This is intended to be a general post on some of the response to Howard’s announcement on Thursday, but a sample of the sort of rhetoric that’s been employed can be found at Harry Clarke’s blog.
The current situation is horrendous, but it’s also something that’s been the subject of discussion and calls for action on LP since May last year, a long time before many of the shriller voices around the shop discovered there was a problem courtesy of the “national emergency”. I first became involved in Indigenous issues and campaigns in 1988. It was very clear then, as clear as it is now, that simplistic mantras and paternalist solutions are no solutions at all.
I am disturbed by the attitude of many that “whatever might work� is appropriate in the face of what are clearly, in many instances, very ill thought out and probably ineffective measures. There have been enough people pointing to the practical issues, both in the blogosphere and in the papers.
I’m disturbed by the fact that very few care a fig for any notion of self-determination and autonomy and are so willing to clap their hands at fundamentally illiberal and authoritarian measures.
I’m disappointed that people aren’t prepared to consider as an alternative the implementation of the Wild/Anderson report [pdf] - with the same sense of urgency.
Wild/Anderson believed that at least fifteen years might be needed for significant progress to be made. Suddenly, many seem to think that the Commonwealth, now that whitefellas are on the job, can wave a six month magic wand and make it all better. That won’t prove to be the case. Any solution which does not have the support and ownership of those affected will fail. And I think that ignoring this truth in favour of the attitude of “well it is an emergency, perhaps we should give all this stuff a go with no detail, no debate, no questioning, no consultation and no ownership by the people affected� is problematic.
As Malcolm Fraser and Lowitja O’Donoghue write:
These latest measures have been introduced without any overt sign that there has been consultation with Aboriginal leadership or with Aboriginal elders from different communities. Without respect, without discussion and agreement it is difficult to see any measures working as effectively as we would all want.
And I’m disturbed by the fact that major policy shifts, such as the effective abolition of land rights and collective land tenure in the Northern Territory, can escape debate by being implemented as part of this plan, despite the fact that there is very little discernible relationship between land tenure and child abuse.
I’m disturbed by the total lack of focus on the fact that much of the abuse is not perpetrated by Indigenous people, and that many Indigenous people, including Indigenous men, have been working hard to address the problems.
I’m disturbed by the lack of courage of the Labor leadership in signing up to this without any consideration of whether other approaches might be more effective, presumably because they want to avoid taking a stand which might have electoral implications for the ALP.
To pose the question in terms of a moral dichotomy, as Howard has done, and as others have as well, is just not good enough. Since when can major policy initiatives escape scrutiny and debate in a democracy? To claim that anyone who would criticise these measures, and support alternative ones, or who would discuss the politics in an election year, is somehow morally deficient is pathetic, and in many cases hypocritical given the fact that those making those claims have shown no awareness or concern about Indigenous issues in the past.
And as an update: One of the interesting things about debating these issues in the blogosphere is that you can read first hand critiques from people actually involved with the issues at hand, like this comment on the other active thread.
Elsewhere: More from Helen at Surfdom. For those of us using Firefox, who are frustrated by Surfdom’s fade to black, Helen’s post is much more readable at Cast Iron Balcony.
Go here for links to previous posts and comments threads on this issue at LP.
Monday morning update: [by Kim] An excellent post from David Tiley, and more from Surfdom. And this post, which has made up my mind as to my voting intentions this year.
Monday afternoon update: A strong column from Guy Rundle in Crikey and more thoughtful commentary from Andrew Bartlett.
Some more posts: [by Kim] Andrew Elder is scathing about the role of the press, observing:
Australians need redemption from the moral taint of how all that we have and are is built upon, or even stolen from, Aboriginal civilisation.
And writing of Peter Hartcher, he comments:
It will not ever be a plan for rebuilding deeply traumatised and dysfunctional families and communities, and nobody with any experience of this government has any right to expect that it might. Hartcher has no excuse for such wishful thinking, he is suspending the very critical analysis for which he is paid. Any opposition to a government policy is quibbling?
David Tiley examines the Liberal wet dream and wonders why we’ve become as weird as we have.
Cam at Polemica thinks Howard’s comparison to Hurricane Katrina is risible, and not in a good way.
And tigtog has more on Howard’s emergency measures.
Mark, I would like to address some of the points you make.
Firstly you link to a post by Kim in May ‘06 in which she attacks the Minister’s call for more police, at the same time offering this (in your own words) ’simplistic mantra’:
You say you are disturbed by the ‘whatever might work’ and ‘probably ineffectual’ measures. I say better what might work than what we know does not
You say you are disturbed by those ‘willing to clap their hands at fundamentally illiberal and authoritarian measures’. I say desperate times call for desperate measures.
