from Crikey …..

Brough's bills: 500 pages of pure insanity

Editor of The National Indigenous Times, Chris Graham, writes frmo Parliament House:

Only a card-carrying member of the Liberal Party could now argue that the 'emergency intervention' was anything but a political stunt. But if you still have your doubts, take a gander at the legislation that has sprung from it (read the full bills here and here).

The 500-odd pages were dropped in the ALP's lap, with less than 24 hours available for scrutiny of the three bills before they’re debated in parliament today.

Yesterday, News Limited papers broke news of a leaked report by Liberal Party pollster Mark Textor, warning that 'Honest John' was now perceived as ‘Old Dishonest John’. Textor had some advice.

The government needed to seize the agenda from the ALP and, according to press gallery scribe Malcolm Farr, it also needed to "emphasise that the Commonwealth was bailing out ineffective and inefficient states". Textor’s report was delivered on June 21. Has no-one yet noticed that the federal government's ''emergency intervention'' in the Northern Territory was announced on the afternoon of … you guessed it, June 21?

If you didn't know any better, you'd swear the Howard government had created legislation that was so insane it could only be designed to secure a wedge to take to the next election.

My personal favourite is the proposed law which would enable the government to appoint an “observer” to attend any meeting of any organisation that provides services within any of the 73 NT Aboriginal communities that are being seized by the government. In other words, every meeting of every Aboriginal organisation. In the old days, we used to call that ''observer'' a ''mission manager''. And what a success they were!

Then there’s the legislation that will see the creation of a register to record the ''name, hour and date'' every time someone uses a publicly-funded computer. Crazy, crazy stuff.

And what about the bill that proposes Aboriginal welfare recipients within the 73 communities automatically have 50% of their welfare payments quarantined, no matter how they’ve spent their money in the past? So much for the ''we don’t use a one size fits all'' mantra.

This whole episode has descended into high farce. It could only occur in an election year. There are only two possible explanations for legislation this extreme.

The first is that Mal and John have genuinely gone stark raving bonkers. The second possibility – and the one I favour -- is that Howard and Brough have set out to deliberately create legislation that's so extreme, even the ALP couldn’t possibly support it.

Rudd was supposed to hedge, and Howard would get his wedge.

But it didn't work out that way, and while it may seem extraordinary that the ALP could even contemplate supporting such insane legislation, going on Kevin Rudd's past form it's not surprising. The man wants to win office.

The coalition are now wedgeless and no matter who wins government this year, we're stuck with ridiculous, half baked legislation for years to come.

It's some consolation that Labor will move some amendments, including changes to the racial discrimination act, and provisions and changes to the permit system, but ultimately Labor has again failed Aboriginal Australia.

Whoever wins power later this year, it's irrelevant to Aboriginal people. Governments can legislate, but Aboriginal people will not assimilate. This sort of legislation was tried in the early 1900s and failed abysmally, these bills will do the same.

and Greens Senator Rachel Siewert writes:

Brough's bills: a racist dog-whistle

‘The fact that the Howard Government's new legislation is racist - that is, it breaches the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (RDA) - is beyond doubt.

If the comments of former federal court judge Murray Wilcox (who described the legislation as "constitutionally valid but extremely discriminatory") are not enough, then the fact that all three Bills take the extraordinary step of explicitly over-riding the RDA should be all the confirmation you need that the Bills are discriminating on the basis of race.

The real question isn't whether the provisions are racist, it's whether they represent an acceptable form of positive discrimination.

The International Convention On The Elimination Of All Forms Of Racial Discrimination recognises that there are situations where governments need to legislate for a racial group to specifically address existing substantive injustices - like the huge disparity in health and living standards faced by our Indigenous population in the NT and across the country in urban, rural and remote areas. This is what is referred to as "special measures" in section 8 of the RDA and represent a kind of affirmative action.

All three Bills have sections which state that their provisions are to be considered "special measures" - however simply declaring that the Bills are "special measures" is not enough, they also need to match up to the criteria for special measures set out in the RDA.

That is, they have to provide a clear benefit to the group, have the sole purpose of securing the advancement of that group, they have to be necessary to achieve this benefit, and they have to stop when they have achieved this goal.

