One of the aspects of the Howard emergency that most deserves some dispassionate analysis is the way in which it’s been presented as something “above politics”. Aside from the obvious angle of disabling and smearing criticism and critics, which has had the practical effect of completely obscuring the actual recommendations of the NT Wild/Anderson report (whose properly resourced implementation with an appropriate sense of urgency I would continue to support as a rational and effective response to the dire problems which are evident), it begs the question – what are our political institutions actually for?
The classic instance of a “state of emergency” in the Westminster system is Lloyd George’s formation of a Coalition government during the Great War excluding the followers of the party leader who had actually won the 1910 election, H. H. Asquith. This “national government” was followed by a “Khaki election” in 1918, comprehensively won by the effectively non-party PM in large part through the issuing of “coupons” by the Tory whips to preferred candidates from all parliamentary parties. The implication was that the behaviour of MPs who’d continued in opposition was in effect treasonous. A precedent was set which would later be revived in the Great Depression and the Second World War.
Howard’s emergency is, of course, not on the scale of the Great War (though the bizarre comparison with Hurricane Katrina deserves its own analysis). But it’s worth noting that Franklin Delano Roosevelt, during the Second World War, was careful to insist that political opposition to his administration was legitimate, and that the values of democracy the US was fighting for included the right to freedom of political speech and the maturity to conduct election campaigning during a national emergency.
There are two ways I’d like to approach this whole question.
The first is by pointing to a thoughtful post from tigtog at Hoyden:
The oversight role of Senate needs to be hammered home in every discussion of the Indigenous Emergency Plan. Those disappointed with the Labor response so far can be reassured that so long as they don’t give either Libs or Labs a Senate majority, then the Senate can exercise proper checks and balances to any government implementation of the NT plan.
That’s absolutely spot on, and highlights the way in which our parliamentary system can actually contribute to sensible scrutiny of government measures, even if they’re labelled “emergency” measures. Her call for electors to consider voting for candidates not aligned with either the Government or the Opposition in the Senate logically follows on from this, and is one that I’d support.
Secondly, tigtog writes:
Many people are, quite rightly, asking for a non-partisan response to the NT sexual abuse crisis. The big problem with that is that it’s almost impossible to abide by in an election year.
…
This is the only way that I can see to end up with a truly non-partisan implementation of long-term actions that will end up making a real difference to abused indigenous children.
The problem, of course, is that as well as the fact that emergency measures will fail (although the land grab aspect will surely succeed) without ownership and consultation, is that making the demand for bipartisan support after the measures have been announced is an end run around the foundations of bipartisanship rather than its basis. The way in which the measures have been announced (not, note carefully, their motivation and substance) can’t be interpreted in any other light than as a political maneouvre.
We can observe this through looking at the actual political content of the demands that the issue be treated as non-political. Gary Sauer-Thompson, for instance, examines a claim by John Hirst, writing in The Australian, that the state of Indigenous community norms represents a failure of libertarianism. Aside from the dubious merits of this line of argument, surely what is happening here is that Hirst is projecting whatever political ideology he most dislikes onto the situation and falsely stigmatising it more generally by alleging its reponsibility for child sexual abuse. A more political way of proceeding could hardly be imagined.
Similarly, The Government Gazette itself, in its leader today, gives the game away. In a piece which barely deigns to make an argument for the form Howard’s response has taken, the culture warrior editorialist thunders the paper’s disdain for critics – it’s they, not the government who are political, apparently, despite the fact that the whole point of the leader is to score political points.
THAT the Howard Government’s attempt to save a generation of Aboriginal children from sexual abuse can be portrayed as a political wedge shows how far sections of Australia’s so-called thinking elite are out of touch with the rights-and-responsibilities revolution sweeping the Western world. The very notion of seeking political opportunity by exploiting the tragic circumstances exposed by the Northern Territory’s investigation into sexual abuse in indigenous communities is repugnant. The irony is that a political wedge only becomes possible courtesy of the predictable protests of those who continue to favour symbolic gestures over practical intervention.
