alcoholism, unemployment, lack of services, domestic violence, mortality and morbidity aren’t even in the equation.
Welcome to Howard’s Soviet Australia.
A day after announcing draconian measures for neglectful parents in Aboriginal communities, the Prime Minister, John Howard, made it clear yesterday he would not stop there.
“It has got nothing to do with race,” he said. “It’s got everything to do with responsibility of the parents. And it’s just that the worst examples in Australia are to be found in many of these Aboriginal communities, but that is not to say that in other cases you won’t get that sort of thing occurring.”
I wonder how many Welfare Recipients live in Marginal Liberal Seats ?
Dublime Cowgirl
Trouble is, for decages now, there have been quite few Aborigines who made us think outside the dominant paradigm ….. so why did our marvellous “free”[??] press keep them silenced for all that time? And why is an extraordinary amount of publicity given to a few selected celebrities whilst other Aborigines, with even better ideas, are ignored? [No, it's not tall poppy syndrome - it is a dishonest news media]
And the MSM reporting of Child Sexual Abuse and the Intertubes doesn’t help when it publishes crap like this.
http://www.smh.com.au/news/technology/how-i-drew-pedophiles-into-my-internet-trap/2007/06/22/1182019367379.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1 . Especially with Misleading Statements like this:
Umm, Police Forensic Tools can very easily recover so-called deleted material from computers.
Oh yes. P2P. Real secure.
And I’m still pondering this from the article:
Fairly does my head in.
Yep, no clue at all on the Intertubes, and technically this reporter is breaking the law as I believe only police officers under the various cyber-predator laws have any legal protection/permission to assume fake identities to lure online predators.
If these “alleged predators” get caught, I hope they sue the Journalist, as he is no better than them.
I think he’s referring to one of his fake personas he created to entrap this fellow – rather sloppy journalism in my opinion.
I know Frank. Not to diminish in any way the nastiness of sexual predators, it was the idea of having fake sex with a fake person that I was referring to.
Yeah, and the clueless dolt failed to mention that the perp’s IP address is transmitted to the target’s computer and that ISP’s can be compelled to release under a warrent the details on who the user is etc.
The Intertubes ain’t as Anonymous as this writer may claim – I’d laugh if one of these “Predators” was in fact an undercover cop himself trying to do a sting – especially as perps tend to pretend to be a young person themselves.
This is what Noel Pearson said in today’s OZ and Frankly I think that he has a better handle on this situation that than the lot of you put together.
Forget all of your conspiracy theories about the government using this as a wedge issue, No one who is concerned about the future for Australian children should be prepared to accept even more talk fests and negotiations on this issue.
The government plan may not be perfect, it may not achieve all of its goals but if it saves even a substantial majority of children who are CURRENTLY being abused from further degradation then the reforms will be worthwhile.
Noel Pearson’s take on all this is blogged in the Australian today. http://blogs.theaustralian.news.com.au/yoursay/index.php/theaustralian/comments/politics_aside_an_end_to_the_tears_is_our_priority/His challenge to readers is encompassed thus:
“We can’t rehabilitate people from alcohol or drug dependence immediately. We can’t fix the poor education immediately. We can’t fix up the poor health immediately. But we must stop the suffering straight away. Everyone, from the Prime Minister to his bitterest opponents, centres their preferred strategy or response on the fate of the children. No one can escape this fact: the fate of the children is the bottom line. Whatever one thinks of Howard and Brough, their strategy is justified on the basis of the fate of the children. If not Brough and Howard’s plan to stop the suffering, then what alternative plan should be pursued? Here most of the critics fall into a deafening silence. They have vociferous views about what will not work, but they are silent about what will work. So the sum total of their response—“we don’t need missionary paternalism againâ€?, “prohibition doesn’t workâ€?, “indigenous people must consent to the changesâ€?, “we need more government servicesâ€?, “we have to provide rehabilitationâ€?, “we have to deal with intergenerational traumaâ€?, “we have to deal with things in a holistic wayâ€?—is inaction and procrastination while children’s lives continue to be ruined. It is not that the points made by the critics are wrong—they are often correct—but their criticism does not translate and often cannot be translated into action.”
