Response to a national emergency? Cynical election year stunt? Land Grab?
June 21, 2007 5:14 PM   Subscribe

Australian Prime Minister John Howard has declared that the sexual abuse of Aboriginal children in the Northern Territory is a national emergency. He has announced a sweeping takeover of powers from the Territory Government in response to the crisis outlined in the Little Children are Sacred” report [6mb PDF] Some say knee-jerk and ill thought through, some say return to the bad old days of white paternalism, yet say there are many other issues confronting Aboriginal people. Why act now after 10 years in power, and a host of similar reports? Could it be an approaching federal election?
posted by mattoxic (71 comments total) 2 users marked this as a favorite
 
"Sorry we've destroyed a rich culture and left your people vulnerable to our vices and morally bankrupt ideals. The way to set this all right is to curtail your freedom!"
posted by SaintCynr at 5:29 PM on June 21, 2007


Australia gives a shit about the Aboriginal people?

When did this start?
posted by Pope Guilty at 5:30 PM on June 21, 2007


When did this start? I believe it was between breakfast and lunchtime on the 21st of June 2007. One has to be cynical. The PM is a past master at wedge politics, the fact that the Labor Territory government wasn't informed illustrates that it's a move designed to beat up on a labor government. Howard cites that the NT government haven't acted.

Well, that's the pot calling the kettle, Howard has been in power far longer, and had done precious little himself.
posted by mattoxic at 5:36 PM on June 21, 2007


Under the plan, Aborigines in 60 settlements will face bans on alcohol and pornography, and their welfare payments will become conditional on school attendance and child health.

Authorities will be able to demand child health checks, seize control of Aboriginal land and homes for five years, and dispatch interstate police, indigenous troops and managers into the settlements.


Whoa, that's some seriously sweeping legislation. I'm really surprised that this doesn't violate the constitution down there, or whatever analogous statement of rights they have.
posted by Mitrovarr at 5:39 PM on June 21, 2007


"Land, land, land... See: Snatch"
-Hedly Lamaar
posted by Pope Guilty at 5:43 PM on June 21, 2007


It is sweeping legislation... Watch this space, the government ending the permit system, essentially extinguishing Aboriginal land rights, I bet the mining companies are chomping at the bit.

Mitrovarr, the Northern Territory (NT) isn't a state, so essentially they don't have the same protection under the constitution as the states do.
posted by mattoxic at 5:47 PM on June 21, 2007


Smart move. It's a little known fact in weaponry that launching police at a problem from your kneejerk™ rhetoric canon results in a more demonstrable impact crater than does social worker projectiles.
posted by peacay at 5:55 PM on June 21, 2007 [1 favorite]


While I don't think you could find a soul on this Earth who wouldn't think that something needs to be done to protect these kids and even perhaps save these communities, this plan is plain racist and the only reason a lot of people are saying it's great is because Noel Pearson, himself an Aboriginal, was the one who came up with it. Well I'm sorry but whether an indigenous man came up with it or not, when you take welfare payments away from one segment of the community on the basis of a crime which is also present in another community not being penalised, that's discrimination.

This amounts to little more than martial law. Police and the military will be called in to the communities and kids will be forcibly made to undertake health tests. In some cases, the Federal Government will actually be taking over ownership of these communities under the Land Act. I sincerely hope someone challenges that aspect alone, but with the High Court stacked to buggery with Howards conservative cronies, I doubt much would come of it.

And in the end, no one will care. Last Monday nights Mediawatch showed the level of racism still prevalent in the Australian communities mind, so much so that it made me somewhat ashamed to be an Australian. Hell, if this plan is to fail at all, it will be because all the racist fucksticks out there will think any 'help' given to Aboriginals will be taking money away from a new sporting arena that they could cheer their favorite woman bashing rapist AFL team in.

