Doctor Criticises Indigenous Child Health Checks
ABC News | 31st August
A doctor from a Northern Territory Indigenous community has spoken out against the Federal Government's child health checks.
More than 200 people packed into a Darwin church last night to voice concerns over the Commonwealth's intervention in Northern Territory Indigenous communities.
The gathering at the Darwin Uniting Church heard speeches from several Territorians who work closely with Indigenous communities.
The crowd voted in favour of holding a protest march within a fortnight.
Maningrida doctor Paul Burgess says the checks, part of the Federal Government's intervention into Indigenous child sex abuse, are being carried out by inexperienced doctors who know little about Aboriginal issues.
"I doubt that we're going to find many cases [of child sexual abuse] with the current procedure," he said.
"The best way to provide health care for children is to adequately resource primary health care teams within communities."
Dr Burgess held back tears as he talked about the Aboriginal women and children whom he says are being let down, even after telling their stories to the Little Children are Sacred inquiry.
"So much trust, and if we need to do one thing out of this meeting it is to honour that trust," he said.
Darwin barrister Pat McIntyre says the Federal Government was planning to remove the permit system in Indigenous communities well before the Little Children are Sacred report was released.
Mr McIntyre says he read first-hand the Howard Government's 10-page discussion paper released last year on removing the Indigenous permit system.
"It's clear when you read the legislation that an enormous amount of legal and drafting work has gone into the framework," he said.
"They can not possibly have put that together in response to the Little Children are Sacred report. It's just a nonsense."
See: ABC News
Scanner For Dole Workers Rejected
Simon Kearney and Ashleigh Wilson | August 29, 2007
The Aboriginal community of Hermannsburg, visited by John Howard yesterday, is going to return a fingerprint scanner it was sent as part of a trial to make indigenous work-for-the-dole participants submit to a bio-metric scan when they start and finish work.
Hermannsburg has one of the first operating work-for-the-dole schemes in an indigenous town in the Northern Territory, created as part of the federal Government's emergency intervention in Aboriginal communities.
There are legal concerns that forcing work-for-the-dole participants to use a fingerprint scanner would breach their privacy.
Hermannsburg construction and maintenance manager Les Smith told The Australian last week that they had received the scanner for their work-for-the-dole program, run by ITEC Employment, but the Ntaria Council, which runs facilities in the town, had concerns about its use.
On Thursday last week, the council voted not to use the machine. By yesterday, the council had decided to return it after The Australian began investigating whether it was legal to force work-for-the-dole participants to use the machine.
The Department of Employment and Workplace Relations had not approved the use of fingerprint scanning for work-for-the-dole programs and it is not used in any other program in Australia.
A spokesman said yesterday the department had not been asked to consider any request to use such a machine and would not approve it before considering the legal, commercial and cultural implications, particularly in relation to indigenous communities.
ITEC general manager Gary Johnson said he had checked the company's accounts and the machine was not part of approved spending for Hermannsburg and was not owned by ITEC.
"It wasn't included in budget negotiations with Hermannsburg. It wasn't part of the approved budget," he said.
"We don't use them."
The Australian has been able to confirm that while ITEC may not have owned the machine, one of its offices sent the scanner to Hermannsburg and there were plans to trial others.
Mr Smith was due to meet ITEC yesterday to resolve the issue but decided instead to return the scanner. "We're sending it back, there's too many dramas with it," he said.
The Privacy Act states that the information must be needed for the operation of an organisation and that it should be collected in a legal and not unreasonably intrusive way.
It is understood the plan to issue communities with scanners was designed to make administering work-for-the-dole schemes easier and because low literacy rates made it difficult for participants to fill out time sheets.
Identity is often an issue in Aboriginal communities and organisations such as banks often struggle with birth dates and a variety of name spellings.
Many older Aboriginal people still have arbitrary birth dates such as January or July 1.
Work-for-the-dole was introduced as part of the federal Government's intervention in the Territory and replaced the previous Community Development and Employment Program, which was axed amid claims some communities paid people for work that was not done.
The work-for-the-dole program in Hermannsburg is one of the first to begin. Last Wednesday, participants began picking up rubbish around the town.
See: http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/aboriginal-mining-royalties-unspent/2007/08/22/1187462354376.html
Crackdown Leaves Aborigines Wary
Stuart Rintoul | August 27, 2007
Two months after the federal Government's unprecedented intervention in the Northern Territory, the nation's peak Aboriginal organisations are deeply pessimistic about the outcome.
At the Aboriginal Legal Rights Movement in Adelaide, chief executive Neil Gillespie, father of Australian cricketer Jason Gillespie, said indigenous people remained suspicious that the intervention was a "trojan horse" for the takeover of Aboriginal land.
He said he was "appreciative that the Government is finally doing something" about both child abuse and disadvantage, but he was concerned that none of the recommendations of the Northern Territory's Little Children are Sacred report had been followed. He said he suspected the Government did not have a coherent program to deal with abuse, and questioned why no charges had been laid despite two months of police and military activity.
Nor had the Government made the case for linking child abuse and the five-year compulsory acquisition of Aboriginal land and the abolition of the permit system controlling access to communitues.
"What's land got to do with child abuse?" he asked. "Is it to provide access to mining companies? Is it a trojan horse? With the proposed sales of uranium, is uranium waste going to be on Aboriginal land in the Northern Territory?"
The president of the Aborigines Advancement League in Melbourne, Alf Bamblett, said the intervention appeared to have reinvigorated old political agendas, including the break-up of the large Aboriginal land councils in the Territory, which had created a belief throughout indigenous Australia that the intervention was a land grab dressed up as concern for children. "I suppose that's politics," he said. "It's a bit dirty, a bit nasty though."
In Sydney, NSW Aboriginal Land Council chairwoman Bev Manton said the intervention was discriminatory, punitive, top-down, ill-conceived and a land grab. The issue of child sexual abuse had been made worse by funding cuts during the Howard years, she said, and Mr Howard had now "kicked the door down on affected communities in the NT to apply a Band-Aid in the dying days of office".
In Western Australia, the chief executive of the South West Aboriginal Land and Sea Council, Glen Kelly, said there was a general view that the intervention was a backward step, paternalistic and "harking back to an earlier generation of intervention which failed then".
