Little children are sacred report being used as a Trojan horse? Spin over substance in intervention report. Macklin, Libs defend intervention

Transcription

1 INDIGENOUS PEOPLES RIGHTS IN AUSTRALIA TODAY WHERE DO YOU STAND? The NT intervention: the media debate Intervention s troubling side-effects Little children are sacred report being used as a Trojan horse? Spin over substance in intervention report Ideals are irrelevant Macklin, Libs defend intervention A mounting case of intervention failure Let them eat rights

2 Michael Leunig RESOURCE PACKAGE CONTENTS The accompanying website, includes the following PDFs and worksheets: 01 Introduction for teachers 02 Indigenous rights: Starting points for discussion Worksheets: 2.1 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples rights and you 2.2 Where do you stand? Discussing the issues through cartoons 2.3 Investigating media coverage of Indigenous issues 2.4 Indigenous rights in the media 2.5 Telling the story of Indigenous rights in Australia 2.6 Patterns in Indigenous and non-indigenous relation 2.7 Exploring the timeline of Indigenous and non-indigenous history 03 The intervention and human rights Worksheets: 3.1 The Amperlatwaty walk-off 3.2 The intervention and human rights 04 Land and Indigenous Peoples rights Worksheets: 4.1 Debates about land in Australian history 4.2 Land and Indigenous rights 05 The Northern Territory Intervention: the media debate This section includes Worksheet 5.1 Analysing and responding to different points of view and 16 worksheets each relating to specific articles 06 Cartoons 07 Taking action Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people are respectfully advised that this resource contains images of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people who may be deceased. CONTENTS The Northern Territory intervention: introduction 6 The Northern Territory intervention: perspectives from its supporters 12 Suspending some rights so that others can be protected? 20 The Northern Territory intervention: perspectives from its opponents 26 Further debates about rights 36 Amnesty International Australia ABN Locked Bag 23, Broadway NSW supporter@amnesty.org.au

3 SECTION 05: THE MEDIA DEBATE We feel, here, that the intervention compound(s) the feeling of being secondclass citizens The goodwill of what Charles Perkins started in the Freedom Rides is disappearing We re not interested in anybody dictating to us how we re going to live on this land, on Utopia... We ll not be dictated to from edicts coming down like bullets from Canberra Once again the government has assumed that assumption has to stop, and a real dialogue has to begin, and it has to begin very soon White Australia has not bothered to meet us halfway. We ve met you more than halfway. It is time you came and had a relationship of meaning and significance with us. June 21, 2007 [the day the intervention was announced] may well be seen as a defining date in Australian history. That day changed government/indigenous relationships profoundly The intervention was used as the political trigger for an unprecedented use of the military and police to occupy indigenous communities. Their role was to support a regime of coercive paternalism While large sections of Australian society can indulge in contemporary grief about past injustices inflicted on indigenous peoples, there is a pervasive silence about the policies of national, state and territory governments. Yawuru leader and Chairman of the Lingiari Foundation, Patrick Dodson 2 Rosalie Kunoth-Monks, community leader from Arlparra in the Utopia Homelands, Northern Territory 1 3

4 INDIGENOUS PEOPLES RIGHTS IN AUSTRALIA TODAY: WHERE DO YOU STAND? WORKSHEET 5.1 Debates about Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples rights: analysing and responding to different points of view The media articles in this section provide a range of opinions about the Northern Territory intervention. Comments from Aboriginal leaders suggest that a great deal is at stake in the debate.the articles document the different voices in the debate about the intervention and what it means for Aboriginal people and all Australians. The following grid may assist you in analysing different points of view about Indigenous rights. You can use some or all of the questions to assess what an author is saying. QUESTIONS ABOUT THE AUTHOR S VIEWS According to the author, what is the problem or challenge? What are the real causes? Who is responsible? What are Indigenous people saying about the issue? Remember to include different views held by different Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander people. What are non-indigenous people saying about the issue? Who should be listened to? Should non-indigenous people, who have inherited the gains of past injustices, make amends to Indigenous people for example, through compensation, or by transfering resources and power to them? Is historical background important or are the challenges presented as if they come from nowhere? Where does the author stand on assimilation? Is mainstream Australian culture treated as the model that all people should fit into? Where does the author stand on Indigenous self-determination? i.e. Decisions on issues affecting the lives of Indigenous people being made by Indigenous people. What solutions and ways forward are proposed, and who should decide this? Where do you stand? 4 Download the full resource and take action at

5 SECTION 05: THE MEDIA DEBATE Inkcinct Cartoons Useful resources giving an overview of the intervention GIVING VOICE Message Stick, ABC, 8 November 2009 A program on the intervention covering a range of opinion and including a transcript. INTERVENTION PLAN MEETS HOSTILITY FROM INDIGENOUS LEADERS Transcript of 7.30 Report program on 6 August 2007 with early reaction to the intervention from Indigenous leaders and responses from the Indigenous Affairs Minister at the time, Mal Brough. ABORIGINAL WELFARE The Age, 16 July 2007 Provides a general introduction to the intervention. version=210 ARE THEY SAFER? Insight, SBS, 18 March 2008 Canvasses a wide range of opinion, including Aboriginal people from communities directly affected; Aboriginal health professionals; the Minister for Indigenous Affairs; the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner and the Chair of the Emergency Taskforce. View online and read the transcript. FEDERAL GOVERNMENT S NORTHERN TERRITORY EMERGENCY RESPONSE WEBPAGE Read the government s position on the intervention: /default.aspx. Note: links to all articles in this section are at 5

6 The Northern Territory intervention: introduction An entire culture is at stake This article 3 was written by Patrick Dodson, known as the father of reconciliation. Patrick Dodson is a Yawuru Man and is Chairman of the Lingiari Foundation. He is Director of the Indigenous Policy, Dialogue and Research Unit at the University of NSW. He has previously been the Founding Chair of the Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation, a Commissioner for the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody and a Catholic priest. The article condemns the intervention, speaking of a regime of coercive paternalism and an authoritarian and paternalistic approach that will inevitably fail. The author contrasts the contemporary grief about past injustices inflicted on indigenous peoples with a pervasive silence about current policies, and calls for a way forward based on recognition of traditional land ownership as a basis for indigenous people to exist and thrive as distinct peoples, Indigenous participation, Indigenous decision making, and partnership with Indigenous communities. June 21, 2007, may well be seen as a defining date in Australian history. That day changed government/ indigenous relationships profoundly when Prime Minister John Howard announced that his Government planned to seize control of 64 Aboriginal communities in the Northern Territory and place them under martial law. The intervention, and the accompanying headline-grabbing phrase rivers of grog, was used as the political trigger for an unprecedented use of the military and police to occupy indigenous communities. Their role was to support a regime of coercive paternalism in which grog and pornography were to be banned, medical examinations imposed on children, and welfare payments managed and linked with school attendance. There continues to be a wide perception in the indigenous community, and considered opinion across the nation, that the national emergency intervention strategy is motivated by political factors in an election year. It lacks integrity. At the same time, there is potential to transform the Howard Government s intervention into a historical opportunity. There is the possibility of sustainable community development based on a partnership between Aboriginal communities and both the Northern Territory and the Federal Government. There is no argument that the urgent immediate priority is to protect children. The welfare of our children and our families remains the key to our lives and future. But this priority is undermined by the Government s heavyhanded authoritarian intervention and its ideological and deceptive land reform agenda. The agenda is to dismantle the foundations of the Northern Territory Aboriginal Land Rights Act. It seeks to excise residential community settlements from the Aboriginal land estate under special Commonwealth Government five-year leases, and the abolition of an authorisation entry protocol called the permit system. The Government has not made a case in linking the removal of land from Aboriginal ownership and getting rid of the permit system with protecting children from those who abuse them. What is becoming increasingly clear is that the Howard Government has used the emotive issue of child abuse to justify this intervention in the only Australian jurisdiction in which it can implement its radical indigenous policy agenda. Reforming indigenous land title is central to the Howard Government s national indigenous policy program: an agenda that has been swept along by an alliance of established conservatives forces that have long opposed Aboriginal self-determination and land rights with more recent and strident ideological thinking associated with free market economics and notions of individual responsibility. In recent years, high-profile think tanks, the Centre for Independent Studies and the Bennelong Society, supported by a network of conservative journalists, have fundamentally changed Australian indigenous policy discourse. They have argued that only private ownership of land can generate wealth and provide the basis of community cohesion and functionality. They have asserted that communal land ownership and governance structures that reflect indigenous traditional decision-making imprisons indigenous people in welfare ghettos and locks them out of the benefits of modernity. The fundamental changes proposed for the land rights act that mandates Commonwealth Government control of the Northern Territory communities would be a devastating setback for Aboriginal rights. The Northern Territory ALRA is the iconic declaration of the Australian nation s intent to restore to Aboriginal people the dignity of their traditional lands. Under the Land Rights Act, all Aboriginal reserves gazetted during the protection and control era were transferred to Aboriginal ownership and the Northern Land Council and Central Land Council were established as statutory bodies to help traditional owners prepare claims and represent their interests. The act liberated Aboriginal people in the Northern Territory from their subordinate and colonial status and became an inspiration for much Aboriginal land legislation that has been passed in every Australian jurisdiction with the exception of Western Australia. More than half the Northern Territory land mass is Aboriginal land containing more than 700 indigenous communities, the vast majority of which are 6 Download the full resource and take action at