Geoff, I’ve just logged on and haven’t read the recent additions to the thread. So forgive me if I’m repeating some of what has already been said.
On PM yesterday Noel Pearson said:
From what I can make out, Pearson’s ideas were cherry-picked by Brough. Brough has adopted some of the tough love components, without bothering about the the community education, development and support components. But most of all I don’t see Howard/Brough taking the necessary steps to get community ownership of what is done. Everyone that seems to know something about the issues and conditions on the graound is absolutely clear on this point, Without it whatever the Feds do it will fail.
On Thursday Pillip Adams talked to Fred Chaney and Mick Dodgson about the issue. They said that the Feds would need to find people with the wisdom of Job to administer the program in order to make it work.
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/latenightlive/stories/2007/1958520.htm
^ Brough love and the new Maternalism ?
Anyone want to hire me as a subbie?
It is axiomatic that John Howard is a clever politician.
And proof of Howard’s trickiness is to be found in the way he has fooled almost everyone with this simple little pea-and-thimble game.
While most discussion and debate have swirled vehemently around questions of forced genital examination and the prohibition of porno, the real issue, the nullfication of Aboriginal property rights has passed almost without comment.
It cannot be denied that flashing speculums and the worst sexual imagry that we can imagine serve as very distractive thimbles.
But never forget that Howard’s pea, and his payoff, are under the dowdy thimble labelled “acquiring townships prescribed by the Australian Government through five year leases including payment of just terms compensation”. Yes the very words are soporfic.
The colour and movement of squadrons of white-coated paramedics giving big ticks to Aboriginal wedding tackle and army chappies confiscating video nasties serve a purpose. That is, to win Howard another election. But after the election, the white coats can be returned to wardrobe and the army chappies can return to base.
These spectacles are temporary. What is permanent, however, is the erosion of Aboriginal property rights. And thereby, Howard returns to one of his early crusades to deny Aboriginals as much satisfaction as is legally and politically possible from native title.
Now, towards the end of his very clever career, Howard can get away with claiming that he is confiscating Aborigines’ property for their own good.
Tricked once, shame on him. Tricked twice, shame on me.
John Howard explains an essential part of his policy:
In other words – he doesn’t have a clue how it’s actually going to work.
Current Mandatory reporting obligations across the states and territories.
National comparision of current child protection systems across Australia
Not to mention hopping on to Limewire and rummaging around people’s hard drives.
(Probably best to continue this over at Saturday Salon, Frank)
The argument for Howard’s particular plan seems to be the classic:
* We must do something
* This is something
* Therefore we must do this.
Nice syllogism, Robert, though if we’re going to reduce the debate to bullet points, the response so far seems to be this:
* We must do something
* This is something
* This something is not the right thing
* Nothing is done.
* We must do something!
The logic, it is kind of circular, no?
I agree that large parts of the plan seem disagreeable, but that would be the case with any indigenous policy. Greater policing of areas with high crime rates, and abolishing the permit system seem to make some sense. The linking of welfare payments to school attendance and food is an extension of the ‘ mutual obligation’ concept that occurs across welfare – I think it may have poisitive results, but this will be more because mutual obligation is so fricking annoying that it will cause some people to do everything they can to get away from welfare.
As usual with indigenous policies, governments will continue bumbling along, trying to do the right thing, and maybe bringing about one or two positive outcomes. I think the shrewdest response so far has come from Lefty, strangely enough: he’s the only commentator, so far as I can see, who has acknowledged that some parts of the plan may actually work.
Why does abolishing the permit system “seem to make some sense”? How does giving white sexual predators easier access to remote communities protect indigenous children?