There are a host of questions on all of these points that have already been raised by Crikey over the last few weeks - including whether taking control of land and scrapping the permit system were necessary to tackle child abuse or to address problems with health, education and housing.

Mal Brough has yet to even attempt to present a coherent argument linking the two, and with Pat Anderson (one of the authors of the Little Children are Sacred Report) declaring yesterday that they felt 'used and betrayed' by the government and that the measures had nothing to do with addressing child protection issues, it appears that the government is on very shaky ground.

The same holds for the move to exempt Aboriginal people in the NT from having access to the Social Security Appeals Tribunal if they are not happy with the way that 50 percent of their welfare payments are quarantined or the balance of what Centrelink decides they should be spending it on.

Ultimately, from a legal point of view, the government doesn't actually need to bother with seeking to over-ride the RDA in these Bills. The Commonwealth already has the power to make laws which are inconsistent with the RDA (as clearly demonstrated in the Hindmarsh Bridge affair) and the rules of statutory interpretation means that when there is an inconsistency between laws the newer law automatically over-rides any earlier law. (The RDA does not operate like a bill of rights.)

So the decision to declare these bills as 'special measures' and to explicitly over-ride the RDA is a political one. The real question is whether the government thinks it can win the PR battle and convince the public that its heavy-handed paternalistic approach is really "for their own good".

The Greens are hopeful that the dog-whistle politics that clearly underlie the whole of this election year 'crisis' intervention will fall flat. Certainly there have been clear signs that this whole escapade hasn't produced the desired bounce in the polls and that the racist undercurrent hasn't been enough to turn the heads of the aussie battlers who continue to desert Howard.’

whilst Health journalist Melissa Sweet, in Gulkula, Gove Peninsula, writes:

Not a single voice in support of intervention

‘During a three-day conference here on Indigenous health, the message has come loud and clear from doctors, lawyers, researchers, public servants, economists and Aboriginal leaders. Not a single voice has been raised in defence of the Federal Government’s plans for the NT.

The consensus is that the interventions, especially seizing land and quaranting welfare, are certain to worsen Aboriginal health, and that any initiatives to tackle child abuse, or other health and social problems, are doomed to fail without the support and input of Aboriginal people.

The other overwhelming message is that there is plenty of evidence about what measures are effective in improving Aboriginal health; what has been lacking is the political will and funding to implement them.

Here are some random selections from the conference:

Retired Justice Murray Wilcox: “The way the Federal Government has gone down this route appalls me because it is just making all the mistakes of the past.” He also said that the Government’s failure to apologise to Aboriginal people is “a running sore” and that its bad-mouthing of The Stolen Generation report was “one of the most shameful episodes in Australian history”.

Professor Helen Milroy, Aboriginal psychiatrist in Perth: “At the moment our Government is making us sick. Nobody cares more about Aboriginal children than Aboriginal people.”

Jackie Huggins, Reconciliation Australia: “No one should ever suggest that those who question aspects of the Government’s plan do not want an end to child abuse. The last 40 years have shown what doesn’t work (in Aboriginal health): centralised programs driven from Canberra or capital cities.”

Dr Ngiare Brown, of the Australian Indigenous Doctors Association: “It is patent fiction to link land rights to child protection.”

Rex Wild, QC, co-author of the Little Children are Sacred report: “The title of the report reflects that everywhere we went, Aboriginal people made it clear that Aboriginal children are sacred. Ninety-nine per cent of Aboriginal people are willing and committed to helping the children.”

Pat Anderson, co-author of the Little Children are Sacred report: “There is no relationship between the Federal response and our recommendations. We feel betrayed and disappointed and hurt and angry and pretty pissed off at the same time.”

Professor Gavin Mooney, professor of health economics at Curtin University, Perth: “Aboriginal health and wellbeing are as bad as they are because no one in power gives a shit. No one in power is prepared to give enough money or enough power to Aboriginal people to improve things.”

That anger is not only being directed at the Federal Government. Jenny Macklin’s performance, dodging questions about whether Labor would support the legislation, left many unimpressed. ''Labor won’t be able to count on the black vote,'' was a common comment. And watch out MPs in marginal seats: an angry mob is heading your way.’