7 SECTION 05: THE MEDIA DEBATE small homeland communities. There should be no doubt about what is at stake here. The Government s agenda is to transform indigenous larger settlements into mainstream towns and extinguish by attrition the capacity of indigenous people to maintain small homeland communities. These settlements have become the lifeblood of cultural regeneration as indigenous people, by their own determination, relocated in extended family groups to traditional country after the collapse of the feudal pastoral industry regime and closure of church missions in the 1960s and 1970s. A few years ago, assimilation was comprehensively rejected by mainstream Australian society as racist. That it should be back in vogue as this Government s indigenous public policy direction reflects the paucity of intellectual and philosophical discussion about the position of indigenous people in Australian nation building. While large sections of Australian society can indulge in contemporary grief about past injustices inflicted on indigenous peoples, there is a pervasive silence about the policies of national, state and territory governments. Public discourse on the social and economic crisis that engulfs many Aboriginal remote communities is dominated by notions of worth within a Western understanding of an ordered society. Central to the indigenous welfare reform debate is an assumption that the provision of welfare without reciprocity entrenches passivity and with that comes powerlessness, depression, alcohol and drug abuse, self-harm, violence and child abuse. The conservative response to this human tragedy is to advocate removing the barriers that separate indigenous communities from mainstream society. The institutional features embedded in remote communities that protect indigenous people s identity and ways of life are the very barriers that conservatives insist should be removed. Communal land ownership, indigenous community governance and indigenous control over people entering their settlements are all at stake. John Howard will exploit indigenous voices in this debate to validate an ideological agenda to absorb indigenous people into the dominant society. There is doubtless integrity to key aspects of the welfare reform agenda. Reconstructing Aboriginal society where mutual respect and obligations based on traditional values and customary law is supported across the spectrum of indigenous leadership. But welfare reform must be a subset of an indigenous political agenda that demands the recognition of traditional land ownership as a basis for indigenous people to exist and thrive as distinct peoples. Australians should try to imagine the consequences of the cultural genocide that the Howard Government s Northern Territory intervention foreshadows. Withdrawal of funding and welfare pressures on homeland communities will cause a drift of population to larger communities. Social problems will simply be transferred. The inevitable breakdown of law and order will result, followed by an increase in arrests and incarceration. The authoritarian and paternalistic nature of the Howard Government s intervention will inevitably fail. There is no strategy for collaboration and partnership with Aboriginal people. This is an Iraq-style of intervention with no exit strategy or plans for long-term economic and social development. In response to indigenous demands for consultation, Howard has repeated the mantra that the time for talking is over and that the old ways have not worked. These are simply weasel words from a Prime Minister who dog-whistled Pauline Hanson s agenda and captured her party s constituency. The essence of Howard s strategy is speed. His goal is assimilation. While traditional owners have made substantial gains in securing title to their lands under the Land Rights Act, the people living on the lands have been subject to the vagaries of piecemeal housing and infrastructure programs. The unintended consequence of the Government s intervention has been a focus on the issue of long-term underinvestment. Media scrutiny is highlighting appalling overcrowding where on average 20 people share a house. This reinforces a central theme of the Northern Territory inquiry that tackling this issue is fundamental to managing child abuse. The Centre for Aboriginal Economic Policy Research in Canberra estimates that $1.4 billion of housing investment in Aboriginal communities will be required just to fix the backlog of housing needs in communities over the next four years. Plans to link child welfare payment with school attendance highlight the appalling lack of education facilities and teacher numbers. An alternative and inclusive plan should be developed. Such a plan would guarantee the fundamental recognition of Aboriginal land ownership as a basis of partnership. The plan would address issues of land and welfare reform matched by long-term public investment in housing, education and health facilities. The plan could incorporate original aspects of the Government s strategy such as the ban on alcohol and pornography, and linking child welfare payments to school attendance. However, it would also offer a corresponding investment in treatment and rehabilitation services with an assessment of a long-term investment program in education and training. Excising settlements from the Aboriginal land estate is unnecessary and divisive as is the appointment of administrators to manage Commonwealth programs. A more effective proposal would be to transfer community settlements to the Northern Territory Government under a 99-year lease arrangement. This transfer would enable the delivery of a wide range of citizenship services to indigenous communities while providing a development approach for housing investment. It would also seek to offer a long-term vision for a partnership with indigenous communities where they would be given an increased role and responsibility over their lives and futures. In such a possibility, and in such a vision, sexual abuse, violence and dysfunction within communities could be positively and seriously addressed. This is a possibility and vision that offers hope. The present Government interventions offer little. Policies aimed at improving the long-term quality of life for Aboriginal people must involve Aboriginal participation and decision making. Patrick Dodson is chairman of the Lingiari Foundation. Article reproduced courtesy of The Age. 7

8 INDIGENOUS PEOPLES RIGHTS IN AUSTRALIA TODAY: WHERE DO YOU STAND? Activities 1. Discuss the statement: While large sections of Australian society can indulge in contemporary grief about past injustices inflicted on indigenous peoples, there is a pervasive silence about the policies of national, state and territory governments. What is Dodson saying? 2. Supporters of the intervention have argued that the needs of women and children should come first and that the government s actions are a justifiable response. What is Dodson s view? 3. According to Dodson, how has the government obtained community support for the intervention? 4. Dodson describes a human tragedy affecting Indigenous people, a conservative response to this tragedy and an alternative way forward. (i) (ii) What is the tragedy that Dodson refers to? Dodson describes different views about communal land ownership, indigenous community governance and indigenous control over people entering their settlements. Describe the different views about these aspects of life in Indigenous communities in your own words. (iii) What are the options for the future which Dodson outlines? Discuss your views. 5. What does Dodson see as the underlying causes of breakdowns in law and order and increases in arrests and incarceration in Indigenous communities? 6. Explain what is meant by assimilation. In what way does Dodson argue that it is back in vogue? What does this mean for Aboriginal Peoples in Australia? 7. The article focuses on different views of land ownership. Dodson describes the Northern Territory Aboriginal Land Rights Act as the iconic declaration of the Australian nation s intent to restore to Aboriginal people the dignity of their traditional lands and says that the act liberated Aboriginal people from their subordinate and colonial status. (i) (ii) Explain this view. List the different views about land rights in the community and discuss the place that land rights should have in Australia today. Further research 1. Dodson argues that the launch of the intervention may well be seen as a defining date in Australian history, one that changed government/indigenous relationships profoundly. Make a list of key events in Australian history that have defined the relationship between Indigenous and non-indigenous people. For each event, describe what happened in this relationship. How does the intervention continue or depart from the patterns of the past? 2. Why does Dodson believe the intervention will inevitably fail? What is his vision that offers hope? Referring to the selfdetermination section of this resource, explain how Indigenous participation and involvement in decision-making has an impact. 3. The Dodson article, written shortly after the beginning of the intervention, refers to martial law. Why would this term have been used? To answer this question, research the role of the military in the early stages of the intervention by searching the internet for the intervention and Operation Outreach and Norforce. 4. Dodson argues that high-profile think tanks, the Centre for Independent Studies and the Bennelong Society, supported by a network of conservative journalists, have fundamentally changed Australian Indigenous policy discourse. Read materials published by these organisations: Bennelong Society Centre for Independent Studies How do the views expressed in their publications contrast with those expressed by Dodson and other commentators who share his? Use the grid with the heading: Debate about the rights of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people: analysing and responding to different points of view (see p4) to assess the arguments, and use the same grid for Dodson s article. 5. Read more about Dodson s critique of current directions in his speech Reconciliation 200 years on is dialogue enough? 4 (i) Why does Dodson see policies adopted under the intervention as part of the historical trajectory of extinguishing the cultural legacy of thousands of generations of human occupation of these lands? Discuss your responses. (ii) In the article above, Dodson suggests a 99-year lease between Aboriginal landowners and government. In the speech, however, he criticises a lease agreement between the government and Indigenous landowners in East Arnhem Land, stating that it reveals the dysfunctional relationship between Indigenous Australia and the Federal Government and the tragic public policy mess that embroils that relationship. Explain the concerns he has about this form of lease. (iii) Dodson asks, Will Australians living in this epoch be seen as providing the informed or tacit consent for governments to embark on a disguised process of cultural genocide or will this generation be celebrated for its wisdom and imagination that fundamentally transformed Australia from its racist colonial past and entrench Indigenous culture as a fundamental plank in our nationhood? Explain why he sees the issues in these terms. How do you see the issues? How should people respond? 6. The article describes government plans to transform Indigenous larger settlements into mainstream towns and extinguish by attrition the capacity of Indigenous people to maintain small homeland communities. What does Dodson argue is at stake? Research the history of the homelands movement and the current debate about the future of homelands. and the current debate about their future. 8 Download the full resource and take action at

9 SECTION 05: THE MEDIA DEBATE Ron Tandberg Fairfaxphotos/Bruce Petty 9

10 INDIGENOUS PEOPLES RIGHTS IN AUSTRALIA TODAY: WHERE DO YOU STAND? Little children are sacred report being used as a Trojan horse? This media release 5 was issued by Chairman Rev Dr Djiniyini Gondarra OAM and Chief Executive Officer Richard Trudgen of the Aboriginal Resource and Development Service on 13 August The Howard Government are to be congratulated for taking on the 200-yearold-problem of alcohol and sexual abuse in Aboriginal communities. Their intentions are honourable, but from the rhetoric it seems that the government and others have forgotten the history that today s Australia was founded on. And sadly one must ask is the Little Children are Sacred Report and the violence now seen in some Aboriginal communities being used as a trojan horse to take away private protection and property rights. Rights that Aboriginal people have had to fight for over many decades. If so then we can only hang our head in shame that any violence against children could be used to political advantage against Aboriginal communities in this way. Since the beginning of colonisation it has been the European culture and law that has brought violence, lawlessness and an immoral abuse of power to Aboriginal communities and people. Many Aboriginal elders in Arnhem Land today are asking if anything has changed. Prime Minister John Howard, the Member for Bennelong, should know that the first Aboriginal person captured violently at gun point died within a day of capture. The second Aboriginal man captured at gun point and assimilated by Captain Philip was called Bennelong after which his seat is now named. History tells us though that sadly Bennelong died on the streets of the small colony of Sydney a chronic drunk not wanted by his own people or by those who tried to forcible assimilate him. Yes, violence and alcohol in Aboriginal communities is a 200-year-old European problem that must be addressed and solved before it completes its violent destruction of the Aboriginal people of this country. Again, we have to applaud the Howard and Brough initiative to kerb the rivers of white fella grog and deal with issues of violence against anyone in Aboriginal communities. Violence of any form against anyone in Aboriginal communities is simply not on. So we have to question why is it that the Yolngu people of north-east Arnhem Land, as well as other Aboriginal people across the Northern Territory, are so afraid and worried about what is happening at the moment? Aboriginal leaders all agree that problems in relation to grog and abuse against children and women must stop. The Rev Dr Djiniyini Gondarra said, We all agree with the government on these two issues but what has taking entry permits off our main roads and communities have to do with stopping grog and drugs and protecting our children? Where did this violence against children we love come from, not from our Madayin law? It has been brought to our communities by white fella culture and law. And then it is also white fella law that usually protects the violators because they know the white fella law and language and we don t. It has been the outsiders in the past - contractors and the like - that sold alcohol and drugs to our children and our people were too frightened to report them to the police. Now if there is no permit system where can we go? Why has the government created a situation of trying to create law and order while at the same time they are spreading a situation of greater lawlessness? Taking the entry permits off main roads leading to Aboriginal communities and the roads in communities themselves can only lead to greater lawlessness. Every drug dealer, pusher and paedophile in the Northern Territory and beyond must be thanking Ministers Howard and Brough for thinking of doing them such a favour. Today it seems that white fella law actually continues to create lawlessness. Djiniyini continues, How bad is European law when it does not protect private property rights? According to our Madayin law nobody can just take someone else s private property like the federal government is doing in the Northern Territory. And why does the government always attack our traditional law? It is our traditional law that has kept our children and women safe for thousands of years. If only the government would stop and understand the real situation we might be really able to solve some of these problems instead of creating more. We thought this Minister was different and really wanted to help us create better communities by sitting down and listening to us. Now we are ashamed and confused as to who or what we can trust anymore. Rev Dr. Djiniyini Gondarra OAM, Chairman Richard Trudgen, Chief Executive Officer, ARDS 10 Download the full resource and take action at

