ten cents' worth

When I heard the news yesterday that Prime Minister had declared that the situation in Indigenous communities in the NT was a national emergency, my initial reaction was a dull sense of relief.  At least, someone was going to DO something, and given the poverty of responses at Territory and local government levels, it seemed appropriate that the Commonwealth should intervene. 

The relief gave way to cynicism about the rather limited and incohesive nature of the federal government's response to the crisis, not to mention the political agendas that might be driving it.  (I'm sure we all know what those agendas might be, esp in this election year, and others have commented on them, so I'll put them to one side.)  The PM claims to support and endorse the contents of the Report on child abuse in the NT but his response couldn't even be said to be cherry-picking what appears to be a balanced, carefully-thought-out set of recommendations (more likely cherry-picking the contents of Mal Brough's head). As someone said on NT news last night, there's a lack of respect not only to the team who undertook the Inquiry but also to those Aboriginal people who gave information to the Inquiry in good faith.  He's clearly seized on the Report as leverage to intervene in the Territory's affairs, buttressed no doubt by Pearson's own report and response earlier this week -- though at least in the Cape York situation, there is some involvement of Aboriginal leaders and community governance.

The PM's actions might be defensible if he had well-thought-out and 'wholistic' (to invoke that much overised word) plan, but he doesn't, though he's clearly abounding in agendas. A couple of Aboriginal leaders cautiously expressed their support for federal intervention on RN breakfast this morning, making similar points about the lack of a plan and need to consult with Aboriginal people (tho neither of them seemed that clear on the details of a plan themselves). I'm reminded very much of the response to petrol-sniffing in central Australia, where Tony Abbott took cherry-picked aspects of solutions without realising, at least not for some time, that they wouldn't work without being applied in their entirety.  One of his chief motivations in doing things this way (e.g. not introducing non-sniffable petrol in communities) was undoubtedly to keep white townsfolk on side. 

Anyway, some brief thoughts on the proposed interventions (I've seen other responses; I'd just thought I'd add my ten cents worth):

* medical checks for Aboriginal children -- I can imagine this proposition sounding as though 'something were to be done' to a certain part of the electorate , but putting any civil rights concerns to one side, I'm quite unsure of the value of this exercise: what will be done with this information and how will it benefit those involved, particularly given the lack of adequate health services in communities and therefore potential follow-up?  (Is Howard going to pay for these kids to be flown to boarding schools on the east coast instead -- one of the popular solutions for avoiding the perils of community life.)

The more significant question herethe lack of access to primary health care services, medical and health practitioners in communities -- any additional services and programs existing health centres could be offering to address abuse issues are probably a pipe dream. (Programs and counselling for male perpetrators in Alice are apparently unable to meet demand present -- this is just in town; what about some more targeted funding for these programs?)

This also one of the reasons why the federal government should be offering more incentives to get doctors out into remote areas (and this is why we need doctors to become public servants, at least at the GP level, so they can be given their marching orders out of the leafy suburbs). This may seem like a convoluted way of addressing child abuse -- and health practitioners would need specific training in dealing with these issues.  But if you don't have these basic services, I don't see how you're going to address more complex issues -- let alone carry out health checks on all Aboriginal children under the age of 16.

* increased policing -- there is an argument for an increased police presence in communities to address safety issues, esp in regard to violence.  I haven't looked at what the recent report has to say on this issue, but in some remote parts, there may be one full-fledged police officer for an area of several hundred kms, which might include a number of communities.  So it's not in anyway a comparable situation to what exists in most towns and cities, where at least in theory, you can call out police to intervene in a violent situation.

On the other hand, all we ever seem to get out here are more glossy brochures about how the NT government are ramping up the number of police to deal with anti-social behaviour.  (At present, I believe we have the highest number of police per capita of any state or territory -- but much of this is concentrated in town or in Darwin.)  But no one says anything about other approaches to addressing anti-social behaviour, like intervening before it becomes a criminal matter or providing proper diversionary programs.

And why does the interface between the white and black populations in communities have to be construed in criminal terms?