We could go on multiplying examples almost endlessly from the opinion pages over the last few days – Gerard Henderson’s column today being another case in point. But perhaps it’s not necessary to make the point. What we can see here is an enormous dose of bad faith, with viciously political and hyperbolically unfair shots being fired in this latest front in the culture wars. And the sound and noise has the effect of completely eliding criticism of the proposal on the merits, through the oft repeated and rediculous demand for a “policy alternative” (as if supporting the Wild/Anderson recommendations weren’t one) and the consequent implication that critics are being purely partisan. In fact, it’s very clear who’s stocking up on their political ammunition during this “national emergency”. It helps that Indigenous people in the Territory themselves are very much the objects of this discussion and concern trolling writ large rather than the subjects of their own destiny.
Update: Published in Crikey on the 27th of June.
Good points there Mark. Last night I had the most unpleasant experience of seeing Henderson up on stage with the Dessicated Coconut on the TV news. I guess Henderson must have moved on to more fertile terrain given only the most rabid neo-con could continue to justify the slaughter in Iraq.
Not so sure about your faith in FDR’s democratic credentials, as I’m sure many on the American Left during that time would agree…
Here’s the Poll Bludger’s story on the latest Galaxy Senate Poll
Chav, I agree FDR wasn’t a saint from a left point of view, but I think the broader point holds (and he was a hell of a lot better than most of his American successors in the Democratic Party!).
We live in a free democracy and everyone is entitled to their opinion and can critcize the Federal Government’s policies. So, please feel free to criticise current proposals to fix the terrible problems in the NT Aboriginal communities.
So far I have seen criticism, but no solutions – nothing new has been offered up as an alternative. It would appear that the criticizers are content to let the current situation prevail. If they weren’t content with the status quo then they would be offering solutions to fix the problems, but the aren’t.
And when an alternative is offered (is if!!!) will it then be alright if people ask of the new proposals – “Why now?”, ” Why not before now?”, and “What is the political motive in offering up these new suggestions now?”.
Look up “The Left” or “Social Democrat” in a thesaurus and it will have in bold type next to it – HYPOCRITE.
Thanks for proving my point, Razor. Is there something about being a Howard hugger which makes reading the arguments of your opponents before rushing to judgement impossible?
Mark – We had the Gordon report here in WA and the ALP State Govt made nice noises but have done SFA about it. I am not filled with confidence that the Martin Government in the NT would have done anything with their report. They’ve had plenty of opportunity (and responsibility) and done bugger all about the situation so far. And having lived in the NT I find it a joke that the NT Government needs a report to tell them how bad things are.
Razor, I would have no problem, as I said, with the Wild/Anderson reported being implemented with as much of a sense of urgency. There no doubt is a role for the feds in all this, and one reason why there is would be the fact that the amount of money that responding to the issues will cost would exceed the amount that the Territory government could commit.
But I suggest you compare the recommendations of the Wild/Anderson report with Howard’s measures if you’re interested in alternative suggestions which give promise of being more effective if perhaps less spectacular.
The “our Hurricane Katrina” reference is one of the oddest things I’ve read in a while as part of a major policy statement.
Many curiosities, not least that the situations are not remotely comparable. But what on earth does the comparison with an American natural disaster achieve? Are people so simple and plugged into the USA that a reference like that is useful?
Odd strategy too for JoHo to point to an event which cost George Bush an enormous amount of good will, and signal a comparison.
Comparisons with other Land Grabs here.
I can’t let Razor’s comment go unchallenged. The Northern Territory Government didn’t need a report to tell it how bad things are. The previous Territory Government also knew. Its Health Minister set it all out in a comprehensive Ministerial Statement in November 1987 and on many occasions thereafter. Neither the CLP nor the ALP governments have achieved anything like a successful outcome but both have had a go.
They simply have not had the resources to deal with the extent of the problem. $1billion shortfall in housing, just one high school in a remote township until the ALP came in, the highest rate of police per head of population in the country but operating in a land mass that is 1/6 of the country. They – both CLP and ALP – have also pursued policies that haven’t worked focusing often on prohibition and law and order as the way forward.