The permit system already allowed police, social workers and health workers onto the communities.
I heard an interview with Mal Brough a while ago that seemed to indicate otherwise, Tigtog – his argument was that the housing and welfare was publicly funded, but the permit system prevented ordinary social services, such as transport, and so on, from entering indigenous land. I’m afraid I can’t remember the details of the interview now, and I don’t think the transcript would be on line.
I don’t think that everyone who criticises the Howard/Brough plan is under an obligation to say what should be done. In fact I’d absolutely rather they didn’t. We don’t need more “solutions” from people who can’t possibly understand the situation sufficiently to come out with relevant and workable proposals.
As far as I can see the sequence of decision-making went something like this.
The “Little Children are Sacred” report was given to the NT Government nine weeks ago. They have been considering it in the context of coming up with a 20-year whole of government plan.
A week ago they sent it to the Feds and arranged for some bureaucrats to fly down to discuss it with the Feds. About the time the public servants were due to arrive, Brough and Howard had already decided what they are going to do and announced it. Howard tried to ring Clare Martin on Thursday morning, but failed to make contact. When the news of the announcement came through Martin was in parliament and her initial reactions showed that she didn’t realise that the NT had been sidelined.
When a group of people who do know what they are talking about wrote over 300 pages and framed 97 recommendations there is no need for any of us to come up with top of the head stuff.
The speed of Brough’s response I think can be legitimately criticised. It is almost impossible for him to have thought it through. Not waiting to see what the NT had worked on for 8 weeks was prima facie arrogant and stupid.
Because his approach is superficially similar to Pearson’s there has been suspicion that Pearson was consulted. I think it’s clear that he wasn’t. However, it is clear that Brough consulted Sue Gordon, Chairwoman of the National Indigenous Council, who, I understand, is going to chair the implementation task force. Hence it may be worth exploring how consonant the proposed actions are with philosophy and thoughts on strategies. Especially going forward. I suspect, however, that the dominant factor so far was whatever was inside Brough’s head last week.
“In other words – he doesn’t have a clue how it’s actually going to work.”
It’s a pity, Gummo, because then you could have got a great line in about….. “he’s a pollie not a doctor. Who does he think he is? Doctor Josef Mengele?”
I can’t see a downside to a general medical checkup that – given the Report’s findings – incorporates a sexual health check dimension. There’s a high prevalence of STI’s in some indigenous communities, they’re eminently treatable and there can be dire consequences if they’re not.
Geoff,
I posted that cut and paste in a moment of anger. What makes me angry is that a lot of this debate is completely pointless – it’s white voters having a good old argy-bargy over a minority of the population who have been routinely neglected by both major parties because they have no constituency – whereas whingers like Pauline Hanson do. Pretty much what was expected, I think, and pretty much what was wanted.
And no way would I go with that Josef Mengele line. What’s that all about anyway?
I’ve found it both illuminating and irritating the amount of misinformation and rush to judgement of indigenous communities that has occurred (not so much in this thread but elsewhere). In particular, the rush to assume that all indigenous child sexual abuse is incestuous, that all “child abuse and neglect” is sexual in nature, and that all child sexual assault in aboriginal communities is committed by indigenous men.
The whole NT Inquiry report is long, but people should at least read the whole of Section 4: The nature of child sexual abuse in Aboriginal communities of the Northern Territory. It’s illuminating.
Section 4.2, Myths, p59
Another myth:
Tigtog wrote:
“I’m far more concerned about its total failure to address the problem of non-indigenous sexual predators, the lack of emphasis on education other than as a way to punish indigenous adults, and its “sideways swipe through the land rights systemâ€?.”
These are my concerns as well. Also, I had no intention of making my comment about porn exposure as abuse into an attempted refutation of your discussion on the matter, tigtog.
