Lauredhel at Hoyden has a great links post up, and I’m also going to post some links supplied by some of our commenters in the various threads we’ve had going since Howard announced his NT plan. Go round to Hoyden to read more about the reaction from the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners, the ACT Human Rights Commissioner, and importantly from Rex Wild QC, one of the authors of the NT report which sparked the declaration of a state of emergency.
It’s astonishing that people can be denounced so vociferously for being cynical about the Federal Government’s motivations, when you read a week after the announcement was made that Indigenous employment programmes in WA dealing with the welfare of children, domestic violence and alcholism are being closed down due to Commonwealth funding cuts this weekend. Alan Carpenter also points out this is a “work to welfare” transition orchestrated by the Federal government. In this instance, it seems to be one policy conflicting with the aims of another - a sign of Federal incompetence, failure to understand “whole of government” approaches, and general confusion, complacency and bloody mindedness.
Evidently, as pointed out by derrida derrider, I was in a much too forgiving mood on Thursday night when I mused that Howard might have been snookered into providing funding for serious long terms solutions rather than short term PR fixes (and how soon the media gets tired of highlighting what’s actually going on in the Territory is an important variable in how this all plays out).
Prime Minister John Howard has promised to consider long-term measures to stamp out child sexual abuse in indigenous communities, but stopped short of meeting requests for extra police, doctors and improved housing and education.
That was on Thursday and today, quite bizarrely given that his intervention is supposed to indicate national responsibility for solutions, Howard is back to his usual game of claiming the Territory wastes money and can’t be trusted to spend the additional sums necessary for proper housing. And housing is central to any solution - the estimates that have been made are only to ensure that sufficient housing is provided for up to seven people to live in one dwelling, as opposed to up to twenty in some communities now. Howard has recognised this, but now returns to his usual bag of political tricks to evade responsibility for refusing to do anything substantive about it.
The land grab aspect of it is looking much more blatant as well.
The Federal Government originally said it would takeover about 60 townships for five years and pay appropriate compensation for doing so.
But earlier today, Prime Minister John Howard would not give a guarantee it would be five years, or that the Indigenous communities would ever get their land back.
Now for commentary from around the blogosphere. Andrew Bartlett has a comprehensive post up, the third he’s done on the issue (links to previous posts were embedded in our older posts here). Senator Bartlett concentrates on two themes - the fact that it’s become evident that Howard and Brough are making up their plan as they go along, and the rhetorical strategy of attacking anyone who questions its implementation, something that was exemplified in an extraordinary interview by Noel Pearson, which led to his apparent canonisation by The Government Gazette, where Greg Sheridan ludicrously characterised it as “an epoch-making oration”.
Andrew puts it succinctly:
To smear people who are not disputing the goal of protecting children, but querying the implementation is not only unfair, it hinders much needed debate about how best to calibrate what is a complex, multi-faceted problem.
Gary Sauer-Thompson has a look at the economic aspects of Indigenous policy, as he has in a previous post. On his other blog, Public Opinion, Gary’s had a look at Treasury Secretary Dr Ken Henry’s speech to Noel Pearson’s conference this week, something also the subject of comment by Peter Martin.
Discussing my previous writing about Pearson, Gary says:
Bahnisch is on more solid ground when he addresses the issue of finding work, due to the actual lack of any economic opportunities in those communities not blessed with minerals under the ground:
It strikes me that the inevitable result of Pearson’s agenda of “engagement with the real economy� will be both an increased individualisation of Indigenous people as “responsibilities� trump collective rights and also a sense of collective being; and a concomitant new disposession of Indigenous people to the cities and to mining towns. No doubt as with purposeless labour market programs such as Work for the Dole, employers will welcome the cheap labour of those prepared to accept their “mutual obligation�.
I presume that in the longer term there will be a shift from community to cheap low skilled labour in the nearest regional town and then moving back to the community again for family obligations. An orbiting existence. Is this what Pearson has in mind?
I think that is, in fact, the upshot of Pearson’s proposals, and probably the end result of the NT intervention as well (particularly as it does seem to entail both an unprecedented attack on native title property rights, which has not been sufficiently justified, and also concomitantly much more scope for mining exploration, something which only reinforces Brough’s previous abolition of the statutory distribution of mining royalties to land councils). On the issue of mining, see this piece by an engineering academic in Crikey:
It is no coincidence that many of the communities targeted for “military style intervention� are also areas that are heavily targeted for minerals exploration, particularly uranium, as well as for potential nuclear waste dumps. This includes Western Arnhem Land and Central Australia, where numerous known uranium deposits are being actively investigated by various wanna-be uranium producers.
