indigenous politics
27 Oct 2008
She Asked For The Facts, Then Ignored Them
Jenny Macklin's response to the Intervention review's report is not only misleading, it's a gross betrayal of trust, writes Graham Ring
The fix is in. Last week the Federal Indigenous Affairs Minister, Jenny Macklin, hung Peter Yu and his colleagues on the Northern Territory Emergency Response Review Board, out to dry.The recommendations of the Review Board's report, received by the Minister on 13 October, were unambiguous and unequivocal in three key areas: The Racial Discrimination Act must be reinstated for Indigenous Territorians living in prescribed communities, blanket welfare quarantining must be abandoned, and the emasculated permit system must be reinstated.
But the Minister's response has made it clear that, for all intents and purposes, the most draconian aspects of the federal intervention into Indigenous affairs in the Northern Territory are set to continue for some time to come.
In an act of political cunning, the Minister has framed her response in the context of the three "overarching recommendations" offered by the review team and, despite rejecting its key demands, has worded her statement in such a way as to imply basic agreement with the Review's findings. The Review's overarching recommendations were:
1. That the Australian and Northern Territory Governments recognise as a matter of urgent national significance the continuing need to address the unacceptably high level of disadvantage and social dislocation experienced by remote communities throughout the NT.
2. That Governments reset their relationship with Indigenous people based on genuine consultation, engagement and partnership.
3. That Government actions affecting Aboriginal communities respect Australia's human rights obligations and conform with the Racial Discrimination Act (RDA) 1975.
The first two of these recommendations are simply motherhood statements. The identification of a "continuing need to address the unacceptably high level of disadvantage" experienced by Aboriginal people is unremarkable. The contention lies in how this noble aim might be achieved.
An anti-Intervention protest in Alice Springs.
Photo: Marni Cordell
Similarly, the proposal for Governments to "reset their relationship with Indigenous people based on genuine consultation, engagement and partnership", while a clarion call, is not a prescription for specific action. Once again, the devil must be in the detail. Governments all around the country routinely and happily ascribe language of this kind to their Indigenous affairs policies. But "genuine consultation" must be a process, not a mantra. We need to identify what it looks like: the necessary and sufficient criteria. There is no "Australian Standard" for this animal.
The final overarching recommendation — calling for the Government to conform with the requirements of the RDA — sets the Minister a much more difficult task as she attempts to duck and weave. Nevertheless, Macklin has commenced her response to this third recommendation with the same abruptly encouraging notation used in both earlier cases: "Agreed."
Hidden away in the body of the response is the news that "the current comprehensive income management system will be extended for at least 12 months". Further, the Minister advises of her intention to "design a compulsory income management policy which does not require the suspension of the RDA." This sounds suspiciously like an undertaking to find a way to work within the letter of the law, if not the spirit. In any case, it will not be until late next year that legislation to lift the RDA suspension will even be introduced into parliament.
For its part, the Review Board's report leaves no room for such finessing. Peter Yu and his colleagues put it plainly "People who do not wish to participate should be free to leave the scheme. It should be available on a voluntary basis and imposed only as a precise part of child protection measures, or where specified by statute, subject to independent review."
Even before formally responding, the Minister had begun to distance herself from the report, and prepare the ground for the Government to diverge substantially from its findings, noting that it was only one of a "number of pieces of evidence".
The recommendations of the Report were further undermined by the decision of two members of the Board's "independent expert group" to break ranks and criticise the report's recommendations before the Minister herself had responded. Vicki Gillick, co-ordinator of the Ngaanyatjarra Pitjantjatjara Yankunytjatjara (NPY) Women's Council appeared on ABC TV's Lateline, speaking of a "slow form of genocide" and suggesting that unilateral welfare quarantining should be maintained. Subsequently, Donna Ah Chee, from Central Australian Aboriginal Congress went public with her view that as a default position, compulsory income quarantining should be imposed on all welfare recipients across the country.
As the shockwaves from the Government's response reverberate, Professor Jon Altman from the ANU asks reasonably enough for the Minister to provide evidence to substantiate her departure from the Review Board's recommendations. But Macklin has offered only anecdotes and assertions. "I have indicated many times that the evidence shows that many women and children in particular are benefiting from income management" she said, without tabling any hard data. Why the public ought to accept this version of events in preference to the review board's conclusion that people who do not wish to participate should be free to opt out is unclear.