I think my central concern is probably the land rights issues because I don’t totally understand how undermining land rights is linked to the other initiatives. Abl communities can survive this assault and may turn it to their advantage and benefit – indeed the implementation may end up far less worrying than some of the implications of the announcement. But land rights need to be maintained, and the government should reiterate a commitment to land rights. This is a constant in Abl political thought and action for the last century right up to Noel Pearson.
Speaking after the opening today of his Eastwood campaign office, in his north-western Sydney electorate of Bennelong, Mr Howard said the Department of Aboriginal Affairs had been swamped by offers of help from the public to assist in the implementation of his plan to stamp out abuse in Northern Territory remote communities.
“There has been an extraordinary response from Australians who see the need, recognise it as a national emergency, and they are volunteering their services in a number of ways,” he said.
One wonders at what sort offers they’ve recieved ?
Frank Calabrese on 23 June 2007 at 4:34 pm
I hope your chronic cyncism is just a run-of-the-mill expression of Left-liberal sour grapes. Understandable because of the long series of that push’s policy failures and political defeats.
Because that comment makes your mind look mired in the sewer.
Hating Howard is not identitical to caring for the downtrodden. You cant seem to get your head around the fact that people who dont share your ideological investments or partisan committments may be of good will, not to mention reasonable minded.
No – Rudd is not being Tampaed. While at least some people in the ALP base will be against the new policies (eg Jon Stanhope), I think there would be a mix of opinions, especially given the apparent colossal failure of previous policies. I think that people will be open to trying something that appears as if it might work.
These posts have overstated the electoral impact of the PMs announcements. At best, he will appear strong and decisive; a man of action rather than words (in comparison to the Labor state and territory govts). But how many votes will be changed? I doubt very many.
Sacha said:
I hope your right. I’m worried that you are wrong.
I agree there isn’t the fear factor that fed into the Tampa. But there is the disgust factor that fed into the “Children Overboard” affair and there is a strong community concern, fed by tabloid news and current affairs, about child abuse, paedophiliacs, and violence in Indigenous communities.
It also plays to one of Howard’s strong suites – the perception of him as a strong leader.
This will at the least draw some wavering voters back to the coalition. How many? It depends on how many undecided voters there are.
In my worst nightmare all the One Nation voters who, because of ‘hip pocket’ concerns about Work choices, were wavering and considering going back to Labor will now continue to align themselves with the Coalition because Howard is doing something about the ‘Abo problem’ – and, for them, that has to be a good thing.
And another thing …
TimT said earler today that Mal Brough had said that permits weren’t working.
Accepting for the moment what Brough said about the problems with the permit system are true. Surely the problem could be resolved without the wholesale abandonment of the permit system. The legal framework would just need to be tweaked not abandoned.
Accepting the need for something to be done, and done now, some of the proposals are worthwhile – as long as there is the development of long term follow up strategies developed in consultation with the communities and with the state and territory governments and the bureaucracies.
None of the official statements to date satisfy me that this is the case. I note that “A Federal Government spokesman� is reported to have said ‘a 20 year plan is under consideration within the Council of Australians Governments (SMH 22-23/06/2007 Pg 7)
In Brough’s press release and in Howard’s press conference and in the interviews they have given since there is no statement of support for the implementation of all recommendations from the ‘Little Children are Sacred Report’, there is nothing to state that they will be provide long term funding or more broadly support the NT Government in the implementation of the recommendations.
There is nothing about broad consultation with the states other than a referral to the Intergovernmental Committee on the Australian Crime Commission (ACC) to formally refer the issue to the ACC to allow it to identify and locate perpetrators of sexual abuse of Indigenous children in other areas of Australia. Nothing about dealing with the systemic issues that underlay the alcoholism and other drug abuse, the sexual abuse and the violence. There was no reference in the official announcement back to COAG ‘considerations’.
It appears the Coalitions idea of ‘consultation’ is to beat their chests and shout ‘nah, hah, nah. Nah’ at the other governments and the Left in general. This does nothing but confirm my cynicism that this is an election year ploy that would not have occurred otherwise.