But Mr Kelly said the imperative of tackling child abuse had stifled criticism. "It is really quite a difficult thing to talk about because people want to make sure that child abuse is not tolerated," he said.
"It is difficult ... to make strong comments against the actions ... for fear of being labelled as a ... group, which has no commitment to resolving those underlying issues."
Asked what he thought the result of the intervention would be, he said: "A similar type of intervention happened in the 1900s for many decades and that didn't work. In fact, it created many of the problems that we have today. If that style of intervention didn't work then, it's really hard to imagine that it would work now."
John Tregenza, a consultant in the Pitjantjatjara lands of the Territory and South Australia, said the intervention had resulted in confusion, concern, suspicion and infighting.
See: http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22311286-2702,00.html
A Decade Under Howard Has Been A Living Nightmare, Says New Black Leadership Group
Chris Graham, National Indigenous Times | August 23, 2007
A new coalition of Aboriginal leaders from around the nation has released its first public statement since forming a fortnight ago.
And the group, which has yet to adopt a formal name, has come out swinging, issuing a release that is written in the vein that the group intends to continue fightingS with plenty of aggression.
Describing the past decade under the Howard government as "a nightmare" for Aboriginal people, the group attacks both the Liberal and Labor parties for creating policies which "blame the victims".
The group includes former senior public servant Pat Turner, Olga Havnen (ACOSS and ANTaR), Naomi Mayers (CEO, Redfern Aboriginal Medical Service), Dennis Eggington (WA Aboriginal Legal Service), Sam Watson (Murri academic and activist), Bob Weatherall (FAIRA), Michael Mansell (Tasmanian Aboriginal Centre), Michael Williams , Gracelyn Smallwood (North Queensland), Nicole Watson and Larissa Behrendt (both Jumbunna Indigenous House of Learning, University Technology Sydney) and Bradley Foster (community leader from North Queensland).
It formed a fortnight ago in response to the federal government's 'emergency intervention' into Aboriginal communities in the Northern Territory.
"A decade under John Howard has seen native title made harder to get with his 'bucket loads of extinguishment' legislation," the statement reads.
"The elected body ATSIC was sacked; the Reconciliation Council dumped; paternalistic funding conditions imposed, such as being asked to wash hands and attend school to get Commonwealth monies.
"The Northern Territory Land Rights Act has been amended to increase access for mining and now vulnerable Aboriginal communities in the NT are invaded by troops.
"It has been a nightmare decade for Aboriginal people.
"We have been reduced to beggars in our own country."
The group accused the Howard government of selective listening when it came to hearing Indigenous people.
"Any dissenting voice is ignored by a Government that selects "yes" people to promote its own agenda, and the select few are tragically held out as the voice of Aborigines," the statement read.
The group accused both the Coalition and the ALP of 'blaming the victims' and launched a scathing attack on the NT intervention plans, which are endorsed by both major parties.
"The Howard and Rudd response to policies that have kept families and whole communities destitute is to blame the victim.
"Those victims, long denied a real chance to make a go of it, will now have their income stolen and must go to the local store with food vouchers: those vouchers will have a list of purchasable items on a take-it-or-leave-it basis.
"The balance of family incomes will never be seen by the "beneficiaries" because the bureaucracy keeps it to pay "other" costs.
"This demeaning approach will create greater dependency and strip the last form of human dignity from those subjected to a destructive policy.
"The increased police presence in community areas with "dob-in desks" is designed to humiliate, not rehabilitate.
"Portraying all Aborigines as paedophiles and drunks, and taking land away, undermines the remaining virtue we have: our dignity.
"We cannot watch developments in silence any longer. Our people deserve better."
The group says the new coalition will seek to "represent the unrepresented Aboriginal communities" from around the nation and it promises to never align with any political party.
"We believe we bring experience and sincerity to the national political landscape.
"In our quest, we will not favour any political party as we see Aboriginal issues as being above party politics. Our single aim is to improve the lot of our people.
"We see our culture and people as an asset, not a liability.
"If we cannot persuade governments, then we will take our case to the court of public opinion - to the Australian people, to give us a chance to create a better future."
 |
Give Aborigines Hope
Fred Chaney | 15 August 2007, The Age
Australia has the wealth to help its indigenous people, but this is the wrong way to do it, writes Fred Chaney.
Forty years ago, 90 per cent of voters gave very clear support to the idea of equality for indigenous fellow citizens. The response to the referendum anniversary tells me that Australians of today want no less. But we are in a crisis that won't be resolved in the months before a federal election, not at the political level anyway. Nobody's listening at this stage of the cycle and people's moral compasses have been conveniently put to one side.
In the past I have asked for a comprehensive national response to the evils of child abuse and I strongly support urgent intervention. But I live in hope that there is a moral compass giving direction to the federal intervention in the Northern Territory.
I am making what might be seen as heroic assumptions about the goodwill and bona fides of the Government and the Opposition in what they are doing and supporting. Many others will find it difficult, if not impossible, to make that same assumption.
But let me make my own feelings on the matter clear. I am shocked at the extent to which the legislation, rushed through the Parliament last week, is contemptuous of Aboriginal property rights and of the principle of non-discrimination; authorises an absurd and unattainable level of micro-management of Aboriginal lives far beyond the capacity of the federal bureaucracy that would permit the notorious protector, Mr Neville, to ride again; provides for desert dwellers to be forced into towns, as they were once emptied out of the cattle stations in the 1960s with devastating social effects; and could see successful communities and families returned to dependence, crushing the engagement that is essential to making progress.
My hope is that away from the hysteria of the election campaign, in a calmer post-election atmosphere, whoever is in government will not use this legislation to create a new regime of injustice and inevitable failure. I am assuming no considered government would be so careless of basic human rights as to use the legislation in that way.
Just before the tabling last week of the Northern Territory National Emergency Response Bill, Reconciliation Australia called on the Government to make public its evaluation of the intervention so far and clarify which aspects of the bill were needed to protect indigenous children. We asked that all non-urgent aspects of the legislation be extracted and delayed to allow for respectful consultation and communication with the affected communities.