The Wild/Anderson report brings together recommendations for action that were pretty obvious in the main. Most are being pursued and have been pursued for some time. The difference now is that suddenly and thankfully the Federal Government is paying attention. With some attention, money and a sensible strategy – not the one being pursued – there is a chance that there will be some positives.
It is, of course, ridiculous to act as if this is a new problem, or an emergency. The army and police sound great, if you like that sort of thing, but what is required now is something in the nature of a Marshall Plan. The trick will be turning this current attention into the Australian version of a Marshall Plan.
Its lets us know loud and clear what the outcome for Black Australia will be…
Regarding Howard’s startling Katrina analogy, I agree with Kymbos who posted at Polemica:
“I might be over-reading the analogy but isn’t Papa John saying that the causes of ‘disaster’ in NT are like Katrina – natural? But then I think Howard went on to say that the situation in the NT was like the aftermath of Katrina in New Orleans except without the hand of God. WTF? So, Papa John’s analogy seems to be that an historical(social)force has devastated the NT’s Aboriginal communities. The neo cons of the Government Gazzette and their associated historic bloc are trying to sheet the blame home to the cultural left, the social liberals – the post-1960s projects. ”
Also by neutralising it along the lines of a natural disaster, Howard has the opportunity to perform as the strong leader. It seems to me that the only other comparable situation where he could have performed in this way, would have been in response to a terrorist attack. That did not happen (and at times I have most cynically wondered whether his inflammatory statements towards Muslims were attempts at provocation in this regard) and so this is the only other possible scenario where Howard could slip into the role which is beyond Rudd. After all, Howard is once and always an example of the colonial father. He’s old, he’s conservative but he makes Australia feel safe. And he’s only doing what Australia wants. Who wants to remember that this situation finds its start in colonisation, and that all white australians are the beneficiaries of the colonising acts of the past. Rather, let it be a disaster of the left’s making and let the response be as to a natural calamity. That way no one pays, except Aboriginal people once again.
That’s interesting, casey. Might be worth thinking more about the resonances of “natural” in the context of the civilisation/nature dichotomy which obviously plays a large role in backgrounding the rhetoric of this intervention.
Forgive my ignorance on this. I really can’t claim any degree of understanding on this, but I want to.
I must admit to being a little baffled by all of this.
The easy bits:
Child abuse = bad. No argument there.
Limited or no social infrastructure in remote communities = bad. Again, no argument.
Substance abuse = bad. Some people will argue, but let’s go with the social norm on this.
Beyond this point, I get lost:
A health check every six months = solution. To what? Surely better access to health services “on demand” (like when someone is ill or injured) would be a solution.
Removing the permit system = solution. Excuse me? Can anyone, anywhere provide an explanation of how this will make life better in remote communities? (Post procter hoc arguments need not apply)
Sending in the military = solution. Maybe? I suppose there are engineering skills that can be brought in. But in a policing role – no. That’s what civil police are for. Perhaps it’s a uniform thing.
Once again, forgive my middle class urban ignorance on this. These must seem like dumb questions, but I’m really struggling to get my head around this.
But Razor a complete solution was offered to Howard by the NT government 12 months ago. Urgent, comprehensive and workable over a set and achievable time frame that included the Aboriginal leaders in the planning and set to work.
Guess what, Howard completely ignored it.
Fast forward 12 months and a similar report with a few more items (all but two of Howard has ignored) and Howard has “suddenly and urgently” discovers the plight of NT Aboriginals.
Friggin’ Howard apologists, can never see wrong in the man even though it’s staring them in the face. No other PM in our history has been held less accountable for their actions and had such an easy run in the media than Howard (including nobbling the ABC), yet this is still not enough for his apologists, who believe nothing but unfettered bowing and continuous high praise is good enough, and even then would complain the bowing wasn’t low enough nor the praise loud or often enough.
I do agree that this quote from Ed in The Australian is highly questionable:
“The irony is that a political wedge only becomes possible courtesy of the predictable protests of those who continue to favour symbolic gestures over practical intervention.”