And as I said previously, once the election is past, and Howard is ensconced in Kirribilli, all the current initiatives will peter out and fade to black …
O God, another three years of Howard. I could cry.
More blog reaction from Mr Lefty, John Quiggin, mark at stoush.net and the view from elsewhere.
Saturday update: The latest crop of blogospheric commentary comes from John Quiggin at Crooked Timber, Surfdom and Simon Jackman, who rightly, I think, sees Howard as having one eye on his place in history. I think the reversal of the land tenure provisions originally introduced by Malcolm Fraser also has to be seen in this context.
Some interesting reflections from Elizabeth at Scarlet Words:
“So, Id be interested to know – were things quite this bad 11 years ago in the town camps? ”
Yes it was! Although all the coppers could do at that time was take the drunks out of the camps about 20 miles and let them walk back and hopefully sober up. It was not worth the hassle of trying to wade thru the mess of good intentions by booking them.
The ‘Little Children are Sacred Report’ identifies poverty as a huge issue, but doesn’t have any recommendations to fix it. I think Brough sees changing land tenure as essential to establishing a capitalist system throughout the settlements. He wants to get rid of the notion of collective ownership and replace it with individual ownership. Brough would see that as the only way to create the conditions where individual enterprise can flourish.
If I’m right, it is the most radical of the measures being taken.
On ‘Saturday Breakfast’ this morning Geraldine Doogue interviewed Inga Clendinnen and Professor Peter Sutton, anthropologist and linguist from the University of Adelaide. Clendinnen was good, saying that there are people of “force, hope and energy” in the communities. If the aim was to work with them then much good should flow.
Sutton confused me thoroughly. He seemed to be saying that policy had developed from racism to paternalism to autonomy, where we gave them freedom and assumed that they wanted what we wanted and left alone would find a pathway to get it.
He seemed to be calling for a new paternalism, and defending Howard’s approach quite vigorously, yet he said how much that had made people angry.
He said ghettoism was the big problem. People needed mobility, which they didn’t have economically, educationally or even linguistically. So I guess he would be big on education.
On AM this morning the Northern Territory’s Anti-Discrimination Commissioner, Tony Fitzgerald said that the plan is in clear breach of the Racial Discrimination Act.
I Wonder if Ratty has watched this recently ?
Short Youtube Clip here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AcPp5iqx798
I think it is very much about Howard’s place in History and it is this drive that will make his plans so volatile. I still think the parallel with the Bjelke Peterson football game election with all the ‘right is might’ brute force will be the major feature.
Nothing will make them back off. Howard has made it clear that this is his big chance to look like a hero and he will pursue it with a vigour that will surprise many.
I do not doubt him when he says that the welfare payment cuts are to be extended to all welfare recipients. This will go some way to getting around the ‘Racist’ tag that could be applied if it was only indigenous people being affected by these changes. Some things like the Land Grab are Indigenous only problems but the simultaneous crackdown on all welfare recipients will mask this problem for him.
If authoritarianism is the cure for child sexual abuse, poverty,over crowding, and violence – then we are about to get cure in spades. If it isn’t the answer and the cure turns out to be worse than the initial problem then it won’t matter much to Howard as he can retire pretty much retire whenever he chooses from now on.
The last I heard was that police were due to begin the crackdown on Monday so they certainly are developing an amazing sense of urgency giving the blind eye turned to myriad reports handed to the Howard Government in the past eleven years.
I’m a little suss on this “land grab”. What would be the motive?
I think you only have to look at the Nuclear agenda to find the answer as to why the alcohol ban is for sx months and the Land Grab five years.
Some more links to relevant posts at Hoyden.
Ideology, basically, Howard doesn’t like land rights and collective forms of title.
The reasoning is supposed to be that allowing leasehold and alienable individual title will bring within its wake economic opportunity. I don’t know that all that many people will be rushing to lend on or buy houses in remote Indigenous communities.