(continued below)
Most people accept that if a person is mentally unhinged and a danger to themselves, the mental health authorities should have the power- as they currently do- to enforce a program of compulsory treatment.
I have travelled through the NT. Some of the Aboriginal communities there look like a cross between a Hieronymus Bosch painting and a B-Grade Zombie flick. I’m not exaggerating. It is heartbreaking to witness. Where a community is in such a state that dysfunctional and destructive norms prevail, I think intensive outside intervention is indicated. The fact that the communities in question are Aboriginal is incidental.
Mark
Oh dear. Quoting these two does your case no favours. They are hardly the sharpest tools in the toolbox.
Mark
Your case might advance its current position as ‘irrelevant’ if you, yourself, knew what you meant by these ‘notions.’
Tony and Melaleuca,
Nobody is arguing the need for significant intervention. Significant intervention is exactly what the 97 recommendations of the Wild/Anderson report advise.
What, if anything, makes the PM’s proposal superior to the Wild/Anderson recommendations, which emphasise consultative measures rather than authoritarian measures?
Where is your, or anybody’s, evidence that punitive authoritarian measures are the best answer?
How trite can you get. So ‘desperate times call for desperate’ measures, even if these measures are hasty, ill considered and likely to be counter productive, as in not solving the problem that they were ostensibly meant to solve.
The failure of political will in this country on a whole range of issues, but indigenous matters would be high on the list, is a national tragedy. That a ‘plan’ so obviously cobbled together at the last moment, so flawed, so authoritarian and ignorant of the people it claims to protect, can be applauded on the basis of ‘better than nothing’ shows the depth to which political debate in this country has sunk.
mark says:
Call me old-fashioned but Im not that fussed. Freedom should not be a fetish. (Although the way that Wets carry on you would think that the only reason for freedom is to get stoned, sleaze up or veg out.) Freedom evolved to facilitate civil progress, particularly of “the better angels of our nature”.
“Illiberal and authoritarian measures” are exactly what the doctor ordered to constrain rock-spiders, dole-bludgers and dead-beats. These “worser angels of our nature” lurk in everyone, black white or brindle. But the difficult environment and particular endowments of remote Aboriginal communities make the locals much more prone to fall victim to these vices.
When individual autonomy fails then institutional authority should step in. The fitter, smarter and well-connected can enjoy individual autonomy .
It is the less-fit, less-smart and dis-connected who need “the firm smack of government”, whether it be cultural paternalism or fiscal interventionsism. They need institutional authority.
“Self-determination” can cause self-harm when local authority figures are ineffective and there is a high-risk of addictive substance abuse, whether the substance be grog, porn or dope.
Thats why we give special powers and privileges to authoritarian offices: parents, officers, priests, doctors, jurists, cops. And that is why it is right and proper for national authority to step in to protect the weak, innocent and vulnerable from immediate damage.
THe “mummy party” free-for-alls and hand-out metality has failed remote indigenous people. Its time for the “Daddy party” to crack the whip and call the shots.
Mark - I think a knee jerk reaction is wrong for all sorts of reasons. Probably the most compelling is that we know it doesn’t work. There’s empirical evidence that community development approaches so work however.
Using a ’soft’ approach to link children and parents into support is successful in raising educational and health outcomes in communities of disadvantage. Tackling problems early and assisting parents, kids and communities to deal with issues themselves works much better than a heavy hand.
Spoken by Goosey Loosey. Authorised by Chicken Little, Parliament House, Canberra.
You are disappointed that people haven’t gone with the Wild/Anderson report, but go on to say that Wild/Anderson considered 15 years the required amount of time to make a difference. Is it any wonder then that the NT Chief Minister didn’t seem to recognise the urgency of this problem?
This situation won’t be rectified in six months, but the important thing is to get the process started. Immediately.
You lament the fact that ‘there is very little discernible relationship between land tenure and child abuse’, but you fail to recognise that opening these communities up to the outside world by abolishing the permit system not only eliminates safe haven for offenders, it throws the spotlight squarely on the problem.
You say that ‘much of the abuse is not perpetrated by Indigenous people’ but the very LP post you linked to earlier Kim says:
While I do recognise that there have been incidents of non-indigenous offenders, and one white offender is one too many, it is unhelpful to shift the blame by implying the problem does not lie mainly with indigenous men.
As to the Labor party’s response I am willing to believe both John Howard and Kevin Rudd are sincere on this issue. They could be proven wrong, but they will be sincerely wrong while taking action to achieve good.
As far as whether the issues should be debated; of course they should. Even the political implications. (In just the same way as, say, global warming should be a topic free from moral righteousness.)