Dennis Shanahan, The Australian's political editor and one of the Australian media's biggest cheerleaders for Howard and his goons, wrote an article today called Paternal, but Plans Time Has Come.' Reading that headline, I couldn't help but think that that was exactly what people were thinking when the events that led to The Stolen Generation began.

They say "History never repeats", but they should really amend that for the Australian experience to read "History never repeats, unless you have a Government full of conservative fuckwads on their last legs looking to the past for a simple solution to a complex problem."
posted by Effigy2000 at 6:05 PM on June 21, 2007 [6 favorites]


I have to admit that Mal Brough has demonstrated more interest and concern about blackfellas than any other Indigenous Affairs minister in the last decade, and I do kinda feel he's acting with whatever passes for "good intentions" in a conservative politician. The kinds of actions he's planning, on the other hand, are extremely concerning. Supposing for a minute the latest plan might actually do some good - grog is certainly a problem that needs some drastic solutions - but the plan still fails to address the fundamental underlying issues of education, essential services, housing, employment, land rights, racial discrimination...

And up here in the Northern Territory, we've become used to the federal government excercising their muscle in recent years, first with the euthanasia legislation, and then with the nuclear waste disposal legislation.

Upon hearing about this yesterday, my wife said "So this is Howard's new 'Children overboard' for this election". It was a fair call, but Rudd immediatly jumped onside and supported Howard's decision, neutralizing that factor to a certain degree.

Interesting times.
posted by Jimbob at 6:06 PM on June 21, 2007 [1 favorite]


Wow. Is this really what it looks like to mine American eyes? A sudden introduction of Jim Crow-type laws under the guise of "won't someone please think of the children?"
posted by hifiparasol at 6:07 PM on June 21, 2007 [1 favorite]


This is the PM's shocked face.
posted by rob511 at 6:08 PM on June 21, 2007


I'm certain that Howard will soon identify the Sidney suburb with most instances of child abuse and do the same there.
posted by Kattullus at 6:11 PM on June 21, 2007 [1 favorite]


Well, Effigy, looks like I should have previewed.

My only exposure to Australia, aside from knowing a handful of Australian folks in my time, is Bill Bryson's book In a Sunburned Country. One scene that stuck with me specifically: Bryson meets and begins conversation with an Australian man on a train from (Perth maybe?). The guy seems pleasant, asks Bryson about his book and his trip, and conversation flows smoothly. Until Bryson asks him about white/Aboriginal relations. At this point the Guy on the Train -- who until now has been very easygoing and friendly (and, IIRC, kind of politcally left-leaning), becomes visibly angry, saying of the Aborigines, "They want hanging. All of them."

If that's at all representative of how things really (and still) are, I'm pretty worried.
posted by hifiparasol at 6:12 PM on June 21, 2007


I have a close friend who is deep into the Native American movement. Mark my words, this will end very, very badly.
posted by localroger at 6:16 PM on June 21, 2007


We're from the government. We're here to help you. Resistance is futile.
posted by rtha at 6:17 PM on June 21, 2007


Effigy, in preparing this post I dived in to the Tele's readers comments to see if they reflected the Monday night Media Watch story, and I must say I was pretty amazed at how well balanced they were. Link

Only a few knuckle dragging neanderthals at the time of me posting.
posted by mattoxic at 6:27 PM on June 21, 2007


Thanks for the link mattoxic. The following comment (not intended seriously) made me laugh:

"No matter how you look at it Howard is a racist moron. We can interpret his racism in two ways: 1) He is racist against aboriginals. Evidence: He has just discovered that there is a serious epidemic of child abuse and has decided to treat ALL aboriginals as child-molesters, completely disregarding the fact that two years ago there were reports that child abuse in white australia was rampant and growing. OR: 2) He is racist towards white people. Evidence: Save the aboriginal children but let the white children continue to be abused."
posted by Kattullus at 6:33 PM on June 21, 2007 [1 favorite]


I'm certain that Howard will soon identify the Sidney suburb with most instances of child abuse and do the same there.