I suspect Pearson has something rather better in mind with his idea of “orbiting”, but I’m sceptical that anything other than the assimilation of remote Indigenous communities through the creation of a cheap regional workforce is in the offing. But I’ll reserve further comment about that, as I’m planning to write something substantive on this topic next week.
At Surfdom, Ken Lovell has had a look at the politics of Howard’s talking points this week, and The Legal Soapbox exemplifies, and this isn’t meant to be disrespectful, why Howard’s announcement probably is designed to appeal to the Fairfax reading crew as well as the Howard battlers - the whole compassion/doing something aspect anyway. She writes:
I also think that the fact that someone is actually doing something about this issue is good, whatever the motives behind it. I note that some indigenous leaders have given support to the plan. If some think it is a good idea for their communities, or are prepared to give support to a modified version of the plan, who am I to gainsay them, as a white city gal? On the other hand, I think it’s also really important to listen to those leaders who criticise the plans, as they may have good points.
On the claims about “Indigenous leaders”, Howard has orchestrated a situation, through the abolition of ATSIC, where it’s impossible to say how representative many are. Professor Larissa Behrendt has a passionate op/ed piece in The National Indigenous Times where she argues that the members of Howard’s appointed National Indigenous Council (including Wesley Aird and Warren Mundine, who’ve come out in support of Howard) bear a grave responsibility:
Under your watch we have seen the government engage in a systematic campaign to try and undermine Indigenous communal land ownership, a decrease in funding on essential areas such as education and housing and the embrace of mainstreaming and assimilation.
The impact of these changes will be particularly felt by Aboriginal communities in the urban areas and in the south eastern and south western parts of the country.
You have allowed your names to be used to endorse these policy directions and to support the federal budgets that have taken money away from our communities. You have taken money from the government to participate in this process and allowed yourself to be feted by the federal government whose agenda is destroying our communities.
A stipend and patronage from the government coupled with dinners at the Lodge seem to be the modern equivalent of breast plates and pieces of silver.
In this new era when communities will no longer get basic services such as roads and child care centres without giving over their land, as Aboriginal community organisations continue to close down and our people are pushed to using the same mainstream services that served us so poorly in the past, how are you going to justify your complicity to yourself?
As a Council and as individuals you have seen the destruction of an elected voice and to make matters worse, you have promoted yourselves as the replacement for this voice.
You hide behind the claim that you are merely individuals advising the government in an attempt to distance yourself from the impacts of the policies you have endorsed on Aboriginal families and communities. You continually seek to avoid responsibility for your actions.
Martin Luther King said it is not the words of our enemies but the silence of our friends that we remember the most. The policy positions and programs which the federal government has implemented with your total and complete endorsement has had profound impact on the lives of Aboriginal people and will have continuing impacts for decades to come. Your grandchildren will be the best placed to judge your efforts.
ATSIC was no doubt a very flawed organisation (remembering, as I’ve previously argued, that self-determination in any real sense has never been tried) but at least it did enable the identification of a representative Indigenous leadership. Its destruction has enabled Howard’s cherry-picking of Indigenous “leaders” (some of whom really aren’t, though some are) who can then lend legitimacy to policies which are opposed by, and to the detriment of, many of the Indigenous people not in positions of power and influence whom they affect materially. And such legitimacy is particularly useful as a political justification to white inner-urban liberal types.
Incidentally, while we’re talking about links, the National Indigenous Times is a good resource for anyone wishing to follow the Indigenous view on these events as they develop.
A few final links in something of a marathon post. If anyone hasn’t seen it yet, and it’s been linked to in several comments threads, this piece by Professor Judy Atkinson really is a must read. On Line Opinion has a number of articles on the emergency, from Andrew Bartlett again and his leader Senator Lyn Allison, and from a former QUT Humanities and Human Services colleague of mine, Dr John Tomlinson.
Please feel free to post additional links in the comments thread. I’ve tried to be fairly comprehensive, and I’m much more interested in non-MSM coverage, which I think has been a lot better than the job most of the MSM has done since the announcement, but go for your life with anything that’s to the point.
Update: The links keep coming! John Quiggin believes that if Howard doesn’t put his money where his rhetoric is, all we’re seeing is yet another instance of Howard exploiting race for politics.
Another blogosphere update: Jane Simpson writes about the way in which the “emergency” has buried the Social Justice report from Race Discrimination Commissioner, Tom Calma, whose reported responses to the Howardian moves is here.