Well Mark, what have YOU achieved in nearly 20 years? Do you think that Aboriginal children deserve yet another 20 years of procrastination just so that you can feel righteous about creating self-determination whilst you sit in comfortable surroundings feeling better about yourself?
Have you spent ANY time in the places that Pearson speaks of or do you support Aborigines from the safety of a pub in Brisbane?
Mark, do you have any reference/link which shows how much of the abuse is perpetrated by non-indigenous people rather than by indigenous people?
GregM, yes, the link in the post to the NT report.
Angharad, to save us from ploughing through the rather lengthy blurb you’ve linked to can you point to the (presumably independently verified) empirical evidence that it refers to/relies upon?
Ok kids, Textors out and write:
“This a Howard agit-prop election gimmick”, twenty times.
As the Margo Kingston blog asks, summing up the feelings and misgivings of the many alluded to in the lead in to this thread also,
“Are Aborigines Howard’s Tampa 2?”.
More shock-horror, more outrageous emotive gimmickry worthy of a young lib flying squad.
All the trademark deliberate insensitivity/ intellectual dishonesty characteristics are present along with that repulsive pandering to base sexual, racist and authoritarian instincts wehave all come to know and love as the abiding charateristic of tEh Howard government for the last decade and more.
…………………………..
Had Howard been serious, he would have reassured indigenes they had not been singled out for covert Klan-like racial vilification, by commencing his lunatic medical examination policy in the white leafy-green suburbs; say starting with Christopher Pyne’s or Jackie Kelly’s kids.
Of course this probably wold have been unnecessary since all furtive guilt-ridden nig-nogs know filthy behavior never happens on the North Shore or out in the Hansonist mortgage belt.
Still it would have been a nice idea, no doubt welcomed by the latter, to give reassurance to silly natives that no psychological harm and reimposed self-loathing would come of disempowerment “”Stepford” policies.
I would expect newspaper letters from Sophie Panaopolis’ and Dee-Anne Kelly appearing any moment, expressing how they would LOVE having social security goons infestering under THEIR roofs imdefinitely and leering MO’s poking around theirs and their little kids intimateparts on the basis of no better a justification for digital rape than, “guilty ’til proven innocent”.
The only thing I really want to know is what’s being hidden elsewhere, by this classic “kids overboard” smoke and mirrors stunt?
That’s fairly typical of the ad hominem stuff that we’re getting.
I’m not attempting to claim any moral high ground myself. My involvement was mainly in the Land Rights issue from 88 to 93. And, yes, I’ve been to the NT and seen some of the conditions. I’ve also been involved in working with companies on Indigenous employment strategies, a large part of which involved looking at the literature and evidence on what works and what doesn’t. And I continue to talk about the issues with Indigenous people.
Your comment really goes to the wilful misreading and dichotomisation that’s going on. I haven’t argued for more “years of procrastination” but for the implementation of the NT report with the same degree of urgency. The fact that the authors are realistic about how soon conditions will improve is to their credit.
Maugrim - one might ask the same of you.
Nearly 20 years ago I worked with Professor Judy Atkinson in ATSIC when she waged a lonely battle to get ATSIC and anyone else in government to acknowledge or talk about these issues. It’s been very hard to get political traction or a commitment to start moving towards long-term change. I’ve certainly been sticking my oar in when I’ve had, admittedly limited, influence.
Angharad says:
“Probably the most compelling is that we know it doesn’t work. There’s empirical evidence that community development approaches so work however.”
I agree. However my understanding is that the elders in some of the communities in question have kicked out international aid agencies that have tried to do community development work.
On the topic of self-detrmination, ABC Lateline last year also exposed the extreme corruption that prevails in some Aboriginal communities. Sadly, a fleet of flash 4WDs for the local Aboriginal power elite often takes priority over child health and welfare funding.
Sure Greg M - it’s a report of a 6 year community development project in Inala (an outer Brisbane with a high concentration of disadvantage). It has a crime prevention focus in design. It has been evaluated along the way by Prof Ross Homel from the Key Centre for Justice at Griffith University.
The project works by engaging parents and kids when the kids are little by bringing them into play groups and things. Then using that engagement to work softly to identify key stresses on that family and link them up with appropriate supports.
In Inala the community is Indigenous / Vietnamese and other groups. The evaluation showed considerable improvements in school engagement and literacy / numeracy over time.
Howard’s supporters on this serious issue endorse the “desperate times, desperate measures” slogan.
My questions:
1. How do you measure the magnitude of the problem to the proportionality of the proposed response?
2. What is the maximal response you’d accept before withdrawing your support from Howard?
3. What evidence will you accept that Howard’s approach has achieved its ostensible aims?
To avoid being mere Howard claqueurs you must demonstrate that you have qualified answers to all of these questions.