Howard was interviewed on Sunrise this morning, and the host asked him if they were going to extend the "Make your kids go to school or lose half your welfare" to white Australians as well. Howard replied that cabinet were going to look into that very soon - which suggests to me it may have clicked that what he's doing is just a wee bit racist and they need to make some kind of effort to pretend the plan is being imposed fairly.
posted by Jimbob at 6:45 PM on June 21, 2007


Of course we Ausies love a beer, perhaps the communities could use this
posted by mattoxic at 6:54 PM on June 21, 2007


I am confused by this. On the one hand, it is obviously punitive, racist, and paternalistic; on the other hand, why does John Howard suddenly give a shit about Aborigines? He's been pretending they don't exist for a decade now. Why is this a national emergency, but Aboriginal life expectancy isn't? How does this play at the election? I don't get it.
posted by stammer at 7:04 PM on June 21, 2007


In deciding what to do about this issue, why am I not surprised that John Howard didn't take this part of the problem into consideration.
PAT ANDERSON: "One of the other things that people said to us was the powerlessness they felt and the distance and the isolation that they are and feel away from where the real decisions are made about their communities and their families. So we're sort of sitting over here if you like and all of this is happening here outside of Aboriginal people.

So the Northern Territory almost has to... what we're talking about here is renegotiating a whole other set of terms of engagement, if you like."
Emphasis mine.
posted by tellurian at 7:05 PM on June 21, 2007


I am confused by this. On the one hand, it is obviously punitive, racist, and paternalistic; on the other hand, why does John Howard suddenly give a shit about Aborigines? He's been pretending they don't exist for a decade now. Why is this a national emergency, but Aboriginal life expectancy isn't? How does this play at the election? I don't get it.

He doesn't give a shit--it's a convenient "other" to scapegoat, as well as an attempt to seem caring toward whatever Australia's equivalent of "soccer moms" are--by making it about "the children".
posted by amberglow at 7:08 PM on June 21, 2007


oop-- ... an attempt to seem caring to appeal to whatever ...
posted by amberglow at 7:09 PM on June 21, 2007


Exactly. A lot of Australians couldn't really give a shit about life expectancy, or adult alcoholism, or violence in aboriginal communities, beyond complaining about all the free money that is allegedly given to aboriginal people.

But child abuse is another matter, and I guess Howard has decided that the majority of Australians might care about indigenous child abuse, even if the other problems aren't addressed.

As one of my colleagues who works in this area said to me this morning; this issue is like Iraq. Saddam Hussein is child abuse. If you in any way opposed the Iraq war, it meant you were a supporter of Saddam Hussein. If you in any way oppose this policy plan, it must mean you're in favour of child abuse. This is evident from how Labor has reacted to the plan, at the federal, state and territory levels.
posted by Jimbob at 7:18 PM on June 21, 2007


It's really obvious that that's what he's doing--he's very GOP, and their rhetorical and language tricks have clearly been absorbed. Does he have American consultants?
posted by amberglow at 7:21 PM on June 21, 2007


Yeah, the "all about the kids" is one of those terms that seem to prevent level-headed people from considering things rationally.

"Isn't this a little drastic?"
"What are you talking about? Nothing can be too drastic! Think about the kids! THE KIDS!!!"

The political part goes two ways. One, Rudd could've used the report to denounce Howard's policies (still can, IMO). But more importantly, it plays on white Australia's amazingly persistent "sting 'em up and let 'em hang" beliefs. In an election year, Howard is presenting himself as someone who's not afraid to make the tough decisions. It's a tried and tested strategy. It's worked for terrrorism, and immigration.

I don't even recognise this country anymore.