Great roundup - thanks.
When you follow the first link, do scroll up, or go direct to this link without the #more bit - otherwise you’ll miss AMA head Rosanna Capolingua’s ignorant and repugnant take on the situation, as written in the AMA email call for doctor volunteers.
Or, wotthehell, I’ll just reproduce it here:
Brilliant work, Mark. As you say, the non-MSM has been has been streets ahead of most of the MSM, who unfortunately have reverted to their normal role as cheerleaders for the Howard government - sometimes quite outrageously.
To add to your comprehensive set of links, here’s an interesting take on the situation from Peter (Mumbles) Brent in The Canberra Times.
Thanks for that, adrian.
I really do think the running on this issue has been made by new media and alternative media. And thanks for the link to Brent’s piece - I should see if there’s an rss feed for the Canberra Times op/eds - often some interesting stuff there, but I usually forget to check it when I look at news online.
Lauredhel, I’ll fix the link so it points to the whole post. Incidentally, is it true that Capolingua is a right-wing Abbott supporter?
Thanks for putting this post together Mark, it’s a fantastic summary.
Thanks, mick.
Update: The links keep coming! John Quiggin believes that if Howard doesn’t put his money where his rhetoric is, all we’re seeing is yet another instance of Howard exploiting race for politics.
Yep, she’s a devout Catholic who share’s Abbott’s views on most things.
Found this transcript of her appearance on Sunday Profile.
http://www.abc.net.au/sundayprofile/stories/s1945201.htm
i
Just the facts; I’ll elide my opinion.
My understanding is that she is a Roman Catholic believer, and I know that she has worked for quite some time for the St John Of God Hospital in liaison and PR roles (she started out under then SJOG CEO Neale Fong, currently under investigation by WA corruption teams for his conduct in his Health Department role as Australia’s highest paid public servant - no verdict yet.)
Her statements since assuming her new role, on Australian birthing care and on Aboriginal issues, have been breathtakingly wingnuttish/patriarchal, often downright ignorant, and in some cases, objectively wrong to fact.
Good thing I never took the Hippocratic Oath, eh?
Mark
Larissa Behrendt? What a fraud. This woman cannot argue her way out of a wet paper bag. It is sub-intellects like Behrendt whose ability to think has been totally destroyed by the guff of Parisienne posseurs. It is Behrendt and her ilk who High Court Justice Susan Crennan so powerfully nailed in today’s Fin Review.
Add to it the response from Tom Calma, the Social Justice Commissioner. As I’ve blogged, it is quite disturbing that this “national emergency” has buried his Social Justice 2006 report which points out serious problems with the Government’s administration of Indigenous Affairs after it demolished ATSIC.
Thanks, Lauredhel.
On the AMA, I’d observe that no one has commented on Glasson’s political affiliations - his dad was a National Party Minister in Qld and he’s been touted as a future parliamentary candidate. The AMA seems to throw up some highly political people - but I guess that’s not unusual for a trade union!
Agreed that new media has had the running on this. It’s been interesting to see the MSM op-edders attack the “madness of the critics” or complain about a “festival of cynicism” because I sit here wondering who they are talking about. Certainly it isn’t their fellow newspaper/tv/radio mates. Must be us.
Speaking of the AMA, I notice another former President, the now Defence Minister Dr Brendan Nelsoinhas been conspicious by his silence - considering it’s his troops who are in the NT.
I wonder if Brough is really after the Defence Portfolio, since he was a former Soldier himself ?
Phil, the two people who’ve actually been singled out by the punditariat have been Malcolm Fraser and Guy Rundle, both of whom wrote in Crikey. Though the fact that Fraser’s article was co-authored by Lowitja O’Donoghue was ignored.
Transcripts from Tonight’s Northern Territory Edition of Stateline which will be replayed at 6.am Saturday morning on ABC2.
Well done, Mark.
This issue certainly needs blogospheric attention. It is rather uniquely one, I believe, where MSM will be seeking public response via alternative fora. The issues - and lives - involved and at stake are complex, and cannot be readily boxed in the usual mashed potato MSM political package, lest a grave error be made and serious readership retribution wrought. And let’s face it, MSM and all of us need broad fare from which to steer our assessments and thinking.
In observation of the latest by Howard, it is clear the displays of heart have given way to the political reality in which he lives, and we have from him now much less of what humanity within him might be driving his agenda, and much more of his subtle, embedded hidden truths. Of course, he cannot wear his heart on his sleeve every day, and we must take that into account. Yet the answers lately have come and will remain clear: long term funding for a “long term project” are not guaranteed, implicating the long term vision is not about Aboriginal welfare (whatever Aboriginality of that he understands); and those tell-tale signs of long term focus hidden in wording such as “any disturbance will be compensated” in relation to land grab is astronomically ominous.