From day one of the Emergency Response, perceptions of the degree of support for the Intervention among Indigenous Territorians have been distorted by the "Hermannsburg effect". The former Lutheran mission, an hour's easy drive on bitumen to the west of Alice Springs, is a stronghold of support for the policy. Local Labor MP, Alison Anderson — who hales from this part of the Territory — is a fine, grassroots politician with every right to express her opinion. But views from this quarter have dominated the national media. The equally valid but significantly different opinions of people living in surrounding communities like Yuendumu, Mutitjulu and Titjikala have received little prominence. It is a gross distortion of the truth to suggest that there is overwhelming support for the Intervention among Indigenous Territorians.
The publication of extracts from an earlier draft of the report much more critical of the Intervention than the final document add an overlay of intrigue to the process. Chair Peter Yu responded with a terse three-line media release noting that "the Report which has been published is the report of the independent review board". The media release might have gone on to say that in the normal course of events early drafts may differ quite significantly from the final product. It could have also added that contact between the review team and the minister's office, is not of itself evidence of anything sinister.
The Review Board report offered a chance for the Rudd Government to undo some of the damage caused by the ruthless and indiscriminate nature of the Howard Government's policy. But the Minister's response to the Review Board's report is remarkable for its head-shaking cynicism. For her to spin the Government's response as being one of basic agreement with the substance of the review team's findings is utterly misleading.
The NT's Anti-discrimination Commissioner, Tony Fitzgerald, made a written submission to the Review proposing that "the NTER in its present form be scrapped, and transformed from a quick-fix, law and order plan into a range of long-term initiatives aimed at overcoming remote Indigenous disadvantage and raising Indigenous quality of life." He makes a compelling case, which is supported in no small measure by the review's findings.
The Rudd Government may well regard their response to the NTER Review Board as some kind of pragmatic paternalism. They should be aware that a fair chunk of the Aboriginal population of the Northern Territory may well see it as a gross betrayal of trust.
Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Reddit
Newsvine
Facebook
Kwoff
Discuss this article
To participate in the discussion Sign in or Register
Thank you Graham for yet another clear explanation of what’s going on. After watching First Australians last night, I feel that what Macklin and the Rudd government are doing is no better than what others have done in the past. There is no respect, no talk of self-determination. How would these politicians feel if the people who had murdered their ancestors, stolen their land then their children sent in an army? By complete coincidence while I was typing this comment, someone just came into work who has worked a lot in the NT. He told me about the fear in communities when soldiers in full uniform turned up. Women running away because they feared their children would be taken. And then the bureaucrats arrived. And nothing happened. Nothing was built or fixed.
Helen
I wonder if by recommending governments reset their relationships with Indigenous people the reporters are actually recommending a treaty, but are too politically careful to say so. I mean what other form could this resetting take?
I gave my opinion when Macklin was given the job she is now abusing that this was an indication of Elmer Fudd’s opinion of indigenous matters.
Macklin was always a waste of space, and was given the Ministry she has because the aspects of it, all of them, are very low on Elmer Fudd’s radar of things to do.
True to form, she has listened to the cries of a very few Right-Wing Aboriginal women, and gone along with them, never mind that a lot of taxpayer’s money has been spent for nothing (as usual!).
While she has Indigenous Affairs, there will be NO progress.
I am frankly dumbfounded that she has held her electorate so long.
Jobs for the girls?!
Dazza.
With the launch of the new TV station NITV maybe we will get to watch a show with a real Big Brother in charge.
GraemeF. WE? From what I heard it is Sydney and isolated Aboriginal Communities only! That is a pretty small WE! And yes, it is under the control of Macklin and Fudd. Anyone for a bit of mind-bending!?
Dazza.
Ho hum,
yet another man lining up against the women…
People interested in this important issue might be interested to know that I wrote a couple of weeks ago to the Minister as below. I await a response.
"I am moved to write now as a result of the excellent Warrane Lecture by Professor Larissa Behrendt delivered recently.
Professor Behrendt points out, as she and others have before, how the actual financial provision to education and health of Indigenous Australians is something like half per head of what is provided for non-Indigenous Australians.
She also points out in respect of the quarantining of welfare payments to “encourage” attendance at schools by children that available evidence supports a series of actions including breakfast and lunch programs, involvement of members of the Aboriginal community, an engaging curriculum which also promotes self esteem and confidence. That quarantining addresses the problem of attendance is not supported by evidence.
I’m sure you would know that these resemble factors which encourage engagement in school education by all children in all communities throughout the world.