This is that “Culture War” view of the world in which the only dissenters that exist are a bunch of latte-sipping, post-graduate elites called “The Cultural Left”.
This template straw man used by Ed and others on the Right is difficult to associate with my own experience as a current Tafe student making a slow, partial transition to University this year. If posting on a Left-wing site like Lavartus Prodeo suddenly brands a Tafe student as a “cultural leftist”, that’s a bit like being awarded with an Honorary Degree
Since my previous post about this issue confirms I am challenging the Howard Government’s position, does this mean I now have an Honorary Degree in favouring symbolic gestures over practical intervention?
More likely is that I’m being antipodean in a way that’s not represented in the narrow “Culture War” context.
Take for example this comment by Ed:
“Cheap criticism that the Government’s response is a form of apartheid misses the point that alcohol and welfare restrictions are being imposed on the basis of location, not race or ethnicity. In fact, the Howard plan is the very opposite of aparthied – the Afrikaans word for separate development.”
This point about “separate development” is just too important to be confined to “left vs. right” Culture Wars. In fact, in the same article Ed quotes from today, departing British Prime Minister Tony Blair writes:
“Open v closedâ€? is as important today in politics as “left v rightâ€?. Nations do best when they are prepared to be open to the world.”
Tim Colebatch expands on the need to “think strategically” in the modern world when he wrote today:
“This will be no quick military campaign. To work, it must be a long, multi-faceted, comprehensive strategy to make Aborigines self-reliant in the modern world. It will take years.
In the long term, Aborigines too have to face up to economic reality. The reason their ancestors lived in their country was because they earned their living from it. The daily need to find food for their families gave their lives a central purpose and discipline, which has now collapsed. There is no economic logic or purpose to isolated communities living off welfare cheques.
The communities have to be made good places to live. But if our goal is economic equality, then the strategy should give high priority to designing paths for young Aborigines into the wider world.”
This article from The Age starts to add meaning to the main point I’ve already made before, which is:
“Concern about the Howard Government’s motives should “switch between� the elements and the system or aggregate, as strategic thinker Stuart Wells would say.�
I’m certainly no “cultural leftist” advocating “separate development”. My interest in this affair is the similar to my interest in the development of low-skilled Australians in general (which I still consider myself to be, for now): I’m advocating “strategic thinking for systems development at a personal level”, or “personal development” for short.
Such advocacy potentially has much wider implications than anything you could fit into a narrow context of debate called “The Culture Wars”.
Now, if you’ll excuse me, I’m off to make a Flat White Coffee. I never have liked Latte
…From Justin
At the risk of being accused of defeatism, I suggest that the plight of Australian indigenous people will only be eased very slowly – as in decades – and the main drivers of change must be the indigenous people themselves. They, not we, will have to define the problems and develop solutions. I know white Australia is addicted to managerialist quick-fixes but trying to impose change by paternalistic authoritarianism is doomed to fail. It may well be associated with unanticipated outcomes that actually make matters worse.
The fundamental values, beliefs and institutions of indigenous people could not be reconciled with those of the Europeans who occupied their lands. That simple fact made dreadful consequences inevitable. We’ve had more than 200 years of faltering efforts to do something about the situation. The only truly satisfactory answer is complete assimilation, but that can only be justified ethically if the Aboriginal people decide to go down that road of their own free will. Forced assimilation has been proved not to work, but that is what this latest contemptible idiocy from the government amounts to.
Short of complete voluntary assimilation there are no totally satisfactory strategies. We have to recognise that not everything can be fixed by inquiries and reports and allocating resources. That doesn’t mean that we should just sit back and do nothing of course; we should do whatever we can to alleviate suffering and provide opportunities. The recommendations of the NT report appear to be eminently sensible and may well do some good. But let’s not kid ourselves that we can implement a 6 month or a 5 year plan that will ’solve the Aboriginal problem’.
For a liberal democracy governed by a purportedly ‘Liberal’ party. I fear we are becoming increasingly illiberal. Liberalism was not only to protect against the dictatorship of the few but against the dictatorship of the many.