The blogosphere has been honoured by its response to this intervention.
Good links and summary. Howard on Lateline QLD tonight made some revealing statements in an interview with host Mark Taylor.
So from this it appears that John Howard and Mal Brough are the sole arbiters of the appropriate course of action following their assessment of the policy/army initial reports.
Apparently he thinks all communities in the NT are equally “dysfunctional” as there is no mention of the extent of the problem. Clearly there are differences, and his across the board action will have a negative impact on communities where there are no problems.
He says the States (and Territories) are to blame for this situation, and the the Federal Government is “displaying leadership for the States to follow if they chose too”. I think this reveals the extent of Howard’s negative wedge tactics - deal with a social problem using a law and order approach (similar to zero tolerance on drugs). Use the reported child sexual abuse problems as an excuse for preemptive police action and to grab back the aboriginal lands (more dispossession).
The parallels of this approach with Tampa and Iraq are alarming. More disinformation, more inappropriate action.
And he still is looking like the cat who has got the cream. I think he likes doing this, it makes him feel clever.
Yeah Mark, I meant us in a new media way. The MSM water carrying is working though, Howard is saying again today that his “plan” has lots of support. If all you read is the bigs you would think that.
Yep, agreed, Phil.
Costello is “on message” too: Costello endorses food stamps
Regarding Howard’s quoted support for his plan, he highlighted Pearson and Warren Mundine today.
The main stream medias track record of what is popular or not has been a bit flawed ove the last few years. They prefer to tell their readers what is popular.
In my opinion even though there was large support for the intervention when first announced, if Howard starts to be seen to be playing his usual games on this issue then it won’t take much for the whole thing to go arse up for him. Minchin talking of the cost being in the tens of millions and Howards dodging on the land issue tell me this is not a genuine attempt to solve the problems in the NT. It is not as if a signifigant proportion of the public are not aware of what Howard is capable of given his track record. The confidential Liberal research leaked a couple of weeks back suggested his backflip on Workchoices actually reinforced peoples suspicions about the legislation which would suggest his credibility with the public is very low.
Mark, you link to the ACT Human Rights Commissioner’s statement without your own comment on her views. Her quoted comments strike me as ridiculous:
“Dr Watchirs says the Government can’t claim it’s providing “special measures” to the affected children, because there is no specific benefit they will gain as a result of the health checks….
“Because it’s targeted at aboriginal people, rather than communities, that is where it offends discrimination law, unless it can be found to be a special measure.”
“A ’special measure’ has to be something that benefits people.” ”
What?? If you belong to a group in a region that is especially disadvantaged and suffering poor health at much greater rate than the population generally, how does it not benefit them to receive a special medical check and treatment?
I guess there aren’t a lot of remote aboriginal communities in the ACT for her to have much experience with, but doesn’t she read the SMH?:
“Paul Bauert, the head of paediatrics at Royal Darwin Hospital, said poverty related conditions of malnutrition, chronic ear disease, anaemia, rheumatic heart disease and persistent lung infections caused most suffering to Aboriginal children….
… he supported a full medical check for the territory’s children, provided it was backed up with access to relevant treatment and specialists….
He saw children “with pus coming out of their ears, rheumatic heart disease, pus in their lungs [because] they’re living in a house with 20 other people, with three bedrooms and one bathroom and one toilet”.
The Howard plan involves general health checks, not just for STDs, but they are serious issue in those communities, even if (as may well be the case, I guess) most case in young indigineous teens are from consensual sex. The rates were mentioned in the report, but bear repeating:
“It is probable that for 12 to 13-year-olds, and certainly for 14 to 17-year-olds in the NT, that there is a trend of increasing notifications in recent years - mainly related to increases in chlamydia and gonorrhoea,” says the report, whose release triggered John Howard’s intervention last Thursday.
So Mark, do you share concern that the UN might be offended by this? Or do you have more common sense than the Commissioner seems to have?
I was trying to remain hopeful, thinking the feds may really come through on this despite the seemingly rushed announcements and patchy strategy, but i’m just getting depressed atm.
This is/was a HUGE opportunity to turn some stuff around over the long term, but it all seems terribly convoluted and increasingly politicised at this point i conceede.
