| Context to NT intervention | ||
|---|---|---|
| Prev | Conspicuous Compassion and Wicked Problems | Next |
The immediate rationale for the NT intervention was Ampe Akelyernemane Meke Mekarle (‘Little Children are Sacred’), the Report of the Northern Territory Board of Inquiry into the Protection of Aboriginal Children from Sexual Abuse, which ‘distressed’ the Prime Minister and other readers. However, there have been numerous other reports into child abuse, neglect and violence in Indigenous communities written over many years (see, for example, Martin 1988; Memmott et al. 2001). While the rates of child abuse are higher among all disadvantaged groups compared to the Australian average, it is particularly high in Indigenous communities (Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (AIHW) 2006: Table 2.8). Victoria has the highest number of Indigenous child-abuse substantiations per 1000 children (63.0), followed by the ACT (56.0), South Australia (43.20) and NSW (27.1). The NT had a relatively low rate of Indigenous child-abuse substantiations of 13.7 per 1000 children — only Western Australia (12.2) and Tasmania (5.8) had lower rates. It should be noted that child-abuse data may be particularly prone to measurement error as it involves an inherently difficult and sensitive subject matter. However, it should be noted that under-reporting of child abuse is not confined to either Indigenous communities or the NT — indeed, the ‘Little Children are Sacred’ report specifically rejects the notion that Aboriginal culture is the reason for the under-reporting of abuse (Wild & Anderson 2007: p.58).
Peter Botsman argues that there is a need to put Indigenous child abuse into perspective (2007). Indeed, the fact that substantiated child abuse among non-Indigenous families in Queensland (13.7 per 1000) is as high as that which provoked the NT intervention means that the problem is not confined to Indigenous communities. Given the high level of disadvantage and poverty identified in NT Indigenous communities, the level of substantiated child abuse is relatively low. Obviously, policy needs to address broader issues, rather than simply focusing on Indigenous-specific issues such as permits and land rights.
Some aspects of the intervention were foreshadowed and informed by the Cape York Institute report (CYI 2007) — for example, the focus on quarantining welfare payments for certain behaviour; addressing incentives to work in mainstream jobs; and the reform of the Community Development Employment Projects (CDEP) scheme, the long-standing Indigenous work-for-the-dole program. Nevertheless, the government’s plan differed from the CYI report in crucial ways. The CYI report was based more on ‘ground-up’ theory: it involved substantial collaboration with the Indigenous community and incorporated the direct involvement of community representatives in the proposed Family Responsibility Community (FRC). Another difference was the fact that the quarantining of welfare suggested by the CYI report was not necessarily mandatory.
It became clear in the days following 21 June that there had been no consultations with state and territory governments or local Indigenous community elders. The lack of communication with Indigenous representatives is largely a result of the abolition of ATSIC, as there is no longer any recognised local Indigenous authority for governments to talk to. Even Noel Pearson was given only 15 minutes’ warning of the government’s planned intervention (Pearson 2007).
The public debate that followed involved heated exchanges between the protagonists. In a sense, this is understandable since the intervention was hastily conceived and sketchily outlined: apart from the occasional press release, there was little to tell people what the government’s response actually entailed. Teams of bureaucrats and army personnel were sent into the NT to scope the issues involved.
The heat of the public debate has scared off many people who may have had positive contributions to make.[2] Critics of the NT intervention run the risk of being construed as supporting child abuse by default. However, if policy interventions are misconceived and poorly designed, then the possibility of constructing a truly effective long-term response to child abuse may be compromised by restricting public debate to highly committed people and organisations. The following sections outline the main criticisms of the intervention.
| Prev | Up |
No comments:
Post a Comment