Katz
Q1.Although I have a reasonable grasp of English I’m not sure what your question is. If you mean is this an overreaction, the answer is no.
Q2.Again not sure what you mean but in light of the serious issues outlined in the NT report, the measures proposed seem appropriate and I support them. Any further announcements would need to be considered if and as they are made.
Q3.Evidence similar to that in the NT report which precipitated the proposed measures.
GregM, the report doesn’t offer a proportionate analysis of abuser ethnicity. It does however observe:
“While the incidence of sexual abuse of Aboriginal children
is a significant problem, it does not follow that all
Aboriginal males are offenders, or that Aboriginal males are
responsible for all offending against Aboriginal children. It is
the Inquiry’s experience that the sexual abuse of Aboriginal
children is being committed by a range of non-Aboriginal
and Aboriginal offenders – and these are a minority of the
overall Australian male population.
As would be expected in any community, most of the
Aboriginal men the Inquiry spoke with found the idea
of child sexual abuse abhorrent and advocated severe,
sometimes fatal, physical punishments for offenders.
The Inquiry recognises that Aboriginal communities, and
Aboriginal men, must be supported to better address the
abuse and violence in their communities, but remains
concerned that, at times, Aboriginal men have been
targeted as if they were the only perpetrators of child
sexual abuse in communities. This is inaccurate and
has resulted in unfair shaming, and consequent further
disempowerment, of Aboriginal men as a whole.”
It also observes:
“While media portrayal of the issue has predominantly
related to incidents of older Aboriginal men assaulting
young women and “paedophiles� operating in Aboriginal
communities, the reality of child sexual abuse is that it:
• involves both female and male victims - from the very
young to adulthood
• is committed by non-Aboriginal and Aboriginal males
of all ages – with a proportion of assaults being
committed by offenders who are themselves children
• has led to inter-generational cycles of offending –
such that victims have subsequently become
offenders and, in turn, created a further generation
of victims and offenders
• occurs across urban and remote communities and
in various circumstances (in the home, during social
occasions, in institutional settings). “
No, I’m not the one big-noting myself as to my credibility on this issue, nor am I the one criticising Howards’ actions without actually having a viable alternative solution in place other than ‘its all about rights’
Well, you’re the one who argues against straw people without reading the post and the thread, it would appear.
I’ve had a look at the report Mark and can’t find any figures that show a break-down between indigenous and non-indigenous offenders.
I can’t see why you should be disturbed by the total lack of focus on the fact that much of the abuse is not perpetrated by Indigenous people, since the focus should be on the abuse itself, rather than the ethnic background of the perpetrators. Abuse is abuse no matter who does it and it makes no difference, and should be treated no differently, whether the perpetrator is Aboriginal or non-Aboriginal.
GregM, please see the excerpt Geoff quoted.
Some of the measures proposed arguably will make it easier for non-Indigenous people to commit offences (as well as being a negation of property rights) - for instance, the abolition of the permit system, as Ken Parish has suggested.
And since it’s being presented as an “Indigenous emergency” and Howard has specifically ruled out applying these measures to towns and cities but only to “prescribed” Indigenous communities, very clearly there is a focus on race.
“No” is not an appropriate answer to this question.
The question I posed isn’t “Has Howard overreacted?” The question I posed is “How do you decide whether or not Howard has overreacted?”
Again, not an appropriate response. The question asks you to decide precisely at which point you would decide that Howard’s approach was disproprtionate.
A reasonable response.
The excerpt Geoff quotes does NOT quantify the extent of sexual abuse committed by white outsiders.
Mark says the abolition of the permit system will “arguably” lead to more white outsider abuse. If Mark’s thesis is correct, then we should all be living in gated communities. But of course it isn’t correct: an end to the permit system will bring greater transparency to these communities. Transparency is a wonderful thing, and a prophylactic against many vices.
Of course there is a focus on race. The very report to which you refer is called ‘Report of the Board of iInquiry Into the Protection of Aboriginal Children from Sexual Abuse’.
Katz
If you want to play word games how about Scrabble?
I was responding to GregM’s point, Tony.
Melaleuca, it’s very difficult to quantify the extent of child abuse anywhere in any community and to profile the offenders because much of it goes unreported. Clearly, the report drew on the experiences of many who’ve had much to do with the justice system as well as other responses to the issue in NT.
And how long will “transparency” exist when the tv cameras leave? Removing the permit system would also remove the ability of police to stop people entering those communities unless there’s actual evidence of intent to commit an offence.
Stroppy:
Here’s to a return to slavery!
If I may Mark, the very fact that outsiders are allowed to pass through these communities will ensure some degree of transparency.