* grog banned in all communities -- This doesn't really make much sense to me.  People from dry communities load up at the local take-away all the time and take grog back to the homes.  If you're going to 'turn off the tap' of the 'rivers of grog' (and I agree, there's a good case for this one), you need a consistent supply reduction policy.

As Fran pointed out on RN this morning, it's a nonsense if measures aren't implemented at Alice Springs Woollies as well.  But the PM didn't understand her point at all; he thought it was being cited as an ideological objection against any restrictions being introduced.  This lack of understanding of the details annoyed me, esp the federal government is in a position to legislate more consistent alcohol restrictions across the NT.

* quarantining welfare payments -- this does represent a diminution of citizenship entitlements -- and the PM is savvy enough to say it won't be colour-based, so it will be interesting to see what's coming next for the poor, re: social reform (as I've said in a comment thread previously).

However, the rights of the child, while being used in rather an emotive and reactionary way by the Prime Minister, and to a lesser degree, Pearson, is the real trump card that they have in relation to this issue and others here.  I do think there's a case for substituting food and clothing vouchers for cash payments to ensure that children receive entitlements that might otherwise be squandered by adults.  But it would be preferable for these types of solutions to be negotiated with or coming from community leaders themselves, and for them to be applied on a trial basis and reviewed.

* ban pornography -- I can't get too excited about this, one way or the other. I imagine it appeals to pro-family types.  There are other more pressing things to be done, like funding male perpetrator programs (I can't imagine banning porn's going to stop them; curtail their imagination maybe).

* five-year leases on communiteies -- one of their agendas coming to the fore here, in the attempt to wind back land rights legislation and no doubt, find another way of bringing in their private home ownership thing.  It's another one that doesn't make a lot of sense to me, how people are actually supposed to benefit from giving up control over their communities and land -- for five years.  I would have thought that to include people in decision-making processes and strengthen their governance would have helped in developing their sense of autonomy and control over individual and collective situations.  But no, that would probably sound too much like self-determination, which we know 'didn't work'... (I suspect Mal Brough's still sore about being knocked back by the town camps, and he's looking for another win.)

There's also a weird dichotomy being set up between 'communities' and 'towns' dichotomy which plagues the whole debate...  Communities are continually demonised as cesspools of iniquity, along with being presented as the only place where Aboriginal people live (the 'real Aborigines', no doubt).  Dooen't the PM and his cronies realise that the majority of the Aboriginal population live in urban centres?  Do they think that communities are the only place where abuse, etc, is occurring? 

It's more the case that this situation is an opportunity for them to get control of Aboriginal communities and probably also to get rid of them, obviating the need ever to have to provide proper essential services, et al, to them.  Aboriginal people should live in proper towns etc and assimilate into the mainstream population is the Coalition's real plan, after all.  But the consequence of such a scenario here in Alice at least is that even more Aboriginal people will come into town to buy food, other supplies and grog...more people will end up camping outside because there isn't any accommodation for them, and more violence will occur as people from clan groups who shouldn't mix do, often fuelled by grog, etc.  This is my guess, anyway; I supect that 'sustainability' and 'self-governance' may be dirty words as far as the Coalition is concerned in relation to Aboriginal communites.

But back to the original issue of intervention: I don't have a problem with a national crisis being declared -- it's the sort of thing COAG meetings should have been doing in the past.  The states and territories have had too control over Aboriginal programs and spending for too long without much transparency or accountability.  Personally, I feel the NT government has failed its constituents on child abuse and other matters. Clare Martin is a pissweak show pony who has consistently controlled her Cabinet and Indigenous MPs to stop them speaking out on issues. The Coalition government loves to use the word 'responsibility' in relation to Indigenous people; it's more than time to ask what forms of responsibility all levels of government should exercise themselves.  But there do not seem to be any compelling, 'wholistic' policy approaches developing on this front yet.  Ruddy has 'chucked a Beasley' and agreed with everything Howard has said, which I construe as a lack of vision on the part of the 'new ALP' in relation to Aboriginal affairs (along with toadying to electoral perceptions re: Indigenous issues) and possibly also a sign of an emerging Blair-style, Third-Way-ist policy approach to welfare issues and social reform.

End of the sermon; back to work....

Comments

[Laura]

Back to work for me too, but thanks El. This is very much appreciated.