The answers, while complex, are now known. We have learned from past successes and failures. Those learnings are being repeated by a range of reputable, knowledgeable people who cannot be dismissed as ideological, out of touch or driven by agendas. They place evidence over passion, hard-headedness over experimentation, consistent hard work over silver bullets.
You can read the multitude of reports that underpin the thinking — the most recent and, I think, very convincing and helpful being Little Children Are Sacred, the report of Pat Anderson and Rex Wild that set the scene for the Government's actions a few weeks ago.
Pediatrician Professor Fiona Stanley says: "Measures that exclude the views and involvement of Aborigines will serve only to further diminish their capacity, exacerbate marginalisation and add to the damage in these vulnerable communities." She emphasises the need to address the complex causes and not just "the appalling manifestations of disadvantage and dysfunction".
The Catholic Bishops say that effective solutions cannot be imposed from above and they've backed the need for long-term, adequate funding.
The Anderson/Wild report concludes: "There needs to be a radical change in the way government and non-government organisations consult, engage with and support Aboriginal people."
Noel Pearson made a similar point in relation to the new legislation when he said: "The difference between disaster and success will depend on whether Brough and Howard will engage with … the traditional leaders of the NT on a way forward."
The chorus of advice from diverse sources reflects the findings of research Reconciliation Australia and the Australian National University have been conducting around the ingredients of effective indigenous governance. The findings are similar to those documented by researchers in the United States and Canada and elsewhere when they've looked deeply for actual evidence of what works in overturning disadvantage in indigenous communities.
The reality is that we have all the tools we need to be striving for much more than simply making Aboriginal children safe, important a starting point as that must be.
At this stage in our history, we have the prosperity. Australians will tolerate extra spending when they're confident that it will yield results, when stories of despair are balanced with stories of hope and success, when policy is based on evidence of what works.
The Aboriginal communities in the frame, desperately needy communities, will work with government if they are provided with this vision of success. Civil order is a prerequisite for a community to be healthy, happy and successful. But so too is hope.
Let's be upfront and learn from our mistakes — centralised, imposed programs delivered from Canberra or state/territory capitals have not delivered the success we must now expect.
This Government and the next, of whichever political persuasion, will be judged on the extent to which the intervention in the NT is backed by a comprehensive, national commitment to deal with social circumstances that underlie the horrors of sexual violence.
This is the time, a time of unprecedented prosperity when we have tens of billions of dollars of Government surpluses and the sale of public assets. If we cannot now commit to dealing with this matter once and for all, we never will.
Fred Chaney is a director of Reconciliation Australia.
He was minister for Aboriginal affairs in the Fraser government. This is an edited extract from the Vincent Lingiari lecture delivered at Charles Darwin University on Saturday.
Source: The Age
Commonwealth's intervention into Aboriginal Communities in The Northern Territory
National Press Club - ABC Channel 2
Canberra | August 15, 2007
COMPERE:Today at the National Press Club, the Minister for Indigenous Affairs and Family and Community Services, Mal Brough. In the past two months, Mr Brough has put child abuse and dysfunction in remote Indigenous communities at the heart of the national political debate.
And the legislation to authorise the Federal emergency intervention in the Northern Territory is expected to be passed by the Senate today.
From the National Press Club in Canberra, the Indigenous Affairs Minister, Mal Brough.
KEN RANDALL: Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to the National Press Club and today's National Australia Bank address. It's a pleasure to welcome back Mal Brough. Last time he was here, which he reminds me rather pointedly, was three years ago.
He was Assistant Treasurer and Minister responsible for revenue in an election campaign, surprisingly enough, talking about superannuation. Since then, of course, he's been elevated to the much more complex portfolio of Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs.
It's those last couple of words of the portfolio title which have been creating so much attention in the last few weeks and probably will for some time to come. The intervention in Indigenous affairs in the Northern Territory is perhaps one of the most dramatic we've seen in a long time and I'm sure he'll be telling you more about that today.
Please welcome Mal Brough.
[APPLAUSE]
MAL BROUGH: Well, thank you very much, Ken. Thank you very much to the Press Club for the invitation. I'm not so sure that this is less complex than superannuation and taxation but it is incredibly important.
At the outset, I'd just like to acknowledged Dr Sue Gordon, Magistrate Sue Gordon, who is the Chair of our task force, our intervention and the NIC who we met with last night and thank you very much for being here today.
Ladies and gentlemen, today or tomorrow we will see legislation pass through the Senate and pass into law which will put, for the first time in a very, very long time, front and centre of the national stage, vulnerable children of our nation; not just Indigenous children but children wherever they live.
Because whilst the focus in the last few weeks has in fact been on the Northern Territory's intervention and the big decisions that have been taken and the interventions that we're rolling out, there are other bills in this legislation which go to helping those children who don't have a voice, who are vulnerable, who are not receiving an education and they're not necessarily Aboriginal.
In fact, they come from all walks of life, all parts, geographical parts of this nation, and many of them have never been enrolled at school and those that have, many don't ever get to go to school.
Only last week in my electorate office, I had a phone call from a principal in Queensland; not an Aboriginal community, from a mainstream suburb of Brisbane, who said, I have 30 students in my school who have not attended school for at least 60 days of this year. Think about that for a moment. That's at least half the year or close enough to it.
What chance do those children have? What chance do they have of actually ending up in prison or being a statistic? It's very high. And the reason he gave is because the parents are on drugs or they're on alcohol and they simply don't care for the welfare of their children.
The bills that are before the House that I hope will pass into law today or tomorrow will, for the first time, focus on what is a minority of Australian children but who are over-represented both in the Territory and throughout this nation in unfortunate statistics.
We, as a nation, must not take our eye off the ball for these children. We must put aside political fears about dealing with these issues, admit in some cases our failings, but first and foremost and always, say that it is time to actually give those children the same chance that a wealthy nation gives to the majority.
Now, often we talk about family tax benefit. We talk about childcare and we talk about all of those things which the majority benefit from in a wealthy community and in loving environments.
But it is really the judgment of a nation and the judgment of a government when you actually have a look at what they are doing for those who don't have a voice, for those who most people never come in contact with.
