Australians All

Article

Will They Be Heard?

Alastair Nicholson

Where then is the consultation? The approach smacks of attitudes of racial superiority more appropriate to the 19th Century than this one.

This is an edited extract of the introduction to a report, co-authored by Professor Nicholson, on the consultations held by the Federal government over the future of the Northern Territory Intervention. Read the full document Here

This Report has its genesis in the great work done by the group known as ‘concerned Australians’ in conjunction with the relevant Aboriginal Communities in the Northern Territory, and in the tireless enthusiasm of one of the co-authors Michele Harris. We are particularly fortunate to have the involvement of the other co-authors Larissa Behrendt and Nicole Watson, both of whom are Aboriginal and Alison Vivian, who bring their own particular knowledge and appreciation of the problems discussed.

For my part I have been an opponent of the Intervention since its inception and I am therefore pleased and proud to be associated with this Report. In a speech that I gave at Parliament House, Sydney four days after the 2007 Federal Election, I said:

The breadth of the legislation is frightening and it significantly overrides the rights of many Indigenous people in ways that would not be tolerated by the ordinary Australian community. It is discriminatory and racist and bundles all Indigenous people together as potential pornographers, child molesters and persons habitually addicted to the excessive consumption of alcohol.

In that speech I commented:

By treating the Indigenous people in this way, the then Government demonstrated a clear lack of respect for them and as such, their co-operation could hardly be expected The situation was exacerbated by the then Government’s inability or failure to give any or any sufficient explanation as to why all of these measures were necessary to protect the children.

It is to be hoped that the Rudd Labor Government will approach the implementation of this legislation in a much more sensitive manner and with real consultation with the Indigenous people. Unfortunately, its past support for the legislation may operate to restrict amendment or repeal of some of its more offensive aspects. However, it is open to it to take a much more inclusive approach to the Indigenous community and to hold proper consultations with it.

Unfortunately, the Rudd Government has found itself unable to make really necessary departures from the intervention. Its approach has been more sensitive but the spirit of the original Intervention still prevails. Worse still, it has not held proper consultations with the Aboriginal community as this Report amply demonstrates. To quote one Utopia Elder:

We feel here that the intervention offers us absolutely nothing, excepting to compound the feeling of being second class citizens. The only thing that we have gained out of the intervention is the police.

After two years the Government has finally arrived at a really important amendment to the intervention legislation, namely the restoration of the relevant provisions of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth) so far as the designated areas of the Northern Territory are concerned. Normally, that would have been enough to dispose of most of the more offensive aspects of the intervention. However, as this Report reveals, the Government has embarked upon what it calls a process of consultation with the Aboriginal people in an attempt to gain support from the Aboriginal people for the preservation of particular features of the intervention that the Government thinks are good for them and to therefore designate them as ‘special measures’ that can be continued despite the reintroduction of the Act. As this Report shows, this is not consultation at all.

The initial measures were taken without consultation or discussion with the Aboriginal people and as the Report points out, are fundamentally flawed. The only real solution is to go back to the beginning and negotiate a fresh approach in partnership with the Aboriginal people.

Instead the Government is not offering any choice. It is simply telling the people what it proposes to do. The consultation is nothing more than going through the motions in order to achieve a predetermined end.

At Bagot, the Government spokesperson said:

The purpose today of coming out and speaking to people is to talk about the government’s proposed changes to the Northern Territory Emergency Response, the intervention as people know it, and the government’s plan, part of those changes is to bring back the Racial Discrimination Act back into the legislation. The government has said that it wants to keep the intervention as it sees that the measures that were brought in, this is what the government is saying, the measures that were brought in have some positive benefits and the government wants to keep on trying to build on some of those positive benefits. They want to talk with people about it and to try and work with people to try and get some of these things right.

The critical words are “The government has said that it wants to keep the intervention”. Where then is the consultation? The approach smacks of attitudes of racial superiority more appropriate to the 19th Century than this one. In this regard Dr Aron Paul of Latrobe University writing in Crikey on 11 November 2009 commented:

Today marks the 140th anniversary of the first Aboriginal Protection Act in Victoria on 11/11/1869. As such, it marks 140 years of institutionalised racial discrimination in the name of humanitarian principles.

What is now proposed is not all that different. Nowhere is this better exemplified than in the stark choice being offered on income management. This was put by the Government representative at Utopia as follows:

So, the government’s thinking, at the moment, at the moment, is that we should keep going. In its discussion paper, in a paper that it’s put out to all the communities, it says, two ways. One way is not to make any change. Keep it as it is, try and find a way to fix up the problems with basics cards. The other way is that individuals, a person, could go to Centrelink, or someone else, they could go to Centrelink and say, ‘I don’t need income management’ and they can – ultimately - the Centrelink can say, ‘Yes, you don’t need income management.’ It’s what they call, ‘being exempted.’... from income management.

This approach bears a startling similarity to earlier provisions where particular Aboriginal people were able to obtain permits from white officials to carry out some act e.g. purchasing and drinking alcohol. Here these people are being given the option of obtaining a permit to manage their own money and property. To put the question to them in this form is not to consult them but to confront them with two measures, both of which constitute an affront to their dignity as individuals. As so many of them eloquently pointed out during the consultation process, nothing could be more discriminatory.