I don’t think much of what Mundine has ever had to say about anything much in terms of policy, but where would Howard be if Pearson had actually emphasised the elements of Howard’s plan that he opposes, as Andrew Bartlett asked. But I suppose then columns about Saint Noel wouldn’t be written in The Government Gazette, and his buddy Rudd would have a political problem.
Incidently, anyone see Mr Burns reformation into a ethical evironmentalist on the Simpsons tonight?
Yes, I saw that SC. I always liked that episode. It’s up there with the south park episode about atheism in terms of hinting at the infinite potential for ****ing up the apparently enlightened and progressive.
Steve, the Human Rights Commissioner seemed to me to be quoting the law as it stands. If you are to subject people to differential treatment based on their race, under the Race Discrimination Act 1975, it has to be for their benefit.
If you go back to a previous thread, you’ll find that the provisions about health checks are now voluntary, as Tony Abbott’s office had legal advice that if they were compulsory, they’d constitute assault legally, a concern the AMA had raised. As indicated in the post, I’m getting far more sceptical about the follow up - if the Commonwealth is indeed going to give adequate treatment of any health conditions found, it will be expensive. Brough said they would on the 7 30 Report the other night. Howard now seems to be backing away from previously stated commitments.
I don’t see anything about the UN in the link.
And, just generally, I don’t necessarily endorse everything I link to, obviously.
On chlamydia, etc, obviously the problem would be more severe in Indigenous communities, but there’s research which shows that teens in the general community are sexually active at a far younger age than even a decade ago, and unsurprisingly, rates of infection with STDs are up.
That excerpt you’ve just quoted is important, too, Steve, because Howard has just indicated he’s not prepared to kick in any funds for housing.
Sublime Cowgirl says:
“I was trying to remain hopeful, thinking the feds may really come through on this despite the seemingly rushed announcements and patchy strategy, but i’m just getting depressed atm.”
I feel the same way. The comprehensive strategies, billions of dollars and battalion of social workers, health workers, educators that is needed to address Aboriginal Australia’s maladies is beyond Howard. And Rudd, I suspect.
Well, it would give Rudd an opportunity to promise to do it properly. But I’m not holding my breath either.
Shorter Howard: Nullification of Native Title has gotta be good for Aborigines. It’s sure made me feel much better.
A point, please, off the topic of the post but on the comments, especially yours, Frank and Lauredhel.
That someone is Catholic doesn’t imply a thing about their political beliefs, personal morality or their overall praxis. If Capolingua is an ideologue, it’s not necessarily cause to identify ‘Catholic belivers’ as malign influnces per se. I don’t know a thing about her, but I’m sure if she’s as bad as you say, she’s perfectly able to ideologise about medicine and epidemiology quite well enough on her own. There’s enough stereotypy about without sectarianism too.
And JG, I’d be careful flinging about the word ‘fraud’ if I was you.
I think what Pearson is saying is supremely contradictory. On the one hand he is arguing for indigenous people to take responsibility, on the other hand he supports an intervention that says indigenous people are incapable of it.
Yes, well said, FdG, speaking as a Catholic (though not one to everyone’s taste). It’s important to avoid sectarianism when opposing the Abbotts and Pells of the world.
I notice that CL has resumed writing.
Oh, has he? On his own blog? He’s been commenting at Catallaxy frequently for quite some time.
John and Mal could protect the good abidiginies from the badder abidiginies by putting them in some of the empty detention centres. That would be the economically responsible thing to do. What’s the current utlisation rate and return on capital of the detention centre on Cocos Island?
No I don’t think so, Katz. Most recent entry is August last year. Pity. Anyway OT…
http://thecurrencylad.blogspot.com/
Mark, I edited out the reference to the UN because I felt my post was long enough as it was, but here it is now (from your link):
“Helen Watchirs says the Government’s plan could violate domestic discrimination laws - leaving the plan open to a High Court challenge or criticism from the United Nations.”
You seem to be dodging my criticism of her too: how can she argue that it is not a benefit, when it is bleeding obvious that there is a special and dire need for more health checks and health care in those indigineous communities? Look, even if the Commonwealth fails badly in follow up (and I think it’s a fair bet the ball won’t be completely dropped in the run up to an election) there will probably be conditions treated as result of these checks that will respond to even short term treatment. To put any form of additional help at risk because of civil rights would really seem to be a genuine case of the “madness” Pearson spoke of the other night.
As to housing issues: it always seems to me that, while there is always a lot of talk of the need for more money for more housing, there is little discussion in the media about the maintenance of houses (or public buildings generally) once they are provided. I’m sure there must have been reports that have discussed this, and you if you have any handy links I would be happy to see them.
