The Intervention was directed at addressing the disproportionate levels of violence in Indigenous communities in the Northern Territory, as well as the systemic disadvantage of Indigenous people, characterised by economic deprivation, unemployment, social marginalisation, inadequate housing and poor health and justice outcomes.
The Little Children are Sacred Report was the result of in-depth research, investigation and community consultation over a period of over eight months by members of the Northern Territory Board of Inquiry.
The focus of their inquiry was instances of sexual abuse, especially of children, in Northern Territory Indigenous communities. The striking facts, graphic imagery and ardent plea for action contained in this report saw this issue gain widespread attention both in the media and in the political agenda, inciting divisive debate and discussion. The NTNERA was enacted by the Howard Government just two months after the report was released to the public, allowing little time for consultation with Indigenous communities.
It was framed as a 'national emergency' with army troops being deployed to Indigenous communities in the Northern Territory. This took place in the lead up to the Federal Election, in which the Labor Party under Kevin Rudd defeated the Howard Government after four terms of Liberal government.
It included restrictions on alcohol, changes to welfare payments, acquisition of parcels of land, education, employment and health initiatives, restrictions on pornography and other measures.
In order to enact this package of legislation, several existing laws were affected or partially suspended, including the :. Despite the Little Children are Sacred Report emphasising the importance of entering into genuine partnerships with Aboriginal communities, the Government implemented the Intervention measures with speed.
After an initial focus on preventing child sexual abuse, successive federal governments re-designed and re-framed the Intervention. This involved linking the Intervention with the broader 'Closing the Gap' campaign, introducing new measures such as the BasicsCard and tougher penalties for the possession of alcohol and pornography.
Changes were also made to the operation of the Racial Discrimination Act see section on Human Rights. The current package of legislation retains the support of the Liberal Government and is due to expire in The Intervention was introduced in by the Howard Government, but a change of government in September of that year saw the Labor Government under Kevin Rudd gain power. In Rudd publicly apologised to the members of the Stolen Generations on behalf of the nation.
In , Rudd also declared support for the most substantive framework for the rights of Indigenous peoples, the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. The previous Howard government had voted against the ratification of this treaty. In order to enact parallel legislative measures for the States, the Commonwealth would need to find authority in some of the narrower heads of power granted to it by section 51 of the Constitution.
Upon the announcement of the NT intervention measures, a consensus was quickly revealed among political parties, Indigenous peoples and the general community about the need for child abuse and family violence in Indigenous communities to be treated as a national priority. For many sectors of the community, there was hope that after a plethora of inquires and reports into the occurrence and causes of violence in Aboriginal communities, something might finally be done to address it.
Aboriginal leaders and organisations expressed significant concerns at the potentially adverse consequences of implementing a quick response to such a complex social problem without wide-spread consultation with the communities involved, and due to the lack of connection between the response announced by the government and the recommendations of the Little Children Are Sacred report that had initiated the process.
Concerns were also aired about the practicality of many of the intervention measures. As medical professionals, we question the notion that you can treat poverty, dispossession, marginalisation and despair the root causes of substance misuse and sexual, physical and emotional abuse with interventions that further contribute to poverty, dispossession, marginalisation and despair.
The Australian government response is framed as a top—down crisis intervention It is characterised as a short-term response to be followed by medium- and long-term strategies — none of which are clear at this stage. No reason is given as to how measures such as scrapping the permit system will address the problem of child sexual abuse.
Despite the airing of significant concerns, there was a broad willingness from across all areas of society to work with the government to make lasting change in Indigenous communities. For example, an open letter was delivered to the Minister for Indigenous Affairs on 26 June signed by over organisations from the Indigenous and community sector.
It reads:. The safety and well-being of Indigenous children is paramount. We welcome your commitment to tackling violence and abuse in certain Indigenous communities. We are deeply concerned at the severity and widespread nature of the problems of child sexual abuse and community breakdown in Indigenous communities in the NT, catalogued in the Little Children are Sacred Report. We wish to work collaboratively with Governments and the communities affected to ensure that children are protected.