The question I'm going to put today is, as was pointed out in the introduction, these are sweeping changes, they are breathtaking, they are bold, and would they have been done by a Labor Government?
Would a Rudd-led Labor Government have taken on Clare Martin, another Labor minister or Chief Minister, taken her on and said, you have failed the people of the Northern Territory?
Would they take on the state education ministers and Premiers and say, why is it that we have thousands of children who are not attending school regularly when it's against the law?
And my fear is that in the unfortunate circumstances if a Labor, Rudd Labor Government is elected some time later in the year, will they have the courage to follow through with these changes or is it just more me too-ism for the moment to see the issue pass us by?
We cannot, as a nation - not as governments - we cannot as a nation and you as individuals miss this opportunity to give people the chance that they need.
This has been a government of reform in this area of social welfare. Go back to work for the dole. There were those who said at the time it wouldn't work and I had the privilege of being the minister in that portfolio. It's not only worked; it has changed lives for the better right around this nation and it continues to do so.
But those on the other side at the time, they derided it. They said it wasn't any good.
Then we had welfare reform. There was going to be another army of unemployed who were going to be pilloried. Wrong. It's about picking up people who are vulnerable, disabled perhaps, and giving them the opportunity to work to their capacity. The government has done that. Supporting them.
It's about taking young parents, single parents, who in the past were told, you wait until your youngest child is 16 and you lose the benefit, then we'll try and do something for you. Your skills base has gone, your confidence is down but now as a nation, we'll take some interest.
We put the money in and we put the effort in and we reformed that.
I ask you, do you really believe a Labor Government would have taken those decisions? I don't and we, as a society, would be weaker.
Now turn to contemporary. Here we are in 2007 and look at the reforms that we have announced, that we have legislated for and that we now have the responsibility for implementing.
Of course, the implementation of our reforms in the NT are the headlines. But what about disabilities? What about the $1.8 billion and the guarantee that the Howard Government has now said to older carers that we will ensure that you have a place and that you will have the services that you need as you grow older and frailer and that you have given your love and your life to your child who's disabled, we'll guarantee that. No state government has done it in the past.
Now, why have we done it? We have done it because state Labor Governments refused to do it. When I sat in Brisbane on 3rd April with ministers across the board and I said, here's the deal, we'll have another disabilities agreement but only under certain circumstances.
In the last five year agreement, you all said a priority would be to have accountability, transparency and you'd have external validation of services and we'd meet the unmet need. That was your priority but it hasn't happened.
So I'll tell you what we'll do. The Commonwealth will actually put dollar for dollar on the table, you come back to us with a plan that says we will meet that unmet need. What was the response?
The minister at the table, Minister Warren Pitt from Queensland chairing, adjourned the meeting, went outside, caucused, came back in, read a statement, closed the meeting without further comment.
I then wrote saying, this is a genuine offer. We are offering you dollar for dollar to actually meet the needs of these people who have given more than any of us can actually imagine to the lives of their children because they love them so much and they simply want to know that there's going to be a place for their child when they can no longer care.
Only Western Australia, the Northern Territory and the ACT responded. There was no response from the other Labor Governments.
So we had to step in or we could've taken the politically expedient route, which would've been to say, here's a bit more money, we'll throw a bone in the corner like it's always happened, you go and chase it and we'll move on.
We weren't prepared to do that. But I ask you, would a Rudd Labor Government have taken on those Labor states?
And the battle is not over. The battle is not over because what we have said to the states is that between now and 30th November, we must agree on dates for there to be external validation of disability services.
Can you imagine for one moment, just one moment, the nation now saying, we will not have validation, external validation, of our services in childcare or aged care? The nation would throw its hand up and say, don't be ridiculous.
But here we have the most vulnerable and we are fighting tooth and nail to ensure that those people have a secure, safe environment. It's the least we can do as a nation that genuinely cares for those that struggle to have a voice.
But we don't have the complexities as a Howard Government of worrying about the niceties of the relationship between the Premiers and the Prime Minister because we're actually not interested in those relationships. We're interested in the relationships about what services get delivered for those people who don't have a voice. And we will do that.
That is the commitment. We will take them to the wall so that the people with disabilities in this nation get a better deal. And we put $1.8 billion on the table.
Can I tell you, the first of those interviews with the older people have already started rolling out and they're so appreciative that someone has come to talk to them and that they feel that they have some comfort for the future. That is what we should be doing in government.
Child support. It doesn't get a big mention these days. Tough. I've been involved with this since I came into parliament for 11 years. You're dealing with the corpses of dead relationships. It doesn't get much more emotive. They're the words of one of my Labor colleagues.
We've taken that tough decision on. We know that it's going to upset some people but why? Because we're trying to do what's right for children; not the mum, not the dad, not the custodial, the non-custodial, the residential or the non-residential parent, but the child. The child of first marriages and second relationships so that they can flourish in Australia.
The Howard Government took that on and it was supported by the Labor Party. But does anyone here genuinely believe that left to their own devices, the Labor Party would have taken that issue on? It was too hard but we're doing it and we will implement that through the next term.
Come to housing. Well, for the last 10 years we, as a Federal Government, have given housing a billion dollars to the states. In the last five years that equates to about $5.9 billion.
You'd think that we'd have more public housing but in New South Wales, since the turn of this century, 2000-2001 through to 2005-6, which is the last official reporting date that we have, New South Wales has managed to have its housing stock of public and community housing decline by 1,600 homes.
The Labor Party talks about affordability of housing. They talk about availability of housing. These are people that don't aspire at this point to own a home. It's just to have a roof over their head and there's 1,600 less houses, despite an investment by the Federal Government to state ministers of 1,500 - 1,600 houses in New South Wales, 4,000 less houses in Victoria, 1000 houses in Tasmania and more than 6,000 houses less in South Australia. The public wonder where the hell has that money gone?
Well, what has happened is the money has gone to state governments over a five year agreement and what I'm now saying is, can we do it better?
So we called for expressions of interest and we've had over 245 expressions of interest already. People saying, we can build on the stock, we can actually provide solutions to the housing industry and we can use that money more effectively than the states.