On Preview: What Jimbob said.
posted by kisch mokusch at 7:22 PM on June 21, 2007


Welcome to the new Tampa, same as the old Tampa.
posted by zamboni at 7:29 PM on June 21, 2007


Has Howard done anything about the drought thing?
posted by amberglow at 7:34 PM on June 21, 2007


I assumed it was an attempt to wedge out the left, which Rudd defused by supporting the federal power grab. He can now snipe that the idea for federal control was good, but the government's implementation is botched.
I was listening to the ABC reporting this, and it sounds bad, but I thought the hard bit is I have no better suggestions.
Aboriginals in Australia have a very, very hard time of it.
Lots are involved in crime and substance abuse.
Lots are welfare recipients.
Few have had the success in the mainstream community that can act as a role model, except for some elite sports people.
I suspect the problem of giving indigenous Australians a measure of equality will take generations of concerted government involvement, and it is hard to see any government making that sort of expensive, multi-year commitment.
The result is this sort of half-thought, draconian government response.
posted by bystander at 7:35 PM on June 21, 2007


Under the plan, Aborigines in 60 settlements will face bans on alcohol and pornography, and their welfare payments will become conditional on school attendance and child health.

Authorities will be able to demand child health checks, seize control of Aboriginal land and homes for five years, and dispatch interstate police, indigenous troops and managers into the settlements.


So, don't Aboriginal people have rights under the Australian Constitution? Pretty insane.
posted by KokuRyu at 7:37 PM on June 21, 2007


Has Howard done anything about the drought thing?

Yeah. Launched an effort to buy the rights to manage south-eastern Australia's major river basin off the states. $10 billion is on the table, but it's all a case of rearranging deckchairs on the Titanic. Market-based solutions. You know the deal.
posted by Jimbob at 7:41 PM on June 21, 2007 [1 favorite]


Mr Brough said he hoped the extra police, backed by army personnel, would be on the ground in four weeks, with the Government writing letters yesterday asking the states for assistance in the form of six-month police deployments.

Sounds like an invasion. The people must be terrified.
posted by KokuRyu at 7:43 PM on June 21, 2007


Ambreglow: John Howard's son worked with the GOP to re-elect Bush in 2004
posted by bystander at 7:46 PM on June 21, 2007


Australia does not have a bill of rights like the US or EU.
Our rights are implied, or established through precedent of case law.
posted by bystander at 7:48 PM on June 21, 2007


It's really obvious that that's what he's doing--he's very GOP, and their rhetorical and language tricks have clearly been absorbed. Does he have American consultants?

I see he advised the new Canadian PM on the rights of indigenous peoples


Amberglow, I suspect he advises the GOP, and indeed his son works with the GOP.

Howard is the consummate politician. Mean and tricky sums him up nicely.

posted by mattoxic at 8:01 PM on June 21, 2007


oh and &lt/em&gt
posted by mattoxic at 8:02 PM on June 21, 2007


dang
posted by mattoxic at 8:03 PM on June 21, 2007


Is this legal? Jesus.

I can imagine the Canadian government will be keeping a close on on how this plays out. Oh, and I think I agree with localroger; this will end badly.
posted by jokeefe at 8:03 PM on June 21, 2007


I should think Tony Blair's recent troubles weigh heavy on Howard's mind. What better way to distract the population from the War In Error than to pick on the unpopular locals.
posted by five fresh fish at 8:28 PM on June 21, 2007


I can imagine the Canadian government will be keeping a close on on how this plays out.


Why? If what Howard is doing is purely political, then it will have little relevance to the Canadian Conservative minority government as it prepares for the next election.

The Canadian polity seems to be much more regional than that of Australia. There is no silver bullet (I'm assuming John Howard's move here is intended to appeal to a broad majority of Australian voters) in Canadian politics. Look at the problems the Conservatives have in Atlantic Canada. Shoveling money off the back of a truck in the recent Quebec provincial election appealed to almost no one anywhere, even in Quebec. And even if Harper won a majority, he would have difficulty doing anything naughty to First Nations because of the Supreme Court.
posted by KokuRyu at 8:32 PM on June 21, 2007


Ideology and pragmatism. Howard and Harper are fellow travelers. The last thing Howard would want is a win for indigenous people anywhere in the world. He wouldn't want any legal precedent to get in the way of any possible roll back of land rights.
posted by mattoxic at 8:49 PM on June 21, 2007


This is getting a little off-topic, but how could what's happening in Australia right now set any kind of legally-binding precedent in Canada, or vice-versa?