11 SECTION 05: THE MEDIA DEBATE GOVERNMENT PERSPECTIVES ON THE INTERVENTION The following materials are useful for understanding how the intervention was originally presented to the public. National emergency response to protect Aboriginal children in the NT The initial media release announcing the intervention. gency_21june07.aspx Interview with Mal Brough ABC Northern Territory Stateline interview Indigenous Affairs Minister Mal Brough broadcast on 6/07/ See links at Indigenous Affairs minister at the time of the launch of the intervention Mal Brough (right) speaks to the then opposition Indigenous affairs spokesperson Jenny Macklin during the presentation of the Northern Territory Emergency Response legislation in Canberra, 7 August AAP Image/Alan Porritt Activities 1. What was the Trojan horse? Why do the authors of this media release think that this image is relevant to the intervention? 2. What do the authors see as the real objectives of the intervention? 3. Why is the permit system important to Rev Dr Djiniyini Gondarra? What does it protect? Read Police support Indigenous permit status quo at Why does the NT Police Association express support for the permit system? 4. The authors write it seems that the government and others have forgotten the history that today s Australia was founded on. What are some key lessons from history that they think are important for governments to recognise? How might governments relate differently to Aboriginal Peoples if they recognised and thought about this history? 5. What are your reactions to the picture of Australian history that comes through in this media release? 6. What picture does the article portray of the clash between Aboriginal law and European law? 11

12 The Northern Territory intervention: perspectives of its supporters Abuse crisis like Hurricane Katrina This article 6 was written by David Crawshaw from AAP and published on 25 June It includes some of the original reasons provided by the government for the intervention. The abuse crisis gripping Aboriginal communities is akin to the disaster inflicted on the US by Hurricane Katrina, Prime Minister John Howard said tonight. In a speech to the Sydney Institute, the prime minister outlined the reasons for his government s dramatic decision last week to intervene to stamp out child abuse and lawlessness in indigenous communities in the Northern Territory. The measures include bans on alcohol and pornography, the quarantining of welfare payments, abolishing the Aboriginal permit system and mobilising extra police and troops to keep order in remote communities. Many Australians, myself included, looked aghast at the failure of the American federal system of government to cope adequately with Hurricane Katrina and the human misery and lawlessness that engulfed New Orleans in 2005, Mr Howard said in the speech in Sydney. We should have been more humble. We have our Katrina, here and now. That it has unfolded more slowly and absent the hand of God should make us humbler still. It s largely been hidden from the public - in part by a permit system in the NT that kept communities out of view and out of mind. The crisis in Aboriginal communities was not just a failure of government, he said, but a failure of parents to take responsibility. The extreme social breakdown in some communities warranted a highly prescriptive approach centred on restoring law and order. Freedoms and rights, especially for women and children, are little more than cruel fictions without the rule of law and some semblance of social order enforced by legitimate authority, Mr Howard said. The federal government-sponsored police and military involvement represented the recovery phase for Aboriginal townships, which would be followed by a rebuilding of communities through commonwealth control of township leases. To tackle the crisis the federal government has established a panel of experts, including magistrate Sue Gordon, the head of the Australian Federal Police s Solomon Islands operation Shane Castles, former Woolworths boss Roger Corbett and former Australian Medical Association president Bill Glasson. Mr Howard said tonight the task force would meet for the first time in Brisbane this Saturday, two days after the prime minister discusses the plan with NT Chief Minister Clare Martin. He acknowledged the rescue plan was not perfect, but it was a start. We are under no illusion that it will take time to show results and that it will have painful consequences for some people. We will make mistakes along the way, he said. The simple truth, however, is that you cannot make lasting change in areas like health, education and housing while ever women and children are petrified of violence and sexual molestation. For too long state governments had neglected their responsibilities of enforcing law and order, Mr Howard said, adding that the commonwealth did not have the constitutional power to extend its intervention to Queensland, NSW and Western Australia. He denied the plan was racist, saying that abuse existed in mainstream society but not to the same extent and not in such appalling or inescapable circumstances. Mr Howard confirmed cabinet would soon consider a proposal to extend the quarantining of welfare payments to the wider community where people were abusing their children or failing to fulfil parental obligations. AAP 12 Download the full resource and take action at

13 SECTION 05: THE MEDIA DEBATE Somerville Cartoons Activities 1. What reasons did former Prime Minister John Howard give for launching the intervention? List the points that he used to support the action that was taken. 2. Why did he compare the situation to Hurricane Katrina? 3. The Prime Minister argued that the extreme social breakdown in some communities warranted a highly prescriptive approach centred on restoring law and order. Many Aboriginal people have welcomed the extra policing services provided by the intervention but argued against the intervention overall. Why might this be so? 4. How did the Prime Minister justify abolishing the permit system? Use the internet to research Indigenous responses to this aspect of the intervention. 5. Read this analysis of the article written by Paul t Hart: The government engaged in an intensive meaning-making exercise, drawing on powerful (if sometimes inappropriate) historical analogies such as Hurricane Katrina to drive home the seriousness of the situation True to the spirit of emergencies as framing contests, the government s critics used equally strong counter-analogies (the Nazis, the Bringing them home report, the Trojan horse, and, but in a different sense, Katrina) in their efforts to discredit its position. [The government] did manage to capitalise on the Little children are sacred report to instill a sense of urgency It also managed to suspend politics as usual, eg. by pushing an unprecedented package of legislation and measures through parliament in record time. And it did get a massive federal operation on the ground in a matter of weeks... But the government s framing effort did not go uncontested. This began with its insistence, backed by the Little children are sacred report, that child sexual abuse in certain Indigenous communities was rampant and constituted a real, present, urgent and above all utterly unacceptable violation of key social values. Although this way of framing the emergency was widely accepted as such, various critics argued that this problem had been named in various investigations long preceding the Little children are sacred report. They sought to reframe the crisis as a product of prior government negligence, questioned the government s timing and therefore its motives. Why declare this an emergency now, eg, just months before an election? Was the government trying to create a wedge issue for federal Labor? 7 What does the author mean by (i) meaning-making exercise and (ii) framing contests? Create a table: To its supporters, the intervention means To its opponents, the intervention means As you fill out the table, try to get inside the head of supporters and opponents of the policy. What conclusions do you come to about what the intervention means? 13

14 INDIGENOUS PEOPLES RIGHTS IN AUSTRALIA TODAY: WHERE DO YOU STAND? Intervention changing women s lives This article 8 by Sydney Morning Herald Indigenous affairs reporter Joel Gibson reports comments by Sue Gordon, who was the first chairperson of the Federal Government s Northern Territory Emergency Response Taskforce. An Indigenous woman from Western Australia, she was previously Chairperson of the National Indigenous Council under the Howard Government and a Magistrate of the Children s Court of Western Australia. The article was published on 11 June Four days after the Government launched its promised 12-month review of the Northern Territory intervention, the program s chairwoman has declared the radical measures a popular success, especially with women in the Territory s indigenous communities. While I appreciate that a lot of people were opposed to the NT emergency response, either as a package or in part, I would urge you to read what women and some men in the communities are saying about how it has changed their lives, Dr Sue Gordon, whose tenure ends on June 30, told the Sydney Institute last night. She said that controversial human rights breaches inherent in some emergency measures paled in comparison to the damage done to indigenous children over decades of neglect by governments. I know personally from my own experience of working full-time on the ground over these past 12 months in some of the most remote communities in Australia, and seeing the complete neglect of basic services, and hearing the stories. I am glad that this once-ina-lifetime major funding program has gone into the NT to benefit Aboriginal people in the prescribed communities and town camps. But there remained a long way to go before the gap between indigenous and other Australians would be closed. I am aware, for example, of communities such as Docker River where the Ngaanyatjarra Pitjantjatjara Yankunytjatjara Women s Council in Alice Springs have been lobbying since 1990 for police to be stationed there permanently and they are still lobbying for it to happen. The emergency response taskforce s visits, where they were told things that you would not expect to see and hear in Australia today, had improved the Government s understanding of the nation s most remote outposts, Dr Gordon said. There are now 51 additional police in NT indigenous communities, 57 stores have been licensed, 8797 child health checks undertaken and 273 positions converted to real NT and federal government jobs. The so-called humbugging of welfare payments for alcohol and other vices has decreased and a seven-person mobile child protection team began work in April, Dr Gordon said. She chastised the 2008 Sydney Peace Prize recipient Patrick Dodson, among others, for spreading the misinformation that Canberra had deployed the army into Aboriginal communities. Indigenous soldiers and reservists involved in the early stages of the intervention were well received and distributed information to those who wanted to find out how to enlist. 1. Many Indigenous people have opposed the intervention, but there are clearly different views amongst Indigenous people about the government s actions just as you would expect amongst non-indigenous people. What reasons does Sue Gordon give to support the intervention? What evidence does she give to support her arguments? 2. Why did the use of the army in Indigenous communities in the early stages of the intervention cause debate? Does Sue Gordon s response reassure you? 3. Sue Gordon asks people who are opposed to the intervention to read what women and some men in the communities are saying about how it has changed their lives. Use the Internet to research what other Indigenous supporters of the intervention such as Bess Price are saying about government policies and the challenges Activities that their communities face. For example, a range of Indigenous opinion is represented in the SBS Insight program Are they safer? You can view it online and read the transcript at: 4. Refer to Amnesty International s concerns about the intervention in the resource The intervention and human rights see Make a list of human rights concerns about the intervention positive changes that supporters of the intervention have used to justify the government s actions. Evaluate whether the positive changes you have listed can be introduced without breaching human rights. 14 Download the full resource and take action at

15 SECTION 05: THE MEDIA DEBATE Cartoon by Nicholson from The Australian 15

16 INDIGENOUS PEOPLES RIGHTS IN AUSTRALIA TODAY: WHERE DO YOU STAND? Tough love works best This is an opinion piece 9 from The Australian by David Moore, who was a senior advisor to the Howard Government and played a role in developing the income management strategy under the intervention. It was published on 26 November Extending income management beyond Northern Territory indigenous communities to the rest of Australia should get bipartisan support. Why? Because it works and is supported by many of the biggest victims of welfare dysfunction: women and children. Regrettably, slipping out the new policy during the emissions trading scheme debate suggests the government is embarrassed by its initiative and fearful of the welfare lobby. When then Liberal minister Mal Brough proposed welfare quarantining in early 2006, Kim Beazley and Wayne Swan rushed to condemn it. But Jenny Macklin was an early convert to the value of welfare income management. I recall briefing her on the Northern Territory intervention in 2007, while she was in opposition. I laboured the explanation of welfare quarantining, expecting opposition. To my surprise, Macklin cut me short, indicating that she was supportive of these measures. Since then, to her great credit, she has been a vocal advocate of income management despite the pressures of the welfare rights lobby. She also understands that technology means income management measures are no longer clumsy food stamps programs. Restricting cashflow where there is a high risk of substance abuse is justified. Children at risk deserve to get the benefits of taxpayer-funded welfare rather than drug dealers and grog runners. The measures further entrench the notion that welfare brings obligations. Ensuring your kids attend school is a vital requirement, as education is a key to breaking the welfare cycle. I fear it may be premature to relax the tougher aspects of the Territory intervention. Reducing cash in targeted communities was an important part of drying up the rivers of grog. Labor is being driven by the ideological desire to remove the Racial Discrimination Act exemption but this puts at risk the effectiveness of the measures. The welfare lobby, which is as addicted to the welfare industry as many of the recipients are to income support, will continue to squawk and I hope the government doesn t blink. But will Australia get the full value of these measures under a government ambivalent about welfare reform? While introducing income management, it is weakening participation requirements for jobseekers and undermining work for the dole. Income management in conjunction with tough and fair workforce participation measures provides support for children at risk while busting through the welfare to work barriers. This tough love is the price we need to pay for an otherwise generous welfare safety net. And yes, we should all appreciate that living on welfare is not easy. Neither is living on low-income employment. But we d all be better off personally and as a nation if fewer people were in the welfare net and more in the workplace. Aboriginal and non-aboriginal people participate in a rally and march from old Parliament House to new Parliament House in Canberra, February AFP/Anoek De Groot 16 Download the full resource and take action at