Thanks for your further comment and to Geoff for his references from the report. I feel a lot of disquiet about how this initiative is unfolding as it seems to have been brought together in a rush and it’s been my experience that an ounce of planning is worth a ton of implementation. This thing, however well-intentioned, could go off the rails easily and become just one more of a list of lost and wasted opportunities.
Well, yes. I do agree with GregM. I support the principal of outside intervention but not the detail of the current Howard program. Hopefully the program will be amended during its implementation.
It is also worth noting that the NT is full of political correctness. Until I see hard evidence that Aboriginal kids in the NT are more at risk from white predators than their own kith and kin, I’ll assume that the pattern of abuse in our indigenous communities fits the pattern found in communities elsewhere.
I remarked on another blog, Howard sniffed a vote out of this, no more no less.
Insiders today had a very good coverage of this issue, including interviews with Mal Brough and Clare Martin.
Martin says she had an advance copy of the report, which her officials studied for six weeks, not eight as reported. As soon as the report was released by the writers, she sent a copy to Canberra and dispatched officials to have discussions with the Feds. She pointed out that the timing of the release was not up to her.
Brough says they got the report off the net on Tuesday. It is clear that he only consulted Sue Gordon from the Aboriginal leadership. Pearson apparently was phoned 15 minutes before the policy response was issued.
Martin got a phone call an hour before it was released. She didn’t return the call because the PM’s office refused to tell her what the call was about.
It seems clear to me that Brough wanted to pre-empt input from the NT and show them up in the worst possible light. From his comments it seems clear that petty political payback was involved for what he perceives as Martin’s lack of co-operation in the past.
I’m willing to grant Brough that he wants the best for Aboriginal children. But it is a bit rich to say that the Commonwealth response is above politics or apolitical. And a response conceived in two days flat cries out for critical analysis.
A few interesting points came out of the program.
Martin says 90% of the NT communities are officially dry.
Brough says the permit system had to go because there was fear and intimidation being exerted on people who were entitled to be there.
Brough says the medical examinations are going to be total examinations, a kind of health audit of all kids.
Fran Kelly said that if the Feds are serious the assistance required is going to go well beyond the $10 billion water plan.
Meanwhile no-one has asked Brough why he has to take over the land.
And I heard on the news a few minutes ago that while Brough was working flat out with officials in Canberra on implementation plans extra police and the Army were already arriving in Darwin.
Okay, so not only Indigenous people abuse Indigenous kids. But from the mouth of Mal Brough:
Can you tell me they are ‘normal’ statistics for child sex offences for the general Austalian community? Can we at least agree that the situation in some of these isolated communities - with the fact that there are huge problems with alcohol, sit-down money, lack of policing, lack of health services and general despondency - are leading to terrible outcomes for children, including an increased risk of physical and sexual abuse?
And yes, I have worked with children from Aboriginal communities, including from Noel Pearson’s home community of Hopevale. And I have lived in the NT, and worked (on the periphery) of programs involved in early intervention in Indigenous education and wellbeing. No, I am not an expert, but to make statements such as removing the permit system will make things worse, with implications that these communities will be flooded with white abusers, is just ignoring the situation on the ground. Let’s move away from the noble savage idea and look at what is really happening - Aborigines are abusing Aborigines. And at awful, above ‘normal’ rates.
“This thing, however well-intentioned, could go off the rails easily and become just one more of a list of lost and wasted opportunities.”
I am also quite concerned about the intentions. Given that the plans seem to have the potential to make the situation worse for all, NT, aboriginals.
All families are to be treated, the same, whether they are involved in what is considered bad behaviour or not. There are no rewards, but punishment in the form of suspended welfare payments and various other increased living expenses. No funding for improved education or health. Just the threat of medical examinations for all youngsters regardless of their or parents wishes.
To top it off, they lose control over who may enter their lands. Can you imagine how pastoralists and miners would like their rights of control prohibited? The intention I believe is less about allowing “transparency” but more about providing a good excuse to open up areas for tourism and mining development for white carpetbaggars.
GregM, I gather that there is going to be an administrator for every community. These are the people that Fred Chaney said the other day are going to have the wisdom of Job.
And everybody, including Mal Brough, seems to agree that the show will go nowhere without the co-operation of local community leaders.
I have severe doubts whether the requisite personnel can be found in the short term. Much of the Wild/Anderson recommendation seemed to focus on building up these support structures over time.
Yes, Scrabble is a word game.
Your point being … ?
“Much of the Wild/Anderson recommendation seemed to focus on building up these support structures over time.”
How do you look children in the eye who are predestined to squalor, sexual and physical abuse, poor mental health and a short life expectancy that they will have to wait another 15 years, as per the Wild/Anderson report, for change? I’m sorry, but I could never do that.