I accept that part of the appalling condition of many houses may partly stem from their initial inappropriate design, and a lack of professional maintenance services being available, but a hell of a lot of the problem with house that appear to be lived in by people who seem to make no attempt at all in terms of maintenance surely comes from the alcoholism. (I’m not sure whether it is a problem everywhere, but the belief in some communities that you have to leave a house empty for a number of months after a death in the building doesn’t help in terms of the number of houses you need, either.)
It seems pretty clear that supplying nice new houses at billion dollar expense is not going to help for long if drunk and fighting residents are going to trash them. If Howard’s hesitance about commitment to housing funding is tied to trying to solve the alcoholism first, I think that actually would make sense.
Which Cocos Island do you refer to Mug Punter?
The one in Chile? or
The one in Guam?
mark - i’ve been trying to google up the STI rates in kids for you, that i saw someplace, and i think its in here Overcoming Indigenous Disadvantage - indigenous key indicators - contaniing the notifiable health data in aust
As i recall they are pretty dire in the bush–about 10 times the general rate across the pop. tho the adult infection rate is horrendous too so that in itself is not necessarily an indicator of profoundly worse abuse
As a contrast, I happened to google up a 1996 thesis called Disease Health and Healing Aspect of Indigenous Health in qld and wa 1900 - 1940 by Briscoe. It was interesting to get some historical comparision.
(you will have to google it if interested - my comp functions are mucking around atm.)
I’m sorry, Steve, I missed that bit in the link. Fairly tired tonight. I doubt that criticism from the UN would have any domestic impact. I do observe that the concept of self-determination is based on UN conventions, some of which have been explicitly incorporated into Australian law - I don’t know if that’s the case with the NT Land Rights Act but it certainly is with the RDA. I think her comment was made before full details emerged - it seems after intervention by Abbott - of the health checks, clarifying that they wouldn’t just be intrusive examinations for signs of sexual abuse, which does appear to have been Brough’s idea at the outset.
There are a lot of chickens and eggs around this issue. Inevitably you can’t tackle all problems at once, but I’d be listening to the advice of professionals experienced in the issue as to which you do tackle rather than coming up with an off the top of the head “plan” which probably reflects Brough’s limited understanding and Howard’s political sense.
You’d have to concede that Howard could hardly have dramatised the issue more, and that both his and Brough’s claims that “whatever it takes” would be spent did raise the stakes.
Anyway, I’m off to bed now, so please forgive me if I’m not here to respond to further comments.
Do you mean for Indigenous and non-Indigenous, sc? I’m too knackered to read the report.
I do know they’re up generally in Australia, and particularly among teens.
nah, i’m stuffed too, been shovelling dirt under my house all day, (with my computor left on near the kettle!)
Um, its for indigenous adults and children. And the more remote you go, the higher they are.
I do recommend looking at the report - its the offical govt stat report delivered june 2007.
Thanks, sc. I am going to do a bit of reading before I go to sleep, but a second hand science fiction novel! I’ll try to have a look tomorrow. Appreciate your googling!
me too. night all!
They would instead be given the chance to buy their homes on 99-year leases.
If the main reason for drastic action is child sexual abuse, its worth looking at a discussion of what is proven to be a solution, and a program that would probably have worked if it did not shut down.
Page 129 of the report discusses an offenders rehabilitation program was started in the late 1990s by the NT government, but no efficacy studies were done and the program was discontinued.
Further, the NZ Kia Marama program, started in 1989, has shown a recidivism rate down 50% by 1994, and down to 5% recidivism for Kia Marama treatment after 1994, with the Te Piriti program an extension of Kia Marama that is specifically designed to take into account Maori cultures and beliefs
Have we bothered to learn anything from the successes of our more sensible cousins across the ditch? It’s been nearly 20 years!
BTW: A 1998 evaluation found that the differences in the re-offending and re-imprisonment rates suggest the Department of Corrections reaped a net saving of more than $3 million! - So it’s good for taxpayers’ pockets as well!