[tigtog]

Thanks, el, for the local perspective. I've been waiting to see your take on all this.

Our opinions align on this. Recognising the crisis - at last. The proposed solution - pie in the sky consorting oddly with punitive dog-whistling.

[elsewhere]

Yes, i've read yours too & agree with what you're saying about land and sex abuse. I've been trying to keep up with all the commentary flying (not a good week for me, timewise, so very few comments). I think Malcolm Fraser & Lowitja O'Donoghue's response (in Crikey) is very good and hits the right tone for public debate.

[Mikhela]

Thanks for this El. I feel far to ignorant to comment but wanted to see what you had to say. The whole thing seems extraordinary to me, similar to our response in the Middle East - years of inaction while things escalate followed by the excitement and kudos of completely destroying a culture in the name of 'emergency'.

[seepi]

Being seen to do something is where it's at.
Slightly better than doing nothing at all.

About doctors though - why should they be forced to work where they don't want to. Tamworth can't get a doctor, so what hope to tiny places have.

And in place with only one doctor, that doctor has to remain single for the duration of their stay - this is not imposed on anyone else. (perhaps psychologists etc). Fraternising with patients is not allowed, but if there is only one doctor, the whole town are potential patients.

This whole access to health facilities issue is a problem everywhere, although obviously worse in remote towns.

I can't understand why we're not training zillions more doctors while we're in an economic boom.

Anyway - off topic a bit, but the standard and availability of health services everywhere is starting to become a bit of an obsession of mine....

[elsewhere]

Well why should teachers be forced to work in places they don't want to?

Huge packages and enticements have to be offered Australian doctors to work in remote areas. Equivalent packages are not offered to nurses (the health proletariat) or allied health professionals. Something like 80 % of doctors in Alice are 'OTD's -- overseas trained doctors. There's no bulk billing; you have to plan ahead if you want to see a GP (like phone a week in advance) and it's generally more expensive than in an urban centre.

Who knows? Doctors might actually learn something outside the eastern suburbs of Sydney and Melbourne, like about the effects of marginalisation and poverty.

Don't get me started. I'm with you about the falling standard and availability of health services.

[elsewhere]

P.S. Friends of mine at the Land Council did their own considered analysis of the recommendations from the Report. They reckon Johnny Howard's response addresses 2.5 % of them.

[M-H]

Thanks, elsewhere, for taking the time to deliver us such a detailed and considered response. On Clare Martin - you may be right, but she did inherit a pretty big and entrenched bag'o'worms.

[seepi]

Well I'm urban (National Capital) and there is no bulk billing here either. Well there are some - in those sort of medical clinics, where you have to sit all day waiting to see any old doctor. And many doctors have closed their books, so finding a 'family doctor' is not easy. And getting a same day appointment is a thing of the past too.

If it is this bad here, I can only imagine what it is like in small towns.

Surely part of the answer is more doctors, not just trying to force the existing ones to do more, and do time in rural areas etc.

[Jennifer (Penguin)]

Thanks Elsewhere, I've been looking forward to seeing what you think about this. Interesting that what you've done - compared the recommendations in the report with the actions the government is taking hasn't been done anywhere I've seen in the mainstream media. Seems a fairly sensible way to attack the dichotomy between agreeing that something should be done and disagreeing with the detail.

On doctors, there must be somewhere in the country that you can bulk bill - somewhere around 70% of GP visits are bulkbilled. And anecdotally, I'd say its more likely to be in the cities than the country towns (my friends who lived in Broken Hill for a while had Elsewhere's experience).

[seepi]

Apparently in Adelaide all kids under 12 are bulk billed everywhere!
And I think Syd/Melb do ok.
Canberra should really be classed as an area of need, with the almost non-existent bulk billing here, and general shortage of doctors, but because people love to hate Canberra it will never happen.

[elsewhere]

Thanks, people.

The PM keeps on saying today that the police are going to restore 'law and order' to the communities and that this is what is fundamentally needed. But this really seems quite contradictory, given all his talk about wanting to end 'dependency'. I can't see that this isn't going to create just another regime of coercion and dependency; they certainly don't seem to have any plans to keep build community governance.