17 SECTION 05: THE MEDIA DEBATE Activities 1. What is income management and why is it controversial? 2. What are the key reasons that the author gives for supporting income management? 3. How would you react if the government declared that some war veterans manage their money badly and spend it on drugs, so they will take control of 50 per cent of every war veteran s income unless they can prove that this is not needed. Discuss the same scenario in relation to other groups such as young people receiving Centrelink payments, single mothers and age pensioners. 4. Analyse the language used in the article. What effect does the writer hope to obtain by using expressions such as grog runners, rivers of grog and addicted to the welfare industry? 5. What link does the author suggest between restricting cashflow and improving the lives of children? 6. What is implied by the term tough love? Does it have overtones of a parent limiting excesses by a child? Is this an appropriate relationship between government and citizens in a democracy? 7. To what extent does the article imply that welfare recipients as a group need governments to intervene in order to ensure that they look after their children? Further research Does income management work? How much support is there for this policy? The author claims that income management works and is supported by many of the biggest victims of welfare dysfunction: women and children. Assess the evidence about whether income management works and the question of who supports it. Resources Comments on income management from members of communities affected by the intervention, documented in Will They Be Heard?, a report on consultations between government and Indigenous communities in the Northern Territory. Articles in this resource such as Spin over substance in Intervention report and A Mounting Case of Intervention Failure Article by Indigenous supporter of the intervention, Bess Price Listen to our voices and address our real concerns voices-and-address-our-real-concerns/story-e6frg6zo Media releases from the minister for Indigenous Affairs edia_centre/pages/default.aspx Indigenous welfare quarantine failing: study by Lindy Kerin. Macklin leads way with conditional welfare by Noel Pearson. way-with-conditional-welfare/story-e6frg6zo Deserving or not? The tricky language of the NT intervention by Sarah Burnside. Questions to consider What evidence is there for positive and negative impacts of income management policies? How do advocates and opponents of income management use evidence to support their case? What different opinions are expressed by Indigenous people? 17

18 INDIGENOUS PEOPLES RIGHTS IN AUSTRALIA TODAY: WHERE DO YOU STAND? Rudd s NT welfare revolution This article 10 was written by Jeremy Sammut, a research fellow in the social foundations program at the Centre for Independent Studies and it appeared in The Australian on 11 June It applauds aspects of the intervention and the setting aside of a rights-based approach to social policy in favour of addressing the social disintegration in Indigenous communities by controlling irresponsible spending of welfare payments. The Rudd government s decision to retain and recast key aspects of the Howard government s intervention into the Northern Territory is to be applauded. The changes the government have proposed will address the main objections to the original intervention, while confirming that a major political and policy shift is underway and is fundamentally reshaping the way governments tackle social disadvantage. The most controversial aspects of the intervention involved the suspension of the racial discrimination act, and the fact that welfare quarantining was compulsory, even for responsible people who could manage their money and properly care for children. The racial discrimination act is to be reinstated. But in a neat circumvention of the rights-based opposition to the intervention, the intervention legislation, in order to conform to the RDA, will be rewritten as a special measure (like Abstudy) to protect and improve the rights of indigenous people. However, the real significance of the government s policy is the way it sets aside the Labor Party s standard rightsbased approach to social policy, and will continue to address the social disintegration in indigenous communities by controlling socially irresponsible spending of welfare payments. The federal government s discussion paper on the future of the intervention sets out two options. The first, and remarkable no change option, is that all welfare payments will continue to be compulsorily quarantined in prescribed indigenous communities. The alternative option is that responsible recipients will be able to apply to Centrelink to opt-out of the income management system. The government has resisted calls for an entirely voluntary system and appears to have learnt the lessons of the experiment with welfare quarantining in Cape York. The great strength of income management is the assistance the system provides to people trapped in dysfunctional communities, whose confidence and capabilities have been sapped by longterm welfare dependence. The dutiful but defeated, particularly women, are given the opportunity to regain control over their lives and families. In both the Territory and in Cape York, income management has resulted in more money being spent on nutritious food, clothing and rent. Less money has been humbugged and spent on grog, drugs, and gambling. By giving people a hand up (income management is muscular social work) people are empowered to budget and save. This is one of the reasons many indigenous women in the Territory support the intervention, and is why many women are unlikely to want to opt out of income management. In a promising sign of normalcy, as the government s discussion paper notes that income management has led to more males making financial contributions to family shopping. The fatal weakness of a voluntary system would be that the most dysfunctional people, the bad behaviour of whom causes much of the chaos in indigenous and other communities, would be unlikely to volunteer to be income managed. The NT Intervention solution for this problem was universal quarantining. The Cape York solution is to create a Family Responsibilities Commission with the authority to compulsory quarantine the welfare of disruptive members of the community. Under the Rudd government s proposed policy, permission to opt-out will be a bureaucratic process and based on an assessment of people s skills, responsibilities, and vulnerabilities. The effectiveness of the new arrangements in determining who should and should not be permitted to exit the system will depend on the criteria used to assess applications. The discussion paper signals that decisions will be based on input from key community groups, including, one hopes, police, education, and health. It could work like this. Local police might have to confirm that neither the applicant nor an immediate family member is habitually intoxicated or known to police due to frequent domestic violence and other violent incidents. In relevant cases, the local school might confirm that children regularly attend and are properly fed and cared for. The local doctor or nurse might have to provide a character reference addressing the key criteria. What makes the Rudd government s decision to continue welfare quarantining so politically significant is that it has decided, in effect, that the right to unencumbered welfare should be an earned entitlement and conditional on behaviour. Instead of blaming poverty and dysfunction on low payments and social injustice, the causal links between welfare, social disadvantage, and social degradation are being acknowledged and addressed. By deciding to concentrate on protecting indigenous communities from anti-social behaviour, and by choosing to focus on promoting family responsibilities and community standards, the government has conceded the liberal and conservative critiques of the modern welfare state and the destructive impact of welfare dependence on personal responsibility and social norms. The next step will be to examine the roll out of welfare quarantining into non-indigenous welfare dependent communities where welfare is also not being spent in the interests of children and families. The Left may think it has reclaimed control over the commanding heights of the economy. But closer to the ground Leftist orthodoxy is in retreat. Against all the instincts of the contemporary Labor Party, the charge is being lead by the Rudd government which, to its great credit, is putting the interests of the vulnerable before the rights of the irresponsible. 18 Download the full resource and take action at

19 SECTION 05: THE MEDIA DEBATE This photo taken 19 May 2007 shows an Aboriginal family posing in front of their house at a Town Camp in Alice Springs. AFP/Anoek de Groot Activities 1. Why does the author support income management? How does he see it as empowering? 2. Many have argued that income management should be in place only where it is required by individual circumstances. What does Sammut argue? 3. Create a list of key points in this article and key points in articles which oppose this view. What do you think? 19

20 Suspending some rights so that others can be protected? He came, he saw and missed the point This editorial 11 appeared in The Australian on 29 August 2009 and criticises UN Special Rapporteur James Anaya s comments about the intervention. After 11 days touring Aboriginal communities, the UN special rapporteur on indigenous rights, James Anaya, a US professor of human rights law, has delivered a critique of the Northern Territory intervention that is theoretical but not practical. Professor Anaya declared that income management and bans on alcohol were discriminatory and breached Australia s international treaty obligations, despite the proof that such measures improve the lives of indigenous people. The paucity of Professor Anaya s assessment says more about the limitations of the UN s post-world War II human rights framework than it does about indigenous policy in Australia. His views might make for interesting academic debate, but they should not distract the Rudd government from pressing ahead with its metrics-based approach to practical reconciliation. En route home to the US, perhaps Professor Anaya should study lawyer Noel Pearson s groundbreaking work from a decade ago, Our Right to Take Responsibility, which urged Aborigines to prevail against racism, not by seeing themselves as victims whose rights had been eroded, but by overcoming the social and economic problems caused by welfare dependency. Mr Pearson ushered in a new era in policy, arguing that the right to drink alcohol came a long way behind the rights of children to be fed, nurtured and educated, and the rights of women to live without fear of assault and with enough money for the household budget. While the intervention is far from perfect, especially in its appalling failure to provide housing, its failures are essentially failures of red tape and bureaucracy. These are the same failures that have shortchanged remote communities for decades. While the Rudd government is preparing to reinstate the Racial Discrimination Act, which was suspended at the outset of the intervention, such a move, as we have argued before, is compatible with the essential elements of the intervention. The act allows special measures for securing adequate advancement of certain racial or ethnic groups or individuals. Alcohol restrictions and income quarantining, which are also being trialled in disadvantaged white communities, do impinge on rights. At the same time, they enhance more important rights, such as the rights of children to be fed well on fresh food and sleep at night without fear of violence or abuse. As retired District Court judge Michael Forde - a man who is familiar with the north Queensland communities - attests, controls on alcohol are the single most important reason why crime has decreased markedly and the lives of women and children have improved. There is a long way to go, but the reforms are also improving school attendance. Abandoning such efforts just as they are beginning to take effect would be morally unconscionable after four decades of the failure of the rights approach. If one measure of a civilised society is how well it treats its most vulnerable citizens, Australia would fail the test if it gave up on the plight of 90,000 remote indigenous Australians. Nor will this newspaper give up on its coverage of the issue, despite Social Justice Commissioner Tom Calma suggesting we do so in favour of focusing on urban Aborigines, whose lives are much closer to those of non-indigenous Australians. Mr Calma s suggestion reflects a bureaucratic outlook. In establishing a new indigenous representative body, he and the Rudd government must ensure its focus is on employment, education and health rather than being the blackfellas wailing wall that Noel Pearson anticipates. James Anaya wants to see indigenous disadvantage redressed, but his approach will not assist a complex and protracted process. JAMES ANAYA INTERVIEW Listen to a radio interview with the UN Special Rapporteur James Anaya recorded by the Central Australian Aboriginal Media Association. The interview reviews: the situation of Indigenous Peoples around the world how James Anaya works to advocate for Indigenous rights through United Nations whether some rights can outweigh others. It can be found at AAP Image/AP Photo/Eraldo Peres 20 Download the full resource and take action at