We would like to see greater investment in the services that support Indigenous families and communities, the active involvement of these communities in finding solutions to these problems and greater Federal Government engagement in delivering basic health, housing and education services to remote communities We note that the services which most Australians take for granted are often not delivered to remote Indigenous communities, including adequately resourced schools, health services, child protection and family support services, as well as police who are trained to deal with domestic violence in the communities affected.
We endorse the call in the Little Children are Sacred Report for the Australian and Territory Governments to work together urgently to fill these gaps in services. There is also a need for a longer term plan to address the underlying causes of the problem, including community breakdown, joblessness, overcrowding and low levels of education. Successfully tackling these problems requires sustainable solutions, which must be worked out with the communities, not prescribed from Canberra.
Some of the measures will weaken communities and families by taking from them the ability to make basic decisions about their lives, thus removing responsibility instead of empowering them The complex issues being tackled and the proposed measures to be taken to overcome them raise a host of fundamental human rights principles.
Every Australian woman, man and child has the right to live free from violence in a safe and supportive home and community. While these Conventions require government action to protect women and children against immediate harm, they also require government to address the broader social factors such as health, education and housing and disadvantage experienced within Indigenous communities. The RDA protects all Australians against discrimination on the grounds of race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin.
Successive Australian governments for more than 30 years have proudly endorsed the objects of the RDA, and Australia has been a strong advocate for its principles on the international stage. The RDA provides that its provisions are not contravened by special measures taken to ensure the enjoyment or exercise of the human rights of particular racial groups or individuals belonging to them.
Special measures must be reasonable and proportionate to the risk of harm being addressed. These provisions give an avenue for laws to protect Indigenous women and children who are at risk. However in giving this support, HREOC has indicated that the restrictions should be part of a broad range of measures to address the causes of alcoholism, rehabilitation and underlying social disadvantage.
Many Indigenous communities are crying out for support services to assist them in addressing the social conditions in their communities. HREOC has been advocating for some time that a proactive approach needs to be taken by governments to address Indigenous disadvantage. Successive Social Justice Reports to Parliament have recommended a human rights based approach to development in Indigenous communities and stressed the necessity of ensuring the effective participation of Indigenous peoples in decision making processes.
This approach is important to ensure that measures have more than a temporary impact on Indigenous people and their communities. It is crucial that the government thoroughly analyses barriers that exist within Indigenous communities to the full enjoyment of basic human rights, such as the right to an adequate standard of living, and to the highest attainable standard of health, education and housing and identifies the steps necessary to address these.
As Social Justice Commissioner, I also expressed some concerns about the capacity of the Government to implement the announced measures given the significant difficulties and failings that had occurred in its whole of government machinery for Indigenous affairs in the past three years. Upon the announcement of the NT intervention measures I stated:.
Overall, the announcements and the commitments made by the federal Government for the NT raise a number of important and complex issues. Each of these issues in some way comes back to the capacity of the government to deliver on its commitments.
And it is, of course, the capacity of the government through the new arrangements that has been the focus of successive Social Justice Reports. Structural questions about how the government will achieve its objectives include, but are by no means limited to the following:. The evaluation plan identifies that in the coming year there will be reviews of some of the communities who have previously been designated as communities in crisis, and baseline data will be established for some new priority communities.
What is the impact of the NT announcement on this plan? Does it re-direct these evaluation activities for new communities to the NT rather than to communities in other states, or will there be an expansion of the scope of the evaluative framework?
This would appear necessary to be able to effectively understand the success or otherwise of the measures to be taken. The Social Justice Report identifies the warning signs where the current federal system for Indigenous affairs is not capable of addressing these core issues due to significant policy errors.
The most significant problem with the new arrangements identified by the Report is the lack of capacity for engagement and participation of Indigenous peoples. This manifests as a lack of connection between the local and regional level, up to the state and national level; and as a disconnect between the making of policy and its implementation Indigenous peoples are treated as problems to be solved, not as partners and active participants in creating a positive life vision for the generations of Indigenous peoples still to come.
The greatest irony of this is that it fosters a passive system of policy development and service delivery while at the same time criticising Indigenous peoples for being passive recipients of government services!