I ask again, would a Rudd Labor Government take on state ministers, like Minister Schwarten in Queensland who gets on air and says, today I'm declaring war on Brough. Why not declare war on the people or the failings of his system that hasn't delivered housing for the people who need it the most?
Why not say to his bureaucrats, we can do better and we must do better? That's what we should be doing.
So we are holding the states to account in a way in which you would not expect to occur if you have the same colour throughout this nation; nation controlled and run by a one party state.
That's not going to hold anyone to account. It's not going to help the people with disabilities. It's not going to help the people who need the public housing.
And we've done exactly the same thing in Indigenous housing. We faced up to the fact that over years, ATSIC and successive federal governments have gifted over $3 to $4 billion worth of housing, lost control of it, don't know who's in the houses, whether they're appropriate people, whether rents are being paid, whether the maintenance has been undertaken.
We said, no, that's got to stop. Put away the political correctness, let's stop that and let's do something that actually will provide more housing and better housing.
And again, I ask the question, does anyone here genuinely believe that that would have occurred under a Labor Rudd Government?
Let me turn to the Northern Territory. The Northern Territory intervention has come about after an enormous amount of consultation. Consultation with people at the coalface like the woman at Wadeye who said to me, you've done a lot in this community, there's no longer 300 blokes rioting in the streets. It's not perfect but at least there's police here now. At least we're a bit safer.
People are starting to look to the future with some confidence, but there's something you haven't done for me. I said, and what's that? She said, when I turn up to the ATM at the store, the one store in a community of about three, two and a half, three thousand people, when I turn up to the one store, to the one ATM, I have young men there who stand over me and demand my money because they've been high on ganja, marijuana, they've come down and they're hungry and they want food or they want it for drugs.
And you know what happens when they do come down, she told me? Is the meagre pittance that they have left for her to feed her grandchildren they come and demand the food off their table. She said, when are you going to stop that for me? When are you going to take that pain away from me? When are you going to help me to be able to care for my grandchildren? And she said, there's too much disposable income in this community.
Kalumburu; been in the press because 15 men out of a male population, adult population of about 90, have now been charged with child sex offences. Fifteen out of 90, people in positions of great authority.
And they said to me there, too much disposable income being spent on the wrong thing. And the lesson I learn in Kalumburu, face to face, in consultations, when I said, well, why - what can we do about getting mums and dads to help in the schools?
They said, they're not allowed to. I said, what do you mean they're not allowed to? They're not allowed to because they can't get the police approvals to do so because too many have transgressed the law.
Little did I know at the time how they had transgressed the laws. Little did I know that the charges have been to people who are the truancy officer, the police liaison officer, councillors and the mayor or the chairman.
These are the people who are now facing charges, people of authority and you say, what chance have they got?
These are the stories that I have got time and time again. And I think the other one that will never leave me, and it goes to the point of why we are trying to get every child an education, every child just simply to be in school, is because there's 2,000 children in the Northern Territory, according to the Chief Minister, at least 2,000, that have never been enrolled.
Forget about attendance. Have never been enrolled, between the ages of five and 16. And they said, treat us like white fellas. Some people would see that as racist. I said, what do you mean treat us like white fellas?
They said, well, the point is if a white child doesn't go to school, you generally do something about it, don't you? And I said, yes, we do. They said, but when our children in this community don't go to school, no one cares.
Well, we have to care, and therefore if we actually have a cause and affect and we give people responsibility and respect, then that can happen.
The group sitting before me, if you knew nothing other than passive welfare, if you knew nothing other than a drug filled, alcohol filled, gambling filled day where that was your life, what chance do you think this group would have after 10, 20 or 30 years?
None. These are the things that people are clamouring to change. They want to have the fog lifted. And can I tell you, you don't lift the fog of drug addiction with a permit system. You don't say, no one's going to come in here because I've got a bit of paper.
This bit of paper is going to protect you. That's a fraud. That is a lie. That's saying to grandparents, hide - they're hiding behind this. Do you know who's hiding behind that? Us, the authorities and in particular the Territory Government's failure to provide police.
People need to have someone to report a crime to. We've just heard in Western Australia how 11 year old girls have walked into a police station without emotion, poured out the circumstances that have happened to them. No emotion but they've been talking about the most heinous crimes.
What's the difference there in Halls Creek to the communities in the NT? There are no police stations, there are no people of authority. Well, there are now. We are determined to make sure that there is (a) law and order; (b) governance; (c) a clean environment where children don't have the infections in their ears, where children do go to schools, where parents can be respected and a very interesting thing happens when that occurs.
And it happened in Wadeye. We didn't cause this to occur. But people always ask, it comes to where did this all come from? It came about through experience.
When reciprocity was returned to Wadeye and people cleaned up their own houses and people painted their own houses and were responsible for their own environment, the elders who'd been so disrespected for so long came to the top again naturally. The natural order of things which are important to Indigenous communities actually came back. And that is a powerful thing to happen because that means that elders are empowered again.
To that end, I make a commitment here in public that whilst we are taking over, for five years, leases, I know how important it is that sacred sites and places of significance are protected. I've heard that message and I will ensure that all of my managers on the ground who will be responsible directly to me, through Sue and through Major General David Chalmers, will be given advice from elders about the significance of things in their communities and they do not trample over significant issues unintentionally.
Because we need to do two things here. We need to protect what is important in Indigenous culture, but we can't do it at the expense of denying a child the right to a life, and that is what we've done.
Ask yourself, when Clare Martin said to me 12 months ago when we had the summit into sexual violence in remote communities, her exact words: put up or shut up. Put up or shut up. When I said to her in Galiwinku, you don't have one policeman for a community of 3000, that is unacceptable in a modern Australia, that has to change.
I was told at the time, sorry, Galiwinku's one of the better communities, it doesn't need a policeman. Give me a break. Are you telling me, would anyone in their right mind really believe that a Labor Federal Government would've taken them on and accused them of failing their most fundamental right under the constitution, the protection of their citizens? I don't think so.
What we would've had after the Little Children are Sacred Report came out is what we would've had every other time. We would've had, woe is me, and we did. We had a day or two of outrage in the press.