If i’m right, essentially, it seems most of us have problems with (after the intitial reactions), is:
1. Why Howard has cherry picked some bits and pieces, and not just resolved to fully implememnt the Wild Anderson report.
2. Why the emphasis on abolishing the land permit system needed to be emeshed with this strategy.
3. The centralised top down approach, and lack of collaboration at this stage.
After having a comprehensive reading of the full report, however, i still dont think we should be sceptical of Howards timing. THe report calls for an urgent national response and pleads for an end to the ongoing cycle of extended consultation and reports, without strong and necessarily controversial leadership where required. Ive also noticed that some of the accusations of paternalism i’ve read , i.e. provision of comprehensive meals at school, but paid for by the parents, as opposed to the current free system, are actually specific recommendations giving in the WIld Anderson report.
I guess i would be more angry if Howard or whoever the PM was, didn’t finally convert this report into some serious action, though i’d be lying if i didnt feel a level of anxiety about the potential for the Feds to f..k things up.
This week will be interesting.
Sublime Cowgirl - I think you do a good summary of the points
Can someone please elaborate on the Army claim in this? There is already a large number of serving members in Darwin - IF (and it’s a big if) the Army is going to be involved, who are they bringing, from where, and why?
There is some really offensive people here,letting go with opinions,about people they dont know,and it appears wouldnt want to know..but gee,it is somehow reasonable to have such opinions as that, according to the offensive who have these opinions! I might also add out of respect for arithmetic rather than anything else,if a clinical psychologist had to work on a one client alone basis,at optimal therapeutic interchange..how long would it take for a Aboriginal molester,a white educated molestor,and associated drunks,and levels of education!? Then ,one can take the Justice road with say thirteen suspects at least,court cases internment etc. how many years and costs in comparison to other approaches or with these approaches!? Because it doesnt appear to me to have had a post, here, by a practicising clinical pyschologist working on…. perpetrators alone. It also appears most opinion here is flaccid to say the least, and non numerical in relationship to a theoretical outcome that isnt easily defineable except as a Justice and Law enforcement process,where there is some objection to Northern Territorean Police,like they dont know what they are doing,and then any other practising services up there. This is the Howard government at its worse,even with aboriginal defence people,to be wholly instructed through Howards government to do civil work is a bloody nonsense..the Aboriginal enlisted in the NT. would know the Police formally and informally fairly well….what is this all about. The nub of the problem wasnt found in Canberra when the wheel fell off.
“After having a comprehensive reading of the full report, however, i still dont think we should be sceptical of Howards timing.”
Please, sc, though I agree , generally, your summary is a good one, this comment is a bit too hard to take. Over 10 years in power, to do something in this area, and NT comes up with a report. In an election year, Howard and co grab it and call a State of Emergency. Skeptical I remain.
what an indictment on this divisive mans time in office when the first thing we think of after an announcement like this is,whats in it for him.
howard also mentioned quarantining welfare payments to others without being specific.are we about to see single mothers sacrificed to the liberal party re-election effort?
Howard’s government has, like so many before, failed to address & indeed has further contributed to the social & economic problems besetting Indigenous Australians. As has been pointed out elsewhere, we have failed again and again to provide the level of health & social services white Australians take for granted. In some communities, this can mean no clean running water, no sanitation. Government agencies dispense funding not to the people most in need or even projects developed & run by Aborigines but back within their own bureaucratic structures.
No self-determination, no control, powerlessness, racism, prejudice, white man ignorance, poor educational access - and Howard will solve it all - whatever that ALL- may be - be sending in the army. Tomorrow.
Doing nothing is worse - but doing everything to compound this horror is still worse again. Somehow I highly doubt that Aust Army personnel have the skills to deal with civilian policing matters, especially child & sex abuse.
& at the risk of being accused of defending or trivialising the matter, an earlier comment as to the “high rate” of kith & kin offending against children - the accepted stats on child abuse in most western democracies is that the offender is known to the victim in 90% of cases & is from within the family. Sexual abuse within the family is under-reported, under-detected in ost societies. And there’s something chillingly cynical & self-serving about Howard’s response to an already disempowered and marginalised group. We’re sending in the army - %#%ck.
On the timing, I’m with urgent action if as Brough claims there is irrefutable evidence of paedophile rings in at least 45 communities. However, I think a week or two extra would have been sensible. Officials in the NT considered an advance copy of the report for 6 weeks, then Brough could not wait 24 hours to see what they had made of it. I don’t think you can say he’s entirely fair dinkum under those circumstances.