And, to be fair to the Conservatives in Canada, they have hardly done anything particularly radical during their first year in office. Reducing the GST/consumption tax rather than income tax seemed to be particularly stupid, but their stance on Kyoto and (refusing to) reduce GHG's reflects the political will/apathy of the Canadian people.

Anyway, due to the Indian Act, the issues affecting First Nations people in Canada are more structural than due to any outright hostility of the Federal Government. As well, provincial governments, particularly in British Columbia, are trying to address the issue of land claims, but that system itself is bogged down and unworkable.

And, like I said, if Harper wanted to do anything too nasty to First Nations folks here in Canada, like revoking specific rights, etc, he would most likely be stopped by the Supreme Court, and I doubt his government would choose that particular battle to go nuclear and invoke the non-withstanding clause.

I fail to see how the Conservatives (I have worked for the NDP in two elections, now) are any worse than the Liberals in any number of areas, including the rights of First Nations.

Sorry for going OT.
posted by KokuRyu at 9:03 PM on June 21, 2007


OT: KokuRyu nailed it; Harper's gov't is a minority propped up by the less than reliable Bloc. I wouldn't be surprised if we see a non-confidence vote before the year's through. Canadian Indian Affairs minister John Prentice actually seems to be doing something about land claims issues. Restoring 30 hectares to Aboriginal ownership isn't much, but it's a start.
Oh, and happy National Aboriginal Day! Now, back to Australia...
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 9:13 PM on June 21, 2007


Wow, that read like a telegram STOP
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 9:14 PM on June 21, 2007


So, don't Aboriginal people have rights under the Australian Constitution? Pretty insane.

Our Constitution allows the government to do all these things anyway. The only constitutional issue is with over-riding any Territory laws in the area... and I did hear Howard yesterday saying (my paraphrase) "Constitution??? Won't somebody think of the children?!?!?!"

..but also, yeah, the Australian Constitution is about the rights of the State and Federal govenrnments. It's got very little to do with the rights of citizens (and of course, when it was written, indigenous Australians were not citizens).
posted by pompomtom at 9:31 PM on June 21, 2007


Restoring 30 hectares to Aboriginal ownership isn't much, but it's a start.

Are you talking about the DeltaPort deal in BC? Isn't that a provincial issue? Apparently the NDP (led by the zombie-like Carole James) feels that the Agricultural Land Reserve is more important than Land Claims...
posted by KokuRyu at 9:44 PM on June 21, 2007


Nope, this was in Manitoba.
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 9:47 PM on June 21, 2007


Richard Farmer in today's crikey.com.au sums it up:

Six months spent sniping at real and perceived character weaknesses of Kevin Rudd have not ended the new Labor Leader’s honeymoon. A popular budget with tax and other handouts for all, while still maintaining the reputation for fiscal rectitude, has come and gone with the opinion polls hardly bouncing.

Labor policies on education and broadband have been stolen and an industrial relations policy seen as being unfair has been attended to and still a crushing defeat appears to be looming.

For a Prime Minister these are difficult times so when all else appears to be failing, a concentration on actually running the country might not be a bad idea.

John Howard this week chose to put crass election campaigning on hold and for something completely different and embarked on a demonstration to show that it is incumbents who really do things while oppositions merely talk about them.

With one short press conference he removed discussion of things like the misuse of official residences for Liberal Party fund-raising from the radio and television news. Dirt units and dirty tricks involving Liberal pollsters and anti-Labor advertising campaigns were relegated from the newspaper headlines. Now the news is about a Prime Minister who is actually dealing with a serious problem.