This has been on offer for some time, but most communities haven’t agreed to it. Brough has been in trouble and lawsuits have been filed over bullying people into it.
Now they get to take control of everything and impose it.
But the link with the problem really isn’t there.
Pearson also claimed in his report that this was the major part of his report. He does not believe in collective land ownership.
Brough has also had recent problems with Alice Springs locals knocking back his Housing offer.
He has been a Minister unable to get people to accept his lousy deals lately but by taking over ownership it is all much easier. Wonder if the Disability funding quandary will be solved in a similar fashion.
Brian, my impression is that many people in the general community think that having individual ownership may mean that people can borrow against their individual “ownings” and thus invest (in businesses, or whatever), regardless of the particular motivations of the current federal govt. It could be similar to what I’ve read to be the movements for land titles to be delineated in Cambodia and other third world countries.
What is the market value of such property likely to be, Sacha? Would you be investing in property in an Indigenous community in the middle of the NT? And how feasible is it that people relying on welfare for income will be able to make mortgage repayments. As has been said, the offer hasn’t been accepted by those to whom it’s been made, on the whole, and therefore Brough has now reverted to coercion.
Part of the agenda, as Peter Lindsay’s made clear, on places like Palm Island where the land is potentially valuable, is to facilitate the sale of leasholds of same to developers.
It makes a complete nonsense of native title as well.
Sacha, I do believe that some State Governments have expressed interest in these ideas so I don’t think it is unique to Howard and brough or Pearson anyway. so why the Howard rush into this area? The only difference I can see is to disempower the Indigenous groups and State Governments who have been working through these issues.
Ken Parish has updated his post, looking (among other things) at the effects of charging market rents for housing:
“Plan may do more harm than good”:
http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/black-aid-plan-could-do-harm/2007/06/23/1182019436617.html
Brough commented some time ago that Aboriginal communities almost completely lack businesses of any kind. So he wants to circulate the dollars that are there within the community.
Sacha, Steve and all, the concept of the relation between individual land ownership and capitalist enterprise is highlighted in the writings and work of Hernando de Soto. He points out (a) that secure land tenure systems are of relatively recent origin in advanced economies, and (b) that the lack of them in most undeveloped countries means that there is a huge amount of capital there which can’t be leveraged with banks to create further businesses and to expand existing ones.
There is a lot in the pros and cons of the argument, but there was an interesting ‘Law Report’ program in 2001 which featured de Soto’s ideas together with a response by anthropologist Hartmut Holzknecht who is familiar with social conditions in Melanesia. He points out that outsiders, or insiders, who want to exit the system of mutual obligation within those societies often end up building an eight-foot fence with razor wire and so become outsiders within.
This may sound melodramatic, but it does highlight the radical nature of the change Brough is proposing to the basic social relations, which bear on personal and social identity.
It’s no trivial matter and Brough is wrong to tie funding to his ideology, as he has done in the past. And it’s appalling, whatever the merits of the rest of his response, that he is using the current emergency to muscle in these attempted changes to the Aborigines’ way of being.
I don’t have my head fully around Pearson’s ideas, but can offer this background. Not sure how relevant it is.
Noel Pearson was raised on Hopevale Mission, incidentally where rugby league player comes from. I say ‘Mission’ because at that time it was a Lutheran mission. My sister was the teacher at the school in 1958 and 1959. In August 1959 I spent the two-week school holidays there with my mother and two younger siblings. At the time I recall the school enrolment as 72 and there were probably about 200 people on the mission.
The mission was ruled by the Lutheran Pastor. Every morning all the able-bodied males would show up outside the manse at 8am and he would hand out the jobs for the day. We were told that the land the mission occupied was vast and we were told that there were several families who were deemed ‘responsible’ and hence had been given permission to establish separate farms on mission land. This was the presumed aim for everyone.