Come Monday morning - it was a Friday, I'll remind you, it was a Friday, the 15th, come Monday, parliament sat. Did we hear a question from the Democrats? Did we hear a question from the Greens who are up there right now with a lot of amendments? Did we hear a question from the Opposition? No.
Did we hear any outrage from health groups, the AMA, from the churches, from Indigenous groups? No. Not Monday, not Tuesday, not Wednesday. Was there anything in the press by Wednesday? No, it'd gone pretty much. It'd found its way into the history pages. But no, it hadn't.
People sitting at these tables, my officials, and myself and my staff, passionately worked on this because we felt this was an opportunity to fundamentally change the history of our first people once and for all and to give them a chance; a chance of a choice in life.
Come Thursday when we make our announcement of what the Prime Minister and I had undertaken to do on behalf of the government, suddenly there's outrage as to, why hadn't you done this earlier? I asked the rhetorical question, where was Pat Turner when she was the CEO of ATSIC? Where was the Member for Lingiari who has been the member for nearly 20 years in so many speeches to parliament talking about child abuse?
If, as they have all stated, everyone's known about this for so long, where were they during those years? My predecessors did what everyone else has done. They did things such as night patrols, safe houses, trying to help people with healing circles, all of those things. Millions, billions of dollars.
But we forgot the fundamentals that underpin a society: safety, security, respect. Without that, we don't have a society, not today, not a hundred years ago, not 2,000 years ago, and we won't have it tomorrow. What we now need to do is to say, this is not about governments, not the NT Government, not the Federal Government, it is about the nation.
I challenge every group that I speak to to say it's time for us all to put our shoulders to the wheel. I say it's time for us to take the power and the authority that has been vested in the government by this legislation and use the opportunity as we can. Not to yet again build up people's hopes and then rip them away from them and leave them there exposed to the elements. We can't do that.
Whilst many of those people now, for the first time, are just gaining a little bit of a voice, they are just starting to put their head above the parapet. They're starting to say, it's okay for me to say this is wrong, what's happened, it's okay for me to come forward.
Then we can actually ensure that this generation of children don't live in a living hell, living with fear, living with the disgust that can only come with your very being having been destroyed by someone in authority. We can also ensure they don't become perpetrators, and that is what we're trying to stop.
This is a massive task. I have no illusions about how difficult it is, but I also have an entire commitment to doing this. Noel Pearson said, most of us get to sit in our own homes at night in the luxurious position of knowing our children are safe in bed. These people don't.
We can talk about land rights, we can talk about permit systems or we can actually deal with the difficult core issues of children being raped, babies with gonorrhoea, children having their absolute hearts ripped out by people who are supposed to be people of authority, and we can say, no more. If we do that, then we, as a nation, can look ourselves in the eye again.
So many people have come up to me with a sense of relief. They have said, I've seen this, I've been a teacher, I've seen this and I've reported it and nothing's happened. They felt powerless. We have no excuse as a nation to feel powerless anymore.
The challenge is for what the Northern Territory Government to do is what the Western Australian Government must do, the Queensland Government, the South Australian Government and the New South Wales Government, because this does not finish at the borders.
I'll leave you with one last thought. This report, Little Children are Sacred, there it is. It says in its very first recommendation: this is an issue of national urgency. Urgency. The interim report was presented to the Labor Government of the Northern Territory 309 days ago. More than a hundred days, 98 days ago they released this report. Next week they'll make a statement about it. That is unacceptable, that is a betrayal of those people.
Sixty-seven-odd days ago, the Commonwealth received the report. Today there are police in communities, children are actually having health checks and changes are being made. With the vagaries of the Senate, one can only hope that this will pass into law by the end of the week and that we'll be able to make the changes that are necessary.
Ladies and gentlemen, the Howard Government has a lot of work to do in disabilities, in housing and in Indigenous affairs, and in a lot of other areas. The question for the Australian public is can they trust a Rudd Labor Government to put his party politics before the children of Australia?
Well, you know what? I believe they actually believe in protecting children, but it's a difficult, tough area to embrace. It's a difficult, tough thing to take on the states and I don't believe they have the strength to do it.
I believe the only people that have the strength to do it are the Prime Minister and the Howard Government. That that is why I remain determined and put my reputation on the line and say, I will take personal responsibility, if given the chance, to make sure that once and for all, we do what is right by the first Australians. Thank you.
[Applause]
See: http://www.facsia.gov.au
Lack Of Respect Will Not Help Indigenous Children
Banduk Marika
| August 14, 2007, The Sydney Morning Herald
In 1964 my family joined with others to make the
Yirrkala bark petition, which is now displayed in Parliament House, Canberra. The main reason for
that petition was to protect our land, law and culture from people who couldn't or wouldn't
understand our way of life. At the time, the federal government didn't listen to us - it allowed a big
bauxite mine and town to go ahead. It also ignored our elders who wanted to prevent bad influences
such as alcohol coming into our country.
For more than 30 years we were told by each federal government how important self-determination
is. But there was never any true self-determination. Money to support our community projects and
initiatives such as land management, the homeland movement and indigenous enterprises was
always very hard to come by. And there were never any real jobs made available in our
communities, even though many people worked hard for years on training money. Education, too,
was limited and poorly delivered. The same thing happened with housing and health. We became
more and more overcrowded and sickness increased, along with drinking and fighting. Yet none of
this ever prevented the most recently arrived non-indigenous workers from getting decent housing
and wages ahead of our own people, including people such as qualified teachers and office staff who
had been working steadily for many years.
And now it seems that our whole culture is being blamed by government and media for the problems
associated with grog, poor education, a lack of jobs, houses and health care. The main problem our
culture is being blamed for is child abuse. I want to say clearly that abuse of children is something
we mothers and grandmothers are very worried about, because family is even more important to us
than it is to most non-indigenous people. But such abuse is not limited to Aboriginal communities.
And it occurs in Aboriginal communities because of the situation we are living in, not because of our
culture. We live in circumstances that are not of our own making and without the kind of support
that other people in Australia have had for many years. The small number of persons who go against
their families and bring shame on us all must be held accountable - but it is not the fault of our
society as a whole. Many of us do not drink or take drugs, and we protect, respect, love and care for
our children, our families and our cultural traditions.