I shudder every time Howard or his chorus rails against the ‘elites’ or the ‘unelected’ forces of the legal and academic professions.
What galls me about the predictability of the Coalition and the Murdoch press’ response to the criticism is that there is no acceptance that opposing opinions are legitimate. Or that there is potential for an opinion to be nuanced. You are either with them or against them. And if you are against them them you are ‘undemocratic’ as the Coalition, being the duly democratically elected government, is the representative voice of the majority.
For example in regard to the Coalition’s current plan. I’m pleased that they are finally doing something.
I support intervention. I believe that the restoration of law and order is a legitimate role and is required as a foundation for further intervention and protection of the children. I also support the health checks as a way of providing a base upon which further programs can be developed.
I am concerned that the focus of the Coalitions intervention is on achieving of short term goals. There was nothing in the original press release about supporting the broader recommendations from the Inquiry or proving the resources to support the NT to implement the recommendations. These are legitimate concerns and do not take away from my broad support of the intervention.
I’m angry with the Coalition because it has taken them 11 years in the face of numerous reports, formal and informal to take action. I’m angry that they have failed to consult before intervening.
I am suspicious of the Coalitions motives in the removal of the permit system and the forced leasing of the land. I’m also concerned that their interest won’t extend beyond the next election.
So, because I am not 100% behind the Coalition I am viewed as opposing and undermining the intervention. Such a view, in which opposing views are devalued, has a detrimonious affect on public discourse and skates dangerously close to demagoguery.
Concerning Razor’s point, I’ve put this sequence as I understand it a couple of times and no-one has yet challenged it.
The NT government had an advance copy of the Wild/Anderson report which they worked on for six weeks to develop a whole-of-government 20-year plan. When the report was released by the writers and posted on the net Martin sent the Feds a copy and dispatched officers a couple of days later.
Brough’s mob got it off the net, decided what to do and announced it in a couple of days flat before the NT officers arrived and with no consultation whatsoever with the NT government.
Brough then slagged off at the NT govt for sitting on the report and on their hands.
As Mark and others have said, any realistic approach was always quite beyond the resources of the NT govt. Brough on the other hand said today that money is no problem to him. He’ll just spend whatever it takes.
This is a relatively recent circumstance that Federal Ministers find themselves in and has been taken advantage of spectacularly by the Defense Minister, and the PM himself on water.
How about then we don’t think of an ‘Aboriginal problem’ at all. Many Aboriginal people don’t have any particular problem at all.
Let’s stay focussed and concentrate on child abuse in certain areas. I reckon we can manage that. Maybe Howard will screw it up. For reasons of ideology and politics. We don’t know yet. But I don’t for a second believe that the project is hopeless. Child abuse in most communities is non-endemic. There is no reason to think that the communities we are talking about should be an exception.
At about 200 000 substantiated notifications of all types of abuse per year child abuse is actually epidemic across Australia, but there is a kind of Gorgon effect. Child protection workers in all communities are frustrated at the lack of awareness of the problem by police and policy makers and ground down by the perpetual underresourcing. Multiply this many times for indigenous communities. The problem with these particular measures wbb is that there is no evidence they will be effective and plenty that they will make the situation worse.
I have to strongly second su’s comment above.
I said it at Bartlett’s blog – if the authorities can’t get child protection right in Rose Bay or Brighton, then what hope have they got in isolated and under-resourced NT communities?
Adding police alone cannot solve the problem, when the victims of abuse are both terrorised and controlled by perpetrators, and antagonistic toward authorities. Unless communities agree voluntarily to work with authorities to ‘out’ offenders (and receive the necessary support that this entails), I can’t see Howard’s plan working.
I made a mistake though- there are over 200 000 notifications. Substantiations are about 46 000 on latest figures- this figure has almost doubled since 1999/2000.
Don’t know about in other states su, but in Victoria, about 60-70% of reports are not formally investigated in any case, so substantiation rates are probably artificially low.