Megami, on the Army, I can’t add to what I said. It was a very brief mention in the news.
melaleuca, I didn’t read the Wild/Anderson report as saying nothing would happen for 15 years. They were just being realistic. You’ve got adult abusers who were abused themselves as children. It’s going to take more than half a generation to get things to a situation that can be considered ‘normal’. I think that is what they are saying.
I saw footage of Howard in parliament make that suggestion uncle bob.
Mighty was his smirk… ‘Look at how clever I am…. I’ve already thought of that..no I’m not racist, I will treat ALL people in poverty, regardless of colour, in the same mean spirited manner’.
Some questions for Larva Prodders about Howard’s cultural policy for remote Aboriginal communities and comparably disordered white communities:
1. Do you disagree with restrictions on access to grog and porn?
2. Do you disagree with pro-active medical examinations to determine if systematic child abuse is occurring?
3. Do you disagree with tougher policing and penalising measures to crack down on rock-spiders in and around in the community?
4. Do you disagree with conditional child care to force dead-beat parents to look after their childrens nutrition, health and education?
5. Do you disagree with conditional welfare in order to force the sit-down money class off their backsides?
6. Do you disagree with the rescision of local control of these communities and assumption of national control?
For one minute, forget the politics and address the policy. Set aside issues of ecnoomic interventions and consultative process. Ask yourselves if it was your child would you be content to let the locals do as they please whilst the nationals foot the bill?
I put it to you that no sane, decent and right-thinking person could possibly have any objection to any of these measures. Children are at risk and whatever needs to be done should be done to protect them.
Of course all these national statist measures are diametrically opposed to the liberal-Left policies of the past generation.
So what road are you going to follow: child-protecting decency or Howard-hating Lefty?
Podcast of Noel Pearson on Big Ideas Here
The Social Justice Commissioner, Tom Calma, released a report a week ago. It has got buried. Calma shows, I think convincingly, that the Howard government’s attempt to revamp how Indigenous affairs is managed in the bureaucracy has failed. A major failing of this revamp has been rushing into restructuring and policy changes without thinking through the consequences, or seeking advice about the likely consequences.
This latest proposal looks like more of the same. What are the soldiers and the one extra police officer per community actually going to DO? I reckon they will march around, pick up rubbish, maybe fix some dripping taps, maybe fix a few broken walls. I just can’t see how they will clean up sexual abuse and domestic violence. There’s no reference to employing interpreters to explain to the new police what people are saying… so I doubt many Aboriginal women and children will rush up to soldiers and dob in sexual abusers.
There isn’t a huge amount of other obvious crime on most Aboriginal communities - most of which are dry - a bit of breaking and entering and grog-running, and embezzlement by mostly non-Indigenous staff.
Watch out Katz: all the hard men of blogging have arrived, possessors all of steely eyed determination to right wrongs, well-filled flight suits, and a weakness for 3 paragraph solutions for problems that have defeated far better people than they.
Therefore they have no time for any question more difficult then they’ve successfully attempted to answer while watching “The Rich List”.
“Can someone please elaborate on the Army claim in this?”
Megami, when you declare Teh “National Emergency”, you need soldiers.
Hell, you just “need them”.
This is the new “War on Black Paedophile Rings”.
Navy would be involved but some uncertainty as to the depth of Todd River.
Brough, busy checking.
Spotto Fallacy of the Excluded Middle!
My God Howard must be wetting himself with glee.
After Howard wins the election,and make no mistake he is on a winner here, it will be as far as the Aboriginal population is concerned, business as usual.
The very fact that he has the left getting their knickers in a twist over this bollicks,is, Howard knows after the election when he renigs on all this out pouring of social conscience,this problem will have served its purpose,embarrass the N.T. & QLD governments.
It will then,just like Pearson, fade away into obscurity.
And all this self serving “What a good and caring Government we have” well all that media coverage for F.A.better than a Sinclaire Ad blitz.
Paul Walter
No need. I am an “indigene” and need nor reassuring.
Says it all really - Stuff the States, I’m doing what I Want - if you oppose me you are a pedo lover.
Megami, as I understand it, the ADF is being used to provide transport and logistics support only.
I think that if this is seen as a staged response, it might make more sense. So, upfront you have the major circuit breaker involved in “national emergency” and the rapid intervention aimed at protecting kids and introducing the fundamentals for building civil society in communities where it has collapsed. Then you have a potentially much more challenging task: to sustain and build upon the gain. To be fair to Brough, he hasn’t claimed to be able to solve “the problem” in 6 months. On the contrary, he’s pointed out that the immediate priority is to stabilise the situation sufficiently so that a longer term response can happen.