The Government is now trying to say that land, community councils and the permit system are also
part of the reason for child abuse. But this is a lie. Has any non-Aboriginal council ever been taken
over by the government because of child abuse occurring in its area? Has anybody in non-indigenous
Australia had their land taken away because of child abuse in their community? I don't think so.
Our relationship to our land has nothing to do with child abuse. It is the foundation of our spirit and
identity, it connects our families and without it our children will suffer even more. More damage will
happen to them if anybody is allowed to walk into our land, and if we have to put up with more
government people who will not listen to us because they think they know what is best. What gives
this Government the right to say that we are not allowed to control our future, our lives, our families
or who comes into our country? Or that our cultural way of life is no good? We are human beings
with our own languages, kinship system, religious beliefs, and traditional ways of controlling access to country. And we are living in our own land, where our families have grown up for hundreds of
generations. No other people in this country of Australia can say the same thing, or identify with our
land in the way that we do.
So I want to say that we do honestly welcome any real help with the problems created by our
contact with non-indigenous society, and by past failures to fund and deliver basic services, but we
will not be treated as though we have no rights in our own land or lives. Like our elders before us,
we will continue to stand up for what is right and fair. And for who we are. I am not just talking
here for the sake of it: I am a senior traditional owner of the Yirrkala community land, which the
Federal Government is trying to take from my family, without even having the guts or the courtesy
to speak to us.
Don't use our children as an excuse for stealing this land away from us.
Banduk Marika is a community leader and artist in Yirrkala, Arnhem Land.
|
Howard Government Getting On With The Job Of Protecting Children In The Northern Territory
Media Release - Mal Brough, Minister for Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs | August 6, 2007
Minister for Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs, Mal Brough, today released details of the legislative package for the Howard Government's response to the National Emergency in the Northern Territory.
"The Howard Government is getting on with the job of protecting children in the NT from abuse," Mr Brough said.
"The legislation will be introduced to Parliament tomorrow, in the House of representatives at 12.30pm.
"As I announced earlier today, I expect the legislation to be voted on by the House by tomorrow night before it moves to the Senate, where I am hopeful debate will be concluded this week.
"The legislation reflects the commitments made by the Government since the announcement on 21 June 2007 of the measures needed to protect children, restrict access to cash and control alcohol."
The legislation comprises five Bills, including two appropriation Bills which provide for spending in excess of $500 million in 2007-08.
"The extent of the Government's financial commitment to these measures is indicative of the seriousness with which the Government views the situation in the NT," Mr Brough said.
The legislative package includes:
The Northern Territory National Emergency Response Bill 2007 supports the Howard Government's national emergency measures targeting the protection of Indigenous children, through:
- Alcohol restrictions to stem the instances of family violence and sexual abuse of children;
- Computer audits to detect prohibited pornographic material;
- Five year leases to better manage investments to improve living conditions in townships;
- Allowing for land tenure changes so that town camps can become normal suburbs;
- The appointment of Government Business Managers in Aboriginal townships to manage and implement the emergency measures;
- The removal of customary laws as a mitigating factor for bail and sentencing conditions; and
- Better management of community stores to deliver healthier and more affordable food to Indigenous families.
"Restricting alcohol is fundamental to tackling abuse in indigenous communities," Mr Brough said.
"The 'rivers of grog' was highlighted as a key issue by the authors of the Little Children Are Sacred report.
"Leasing the townships for five years will allow us to immediately improve conditions in the townships without the encumbrances that have undermined housing and infrastructure investment in the past."
The Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Welfare Payment Reform) Bill 2007 combines three elements; welfare reform specific to the NT; welfare reform specific to Cape York and the broader welfare reform package announced last month by the Prime Minister.
"None of these measures will cause families to lose any of their payments," Mr Brough said.
"The Government will quarantine various income support payments and direct them to provide basic necessities such as food, clothing and shelter for their children, rather than supporting substance abuse and gambling.
"The measures relating to the NT are critical to reducing the amount of ready cash available in communities for alcohol, drugs and pornography."
The Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs and Other Legislation Amendment (Northern Territory National Emergency Response and Other Measures) Bill 2007 amends existing legislation to support and complement the legislation and welfare reforms in the previous two Bills.
The reforms under this Bill include the imposition of bans on pornography and changes to the permit system.
"Having considered carefully submissions to a review on the permit system, the Government has decided not to scrap the system, but rather lift the requirement for permits in townships and access roads and airstrips," Mr Brough said.
"The permit system has not protected communities from the 'rivers of grog' and children from abuse.
"It has helped create closed communities which can, and do, hide problems from public scrutiny.
"The permit system will continue to apply to more than 99 per cent of Aboriginal land, including sacred sites and homelands."
Mr Brough said the legislative package represented the most important policy initiative in Indigenous Affairs in decades.
"The Little Children Are Sacred Report highlighted horrific abuse of children in remote communities," Mr Brough said.
"I was astounded that the report's authors provided no recommendations designed to immediately secure communities and protect children from abuse. The legislative measures being introduced tomorrow will achieve that.
"As I've said from the start, the Government's approach to the emergency in the NT is in three phases; stabilising; normalising and then exiting.
"The legislation gives expression to many of the things that need to be achieved in the first two phases of our response before communities have established the key outcomes required for the emergency response to be withdrawn.
"Further, long-term measures will still be required by all parties; the Australian Government, the Northern Territory Government and the communities themselves to ensure that all these measures provide sustainable long-term benefits to Indigenous people in remote communities in the NT."
See: http://www.facsia.gov.au
Aborigine Wins Payout For Stolen Childhood
Barbara McMahon in The Coorong, South Australia, The Guardian | August 4, 2007
Man awarded £220,000 after removal from family led to lifelong depression
"The best thing is knowing they never forgot me, my mum and dad. They didn't want to let me go. There's proof of that."
Clutching a mug of tea, Bruce Trevorrow is sitting on a picnic bench in the beautiful national park of The Coorong, a place of wetlands, saltpans and vast skies. He is talking about his parents, Joe and Thora, both dead, and his childhood. It is not a happy tale but one of prejudice, cruelty and loss. He was born near here, a member of the Ngarrindjeri people, but did not grow up here. His childhood and his identity as an Aborigine were snatched from him as one of Australia's so-called Stolen Generation.