21 SECTION 05: THE MEDIA DEBATE 21

22 INDIGENOUS PEOPLES RIGHTS IN AUSTRALIA TODAY: WHERE DO YOU STAND? Should governments ignore some rights for the sake of protecting others? Indigenous Affairs Minister Jenny Macklin has justified government policies by arguing that she is prioritising the rights of the most vulnerable. Questioned about James Anaya s report, she responded: JENNY MACKLIN: For me, when it comes to human rights, the most important human right that I feel as a Minister I have to confront, is the need to protect the rights of the most vulnerable, particularly children and for them to have a safe and happy life and a safe and happy family to grow up in. REPORTER: What s it like being the Minister hearing such a damning report? JENNY MACKLIN: Well that s why I think it s important to always be very clear what it is that you want to achieve and what I want to achieve is to work to do everything I can to protect the most vulnerable. I ve got a responsibility to provide a better life for these women, these elderly women. I ve got a responsibility to do better by the vulnerable children who are subjected to abuse because of alcohol. These are the jobs that I have and I intend to get on with it. 12 In a government media release on 29 November 2009, Jenny Macklin argued that the government s policies would advance Indigenous rights. Using the language of the Racial Discrimination Act, she claimed that these policies were special measures which would treat Indigenous people differently in order to improve their status: Alcohol and pornography restrictions, five-year leases, community store licensing and law enforcement powers have been redesigned to more clearly be special measures that help Indigenous people in the NT achieve equal human rights These measures are delivering substantial benefits to Indigenous communities and will remain core elements of the NTER 13 Human rights do not dispossess people. Human rights do not marginalise people. Human rights do not cause problems. Human rights do not cause poverty. Human rights do not cause life expectancy gaps. It is the denial of rights that is the largest contributor to these things. Professor Mick Dodson, Indigenous leader and former Australian of the Year. 14 Ron Tandberg 22 Download the full resource and take action at

23 SECTION 05: THE MEDIA DEBATE Suspending rights: international human rights law International human rights law allows States to temporarily suspend or derogate from certain rights during periods of public emergency. Article 4 (1) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights states: In time of public emergency which threatens the life of the nation and the existence of which is officially proclaimed, the States Parties to the present Covenant may take measures derogating from their obligations under the present Covenant to the extent strictly required by the exigencies of the situation, provided that such measures are not inconsistent with their other obligations under international law and do not involve discrimination solely on the ground of race, colour, sex, language, religion or social origin. 15 Article 4 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights states that: the State may subject such rights only to such limitations as are determined by law only in so far as this may be compatible with the nature of these rights and solely for the purpose of promoting the general welfare in a democratic society. 16 However, some rights can never be restricted nor derogated. These include the right to be free from torture and other ill-treatment, slavery, arbitrary deprivation of life, imprisonment for debt, being penalised for something that was legal at the time it was done and infringement of freedom of thought, conscience, and religion (see Article 4 (2) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights). SUSPENDING HUMAN RIGHTS: AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL S POSITION Amnesty International believes that the situation of Indigenous people in Australia today highlights the need to strengthen rather than diminish respect for their rights. The needs of women and children, which have been used to justify the intervention, can be addressed without diminishing human rights. Human rights belong together as a package. Human rights need to be respected and celebrated as the conditions in which all people can flourish, rather than be treated as obstacles in the way of government action. Governments can only diminish human rights in extremely rare circumstances and if they do, they must follow the conditions specified by international human rights law. It was never legitimate for the government to suspend the Racial Discrimination Act to implement the intervention. International standards require that any actions that suspend the right to be free of racial discrimination must: involve the consent of those affected be temporary be limited in scope be for the benefit of the people affected, not to their detriment. 17 International human rights law recognises that while some rights must always be respected, other rights may be limited. However, this is legitimate only in certain circumstances. As the Human Rights Law Resource Centre observes, Any limitation that is imposed on a human right must be reasonable and demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society. This requires any limitation on a right to be: for a legitimate and pressing purpose reasonable, necessary and proportionate demonstrably justified. 18 In the case of the Northern Territory Intervention, the Federal Government has not met these conditions. The onus is on governments to show that actions limiting human rights are necessary. The intervention includes policies such as income management, abolition of the permit system and compulsory acquisition of Indigenous land which have not been carefully designed to achieve the government s stated objectives and have not been demonstrated to be required by the situation of Indigenous communities in the Northern Territory. 23

24 INDIGENOUS PEOPLES RIGHTS IN AUSTRALIA TODAY: WHERE DO YOU STAND? UN rapporteur raps NT intervention In February 2010, Professor James Anaya, UN Special Rapporteur on the rights and freedoms of Indigenous people, released his findings on the Northern Territory intervention after a series of visits to Indigenous communities in the Northern Territory. He was interviewed on the ABC program The World Today 19. JAMES ANAYA: Indigenous people that I talk with throughout Australia, including Indigenous people outside of the Northern Territory repeatedly express their concern about the NTER (Northern Territory Emergency Response), the stigmatising affect on it, the way they felt in many ways demeaned them, undermined basic dignity. There were some that I talked to that were supportive in general terms about the NTER, were not specifically supportive of the particular provisions that have been signalled as being problematic, but were in general supportive of the NTER. But overwhelmingly people were very negative about the NTER. It really was striking I must say. ALEXANDRA KIRK: To what extent do you believe the existing Northern Territory intervention breaches Australia s international obligations? JAMES ANAYA: Well, I point out in my report that several respects, particularly concerning income management, the quarantining of benefits, bans on alcohol, pornography, which stigmatise and are targeted at Indigenous communities; the compulsory leases and other specific measures that limit Aboriginal people and certain rights and freedoms having to do with individual autonomy, self-determination; these aspects that specifically target Aboriginal communities and that limit their rights in this way. ALEXANDRA KIRK: So pretty well the whole of the Northern Territory intervention? JAMES ANAYA: Well, not the whole of it because certain aspects actually provide significant funding that, for programs that assist them, that benefits them without limiting certain rights. But these aspects in particular are limiting and are discriminatory in the way that I ve identified them ALEXANDRA KIRK: As UN specialist rapporteur on human rights and fundamental freedoms of indigenous people, how do you regard the Northern Territory emergency intervention compared to what other countries are doing around the rest of the world? Is it unique or is it very similar to what other countries are doing? JAMES ANAYA: It s quite unique. We see measures put in place to assist indigenous communities in a number of countries, but I m hard pressed to think of one where it s the kind of measures put in place like this that are extreme, that impair basic freedoms, that stigmatise or at least perceived by Indigenous people to be stigmatising upon them and that are carried out without their, without any consultation or consent with them. And I m talking about the original NTER, I m not talking about the reforms that are now being made. So in that respect, it s quite unique and I must say striking. 24 Download the full resource and take action at

25 SECTION 05: THE MEDIA DEBATE Activities 1. What picture does the editorial in The Australian convey of the sources of problems in Indigenous communities the solutions to these problems. How does the editorial s view of the situation contrast with the views expressed by James Anaya? 2. The editorial states that government policies do impinge on rights but at the same time, they enhance more important rights. Compare this view with Amnesty International s position. What do you think? 3. Discuss how governments might use or misuse arguments that rights can be suspended or ignored. What protections need to be in place so that governments do not go too far or use their popularity to justify actions that breach people s rights? 4. Discuss some scenarios in which it may be legitimate to suspend rights, and what governments should do in these situations to ensure that respect for rights can quickly be restored. 5. Use the interview with James Anaya and the internet to summarise his main arguments. Outline the difference that his ideas would make to the practical world if they were implemented. 6. Using your responses to the question above, evaluate the view expressed in the editorial about human rights and the practical world. What place do human rights have in the real world of how governments relate to Indigenous people? 7. When the Federal Government launched the intervention, it announced a national emergency and suspended the Racial Discrimination Act. Has the government met the conditions set down by international law for the intervention to be legitimate? 8. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights states that all peoples have the right of self-determination (Article 1). What does self-determination mean for Indigenous people? How has the intervention affected this right? Use the internet to search for Indigenous people s views on self-determination and the intervention in the Northern Territory. 9. Where do you stand? Write 1 2 paragraphs stating your view. Further research Prepare a report on: how the intervention measures up to human rights standards different views on the intervention and human rights what a different approach to the needs of Indigenous communities based on human rights (such as self-determination and the consent of Indigenous people) would look like. To do this, you can read: other media articles in this resource a section of this resource The intervention and human rights which outlines Amnesty International s position in further detail a list of some of the rights in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples included in the Starting Points section of this resource material on the internet, particularly the voices of Indigenous people for a legal perspective, refer to relevant sections of the submission of the Human Rights Law Resource Centre cited in the text above. See 25

26 The Northern Territory intervention: perspectives from its opponents Intervention s troubling side effects This article 20 was written by Larissa Behrendt, Professor of Law and Indigenous Studies at Sydney s University of Technology. It appeared in The Age on 25 October 2008 after a panel appointed by the government produced a report that criticised the intervention. In keeping the intervention in place and maintaining the compulsory quarantining for 12 months, Minister for Indigenous Affairs Jenny Macklin is effectively sidelining a key recommendation of the Northern Territory Emergency Response Review Panel. While Macklin pointed to the touching story of women begging her to keep the intervention in place, the review panel based their findings on equally moving stories of hardship of the impact of compulsory quarantining from the 31 communities they visited and the many submissions they received. The Australian Indigenous Doctors Association recorded claims that the intervention was putting people into poverty and starvation. There seems to be more humbugging for food and money than before the intervention. Their submission was that while there was some support for welfare quarantining, overwhelmingly this was not the case. Between these two positions is the reality that there remains a crucial need for action to address the vulnerability of some Aboriginal women in violent circumstances. But there are also unintended side-effects that are equally appalling when compulsory quarantining is applied in a blanket way, capturing everybody, rather than on a case-bycase basis targeting parents whose children are not in school or are neglected. There have been several problems in dealing with the complex policy issues raised by the intervention. First, the emotive rhetoric saw any sophisticated policy debate overtaken by a if you are not with us you are against us mentality. This was often extended to become a mantra: If you are not with us, you are for the pedophiles. That was hardly conducive to the discussion the complex issues deserved. Second, when the intervention was rolled out, there was no baseline data collected and no mechanisms for collecting it in the future, so there is little material available to measure its impact or achievements. The review panel was enormously constrained by this lack of hard data. In its absence, assertions such as there is more fresh food being consumed are hard to substantiate. In the vacuum created by the absent data, it is inevitable that a war of anecdotes will break out. Third, concerns raised by those who were caught by quarantining and do not like it were dismissed as though they were peddling an ideological position. They are not. The suspension of the Racial Discrimination Act was not just offensive as a principle, it denied the practical remedy to people whose situation was discriminatory the right to complain to the Australian Human Rights Commission. Protections under NT anti-discrimination legislation and the right to meritsbased review by the Social Security Appeals Tribunal were also taken away. Collectively, these denials deprived people of the usual mechanisms available to any other Australian to ask whether their treatment was fair. Without this, there are no checks and balances on the impact of welfare quarantining. Macklin has promised to reintroduce the appeals to the tribunal in early 2009 and this will be a welcome step. A false dichotomy was set up in the early days of emotional rhetoric that the rights of the children should trump any other rights. It was never clear who was going to decide what the best interest of the children was and it was a fallacy to assert that you either protect the rights of the child or protect the right to be free from racial discrimination. It was always a ludicrous proposition and ignored the fact that women and children of the NT need protection from violence and that they need policy approaches that do not discriminate against Aboriginal children and their families. They deserve this policy now, not in 12 months. Ironically, the minister has also claimed that she wants to continue to reset the relationship with Aboriginal people. It will be hard to achieve if the evidence given to the review board is indicative of the feeling among Aboriginal communities. With comments like We ve become frustrated waiting for money to go onto the food card. They think we are not as good as white people, it is hard to see how the relationship with the Government is going to be rebuilt. One other aspect of the review panel s findings has been unacknowledged. It found no evidence of increased confidence in reporting child maltreatment in Aboriginal communities. Sixty per cent of the children who received health checks are still waiting for follow-up treatment and up to 80% remain in need of follow-up dental treatment. The fact that there is no hard evidence that the intervention is working to protect women and children, to keep them safe, is another issue altogether. Article reproduced courtesy of The Age. 26 Download the full resource and take action at