As sublime cowgirl points out, the Report pleads for swift and decisive action on child abuse and urges the NT government not to see it as “just another Report.” The Report also notes that the obvious: that sustainable improvement in Aboriginal health and welfare will take much longer and will rely on an holistic, consultative approach.
So, yep, a great deal of the criticism is valid, detail is in alarmingly short supply and we obviously need much more information. I also think that you’d have to be Pollyanna on Prozac not to accept that the political wind has been sniffed but so what if this has some benefit? In lieu of any other ideas for some immediate break in the cycle it’s surely worth a shot.
In order to implement these proposals hundreds of personnel are required. The States and Federal Police have few if any police available at short notice. The Federal Government has at its disposal a large number of Army soldiers who can be quickly deployed to the area to carry out many practical and logistical tasks. They will be followed by additional police within 10 days.
Thanks for a sane comment Geoff, and yours too, SC.
Tony, who do you think these “hundreds of personnel” are and what exactly are they going to do next week?
jack strocchi, can you stop this stupid LP stereotyping please? I hardly ever agree totally with anyone and I perceive most commenters to be the same. Also by commenting here you become a Larva Prodder so you might answer the questions yourself.
Perhaps not on second thoughts, because you are more predictable than the average LP commenter.
Mr Brough says he wants a dramatic boost in police numbers and he is prepared to have the Army help.
“We are prepared to stand by and have the military forces of this country be able to provide their logistics, their vehicles, their communications and their language skills of members of the Indigenous parts of our defence forces support the men and women of the Australian police forces in their duty,” he said.
Thanks, Tony.
I See Toupee Ray Martin is in on the act as well - coincidence or not ?
http://sixtyminutes.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=274740
“In lieu of any other ideas for some immediate break in the cycle it’s surely worth a shot.”
So Geoff are seriously suggesting that these plans may not , in fact, make the situation worse? That shot may well backfire…baby out with the bathwater etc…
“So Geoff are seriously suggesting that these plans may not , in fact, make the situation worse? That shot may well backfire…baby out with the bathwater etc”
I’m absolutely sure that doing nothing, joe2, will definitely make the situation worse. The Report is pretty compelling about the level of abuse and societal collapse in many communities and the need for an immediate response to it. I don’t for one moment think that the Brough Plan is the ‘whole solution,’ but it could provide the sort of stabilising moment that will be essential if longterm, sustainable recovery is to take place.
So is the idea to bring in the troops and police so that the whole 97 recommendations can be implemented in full?
Jack Strocchi:
Yes I do. Such examinations are intrusive and can be highly distressing to children aside from often being quite inconclusive. They should only be carried out when there is good cause to do so and by professionals who are qualified to carry them out and to properly interpret them.
On the other hand I would not disagree with a pro-active general medical examination to look for general health indicators such as weight for height, nutrition deficiency, worm infestation, parasites, middle ear infections, respiratory problems, trachoma etc. so that a strategy could be implemented to improve the child’s health and well-being where necessary. If that involved a blood or urine test which, inter alia, looked for signs of venereal diseases I would not disagree with that provided that it was just one element of an examination focused on the overall health and well-being of the child and not exclusively on whether they have been sexually abused.
I think Brian has made the most sensible comments so far.
For me, I am just a bit too cynical about the timing and (some of the) motives behind this. It is a classic Howard wedge manoeuver. He can’t possible say that he didn’t know about these problems years ago, so why now is it suddenly a major national emergency, just a few months before a tough election? How convenient.
And how convenient to extend it to all ‘welfare’ recipients. Will that include those with incomes in the top 60-70 percent, and who also receive baby bonuses, etc, otherwise known as middle class welfare?
Welcome to the conservative version of the nanny state.
Tony, that news item you linked to also said this:
He then defended the NT government from Howard’s criticism.
I like Geoff Honnor’s notion of a staged response. My worry is that the second and consequent phases either will not happen or will be under-resourced.
I worry that if they go at it like a bull at a gate in the first phase they will compromise cooperation down the track. Inga Clendinnen said the other day that people of “force, hope and energy” exist in these communities. She doesn’t know how, but they do. She and many others who would know emphasise that gaining the cooperation of such people in the communities is not an option, it is a necessary condition for success.
Those are my words, but I think they conform with her intent. Warren Mundine worries about the quality of the people used at the coal-face in this exercise. So do I.
I am concerned that the land tenure thing is going to have consequences that don’t meet the aspirations of the people.
I am concerned about these medical examinations. OK, Brough says they will be a total examination, not just as jack said, “to determine if systematic child abuse is occurring.”
I don’t think any medical examination should be compulsory, let alone vaginal and anal examinations. As to the latter, I think the consent of the child should be required, plus, separately, the consent of the parents or legal guardians. If these examinations are to be compulsory, I’m inclined to thin