This week Mr Trevorrow, 50, won a landmark compensation claim in the South Australian supreme court, the first payment of its kind. A judge awarded him A$525,000 (£220,000), acknowledging that he had been "falsely imprisoned by the state", that the authorities had failed in their duty of care towards him and that such conduct had ruptured the bond between him and his natural family, leading to lifelong depression.
The judgment, delivered in a courtroom where you could have heard a pin drop, was significant, according to one of Mr Trevorrow's legal team, Joanna Richardson, because it acknowledged in legal terms the suffering Mr Trevorrow went through after his removal from his family. It could also establish a precedent for future cases. "It's been fairly emotional," said Mr Trevorrow. He added that it had given him "peace of mind and a feeling of closure".
In 1957, he was 13 months old when he became ill with gastroenteritis. His father was looking after him and his three elder siblings while their mother was visiting relatives and, concerned about his son, asked a neighbour who had a car to take him to Adelaide children's hospital.
The family, who knew about the policy of forced removal in which Aboriginal children were perceived to be better off being raised in white society, wanted to ensure he came back to them. With no telephone or car, they relied on the local police to give them news and repeatedly asked about the boy. A letter, dated five months after he was taken away, was one of several written by his mother to the Aboriginal Protection Board and was produced in court. "I am writing to ask if you will let me know how baby Bruce is and how long before I can have him home as I have not forgot I have a baby in there and I would like something defanat [sic] about him this time trust you will let me know as soon as possible," she wrote.
The board wrote back saying her son was "making good progress" and falsely claimed that the doctors needed to keep him in for further treatment. In fact, Bruce had already been fostered to a white family. Although they cared for him at first, he grew up confused about the difference between him and the other children. He was taunted at school and became emotionally disturbed.
When he was 10, his foster mother handed him back to the state and he was returned to his real family. His father had long died and his mother remarried.
Mr Trevorrow's half-sister Rita, then 16, was the last member of the family to see her brother as he was driven to hospital. "He was poorly but not seriously sick," she said. "He was wrapped in one of those grey government blankets. He was half asleep but he looked at me and gave me a smile. When I saw him next he was 10 years old and such a big boy. He was so shy."
The emotional damage had been done and Bruce failed to settle with his family. He was made a ward of state and eventually taken into care. His adulthood was troubled and he kept in sporadic contact with his siblings. He has been an alcoholic, has spent time in jail and cannot hold down a steady job. In 1998, he walked into a lawyer's office and set in motion his claim for compensation, saying he had suffered depression as a result of being taken from his family.
Justice Gray noted that Mr Trevorrow had struggled with depression while his siblings had been able to "achieve their full potential". Clearly a damaged man, he is tongue-tied and awkward while his siblings and half-siblings are eloquent and confident. The contrast is painfully stark.
His brother Tom said: "It's not the money, it's the acknowledgment of what he suffered. Bruce is the youngest of us but he looks the oldest. We grew up with our mum and dad and our aunties and uncles and cousins and friends. We learned about our history and our culture ... Bruce never had that - his identity and all the love that he should have had from his family were taken away at an absolutely crucial age and he's never recovered."
The siblings are also pleased that the ruling has cleared their parents. It had been recorded down that Bruce was malnourished and neglected and that his father had been a drunkard and that the couple, who were not married, were incapable of looking after their family. In fact, a police report had noted that the family home, a shack made of flattened steel sheets, was clean and tidy.
Prime minister John Howard's government has refused to apologise for the Stolen Generation and resisted calls to set up a compensation fund.
Mr Trevorrow, married with four children, says he wants to write a book about his life. "I think my kids will see me now as a better person," he said. "They understand now what I went through and why I mucked up my life so much."
|
Dry, Like Alice: Town Calls Time On Public Drinking
Barbara McMahon in Sydney, The Guardian | August 2, 2007
The Australian town of Alice Springs, blighted by violent and drunken antisocial behaviour, has been declared dry. Under restrictions that came into force at midnight, police will now be able to issue on-the-spot fines to anyone found drinking in a public place, and repeat offenders will risk jail terms.
Time was called on public drinking at the request of the local council, who say large groups of people, mostly Aborigines, binge drink in "full view" of other residents and tourists.
The ban supersedes restrictions which prohibited consumption of alcohol near a licensed establishment in town. Police could tip out alcohol from bottles and ask drinkers to move on, but they struggled to enforce the measures.
As part of the intervention in indigenous communities, led by the prime minister, John Howard, the rules will be in addition to a six-month ban on alcohol consumption affecting the 21 town camps surrounding Alice Springs, where about 3,000 Aborigines live.
The restrictions do not affect Alice Springs' 90 licensed clubs, hotels or restaurants, and an exemption is made for a park near the town used for picnics.
Donna Ah Chee, of the People's Alcohol Action Coalition, said that many people would favour the ban "because there's going to be an improvement aesthetically and you're not going to see groups of people lying beside burnt-out cars, out of their brains on cheap grog".
The coalition wanted extra precautions, however. "We want a minimum benchmark price so that beer, not wine, is the cheapest drink around here," she said. "We want reduced hours during which alcohol can be sold and we want the Northern Territory government to buy back liquor licences from petrol stations and from corner shops that sell bread and milk. These kind of places shouldn't be selling booze but they can and they do."
But not everyone in the desert community is convinced the strategy will work. Eric Sultan, who has been a resident of Alice Springs for 27 years, said that the problem of alcohol abuse would simply be shifted elsewhere. "It's just going to go underground. People will start drinking in hidden places. What the government needs to do is address the reasons why these people are drinking - and that's because they're homeless, unemployed, uneducated and have no status within their own communities."
Fran Kilgariff, the mayor of Alice Springs, has acknowledged that the outright ban on public drinking is not "a silver bullet" that will solve the problems but says it is one strategy that the town council thinks is needed. She hoped the move would stop troublemakers seeing Alice Springs as a place to drink.
|
|
|