The report commissioned by the Northern Territory government into the sexual abuse of Aboriginal children could not have been released at a better time for the Federal Government.
posted by mattoxic at 9:57 PM on June 21, 2007


I'm surprised no one has picked up SaintCynr's screamingly obvious mistake in the first comment.

(Our PM would never say "sorry". But John Howard might...)
posted by Pinback at 10:12 PM on June 21, 2007



With one short press conference he removed discussion of things like the misuse of official residences for Liberal Party fund-raising from the radio and television news. Dirt units and dirty tricks involving Liberal pollsters and anti-Labor advertising campaigns were relegated from the newspaper headlines. Now the news is about a Prime Minister who is actually dealing with a serious problem.

The report commissioned by the Northern Territory government into the sexual abuse of Aboriginal children could not have been released at a better time for the Federal Government.


Distracting everyone and changing the news is also typical--ugh.

Make sure he loses, ok? Or is your media as pliable as ours?
posted by amberglow at 10:20 PM on June 21, 2007


(Our PM would never say "sorry". But John Howard might ...)

What is this..."The Games"?
posted by KokuRyu at 10:27 PM on June 21, 2007


some say return to the bad old days of white paternalism

Announcer: Noel, not surprisingly, the idea of welfare being conditionally managed has raised the spectre of the old paternalistic days…

Pearson: Ask the children if they want some paternalism. These people who continue to bleat without looking at the facts, who are prescribing no intervention, prescribe a perpetual hell for our children."

-Noel Pearson (ABC radio, June 20)

Noel Pearson (mentioned in another post above) is one of Australia's most respected Aboriginal leaders.

ABC is the Oz government funded national network (teev, radio, internet).

posted by uncanny hengeman at 11:05 PM on June 21, 2007


Amberglow, he won't loose

As long as interest rates stay low, and China continues to buy out coal and iron ore, Howard could be found in bed with a naked 12 year old and still win.

Levels of personal debt are screamingly high in Australia, with everyone up to their eyeballs on hock over their monster-house, monster-car and monster-tv. No one wants to risk it.

Howard has them where he wants them.
posted by mattoxic at 11:06 PM on June 21, 2007


Howard could be found in bed with a naked 12 year old and still win.

man, not even I'm that pessimistic.

It's become increasingly clear that interest rates are not in Howard's control. He may have claimed responsibility for them when they were low, but he was taking credit where credit was not due. Yes, everybody's up to their eyes in debt over their home mortgages (at least they are here in Sydney), but the recent interest rate hikes have illustrated that the government does not have the control he had previously purported.

We are becoming less and less easily scared, so the fear mongering has less impact. And while this government have been extremely successful in saving a lot of money, I think (hope) a few more than a minority want to see it spent by a Labour government.

I still consider Labour the underdog here (any claim otherwise is ludicrous), but while I knew at the last election Beazley didn't have a snowflake's chance in hell of winning, I do think Rudd is capable of pulling it off.

Things like this, though, indicate just how well Johnny plays the game.
posted by kisch mokusch at 11:31 PM on June 21, 2007


kisch mokusch, I fear that Rudd is becoming unstuck. The recent issue over the lost briefing paper has surely hurt him.

I fear that Keating is right, Rudd doesn't get out of bed unless a focus group tells him to.

Workchoices is certainly bad legislation, but the more Rudd moves to distance the Labor part from its union roots, the less Rudd will be able to play workchoices as an issue.
posted by mattoxic at 11:41 PM on June 21, 2007


Noel Pearson (mentioned in another post above) is one of Australia's most respected Aboriginal leaders.
By white people maybe. Ask an Aboriginal what they think.
posted by tellurian at 11:50 PM on June 21, 2007


The best piece I've read about Howard's announcement is this one from Darwin lawyer Ken Parish.
posted by robcorr at 12:18 AM on June 22, 2007 [1 favorite]


By white people maybe. Ask an Aboriginal what they think.