27 SECTION 05: THE MEDIA DEBATE Famed Alyawarr mechanic Motorbike Paddy at his home at Camel Camp, Utopia homelands, August AI/Rusty Stewart Activities 1. Non-Indigenous people sometimes imagine that all Indigenous people think the same way about all issues. How many different kinds of Indigenous opinions are described in this article? 2. Supporters of the intervention often claim that the intervention must stay in place to protect women and children and opponents of the intervention do not care about their needs. Does this apply to the writer of this article? How might she answer this kind of criticism? 3. The author speaks of a blanket approach applied by the intervention. What alternatives does she suggest? 4. The article refers to a vacuum created by absent data. Why is this important in the debate about the intervention? 5. According to the author, how does emotive rhetoric make it difficult to see the real issues? Can you think of other situations where this happens? Why is it difficult to get past this and deal with the real issues? 27

28 INDIGENOUS PEOPLES RIGHTS IN AUSTRALIA TODAY: WHERE DO YOU STAND? Intervention has done lasting harm This article 21 was written by Tara Ravens from Australian Associated Press (AAP) and was published on 29 August In the article the Australian Indigenous Doctors Association (AIDA) claims that: the intervention has caused immediate and lasting harm to Indigenous People and provoked mistrust and anger towards western culture far from helping Indigenous People, the reforms have compounded feelings of disempowerment and had a negative impact on wellbeing and health. The AIDA report cited also states that child health checks often duplicated existing services and should be viewed as a basic right of all Australians to access to healthcare. The Howard Government s Intervention into Northern Territory communities has caused immediate and lasting harm to Aborigines and provoked mistrust and anger towards western culture, doctors say. Far from helping indigenous people, the emergency reforms launched in June last year have compounded feelings of disempowerment and had a negative impact on wellbeing and health. The claims have been made by the Australian Indigenous Doctors Association (AIDA) in a submission to the review board, headed by Peter Yu. It will report back to the Rudd Government later this year on the progress of the controversial measures to combat child sex abuse, with its recommendations to determine the future course of indigenous policy in Australia. In an 18-page submission, the AIDA acknowledges in principle support for aspects of the Intervention, such as an increase in police, additional teachers and much-needed government attention on the issue of Aboriginal health. But, the submission says, research conducted by AIDA suggests the Intervention has done far more harm than good. Our research shows that the NTER (NT Emergency Response) has caused immediate and lasting harm, it says. As medical professionals, we are deeply concerned about the impacts. It also warned some negative impacts of the reforms may not be realised until further down the track. The organisation said the child health checks often duplicated existing services and should be viewed as the basic right of all Australians to access to health care. Community members expressed feelings of loss of responsibility, loss of control, loss of power and a hardening of mistrust towards the Australian Government and dominant western culture in Australia. This has resulted in feelings of anger and powerlessness, it has caused cultural, social and emotional harm. Many Aboriginal people also felt the reforms, such as welfare quarantining and grog bans, were discriminating against them, it said. Our interviews very powerfully evoked a sense a regressing to the old days: many people referred to the feelings of shame, humiliation and loss of dignity that particularly characterised an earlier `protectionist period when the government controlled every aspect of indigenous people s lives. AIDA has recommended the Government adopt an approach using existing good practice in indigenous health along with a genuine partnership with Aboriginal people. AAP View the full report from AIDA at Quotes from community members affected by the intervention appear throughout the report. They provide a personal perspective on the impact of the intervention. AIDA states in-principle support for aspects of the intervention, such as an increase in police numbers, additional teachers and much-needed government attention to the issue of Indigenous health. They also raise concerns that community members expressed feelings of loss of responsibility, loss of control, loss of power and a hardening of mistrust towards the Australian Government and dominant western culture in Australia. This has resulted in feelings of anger and powerlessness, it has caused cultural, social and emotional harm. 28 Download the full resource and take action at

29 SECTION 05: THE MEDIA DEBATE Activities Referring to former Prime Minister Kevin Rudd s apology speech to the Stolen Generations, decide if contemporary policies like the intervention are likely to build a future based on mutual respect, mutual resolve and mutual responsibility A future where all Australians, whatever their origins are truly equal partners, with equal opportunities and with an equal stake in shaping the next chapter in the history of this great country, Australia. Inkcinct Cartoons 29

30 INDIGENOUS PEOPLES RIGHTS IN AUSTRALIA TODAY: WHERE DO YOU STAND? Spin over substance in Intervention report In this article 22, published in the National Indigenous Times on 12 November 2009, Larissa Behrendt, Professor of Law and Indigenous Studies at Sydney s University of Technology, challenges the repeated assertion that these measures are necessary to protect women and children. This is an edited version of the full article, which can be viewed at There is no doubt that this Minister of Indigenous Affairs is good at spin. She has deflected all range of policy failures with the trite phrase, I just care about women and children. In fact, it is a phrase that has been used to avoid a hard discussion about what policies work and don t work to protect women and children (and, I often wonder, when the Minister harps on about Aboriginal women and children, does she think Aboriginal men are unimportant, does she not think they are part of the solution?). The Minister has a tendency to spin what she claims are positive outcomes from the Northern Territory Intervention. This was shown most graphically in the way one of the first claims of the Minister - that there was evidence more fresh food was being consumed as part of the Intervention - was revealed. It was only through questioning by Greens Senator Rachel Siewert at a Senate Estimates hearing that the claim was revealed to be based on a survey conducted by the department in which only ten community stores were called and asked if they were selling more fresh food. Six said yes, three said no and one said that they didn t know. There was no quantification of who was buying the food (was it people on quarantined welfare or the flood of non-indigenous people coming in as part of the Intervention?), there was no benchmark against which to compare the figures and no provision made for the fact that the community stores were beneficiaries of the welfare quarantining policy, so perhaps were not independently placed to assess it. I have thought this was appallingly thin evidence on which a minister could make a claim for evidence of anything. And when I have used this example to make the point that her comments about improvements as part of the Intervention need to be carefully scrutinised, I have received a sharp rebuke from the Minister s office pointing out that, since that time, other surveys have been done. That may well be but it doesn t change the fact that the original survey was all that Macklin relied on when she first made the claim Protesters assembled in Reid Park for the Convergence on Canberra rally against the Northern Territory Intervention, Canberra, 12 February National Library of Australia/Juno Gemes 30 Download the full resource and take action at

31 SECTION 05: THE MEDIA DEBATE Activities Further points made in the article include the following: In relation to schools There has been no improvement in school attendance over the period of the Intervention: school attendance rates have decreased The School Nutrition Program has been spread into 68 schools by June 2009, an increase from 55 schools in June This might seem like an achievement for the Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations (DEEWR), but since the money to support the program is taken from the quarantined income of parents, it is an achievement of the Aboriginal parents who are financially supporting it In relation to welfare quarantining Success benchmarks are measured by how much money has been quarantined ($197.7 million), how many BasicsCards have been handed out (95.9 percent of income managed customers had the cards [how are the 4.1 percent who don t have the card accessing their quarantined money?]) and how many people are signed up (73 communities and 10 town camp regions). There is no mention of how it is assessed in terms of improving people s lives. These statistics overlook the continual complaints of Aboriginal people about how the system leaves them without dignity and takes away their capacity to adequately budget for things The best way to ask about the impact of quarantining on people is to question the people who were affected, not the storeowners who have a quasi-monopoly on the quarantined money. In relation to a government report The statistics missing from the report are the benchmarks about housing. This may be fobbed off as part of the responsibility of the Northern Territory government but the buck stops with the Minister and the $700 million housing program that has not delivered a single house. It also must be remembered that this report focuses on statistics. It does not include the stories of the people who are living under the Intervention. These experiences have been captured in places such as the Australian Indigenous Doctors Association s submission to the Northern Territory Emergency Response Review, the work done by organisations like the Sunrise Health Service and in the advocacy work of Northern Territory leaders like Barbara Shaw, Bob Randall, Valerie Martin and Richard Downs. 1. Discuss the nature of the fresh food survey to decide if that would be a good basis for policy decisions. Note the Minister s reminder that other surveys have since been done. 2. Discuss whether quarantining money would help people to become better at budgeting for essential items. 3. What does the article suggest about the kind of evidence that is used to justify government actions? 4. Behrendt writes, There is no mention of how [welfare quarantining] is assessed in terms of improving people s lives. What kind of evidence would be needed to be sure of whether there were positive changes or not? Is it appropriate to continue (or begin) such policies without planning for and collecting this kind of evidence? 5. What does the article show about the difference between how critics of the intervention assess its success and how government has measured and reported on its success? Further research The $700 million housing program that has not delivered a single house. Investigate the issue of government s responses to the housing crisis. See additional coverage of the housing issue from: Aboriginal Australia features in The Australian: Australian funding for Indigenous housing fails to produce /s htm Experts call for government action to close the gap s htm Work with your teacher to frame research questions to use in studying the critical shortage of housing and its link with health problems in Indigenous communities. Work in small groups to undertake this research. 31

32 INDIGENOUS PEOPLES RIGHTS IN AUSTRALIA TODAY: WHERE DO YOU STAND? Intervention turned our backs on reconciliation Patrick Dodson, known as the father of reconciliation, wrote: In the absence of any consultation with affected communities or any real debate in the Australian Parliament, the government took control of communities, compulsorily acquired land and imposed administrative and statutory management over people s lives that no other Australians, free from prison, endure At the final hurdle the nation turned its back on reconciling its past. Instead, a new Australian story has been forged. The persistent inequity and deprivation of the colonised exist in a historical vacuum. Community dysfunction is now understood as the fault of the colonised and their persistent cultural practices, rather than as a result of violent dispossession, brutal colonisation and authoritarian state Intervention. 23 Activities 1. Read the full article at intervention-turned-our-backs-onreconciliation eqhv.html 2. What are Patrick Dodson s key concerns? 3. Is it possible to support the full range of intervention policies and also support Indigenous rights? 4. What kind of attitudes has reconciliation been based on? How do these relate to what the government has been doing under the intervention? 5. Why does Patrick Dodson say that we are a nation trapped by our history and paralysed by our failure to imagine any relationship with first peoples other than assimilation, whatever its guise? 6. The author describes a change in attitudes over recent years. What is the change, and what does he attribute it to? 7. In the light of the concerns outlined in this article, how do you view the promises given by former Prime Minister Kevin Rudd in his apology to the Stolen Generations of a, new page in the history of our great continent to be written, and envisage a future where the injustices of the past must never, never happen again? 8. Patrick Dodson calls for dialogue. What would need to happen for this dialogue to be effective? Patrick Dodson is a Yawuru Man and Chairman of the Lingiari Foundation. AAP/Mark Graham 32 Download the full resource and take action at