In responses to a recent “Quarterly Essay” dealing with the intervention, one respondent pointed out that, contrary to general perceptions highlighted by the media, problems with housing are not principally due to Aboriginal people trashing their accommodation but mostly to poor materials and work in the building of the accommodation.
These and other failings, such as in provision of adequate health services on a per capita basis far behind that for non-Indigenous peoples, point to ongoing discrimination which has occurred over more than the last two hundred years…
Minister, I ask that you discus with colleagues the provision, within two years, of funding for education, health and other community services to Indigenous to be raised to the level which is the same level as for non-Indigenous peoples.
I further ask that the government’s policies with respect to schooling and education generally, and all other policies, be evidence-based and no longer grounded in failed attitudes of the past and stereotypical views about Indigenous sensibilities and achievement…"
"Ho hum,
yet another man lining up against the women…"
Please resist casting this as a gender issue.
Indigenous women like Barb Shaw and Stephanie Bell (in Alice Springs) and Donna Jackson and Olga Havnen in Darwin - amongst many others - have made their concerns about the intervention very clear.
Yes, I think it was very unfortunate that Vicki Gillick and Donna Ah Chee both made public comment prior to the minister responding to the report. But, had David Ross - or any of the other males on the expert group - done likewise I would have seen it the same way.
I’m proud to call Alison Anderson a friend and have had a number of amicable discussions with her about our differing views on the intervention.
Please revisit the key fact - Minister Macklin commissioned an expert review panel and has now chosen to ignore their recommendations. The gender issue is irrelevant and an unwelcome distraction.
regards
Graham Ring
Darwin
Graham,
Please separate short run from longer run factors.
The Minister has reacted to the immediacy, not of efforts to increase school attendance, but to efforts, mainly by women, to ensure their men don’t drink and smoke all their income and then bash them up.
How to solve these immediate problems in the longer run is much more difficult than income quarantining; how to deliver to remote communities and dysfunctional communities (not the same things) the services the rest of us take for granted, how to grow functional communities in the place of dysfunctional ones, these are not going to be solved by any reactive ‘send in the troops’ solution which was Howard/Brough’s only brain-wave.
There does seem to be a gender divide in the communities on the immediate short-run issue of quarantining. If Macklin has sided with the short-run while the experts look at the long run, then the question is how to get from the immediate to the longer run solutions.
I see no reason to ignore short run problems because they have to wait until someone comes up with something in the longer run.
And, by the way, is an ‘expert’ a better guide than ordinary folk, living in a community? Even ‘experts’ are questioning ‘expert’ opinion: See "Citizens and Experts in Environmental Controversies: Integrating Technical and Cultural Reason"
Frank Fischer, Rutgers University, seminar at Griffith University Centre for Public Culture and Ideas, 6 November.
I live in central australia and have worked in remote communities for the last couple of years. In discussion around the intervention i have consistently struggled to understand why commentators cannot accurately portray the fact that there is a diversity of opinions amongst residents of remote communities regarding aspects of the intervention. why is it that women who support welfare quarantining are portrayed as enemies of their people. why is it never reported that central land council research of 140 people (extended interviews) across six remote communites half supported welfare quarantining. not one or two, but half.
Yuendumu, a community where i have worked is consistently held up as opposing the intervention. Yes it is true there is opposition but it also true that there is support. the women centre has maintained that welfare quarantining is reducing the flow of grog into there community. where are the outraged feminists lining up to support them.
Alison Anderson is not from Hermannsberg. She is from Papunya. A different community comprised mainly from a different nation of people. why can’t opponents refrain from being so rubbery with facts that don’t suit them. Perhaps it doesn’t support the light-on analysis behind the "hermannsberg phenomena" perspective so we’ll blur the truth.
I support the reintroduction of the RDA but when calling for the ‘spirit’ of the legislation to be remembered does that ‘spirit’ encompass the existance of third class citizens living in squalor with all well-being indicators being mile behind the rest of the population. lets not forget that that is a situation that evolved under the protection of the RDA.
I dont agree with the way the intervention has been rolled out. i think that aspects of it were blindly ideological and aspects were about pre-election shock and awe. the way to move forward from here is not a blindly ideological response from the other side.
Yes welfare should be supported as safety net across the country. But why is it that so-called progressive supporters of indigenous people on remote communities can only argue for on-going welfare dependency as a future for these communities. quite simply it is the soft bigotry of low expectations that often seems worst amongst those who claim to support the rights of these communities the most.