I recall that the same Pastor got into terrible trouble later through they way he administered the mission. I don’t recall the details, but the insurrection was real and I have vague memories of accusations of communist influence.
Anyway they pulled him out and I went to university, lost my faith and contact with church goings on.
Noel Pearson was born in 1965, six years after I was there. All I can say is that there would have been diverse ideas running around when he was growing up.
BTW as far as I know Pearson is still not an elder of the Hopevale community and would understand in his bones the deference paid to the elders.
Everyone:
If John Howard is forced to resign over this appalling hypocritical stunt, would a new government be formed by Peter Costello? If so, would he have time to get effective BENEFICIAL programs in place quickly enough before being distracted by campaigning for the federal election?
Pearson on radio national right now “big ideas” – a speech from a few weeks ago.
Is it obligatory on this blog to refer to the Prime Minister as “Ratty” or “The Rodent?”
It comes across as being extremely childish.
David, it’s not obligatory and I don’t do it myself, but I’ve kinda gotten used to it. After all it has a fine tradition and you have to be aware of the fine distinctions of meaning:
As I think I’ve mentioned before, Brandis shouldn’t claim credit. Andrew Peacock in the 1980s first dubbed Howard “The Rodent”. The refefence is in Pamela Williams’ book on the 96 election. In any case, it’s a term applied to him by Liberals.
I work in the area where Permits to enter aboriginal land are processed. There are two systems. For government business and government contractors we issue permits, for all others the permits are issued by the Land Council. No body with legitmate business is denied access so Mal’s claim is nonsense.
Mr Howard’s plan is really, it seems, no plan except to send police in and monster the locals into giving up their ‘pedophiles’ with the implication that all are suspect until proven innocent – by way of invasive inspection of children against the will of parents. I wonder if we would accept that in suburbia? Usually you would need at least some sort of allegation or evidence or admission and then child services come in and gets the ball rolling.
I wonder what the feeling in the communities will be like. No land rights, personal rights, dignity and under suspicion.
The reason Howard has included removal of permits and attempts to free up land rights is the mineral resources in the NT. At the present moment Mining companies have to negotiate with the Traditional owners to search and or mine the land, who can veto mining. Royalities are paid if mining is allowed.
The mining companies will be heavily on Howard’s back to allow free unfettered access. So this may be the thin edge of a long wedge.
Adopting a user pay mentality as to housing and food is a retrograde step – especially if you limit cash income by 50% These things are free at the moment at one has to wonder if Howard is deliberately trying to indebt aboriginals to the commonwealth.
I wonder how they are going to label families bad parents and put limitations on them? And what effect this will have. How are they going to determine who is aboriginal, not always that simple?
My opinion is that this plan will de-humanise the people further, leave them feeling less that people, helpless, hopeless and depressed. They are cut out of the process and there is no rehabilitation, growth, accountability, responsibility mechanisms planned. The aboriginal just sits back and is subject to the big parent – the Federal Govt. Good way to make things worse.
This is however typical of Howard’s methods, aggressive, threatening and intimidating. Jack boot Johnny.
The first order of the day should be to halt any on going abuse. Having done that implement systemic changes that produce systemic results (this of course involves the community’s aboriginals in the primary role) otherwise you are wasting your time and pouring money and effort into a collander.
Give them education, mentoring, counselling, guidance, schools, nurses, police and a community management group of locals and so on – to create responsibity, self-determination, accountabity and self understanding and self pride. People need self determination to get better where there is a problem – which should not be an assumed state.
This will of course cost a huge amount of money, but once fixed and fixed systemically it should be just about fixed for all time. I also wish to qualify – that we should not go in assuming whole communities are corrupt – but like in every community there will be corrupted sections.
And what of the 97 recommendations?
So that this thread doesn’t get too unwieldy to read, I’m closing it off. Please make any comments relevant to this issue here:
http://larvatusprodeo.net/2007/06/24/the-response-to-howards-national-emergency/