The Australian government has been developing this strategy of intervention in Aboriginal communities in NT for some time. It began when Tony Abbott was Minister for Employment. Abbott, the ex-Jesuit, was drawing on two traditions, the Jesuit Reductions (reducciones de indios) a Spanish colonial strategy in Latin America, and his admiration of the kiap stratgey of Australian colonialism in the UN Mandated Territory of Papua and New Guinea. “Kiaps” were multi-functional administrative field officers who worked in Papua New Guinea usually from remote or semi-remote locations. http://www.exkiap.net/other/kiap_defined.htm
I think I’ve given up on that notion David. All the agencies that were thinking “this plan stinks but at least sexual abuse is on the agenda” are going to be horribly disappointed. Programmes like the ones you mention will go on being implemented in a piecemeal fashion or not at all. Agencies will get by on non-recurrent funding, unable to plan, improve or expand their services and certainly unable to meet the demand and the government will continue to turn a blind eye while the next generation’s underclass is being trained for poverty, sexual exploitation, criminality and mental illness.
The latest ‘Partyline’ June issue from the National Rural Health Alliance Inc. is worth a read too.
Note the absolute silence from the Minister for Community Services and Senator for the Northern Territory Nigel Scullion. He has apparently been missing all week or kept entirely out of the loop by his portfolio Minister. In any case the silence has been deafening. He after all comes from the Territory and might have had something useful to say?
If the above suspicions are correct that might reinforce some conlcusions that have been drawn about the level of (non) consultation within the Government and lack of planning and coherent policy.
su: (#comment-381173, 30 June 2007 at 9:00 am)
Re my “If the main reason for drastic action is child sexual abuse” and your “I think I’ve given up on that notion David”.
Why do you think I had the “if” at the front?
My comment was to inform people that there is ample evidence that reasonably successful, tried and tested solutions are available, and that the Anderson/Wild report points to them. I have to wonder whether our indiginous affairs minister has any conversations with his counterparts in other commonwealth countries that seem to have at least some handle on how to tackle such issues. It’s not only New Zealand, but Canada gets a favorable mention in the report as well.
I’d also be very interested to see what anyone knows about why the NT Gurma Bilni “Change Your Life” Program shut up shop, and why it was never evaluated (even in post mortem), although this failure should be probably be laid at the NT gov door.
On a further note, the Anderson/Wild report also notes that increasing “Bureaucratization”, the focus on management procedures, has prevented the experts-on-the-ground who understand the nuances of the issues and doing their job in the best way possible, so I wonder if yet another cook will spoil the broth any further.
BTW: The links in my previous comment were copied directly from the PDF version of the report, and have problems. Here are the correct links, together with links to the evaluations of the effectiveness of the two NZ programs (with all the gory statistics):
Kia Marama Special Treatment Unit "about us" sheet And there was light … Evaluating the Kia Marama Treatment Programme Bakker, Hudson, Wales & Riley (NZ Dept of Corrections, 2003): The study mentioned in the Anderson/Wild report. Te Piriti Special Treatment Unit "about us" page Te Whakaotahitanga An evaluation of the Te Piriti program for child sex offenders in New Zealand, Nathan, Wilson and Hillman (New Zealand Dept of Corrections, ISBN 0-478-25250-1).
There are a bucketload of other relevant links easily found if you use “site:corrections.govt.nz” as an extra qualifier in a google search.
And also note the absence of Jenny Macklin, who is apparently the ALP shadow minister for indigenous affairs. Who would know?
When Macklin was Latham’s deputy during the tsunami a couple of years ago, and he was on leave sick, she was pilloried back then for not stepping up the plate to cover his absence and speak for the party. Later she was the author of the hit list for private schools, which went down like a lead balloon, and eventually she was told to shut up.
Because the factional warlords apparently have to find a place to park her fat arse, Rudd shunted her into indigenous affairs, where he probably assumed she could do little damage and maybe make some positive noises for a change. Nothing, no media profile whatsoever. Macklin is a charmless braindead waste of space on the front bench and Rudd should boot her out.
Personally, I would have preferred to see Peter Garrett in the indigenous portfolio. He would make an instant connect with the aboriginal people on land rights and related issues, and would be a formidable foil against the Pearson and Brough brand of military intervention. And Howard would be completely out of his depth trying to demonise a youthful tall baldy with street cred.
I came across Garrett and his band in Soweto in South Africa around the time Mandela was elected, and he was magic. The Sowetans loved him, just as the aboriginal people here do still, not the least for his ’sorry’ shirt at the 2000 olympics, which was beamed around the world. The power and the passion, exactly what is needed in aboriginal affairs in the lead up to this election.
Whatever, Macklin must go.
And the real reasons for this “emergency” have been revealed. Brough tried to get the Aboriginals into this absolute of a rort in home ownership and failed miserably, now he has his revenge against those who dared reject his blatant rip off, including valuing remote Aboriginal houses at prices that would do some outer city suburbs proud, from memory 3-5 times what they were really worth.