Opponents of the intervention have consistently called for the government to listen to Aboriginal people. I would call upon the political left to do the same. Oh.. and only listening to those who agree with you isn’t really listening… is it?
Intervention is a last resort and the excuse originally was that children were being abused.
To quarantine income from parents is a form of abuse, especially when they may have lost control over their kids.
Why not do the opposite to try and encourage families to ensure their kids attend school, by rewarding the family for their children’s attendance with bonus payments?
The sooner Indigenous Affairs is back in control of the indigenous peoples the better. Why doesn’t the Land Council just take over all financial arrangements for all indigenous people who want to live as closely to their original cultural values as possible?
Indigenous peoples are owed millions in royalties for the land we stole off of them. The least we could do would be to set up a proper Indigenous Department of Affairs with indigenous people in positions of power, with control over their own finances, lives and destinies.
There are enough well educated indigenous people to run their own lives without the Australian government stepping in and often making matters worse.
They shouldn’t have to justify their welfare payments, but they do have to live in a community that is either going to accept them or reject them and this is why they must set their own values and systems in place according to what means most to them, not be forced to attend school when they might prefer to go and learn how to fish. Formal education should not be forced upon all indigenous children, especially if they are more interested in learning to live off the land like their ancestors.
gee denise… you hear a lot of poorly informed positions in discussions on indigenous affairs but it is not often that you the sort of unreconstructed noble savage garbage that you have just espoused.
I agree with Denise on this one. At the end of the day, the Aborigines became a cursed folk the day they first encountered the white man, just as what happened to the Inuit and the American Indians, not to mention those in sub-Saharan Africa..
I do think that the local government should instigate prohibition in settlements. I also think that the Aboriginal population should be left to govern their own affairs, to go to school if they wish, to walk the land if they wish. The white man has much to learn from the ways of the Aborigine.
Intervention?
Did someone say intervention? Where?
There is no Intervention, is there?
The Adelaide to Darwin Corridor of Power is no place for a…whats the term…Intervention….
Trade, Commerce, Regional Connection (a few tanks and bombs here and there)
Some missile testing and some uranium mining,
How about a Uranium Dump…hmmm..better talk to the local traditional indigenous aboriginal lands CORPORATION, before messing with such traditions…
To Intervene in such plans as have been laid out so clearly for all to see would be nothing short of obstruction, nuisance, and quite frankly un-Australian if one rightfully subscribed to the global bigger picture, guarantees, royalties, fringe benefits, and even economic growth…and to anyone that says there is a downside to this equation then maybe they are the real enemy that we are fighting against and we should en-act regulations to ensure a more healthy participation in national activities, engender a sense of patriotism, what it is to be Australian..that sort of thing.
No, its a good idea to intervene in otherwise normal Australian dysfunctional communities, with a sense of urgency and military strength…without intervention god only knows how bad it could really be…left to our own devices!!
At times, during the past five years, I am in receipt of lessons from Traditionally Oriented communities, which are normally given first in a dream, and then through the concrete lessons of the real world. Having the dream first, before knowing about the matter, proves it lawful within traditional culture, to be able to receive the lesson in the real world. (but that does not include any dreams obtained by occultists methods) Recently I have had a dream about, and from, the women who are in opposition to the intervention, about what they perceive as the worst consequence of the negative impact it could have on traditional culture.
The worst affronts to the sensibilities of Aboriginal Australians, are most obvious in how the education system teaches about safe sex. Not in the fact that condoms are being made available, and older children shown what it is, but in the fact that such information is being provided for children to swallow whole, without any attention and valuation of the normally high standards of traditional Aboriginal pedagogical learning about such matters. When I think about how I was educated at school, and in the white mainstream in general, I am sure also that modern mainstream industrialised society shows up its very worst in how poorly we teach children about the most private exchanges between adults. For example, modern "sex education" gives no value to the role of stories and our own personal and interpersonal narratives. Modern education proves itself inept at transmitting knowlege about how to maintain self decent relationships, and those children whom learn to sustain happy intimate relationships, learn from family not school. If the intervention were to prevent the normal traditional education processses for Aboriginal children, it could prove to become the cause of what it set out to prevent.
My understanding of the predicament of the intervention, is that Aboriginal experiences are of it being a government move which is causing what its states it wants to prevent, at every turn.
Maybe John Howard was setting out to prove to Aboriginal Australia, that politicians can’t swallow their words?
Word Sword Sworn
At Hath
That Hat
Inshallah no poetry farce
By Solomon’s Seal will my past
No word not true can last