How 'bout you give me a few quotes, if you could be so kind. Or even stories you've heard.

By your tone I guess this man isn't respected.
posted by uncanny hengeman at 12:20 AM on June 22, 2007


On Saturday at a dinner party at my house there were two Aboriginal women. Both of them are in high powered jobs that involve their communities and the government. One had recently returned from a fact-finding mission in the outback. I can't go into details but the gist of it is that Pearson is not an elder and is putting a lot of noses out of joint by assuming the role of one. His association with Brough is also regarded with suspicion because of the funding supplied to the Cape York Institute.
posted by tellurian at 12:48 AM on June 22, 2007


And while this government have been extremely successful in saving a lot of money, I think (hope) a few more than a minority want to see it spent by a Labour government.

Or they could, you know, not spend it, since apparent fiscal responsibility appears to be one of the reasons people give for voting Liberal.

Workchoices is certainly bad legislation, but the more Rudd moves to distance the Labor part from its union roots, the less Rudd will be able to play workchoices as an issue.

Something like 75% of Australian workers are not in a union. Unionists and left-leaning people are going to vote Labour no matter what. A fair chunk of people in the middle don't like Labour's close ties to the unions. Rudd's attempting to get those votes, we'll see if it works.

As for how the FPP relates to the election. As unfortunate as this may be, I can't see Aboriginal issues having any particular bearing on swing-type voters. People who care about this enough to change their vote about it are already voting Labour or Green.
posted by markr at 12:53 AM on June 22, 2007


mattoxic: "Levels of personal debt are screamingly high in Australia, with everyone up to their eyeballs on hock over their monster-house, monster-car and monster-tv. No one wants to risk it."

Ironically this is also the very reason why Howard could come unstuck. People have high personal debt levels, but with no job security under his new IR laws, they fear that they'll easily lose their jobs and have no way to pay those debts.
posted by Effigy2000 at 1:28 AM on June 22, 2007


Or they could, you know, not spend it, since apparent fiscal responsibility appears to be one of the reasons people give for voting Liberal.

What, hoard it until each election year, and then splash out on the politically hot topics like the current government does? You know, when you save money at the expense of education and healthcare, you end up with shittier universities and hospitals without nurses. It's not my idea of "being fiscally responsible".
posted by kisch mokusch at 2:37 AM on June 22, 2007


This is sickening on so many levels. I'm speechless.
posted by dgaicun at 3:14 AM on June 22, 2007


I really think that Richard Farmer in today's crikey.com.au is spot on. This isn't about policy, this is merely aimed at showing that the power resides with government- with him. Sure, there are endemic problems within indigenous communities, there have been for two hundred years. One has to ask, why now? Why such a huge announcement, so draconian and so short on detail.

Making medical checks for all indigenous children compulsory looking for evidence of sexual abuse- how incredibly insulting to the vast majority of parent who ARE bringing their kids up to the best of their abilities- living in communities that have suffered years of government neglect.

This is not about policy, this is posturing.
posted by mattoxic at 3:51 AM on June 22, 2007


Making medical checks for all indigenous children compulsory looking for evidence of sexual abuse- how incredibly insulting to the vast majority of parent who ARE bringing their kids up to the best of their abilities- living in communities that have suffered years of government neglect.

What really gets me... okay, one of the many, many things about this that really gets me... is that there aren't nearly enough doctors to do this. Howard has been reduced to asking doctors to volunteer.
posted by Kattullus at 6:16 AM on June 22, 2007


Stupid move that will backfire?
posted by oaf at 8:42 AM on June 22, 2007


What, hoard it until each election year, and then splash out on the politically hot topics like the current government does? You know, when you save money at the expense of education and healthcare, you end up with shittier universities and hospitals without nurses. It's not my idea of "being fiscally responsible".