This is purely a move to abrogate funding to Aboriginals across a wide range of areas, including housing and health. You own your own home (and there is no inkling of how the housing is to be apportioned, that is who gets what), you can go into a private health scheme, pay rates, taxes and it goes on.
The other rhetoric is all coming to light as well, the further we go into this.
Then: “I’m calling a national emergency because of the absolute urgency in this matter”, “There is no more time to waste”, “We must act now”. “We must act decisively”.
Now: “These things take time”, “It will take a long time to fix these problems”, “We must have patience”, “Don’t expect quick results”, “We must move in a measured way”.
(Notice the similarities to pre and post Iraq invasion?).
So why all the urgency in the first place? Why not move and plan in a measured and strategic way from the first instance? If this was always going to take all this time, rushing troops and police in now with the hundreds back and forth movements of bureaucrats, who most of apparently don’t know what to do or what’s actually going on.
Then on the funding front:
Then: “We’ll pay what it takes”, “Whatever the cost to fix this problem”, “The cost is not a factor”.
Now: “We will not spend billions on this (Minchin)”, “It will be tens of millions”, There will not be an open cheque book”, and Howard last night on a whole slew of get outs for not funding this to whatever it will take, including what has turned out to be a false accusation against NT spending.
The sheer duplicity of this government has always amazed me for the audacity they conduct their bull and spin, (helped by what must be mostly a complacent, ignorant, greedy and/or apathetic population). But the absolute double dealing in this issue, using Aboriginals, has gone beyond anything I thought this deceitful government was capable of.
And more proof in the pudding that this is nothing more than a Federal government land grab, as much as Howard tries to scream this assertion down without once saying he will not take their land.
Over at Paradisec a comment by David Nash shows the links to government targeted NT Aboriginal communities and OIPC’s page on reform of the permit system also linking to the October 2006 Discussion Paper.
He then goes on to give the details.
http://blogs.usyd.edu.au/elac/2007/06/the_devils_in_the_detail_1.html
To say I was surprised and somewhat diasppointed by aspects of Pearson’s interview on Lateline is an understatement.
Until now I have been sympathetic with his desire for a reapproachment with the Coalition. I accept, in the way that Nixon decided to sit down with Mao, that sometimes to get things moving you need to supp with the devil.
I expected ‘The Government Gazette’ to be critical and slur those who questioned the Coalition’s motives and methods, but for him to make the statements that he did was really beyond the pale.
Ken puts it succinctly at Surfdom this morning:
http://www.roadtosurfdom.com/2007/06/30/having-announced-the-detail-lets-explore-the-need/
Pearson must be pissed off with Brough and Howard adopting his rhetoric but not actual details from his report. They have used him for their dubious political purposes this week. Very similar to how they still haven’t even mentioned the 97 recommendations of the NT report
Both reports looked to me as though the authors expected them to be implemented lock, stock and barrel but instead of that the genius of the Federal Government has seen a nonsensical mishmash of the worst of both worlds with an authoritarian vote grab and Land grab mixed together to produce a nothing result.
Legal Eagle view here
Western Australian Children’s Court magistrate Sue Gordon and her team met for the first time in Brisbane today to nut out the logistics of their plan to stamp out child sex abuse in the Northern Territory.
Dr Gordon says Aboriginal communities need to feel safe before offenders are caught.
“There’s very grave doubt by myself that you’ll get a lot of prosecutions up because that’s normal and that’s what I’ve found in Western Australia,” she said.
“But we’ve just had recently in Kalumburu in Western Australia a lot of people coming forward, so the impetus will start after people get the feeling of security in their communities.”
Hetty Johnston won’t be too pleased about that
I can absolutely guarantee you one thing, and that is not one white paedophile who committed offences against Aboriginal children will ever be implicated let alone charged and prosecuted. But I’m sure there will be a token black here and there to prove the success of Howard’s plan.
Today is the last day super contributions of up to $1 million can be drawn on tax-free at retirement.
From July 1, investors will be restricted to making after-tax super contributions of $150,000 a year.
AMA national president Rosanna Capolingua says there is evidence senior specialists and surgeons are taking the opportunity to leave the profession.
No doubt this will impact on the “Call for Doctors To Assist” in the NT ?
I predict that there won’t be one white trash petrol and/or booze supplier implicated, charged or prosecuted either. And there are many of them.
Howard has stated now several times how “extremely dysfunctional these communities are”. His “emergency police action” has now morphed into a taskforce apparently belatedly consulting with communities (even though various reports have already done this).
Across the board measures such as this ar