Howard’s Katrina remark is an inexact analogy, but not entirely inapt, and probably not meant to bury the problem or to blame the victims, as has been suggested. Instead, it seems clear to me that he means to suggest that we now have revealed before us a desperate situation we’d allowed ourselves to be blind to previously.
More aptly, I’d suggest, the situation is revealed to him, particularly, and that what has been revealed to the Australian population is the failure to previously address the conditions that brought us to this crisis point with anything more than band-aid solutions, the hastiness of the response, and our well-grounded expectation that the response will be poorly coordinated, badly targeted, and largely fail, except in a further disenfranchisement of an already marginalised group.
Better models have been put forth, but would cost too much. Sending in the Army makes sense: we’re already paying for them.
Aside from the fact that some of the doctors are going to be medical reservists, what exactly are the Army going to achieve? What are they going to do? I don’t think it’s been explained.
And perhaps you could explain how a military solution to a social problem would work.
National emergency or not?
Kim said – “Aside from the fact that some of the doctors are going to be medical reservists, what exactly are the Army going to achieve? What are they going to do? I don’t think it’s been explained.”
Yes it has, or you are not watching TV news or listening to radio news. The Army is not there in a policing role – it is there to provide logistics – transport, communications, accomodation etc – sustaining operations in a remote environment.
They will not be armed nor acting in a law enforcement role – any suggestion that they are is wilful misrepresentation of the facts.
Thanks for the clarification, Razor. In fact I typically access news content from the net.
That really does show that Greg’s claim that “sending in the Army makes sense” doesn’t hold, then.
Sending in the Army to provide logistics support for people who are there to address the problems but aren’t equipped to be self-suficient in a remote area does make sense. Logistics support and self suffiency in remote areas is bread and butter stuff for the Army – not for medical staff or Police Officers.
Yes, but I don’t think that was what Steve meant, Razor.
Sue Gordon was scathing today about the WA ALP Goverment’s commitment to solving the problems following Carpenter’s criticisms of the Federal Government efforts.
Stick that in your collective pipes and smoke it.
In other WA news; Federal government ceases funding indigenous employment programme – alcohol rehab centre to lose two workers.
And Today the WA Govt announced at least 5 programs for the Kimberley Region, of wh 3 are aimed at Indiginous people.
A great piece by Deborah B:
Why now??? Why not before??? Or are they only questions for the Howard Government???
I note that the most recent Media Release from the NT Chief Minister’s website is from June 15th, announcing the realease of the Inquiry Report. [PDF]
There have not been any new releases from ANY NT Govt Minister since then.
Oh, Warren Mundine has come out in support of the Federal Government actions and criticised opponents of it.
I suggestyou get yourselves a hooka pipe.
Yeah, arguments from authority are real clinchers, Razor.
Look, why don’t we just admit it. Any criticism of the governments well thought out and targeted plan is just plain unOrstralian, not to mention bordering on treason, just like criticism of the invasion of Iraq. Said invasion of Iraq would have worked out fine if it hadn’t been for critics just willing it to fail.
So it’s up to all Aussies to support our brave and incisive PM who is at least doing something about the problem, unlike all the knockers, who don’t contribute anything to society, just criticism.
Frank,
This will be because Budget Estimates have been on in the NT. My beef is why does it take so long to put the NT debates onto the net. A sign on their website says:
Even Tasmania had their Estimates Debates up the next day. Not good work from the NT parliament by the look of it.
Steve – that is becasue the NT Government is a glorified local council. I had the priviledge a few years ago of getting nicely plastered a couple of times in the Chief Minister’s Office. Most appreciative of the free booze and lovely new “Parliament” bulding, but it didn’t change the fact that they really are a joke. Too small to be efficient and too big to cover all the locasl issues.
The failures of State and Local goverments in relation to the problems in Aboriginal Communties, along with the problems in the murray-Darling, are all clear evidence of the failures of our current three tiered system of government. Too much buck passing, duplication of roles and services, bloated bureacracies, lack of co-ordination and on and on and on.
Sheesh – I might even support a Republic if we got rid of the States and Territories in the deal.
Frank – McGowan is a complete party hack and a goose.
Confused and dazed?