33 SECTION 05: THE MEDIA DEBATE Rally blasts Intervention This article 24 was written by Neelima Choahan and appeared in the Koori Mail on 30 June The text below is an extract. For Jenna Tipuamantumirri, even Melbourne wasn t far enough away to escape the Northern Territory Intervention. The single mother of three and full-time student broke down in tears while speaking publicly for the first time about her experience on income quarantining management. The 25-year-old was amongst a dozen or so speakers at the picketing of the Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs Melbourne offices on 18 June held to mark the third anniversary, several days later, of the Intervention. Ms Tipuamantumirri, who two-and-a half years ago moved to Melbourne from the Tiwi Islands, spoke of her shame at being lumped with gift voucher as part of her single parent payment in Victoria. I was living in Melbourne for a year and noticed that half of my payment had gone from my account, Ms Tipuamantumirri said. I immediately called Centrelink and they told me because you are from the Northern Territory we have to take half your payment. Ms Tipuamantumirri, who doesn t smoke and rarely drinks, said a Centrelink worker told her the quarantining was to help her spend the money the right way. It took five months of taking her three young children, including a toddler, on the bus for weekly visits to the local Centrelink office before the young mother s benefits were fully restored. However, Ms Tipuamantumirri has received a new Centrelink notification threatening to review her case early next year. Organised by the Melbourne Anti-Intervention Forum, the FaHCSIA picket lasted for nearly two hours and saw about 80 people march, chant anti-government slogans and burn a mockup of the BasicsCard. Activist Robbie Thorpe also spoke and told picketers the BasicsCard reminded him of dog tags that the Aboriginal people were forced to endure until the 1950s. What s going on in the Northern Territory is part of what went on in 1770 the premeditation of the genocide of the first people of this country, Mr Thorpe said. The Intervention is a crime against humanity. The demonstration came three days before the Senate passed the welfare reforms legislation enabling the Federal Government to extend income quarantining nationwide and, in part, reinstate the Racial Discrimination Act in the NT. The new legislation was supported by all but the Australian Greens Children play at sunset on the Tiwi Islands. Heide Smith 33

34 INDIGENOUS PEOPLES RIGHTS IN AUSTRALIA TODAY: WHERE DO YOU STAND? A mounting case of Intervention failure This National Indigenous Times feature 25 states that there is a mounting case for the failure of the intervention, claiming that alcohol bans and child health checks have achieved little, improvements in housing have not been forthcoming and welfare quarantining has caused more problems than it has solved. Read the article at Activities 1. Analyse the arguments presented in the article, evaluate the validity of the research sources cited and summarise why the authors assert failure in relation to key issues. 2. Work in small groups to assess the detail provided about changes to the intervention since the election of the Rudd Government and prepare and present a news feature in the style of the 7.30 Report. The presentation should: describe the original aims of the intervention outline how the intervention has changed life in Indigenous communities explain key features of intervention initiatives quote opinion from Indigenous and non-indigenous sources about the significance of the intervention include an interview with someone representing the government include an interview with an Indigenous rights campaigner include closing comments about the significance of the intervention. Fiona Katauskas 34 Download the full resource and take action at

35 SECTION 05: THE MEDIA DEBATE Let us walk once again as free human beings on this earth (our mother) This is a statement on the intervention by Richard Downs, leader of the Ampilatwatja (pronounced Um-blud -ah-watch) community, who walked off their land to escape the intervention, 23 August I bring with me many voices of concern, from my leaders who are custodians of our traditions and customs, passed down over generations, for many thousands of years; leaders who are the caretakers of our lands through our dreaming, mother earth, and spirits still with us to this day, watching over all of us Since colonisation we have endured much hardship, cruelty, theft, genocide, and destruction of our culture, traditions, customs and laws. We are people who are very easy to forgive and move on; this we have done for over 200 years, with no resentment and hatred, but always willing to extend our hands and welcome our fellow human beings to embrace them as one with our spiritual lands. Yet the governments and the agencies have always continued their false pretence of charity, giving a little, while still retaining the power and taking away everything they could with the other hand. Indigenous people have always put people of different races and cultures first; above selfishness, above any personal wishes Today, and since the introduction of the Intervention in 2007, Indigenous people across the Northern Territory are facing a renewed and sustained level of destruction and denial of our basic human rights under the Federal Government s Northern Territory Emergency Response, introduced under the guise of protecting children. The policies that were developed, passed through parliament quickly, implemented with martial law28, and which were supported by the Labor party while in opposition, are having serious and detrimental effects on Aboriginal people across the NT Release the chains of control; give us our freedom; let us walk once again as free human beings on this earth (our mother), with our ancestors, spirits, songs, and ceremonies. Let us share our richness of cultures with others. We are all one blood and connected through our spiritual dreams of pathways, Earth, Water, Trees, Sky, and Wind, which carry our thoughts and spirits across all continents. Let us once again embrace our younger generation into our folds to show and give them guidance, as these are our next generation of leaders who are lost between two worlds (cultures) but are at the cross roads between light and darkness. We have an opportunity and one chance in our lifetime to get it right. Let your hearts guide you, not your government policies which are at the core of the destruction of Aboriginal people. View the full statement at Activities 1. Spend a few minutes completing the following statements: for Indigenous Peoples, land means for other people, land means 2. Share your answers. What seem to be the biggest issues? Share your reactions to the statement by Richard Downs. How does an Indigenous view of land come through in this statement? Read the full statement online. What does his perspective add to your understanding of: the intervention Indigenous values and worldviews. 3. What examples are there in Australian history of progress in recognising Indigenous rights to land? 4. In what ways are Indigenous rights to land affected by the intervention? 5. Discuss the following statements: Although there has been progress, Australia has a long way to go in recognising Indigenous peoples rights to land. The intervention continues and extends a process of undermining Indigenous property rights that began with colonisation. Opposition to land rights is motivated by a range of factors. One of them is a fear in the back of non-indigenous people s minds that Indigenous Peoples will take away from them what their ancestors took away from Indigenous Peoples. While most Australians don t understand the spiritual importance of land to Indigenous Peoples, they don t understand its economic importance to Indigenous Peoples either. Indigenous Peoples need an economic base to build their future, and land is essential to this. Australians have not resolved the issue of land: it will continue to haunt non-indigenous Australians until there is real justice. 6. What might real justice involve? compensation recognition of Indigenous Peoples in the preamble to the Constitution greater legal protection for Indigenous rights in the Constitution recognition of Indigenous Peoples at local and regional level a treaty. 35

36 Further debates about rights Town camps acquisition seen as step backwards for land rights This transcript 27 from the 7.30 Report provides an overview of the debate about basic government services being offered in exchange for leases on Aboriginal land. The Federal Government s offering of $100 million to upgrade Aboriginal town camps in Alice Springs came with a catch; the Tangentyere Council had to give up their land. Not ready to cave in to the government s demands, the acquisition is now being challenged in court. The segment features Jenny Macklin, Indigenous Affairs Minister, William Tilmouth, Tangentyere Council, Professor Larissa Behrendt, University of Technology Sydney and Barbara Shaw, town camp resident. The program aired on 30 July 2009 and can be viewed at KERRY O BRIEN, PRESENTER: The Federal Government has finally achieved a breakthrough in the long standoff with Tangentyere council, the organisation that runs Aboriginal town camps in Alice Springs. And the brawl has been over the future of the camps. The Government s offered $100 million to upgrade the camps, but only on the condition the council gives the Commonwealth a 40-year lease over the tracts of land that the camps are on. After the council rejected her offer two months ago, Indigenous Affairs Minister Jenny Macklin threatened compulsory acquisition of the leases under the umbrella of legislation supporting the Northern Territory intervention. But Tangentyere Council buckled this week and Jenny Macklin says the way s now clear to begin work to transform the appalling living conditions in the camps. But the Federal Government may yet be thwarted by legal challenges filed in the Federal Court today. Murray McLaughlin reports. MURRAY MCLAUGHLIN: It s been high brinksmanship for more than two years now as successive governments have sought to remedy the squalor of town camps in Alice Springs a need that s long stirred the nation s conscience. JENNY MACKLIN, INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS MINISTER: What we have in these town camps is something that looks like it might be a war zone or a refugee camp. Severe over-crowding, terrible levels of violence, shocking conditions of the houses and we knew that we really had to act. MURRAY MCLAUGHLIN: But it s the way the Government s acted that aroused protest today outside the ALP s annual conference in Sydney. PROTESTER: It s a disgrace Jenny Macklin. MURRAY MCLAUGHLIN: The Government moved on Alice Springs town camps under the cloak of the intervention into Aboriginal communities in the Northern Territory. It s threatened to compulsorily acquire the town camps unless their residents agree to lease the land to the Commonwealth. And the Government s refused to release funds to improve the camps till the lease deal is struck. Aboriginal people have always occupied permanent camps in Alice Springs. They used to be beyond the fringes of town. But as Alice Springs has grown, many of the camps have been virtually surrounded by industry and housing. Through the 1960s and 70s, and in the face of hostility from the town s white population, residents struggled to secure permanent leasehold title over 19 camps. Their permanent population is around 1600 but the pressure of large numbers of visitors from remote communities needing to access services in Alice Springs has been a constant burden, more than doubling the regular population. 36 Download the full resource and take action at