I'm not supporting the current government here, I'm saying that regardless of how good a job they are actually doing, the appearance of good financial management is still one of the top reasons people give for voting Liberal. So if Labour want to win this election they should talk about balanced budgets and things like that, rather than talk of "spending it all".

Hell, they can do what they want once they're actually voted in.
posted by markr at 3:04 PM on June 22, 2007


Fair enough markr. I was the one talking about spending it though. Haven't heard Labour party members say that.
posted by kisch mokusch at 3:52 PM on June 22, 2007


What about anti-discrimination and equality laws? Doesn't this violate them directly?
posted by amberglow at 8:16 AM on June 24, 2007


Statement from the elders of one of the effected communities:
Leaders of the Mutitjulu community today questioned the need for a
military occupation of their small community.

We welcome any real support for indigenous health and welfare and even
two police will assist, but the Howard Government declared an emergency
at our community over two years ago - when they appointed an
administrator to our health clinic - and since then we have been without
a doctor, we have less health workers, our council has been sacked all
our youth and health programmes have been cut.

We have no CEO and limited social and health services. The government
has known about our overcrowding problem for at least 10 years and
they¹ve done nothing about it.

How do they propose keeping alcohol out of our community when we are 20
minutes away from 5 star hotel? Will they ban blacks from Yulara? We
have been begging for an alcohol counsellor and a rehabilitation worker
so that we can help alcoholics and substance abusers but those pleas
have been ignored. What will happen to alcoholics when this ban is
introduced? How will the government keep the grog runners out of our
community without a permit system?

We have tried to put forward projects to make our community economically
sustainable - like a simple coffee cart at the sunrise locations - but
the government refuses to even consider them.

There is money set aside from the Jimmy Little foundation for a kidney
dialysis machine at Mutitjulu, but National Parks won¹t let us have it.
That would create jobs and improve indigenous health but they just keep
stonewalling us. If there is an emergency, why won¹t Mal Brough fast
track our kidney dialysis machine?

Some commentators have made much of the cluster of sexually transmitted
diseases identified at our health clinic. People need to understand that
Mutitjulu Health Clinic (now effectively closed) is a regional clinic
and patients come from as far away as WA and SA; so to identify a
cluster here is meaningless without seeing the confidential patient data.

The fact that we hold this community together with no money, no help, no
doctor and no government support is a miracle. Any community, black or
white would struggle if they were denied the most basic resources.
Police and the Military are fine for logistics and coordination but
healthcare, youth services, education and basic housing are more
essential. Any programme must involve the people on the ground or it
won¹t work. For example who will interpret for the military?

Our women and children are scared about being forcibly examined; surely
there is a need to build trust. Even the doctors say they are reluctant
to examine a young child without a parent¹s permission. Of course any
child that is vulnerable or at risk should be immediately protected but
a wholesale intrusion into our women and children¹s privacy is a
violation of our human and sacred rights.


Where is the money for all the essential services? We need long term
financial and political commitment to provide the infrastructure and
planning for our community. There is an urgent need for 10¹s of millions
of dollars to do what needs to be done. Will Mr Brough give us a
commitment beyond the police and military?

The commonwealth needs to work with us to put health and social
services, housing and education in place rather than treating Mutitjulu
as a political football.

But we need to set the record straight:

ü There is no evidence of any fraud or mismanagement at Mutitjulu ­ we
have had an administration for 12 months that found nothing

ü Mal Brough and his predecessor have been in control of our community
for at least 12 months and we have gone backwards in services

ü We have successfully eradicated petrol sniffing from our community in
conjunction with government authorities and oil companies

ü We have thrown suspected paedophiles out of our community using the
permit system which our government now seeks take away from us.

ü We will work constructively with any government, State, Territory or
Federal that wants to help aboriginal people.
posted by asok at 8:08 AM on June 28, 2007


Class act, that Howard.
posted by five fresh fish at 6:32 PM on June 28, 2007


« Older Spoiling Harry Potter   |   Finally! A drug ad worth watching Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments