from Crikey …..

Make no mistake, Howard's NT plan is a new apartheid

Guy Rundle writes:

Last week, the Howard Government, via a sleight of hand connected to the grant of lands in the 1970s, imposed a de facto apartheid system on Australia. You may want to argue that this was necessary, desirable, a last resort, etc etc, but first you have to acknowledge that this is apartheid. A section of the population will be prevented from exercising their legal rights in the places where they live and rarely leave.

This denial will extend to what they can buy, how they raise their children, what they can do with the benefit money to which they, as citizens, are entitled to receive. İn other words, such people have been legally ruled – if the law survives a High Court challenge – to be denied the right to equality under the law. Aborigines in these areas are once again the exceptional case.

How did the editorial writers of The Australian mark this occasion? By arguing that it marks the end to "Aboriginal exceptionalism". That’s pretty much the screwy non-logic that has dominated this episode, and which will dominate the inevitable failure of what is de facto, the military occupation of Aboriginal Australia.

Forty years ago the Aborigines got full citizenship and the beginnings of land rights. Neither of these were due to white beneficience, but to the pressure put on sluggish governments by political movements – the ‘freedom rides’ in the first place (started by Charles Perkins and black and white members of the Communist Party of Australia) and the Wave Hill strike on the other (sparked at least in part by communists such as Frank Hardy, who would later draw Fred Hollows, another communist, into Aboriginal Australia).

İn the '70s these grew into full-scale urban and remote political campaigns, which generated medical services, legal services, campaigns on land control and ultimately the successful Mabo et al lawsuit establishing native title.

To understand this is to understand why Howard’s initiative, should it be implemented, will inevitably fail. Nothing that Aborigines have won or achieved has come from outside. İt has come, as it can only come, from movements built from within that force white Australia to cede power, not to re-extend it.

Yet much of the criticism of Howard’s initiative has been misplaced or misunderstands why it is wrong and counterproductive. That it has a political dimension is without doubt. Howard, who can retrieve a majority with a thimble and a line of thread, has performed a dialectical two-step that would have done Lenin proud. Moving on Aboriginal suffering makes him look like a man of action and compassion, and using the police and the army to do it appeals to the right who would dismiss any other type of move as more wasted money. Rudd is left with nothing to do, except bleat agreement. Going to the liberal-left of it and talking about rights would be suicide. Going to the right of it – well there is no right of it, save for reintroducing forced child removal.

But the political manoeuvring is beside the point. İf the policy was right its genesis and motive wouldn't matter. İt’s inevitable failure is obvious with a moment’s consideration.

İ mean really, try and think about it, really think about it for a minute. What are the constituents of the policy? That troubled Aboriginal communities will develop self-determination and autonomy by having key decision-making powers over their own lives taken away from them? That school attendence will be enforced by the army? That chopping up land into freehold title will magically introduce the idea of home ownership and bourgeois individualism into a culture that had not yet developed agriculture when Europeans encountered them? Come on.

Can you think of somewhere where this policy of military modernisation has been tried before? That’s right. İraq. The place where 24-year-old interns were sent to establish stock markets and private health systems etc, where it was assumed that, once a dictator was deposed, a society pretty much like Akron, Ohio, would emerge.

As it unaccountably failed to do so, relations between occupier and occupied detoriarated to the point where a situation of open conflict developed. So, too, will it occur in the north when Aboriginal Australia unaccountably fails to become a southern Switzerland, organised crime breeds from prohibition (as it always does) and Aborigines increasingly define themselves against the army of experts – military and therapeutic – sent in to "help" them.

And as in the Middle East, such exuberant manoeuvres will delegitimise a whole generation of failed leaders. Abbas, Al-Maliki, Khazai have now been joined by Noel Pearson, rubber-stamping the surrender of Aboriginal power when the minister calls.

One consolation of this policy is that it will fail more quickly and more visibly than previous ones, and people can then move on to really thinking about how power is formed and held. Another is that the next generation of leaders will be formed not in the muddy waters of ATSİC and reconciliation, but by seeing their parents and elders bullied by cops and social workers, with vastly more powers than they now possess. Given the way prohibition usually works, the cops will be running the illegal market in booze within six months anyway.

What this new initiative represents above all is cowardice. İt is cowardly because it has little to do with blacks, the movement they have to rebuild, the power they have to take from us.

This policy is for and about white people. İt is about assuaging their guilt and shame of white people by being seen to be doing something, anything, in the face of horror, the unwillingness to look deep into the heart of colonialism and face what really needs to be done with determination and resilience.

and …..

Save the children, yes, but what's with the land grab?

By Samanti de Silva, editor of the Tiwi News

The Little Children are Sacred report presents a disturbing picture of child abuse in indigenous communities in the Northern Territory.

However, what is perhaps most disturbing is that, as the authors themselves note, nothing in the report is new or unexpected. While this time the spotlight is on child sexual abuse, over the years there have been numerous reports in to the social problems affecting indigenous Australians. Sexual abuse is yet another symptom of communities in distress. Indigenous communities have been calling for help for many, many years and their pleas have gone unheeded.

The Little Children are Sacred report recommends that the issue be treated as urgent and as being of national significance, and the Howard Government has taken on this part of the report.

The report also states that “it is critical that both governments (federal and NT) commit to genuine consultation with Aboriginal people in designing initiatives for Aboriginal communities”. However, indigenous people have not been consulted, and individual communities have not been given an opportunity to raise concerns specific to their communities or to suggest solutions that might work for them.

The report recommends improving basic services and tackling social evils over the long term, “a generation or longer” is how long the report anticipates it will take to see results. However, the Federal Government has likened the situation to dealing with a natural disaster, where emergency crews march in and swiftly clean things up. But, we are not talking here about clearing debris or repairing power lines. We are talking about mending people’s lives and rebuilding communities, and this cannot be done unless the Government works in partnership with communities and with a genuine commitment to support them over the long term.

One of the most worrying aspects of the Government’s proposal is the plan to further amend the Aboriginal Land Rights Act (NT) so as to scrap the permit system to enter Aboriginal land and to allow the Federal Government to acquire whichever Aboriginal townships it chooses under five-year leases. There is nothing in the Little Children are Sacred report which suggests that these measures are necessary to stamp out child abuse.

In fact, it seems contrary to what the report suggests. There is evidence in the report that some of the perpetrators of sexual abuse are in fact non-indigenous people (specific reference was made to miners and taxi drivers) who are trading money, petrol and drugs for sex. Removal of the permit system will only increase the opportunity for undesirables to enter Aboriginal land and exploit vulnerable people. Why ban alcohol and pornography in indigenous communities on the one hand, and then open the gates for these to flood in?

Each indigenous community is different. They have different problems and different ideas for solutions.

Here, on the Tiwi islands, people speak of the “three Gs” – grog, gunja and gambling – as being the main challenges facing the community. These addictions are having a harmful effect on families. The local clinics and police stations are under-staffed and under-resourced to cope with the social problems that affect a large segment of the community. Tiwi elders, community leaders and organisations have been battling to overcome the problems in their communities for years, and it is disappointing that these groups who have the knowledge of local issues will not have a say in designing the solutions.

Losing the ability to control who enters their land is something that no Tiwi wants. The issue of 99-year leasing has divided the Tiwi community because they are concerned about losing control of their land and are fearful of outside influences that may come in to the community. Recently, the Alice Springs Town Campers rejected an offer of $60 million for a 99-year lease on their land, sending a clear message to the Howard Government that no amount of money will persuade them to give up their land.

And, when the Government last year announced its plan to abolish the permit system, it was met with harsh criticism from indigenous leaders, the Northern and Central Land councils, the Law Council of Australia, and other commentators. But now, under the guise of protecting children, the Government will push ahead to fulfil its own agenda.

Loss of land, culture and identity is at the heart of why indigenous Australians are suffering. So, how will taking authority away from indigenous leaders and eroding land rights help indigenous children?

and …..

COAG and Aborigines. They knew

Richard Farmer writes:

When the Prime Minister, Premiers, the Chief Ministers of the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory and the President of the Australian Local Government Association sat down in Canberra back on 13 April for "detailed discussions on significant areas of national interest" child abuse in indigenous communities was on the agenda but there was no hint of crisis.

The official release after this meeting of the Council of Australian Governments noted "progress on actions arising from COAG’s July 2006 agreement on tackling violence and child abuse" and a request that a further progress report be provided to it by December 2007.

Achievements, the country’s political heads reported, included the launch of a National Indigenous Violence and Child Abuse Intelligence Taskforce, establishment of a Joint Strike Team in the Northern Territory, and the accelerated roll-out of the Indigenous Child Health Check.

As the head of the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet, Dr Peter Shergold, chairs the Commonwealth Departmental Secretaries' Group on Indigenous Affairs which advises the Ministerial Taskforce on Indigenous Affairs and provides leadership to the Australian Public Service on indigenous issues. Prime Minister John Howard was presumably well briefed before this meeting that the progress on tackling violence and child abuse in truth amounted to very little.

It was after-all, as the COAG statement noted, a "Joint Strike Team" tackling the problem in the Northern Territory. The urgency in dealing with the problem would thus seem to be a very recent development.

At least there was a hint in the COAG decisions that young people were to be a priority area for future attention. The Canberra meeting made the following decisions about what was described as "Indigenous Generational Reform":

COAG reaffirmed its commitment to closing the outcomes gap between Indigenous people and other Australians over a generation and resolved that the initial priority for joint action should be on ensuring that young Indigenous children get a good start in life.

COAG requested that the Indigenous Generational Reform Working Group prepare a detailed set of specific, practical proposals for the first stage of cumulative generational reform for consideration by COAG as soon as practicable in December 2007. National initiatives will be supported by additional bi-lateral and jurisdiction specific initiatives as required to improve the life outcomes of young Indigenous Australians and their families.

COAG also agreed that urgent action was required to address data gaps to enable reliable evaluation of progress and transparent national and jurisdictional reporting on outcomes. COAG also agreed to establish a jointly-funded clearing house for reliable evidence and information about best practice and success factors.

COAG requested that arrangements be made as soon as possible for consultation with jurisdictional Indigenous advisory bodies and relevant Indigenous peak organisations.

That Mr Howard and the other leaders did not need the recent report on child abuse to the Northern Territory Government to know that there was a serious problem was clear from statements after the previous COAG meeting back in July 2006.

Dealing with a report from the "Intergovernmental Summit on Violence and Child Abuse in Indigenous Communities" held on 26 June 2006, the country’s leaders:

...expressed concern that some Indigenous communities suffer from high levels of family violence and child abuse. Leaders agreed that this is unacceptable. Its magnitude demands an immediate national targeted response focused on improving the safety of Indigenous Australians. Despite all jurisdictions having taken steps over recent years to address this problem, improved resourcing and a concerted, long-term joint effort are essential to achieve significant change. COAG understands that these issues exist for Indigenous communities throughout Australia in urban, rural and remote areas.

That the information on which COAG makes its judgments is not always accurate was suggested by the encouraging conclusion contained in the minutes of the COAG meeting earlier in 2006 which noted the continuation of its Indigenous trials, announced at the April 2002 meeting, "which are demonstrating that a partnership approach between governments and communities can make a real difference for Indigenous Australians."

One of those trials was at Wadeye in the Northern Territory about which the ABC’s Lateline reported in May that:

...there are fears the gang violence that's sweeping the Northern Territory's largest Aboriginal community will spill over into Darwin. People have already fled Wadeye, becoming virtual refugees in the capital, and hundreds more could soon follow. But among those who've fled are some of the very gang members who've rioted in their town, torching buildings and cars in a spree of tit-for-tat violence.

For evidence that the difficulties in dealing with Aboriginal policy are not confined to relations being split between Federal and State Governments, the report to COAG back in April 2002 called COAG Reconciliation Framework: Report on Progress in 2001 is worth looking at.

It lists the activities of 23 separate ministerial councils involving different Federal departments whose activities need to be co-ordinated.

and …..

Examination will retraumatise the abused

Konrad Jamrozik, Professor of Evidence Based Health Care, University of Queensland writes:

The proposal to conduct an intimate examination of every indigenous minor in the Northern Territory will re-traumatise any that have been sexually abused and potentially be very traumatic to the remainder of that entire population.

If the concern is with untreated sexually transmitted infections, and the prevalence of these were demonstrated to be worryingly high, it would do less damage and probably result in greater coverage of the target group if all children were treated with appropriate antibiotics, without preliminary examination.

But, as it has been described in news reports, the proposed strategy appears to be at least as much about conducting a witch-hunt for abusing adults as it is motivated by concern for the physical health of the children. Yet, it is a basic rule of whole-of-population screening that the initial test must be sensitive, specific and reliable (witness the scandal several years ago regarding anal tears as evidence of s-xual abuse in children in the UK), and that it should be coupled to confirmatory testing to secure positive diagnoses AND to effective intervention to interrupt the natural history in proven cases.

Presumably the ‘confirmatory testing’ in John Howard’s plan would be a legal process – haven’t Indigenous people had enough done to them at the hands of whitefella police and courts? – and what might be an effective intervention for proven cases of abuse, other than protracted incarceration for convicted adults, is very far from clear.

Thus, even the most basic public health analysis very quickly shows that the Howard plan to screen every Indigenous child is bound to be a failure, if not also fail the test of non-maleficence. But then every medical student knows that the knee-jerk is a spinal reflex; stimulus is followed by an automatic response that lacks any modulation by the higher cerebral centres.

and ….

Territory alcohol blame game a little shy of facts

A local observer reports on the reality of NT alcohol sales:

Scattered through the meagre details of the Brough/Howard vision of the new Northern Territory teetotalitarianism was a reference to "wet canteens" on Aboriginal communities.

No one who has drunk on an Aboriginal community knew what the f-ck they were talking about. Up here the handful of communities that have on-licence bars call them "clubs". Queensland Aboriginal towns and communities have "canteens".

Between the lad from Caboolture, Malcolm Brough, and the Cape's Noel Pearson, Territory blackfellas are going to have a new slice of English to learn: the "wet canteen". As Pearson well knows, the Aboriginal canteens were actively promoted by previous Queensland governments, not least by the abstemious Joh Bjelke-Petersen, as a way of avoiding funding remote Aboriginal communities.

But semantics aside, the blame game about grog on Aboriginal communities is deeply offensive to the 100-plus towns, town camps and communities that have used the law to try and ban alcohol; as well as being curiously coy about the clubs that do exist. There is also a studied blindness on where the "rivers of grog" are coming from - and the venal greed and racism that are the source of the grog.

There are only eight clubs on Aboriginal land in the Northern Territory: none south of Wugularr (Beswick) a bit east of Katherine, and four shared between the residents of Bathurst and Melville Islands -- the so-called Tiwi islands -- further north. The notion that Aboriginal living areas are littered with licensed premises is a deliberate distortion. Roughly 7.5% of Aboriginal people living on remote communities have the dubious pleasure of hosting clubs -- the rest of the Aboriginal population battles to keep the grog away.

The town of Nguiu on Bathurst Island lost its right to sell take-away grog last year at the request of a majority of the township's residents -- led by the women. Of the others, two are notorious. Peppimenarti in the Daly River region makes its bucks -- considerable bucks -- flogging alcohol to visitors from other communities in the area, particularly Wadeye, the Territory's largest community a few kilometres down the road.’

-------------------

So much for the first recommendation of the The Little Children are Sacred report that stated: “In the first recommendation, we have specifically referred to the critical importance of governments committing to genuine consultation with Aboriginal people in designing initiatives for Aboriginal communities, whether these be in remote, regional or urban settings" (p. 21).

Now, how could anyone possibly suspect that rattus is once again cynically grabbing at headlines to try & climb out of his political grave?