37 SECTION 05: THE MEDIA DEBATE WILLIAM TILMOUTH, TANGENTYERE COUNCIL: The population is actually around We ve never been funded to that capacity yet we ve always been inundated by the movement of people. MURRAY MCLAUGHLIN: Tangentyere Council comprises representatives of each of the town camps. The council s responsible for servicing the camps and blames decades of neglect by governments for the rundown conditions. WILLIAM TILMOUTH: It s a condition that s been created from long-term lack of funding, appropriate funding, long-term bureaucratic bungle after bureaucratic bungle. We ve always had to do things on the cheap. We ve always tried to do it on the cheap. MURRAY MCLAUGHLIN: The Federal Government s put up $100 million to improve the Alice Springs town camps. But its prerequisite was that Tangentyere Council had to assign the leases in perpetuity over to the Commonwealth for the next 40 years. JENNY MACKLIN: It s critical that the Australian Government and the Northern Territory Government take responsibility as a result of holding the tenure for the future maintenance of these homes. That hasn t been clear in the past because there was no secure tenure. So these are the critical reasons for tenure and we normally require it in any public housing environment. MURRAY MCLAUGHLIN: Larissa Behrendt, herself an indigenous woman, is part of a legal team that s challenging the Federal Government s imposition of 40 year leases over the town camps. PROFESSOR LARISSA BEHRENDT, LAW, UTS: It s very disappointing that we re now seeing a policy approach that basically sees governments refusing to fix problems in places like the town camps unless land is surrendered and not being at all willing to negotiate on that particular principle before they ll put resources into housing or other infrastructure needs. MURRAY MCLAUGHLIN: Tangentyere Council agreed on Tuesday to lease the town camp s lands, but it was with a heavy heart. For the past two months, Tangentyere has weighed up the Federal Government s proposal under the threat that their leases would be seized. WILLIAM TILMOUTH: We ve had the gun at our head... compulsory acquisition is the last resort. At the end of the day it s something that we ve been threatened with, and it s a pretty high thing to consider. I think at the end of the day we need to work with what we have got and make some agreement. JENNY MACKLIN: We have the authority to compulsory acquire under the Northern Territory Emergency Response Act. That was quite clear. But as I say, I m very pleased that we haven t had to go down that path, that we ve been able to secure an agreement. MURRAY MCLAUGHLIN: But agencies like the NT Council of Social Service say that Territory housing does not have a good record of managing Aboriginal tenants. JONATHAN PILBROW, NT COUNCIL OF SOCIAL SERVICE: Dealing with a large bureaucracy can be very confronting for some people. There s lots of paperwork involved, at times meetings, and, yeah, it can be a difficult process for people to negotiate. MURRAY MCLAUGHLIN: Tangentyere Council members expected to sign tomorrow the lease agreements with the Commonwealth. But an urgent action brought on the Federal Court in Melbourne this afternoon has delayed that timetable. It s been brought on behalf of this town camp resident Barbara Shaw and others. BARBARA SHAW, TOWN CAMP RESIDENT: We don t know the future plans for us as town campers and our leases, our special purpose leases that is we have got in perpetuity, a lot of people don t know, and a lot of people would want Tangentyere to stay as their landlord or the housing associations. There s been a lot of talk especially on Territory Housing, like Aboriginal people really don t have faith in Territory Housing. BEN SCHOKMAN, HUMAN RIGHTS LAW RESOURCE CENTRE: We have been concerned all along that Barbara Shaw and other town camp residents are voices haven t been heard in this debate, in negotiations between the Federal Government and Tangentyere Council. So we have been taking this action in order to preserve those rights of interests rights and interests of the town camp residents and to ensure that their place is heard at the negotiating table. MURRAY MCLAUGHLIN: The Federal Court case was adjourned late this afternoon till a full hearing Tuesday. At least until then the Commonwealth won t be able to sign off on any lease agreement with Tangentyere Council and its members. The Commonwealth s legal team made clear in court this afternoon that the upgrade program is ready to be rolled out across the Alice Springs town camps immediately after legal issues are involved. Indigenous Affairs Minister Jenny Macklin said this evening she was disappointed about the delay. Australian Broadcasting Corporation 37

38 INDIGENOUS PEOPLES RIGHTS IN AUSTRALIA TODAY: WHERE DO YOU STAND? An Aboriginal child plays at Hopy s Town Camp in Alice Springs on 20 May AFP/Anoek De Groot This 7.30 Report program examines the dispute between the government and representatives of the Alice Springs town camps. The government has offered to meet urgent housing needs, but on the condition that Aboriginal people lease their land to the Government. It has claimed that if it is going to build houses and provide other services, Aboriginal communities must give up rights to their land through leasing it to the government for periods between five and 90 years. It claims this is necessary so that it can have secure control of the land in order to undertake construction projects. However the government has not been prepared to negotiate agreements with Aboriginal landowners which get the houses built without transferring control of the land to governments. Aboriginal lawyer and academic Larissa Behrendt has said: No other person or group in Australia has to surrender their property rights to gain basic government services, including policing. The policy is discriminatory. It is racist It is the responsibility of the Commonwealth and NT governments to ensure that the Alice Springs town camps are policed and proper housing, education, health and social services are provided to camp residents. They should be able to meet these responsibilities without requiring the compulsory lease back of Aboriginal land. After all, they manage to provide those things for all other Australians without requiring the surrender of any property rights. 28 Activities 1. Why is there opposition to the government s proposal to compulsorily acquire the leases on lands held by the Tangentyere Council? 2. Draw up a two-column table showing: the views of the Minister for Indigenous Affairs key points made by opponents of the government s plans. 3. How does William Tilmouth explain the background to conditions in the town camps? 4. Larissa Behrendt speaks of governments refusing to fix problems in places like the town camps unless land is surrendered. Why might the government s requirement to give up control of land be an issue that Aboriginal people feel strongly about? 5. Refer to the sheet The relationship between Indigenous and non-indigenous people in Australia: patterns in Australian history on page 28 of Section 02: Starting points for discussion of this resource. What patterns do you think current government policies reflect? 6. Discuss whether you think the government s approach is necessary or whether there are other ways to achieve the same goals. 38 Download the full resource and take action at

39 SECTION 05: THE MEDIA DEBATE Rudd government must act on Aboriginal rights This article 29 was written by Margaret Wenham and appeared in The Courier Mail on 19 April Australian Aboriginal people tuned into the news while driving on March 27 were surely put at risk of crashing as Indigenous Affairs Minister Jenny Macklin announced the Rudd Government s support for the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. The declaration recognises the legitimate entitlement of indigenous people to all human rights based on principles of equality, partnership, good faith and mutual benefit, she said. There was plenty more similarly rich rhetoric about the declaration, which has been more than 20 years in the making; is not legally binding under international law; and which was previously, in 2007, rejected outright by the Howard government. The distraction value, of course, lies in the fact that Macklin s words come at a time when the Australian and Queensland governments best solutions to the poverty, disadvantage, disaffection from Australian society and consequent dysfunction many indigenous people are experiencing, involves unilaterally stripping significant numbers of them of precisely the rights she was espousing. The Howard government s July 2007 Northern Territory emergency response intervention is a case in point. The Northern Territory intervention which was not developed in partnership with the Aboriginal people and communities which would be subject to it entails, among a raft of other restrictions, the quarantining of 50 per cent of the welfare payments of all people living in designated indigenous communities, including those who are abstemious, good citizens and parents, and the Commonwealth reclaiming control over Aboriginal-titled lands. The moves are racially targeted and discriminatory and therefore in breach of the Commonwealth Racial Discrimination Act of 1975, but to get around this, the Howard government blithely suspended it to effect the intervention. The Rudd Labor Government s indigenous rights protection credentials are no better. It has maintained the intervention even in the face of a critical review last year, continuing strident criticism from a number of high-profile Aboriginal academics and community leaders and Northern Territory indigenous community dwellers, and a complaint by a group of the latter to the United Nations Committee for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination. Macklin, talking about Australia s commitment to protecting and fostering indigenous rights, appeared oblivious to another irony as she paid tribute to a number of notable Aboriginal people whose leadership and efforts, she said, were central to the development of the declaration. These included Les Malezer, chair of the International Indigenous Peoples Caucus and a recipient of the Australian Human Rights Medal; Professor Lowitja O Donoghue, former Australian of the Year and former chair of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission; Tom Calma, the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner; and current Australian of the Year, Professor Mick Dodson. The irony is because all these people remain critical of the Northern Territory intervention, with the respected Dodson pointing out, when commenting on Australia s recognition of the declaration, that the Northern Territory intervention breached many of its 46 articles. Another case illustrating Australia s shameful track record on indigenous rights is Queensland s intervention which piggy-backs Northern Territory suspension of the Racial Discrimination Act to operate. It takes the form of the trialling in four Cape York communities of a Families Responsibilities Commission which also has the power to order the withholding of individuals welfare payments, among other capacities. Two rights-offending aspects of the commission s operations are that the hearings are closed and there s no provision to appeal against an order, except on a point of law. The Queensland intervention, like its Territory counterpart, punishes indigenous people for behaving socially irresponsibly when the disadvantage and dysfunction has been caused by their long-term denial of fundamental rights white Australians take for granted freedom from racial prejudice, access to quality public health care, public education, public housing and policing, ample and non-discriminatory employment opportunities and wage equality. The Rudd Government said last October it would introduce legislation to lift the suspension of the Racial Discrimination Act in the Northern Territory, which, presumably, will have a flow-on effect to Queensland. Its recognition of the declaration should provide impetus for this to occur. But Australia s recognition of this UN declaration should also provide the catalyst for such unilateral, punitive, regressive and humiliating interventions to be abandoned, in favour of those cognisant of and sensitive to the historical and on-going denial of Aboriginal people s rights which caused and continues to feed the disadvantage and which are developed in true partnership with indigenous people. 39

40 INDIGENOUS PEOPLES RIGHTS IN AUSTRALIA TODAY: WHERE DO YOU STAND? National Museum of Australia/Geoff Pryor Activities 1. In the author s view, what is contradictory about what the government says and what it does? 2. The author is clearly opposed to the intervention. What reasons does she give? In her view, what makes the intervention: unilateral punitive regressive humiliating. 3. A number of groups opposed to the intervention are putting pressure on the government to change its policies. What steps are they taking? 4. The author describes the Family Responsibilities Commission in Queensland. What does it have in common with the intervention in the NT? 5. Discuss the statements: Although the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples has no legal force in Australia, now that the Australian Government supports it, it can exert real moral force in Australian life. When Australian law does not ensure that human rights are respected, Indigenous Peoples need to use the international human rights system to put pressure on Australian governments. 40 Download the full resource and take action at

41 SECTION 05: THE MEDIA DEBATE Ideals are irrelevant This editorial 30 from The Australian throws up a significant challenge to those who support Australia s intention to sign the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and provide in-principle recognition of the rights of Indigenous communities in Australia. It polarises advocates for Indigenous rights, such as former Australian of the Year Mick Dodson and those who are concerned for the protection of children and implies that you can t have one without losing the other. Read the article at Activities 1. Discuss the contrast made by the editorial between people who: a. Believe that statements of rights and the preservation of culture are essential aspects of addressing Indigenous suffering and b. Everybody interested in individuals, like the children of Halls Creek born brain-damaged due to their mothers alcohol addiction. 2. How does the following statement seek to persuade us to accept the editorial s point of view: It is time to stop focusing on the collective issues the UN declaration asserts and address the rights of individual Aborigines, especially children whose lives are being ruined before they start by mothers who drink to excess. 3. Can concern for the rights of children and the needs of people affected by addiction to alcohol go together with support for the declaration? 4. Prepare a poster or Powerpoint presentation outlining how community rights and individual rights may be in tension. 5. Compose key points for a speech in the House of Representatives explaining how community rights and individual rights could have a place in a future plan of action. A banner at a rally in Melbourne calling for an end to the Northern Territory intervention, Saturday 21 June AAP image/simon Mossman 41

42 INDIGENOUS PEOPLES RIGHTS IN AUSTRALIA TODAY: WHERE DO YOU STAND? A white fight against rights This speech 31 by Larissa Behrendt counters the argument in the Ideals are irrelevant editorial. Behrendt challenges the contention that proponents of human rights advocacy are out-of-touch, over-privileged elites. She reflects on the practical outcomes achieved historically by Indigenous Peoples working from a focus on human rights. Read the article at Activities 1. Discuss Larissa Behrendt s statements: a. The people who lobby for the erosion of others rights never have their own under threat b. This oversimplification of the divide highlights the way in which anti-rights proponents link human rights advocacy with the out-of-touch, over-privileged elites. 2. Examine the two documents above side by side. What conclusions do you draw? A banner at a rally in Melbourne calling for an end to the Northern Territory intervention, Saturday 21 June AAP image/ Simon Mossman 42 Download the full resource and take action at