Will the Government conduct child protection checks on volunteers and other personnel who enter Indigenous communities to assist in this process? Reconciliation Australia also cautioned that long term strategies would need to be implemented in order for the emergency measures to be successful:. But what remains to be seen is firstly whether having made this wide ranging announcement, the Government has the measures and properly trained people in place to make it work. Then we must hope that the Prime Minister, and all our leaders, will work to move Australia beyond serial crisis intervention to take the systemic, long term action consistently called for by fellow Australians living the horror.
Aboriginal organisations in the Northern Territory, in conjunction with other community sector organisations across the nation Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal , developed a formal response to the federal government's proposed intervention measures on 10 July The proposal outlined the willingness of a vast number of Indigenous organisations across the territory to work in partnership with the government to address family violence and child abuse issues.
The report stated that:. The serious nature of Aboriginal child abuse and family violence in the Northern Territory demands an emergency response. However, in developing this response governments must show confidence and faith in Aboriginal communities to take ownership of these problems and support them to protect and nurture their children over the long term.
This has been the expressed desire of Aboriginal communities A comprehensive approach to child protection in an emergency context gives priority to protection from immediate physical or emotional harm, but must go further. It should also address community safety and access to essential services including housing, health care and education. A failure to also commit to addressing these underlying issues will ensure the current risk factors contributing to existing child abuse and neglect will remain.
Accordingly, the CAO proposed a two stage response to the problems of child abuse in remote Aboriginal communities:. This plan would include specific objectives, timeframes and mechanisms that ensure transparency and ongoing independent rigorous evaluation.
The performance of both governments and Aboriginal organisations would be included. This would also involve thorough planning and negotiation to ensure that the correct strategies are adopted, the substantial resources required are efficiently used, and funding is stable and predictable over the longer term. This plan should be developed and negotiated under a partnership approach with the targeted communities during the current emergency response phase and be implemented as soon as is practicable.
These stages are not mutually exclusive. During the emergency response phase, the emphasis must shift from immediate child endangerment goals to the underlying and wider child protection goals of health, housing, education and ongoing community safety.
Funding must be organised so that short term needs are met and long term development funding is also available. In these ways the emergency measures provide a foundation for stable long term investment that results in longer term solutions The response should build on the knowledge base already available to Government, starting with the recommendations of the Little Children are Sacred Report.
Text Box 5 below provides a summary of the recommended approach as set out by the Combined Aboriginal Organisations of the Northern Territory. As the CAO state in their proposal:. Strategies to resolve these problems are more likely to succeed if local Aboriginal governance and the capacity of communities to pursue their own solutions are strengthened. To consult properly over these measures need not take long and it would improve the effectiveness of implementation In addition to an Emergency Response, a longer term community capacity and service development plan is needed to establish the basic services and facilities that are lacking in the communities, to build job opportunities and proper housing, and to strengthen community governance so that the communities themselves can take the lead in addressing their problems.
Community engagement, and strengthening community cohesion, is critical to such an approach:. Consultation and engagement with community leaders is crucial to ensure that policy is informed by knowledge of local conditions, priorities are properly set and mistakes are avoided in implementation As the timeline for the introduction of the legislation vividly demonstrates, the government was unwilling to enter into any dialogue, let alone negotiations, with Indigenous communities or the broader community about the methods to be adopted.
The circumscribed process for debate and scrutiny also meant there was limited scrutiny prior to the introduction of the legislation.
The result was acrimonious public debate in which those who expressed concerns about the methods being adopted by the government were criticised often in the most personal of terms as if they were opposed to addressing violence and abuse. From a distance, it appears inconceivable that a program to address issues as fundamental as family violence and child abuse should be the cause of community division.
Such a process should have built partnerships across society and solidified a joint determination to address the scourge of family violence and child abuse in Indigenous communities. Instead, the approach adopted has created or exacerbated division and mistrust between the federal government, the Northern Territory government, Indigenous communities and numerous community organisations.
The responsibility for creating such division lies with those who led the process. The inability to develop a national consensus and partnership for addressing violence and abuse should be seen as one of the main legacies, and a significant failure, of the now former Minister for Indigenous Affairs.
The main victims of such conflict and division are, of course, Indigenous peoples themselves — with a noticeable increase in intolerance towards our communities and an increased stereotyping of all Aboriginal men as violent, drunks or abusers. Rebuilding trust and partnerships is a major challenge for the incoming Minister and government. The NT intervention legislation and associated measures raise complex human rights challenges.
The impact of sexual abuse on indigenous children, families and communities is a most serious issue requiring decisive and prompt action. The Northern Territory national emergency response will protect children and implement Australia's obligations under human rights treaties. In apparent contradiction of this, however, the legislation also provides that in any event the measures are not subject to racial discrimination protections at either the territory or national level.
Many people and Indigenous communities have expressed concerns that the measures involve breaches of human rights. In response, Government officials stated before the Senate Inquiry into the legislation that:. In balancing those two measures, in the context of the emergency response, we have considered those matters and we consider that the legislation achieves that balance.
Text Box 6 below provides a summary of the main human rights obligations undertaken by Australia that relate, directly or indirectly, to family violence and child abuse issues. This text box reveals a complex range of human rights issues that the NT intervention measures raise. It is important to acknowledge at the outset the overlapping and inter-connected nature of these different human rights.
This reflects that human rights are universal and indivisible. In simple terms universality means that rights apply to everyone, everywhere, equally and regardless of circumstance — they are intended to reflect the essence of humanity.
They are the standards of treatment that all individuals and groups, irrespective of their racial or ethnic origins, should receive for the simple reason that we are all members of the human family. And the indivisibility of human rights means that all rights - economic, social, cultural, civil and political rights — are of equal importance. There is no hierarchy or priority for the protection or enjoyment of rights. Similarly, this means that all rights are to be applied consistently — you cannot claim to be performing an action in exercise of your rights if it causes harm or breaches the rights of another person.
It states:. Nothing in the present Covenant may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms recognized herein or at their limitation to a greater extent than is provided for in the present Covenant. While this language is somewhat opaque, it reflects the principle that it is not legitimate to suggest that the reason for breaching a human right is in order to further the recognition of a different right.
Governments must apply human rights in a consistent manner and ensure that their efforts to promote the enjoyment of certain human rights do not by design or impact result in breaches of other rights. In relation to the NT intervention, the implication of this should be clear: it is not appropriate to seek to justify discriminatory measures on the basis that they are undertaken in furtherance of another right such as addressing violence.
Human rights law requires that solutions be found that respect and protect both rights. The relevant human rights issues raised by the NT intervention can be categorised into the following broad thematic areas:. There are also a range of specific economic, social and cultural rights that are related to preventing violence, such as the right to health, education, an adequate standard of living and to social security.
These are discussed further below in relation to specific measures contained in the NT intervention. A brief summary of the key human rights obligations in relation to each of these thematic areas is provided below. An extract is contained in the Text Box below. Her remarks to the Senate Legal and Constitutional Committee are extracted in the text box below.
States Parties undertake to ensure the child such protection and care as is necessary for his or her well-being, taking into account the rights and duties of his or her parents, legal guardians, or other individuals legally responsible for him or her, and, to this end, shall take all appropriate legislative and administrative measures.
States Parties shall ensure to the maximum extent possible the survival and development of the child. States Parties shall take all appropriate legislative, administrative, social and educational measures to protect the child from all forms of physical or mental violence, injury or abuse, neglect or negligent treatment, maltreatment or exploitation, including sexual abuse, while in the care of parent s , legal guardian s or any other person who has the care of the child.
Such protective measures should, as appropriate, include effective procedures for the establishment of social programmes to provide necessary support for the child and for those who have the care of the child, as well as for other forms of prevention and for identification, reporting, referral, investigation, treatment and follow-up of instances of child maltreatment described heretofore, and, as appropriate, for judicial involvement.
States Parties recognize the right of the child to education, and with a view to achieving this right progressively and on the basis of equal opportunity. States Parties shall take all appropriate measures, including legislative, administrative, social and educational measures, to protect children from the illicit use of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances as defined in the relevant international treaties, and to prevent the use of children in the illicit production and trafficking substances.
In its report on the NT intervention legislation, the Senate Legal and Constitutional Committee noted concerns that the legislation may be discriminatory.
Ultimately however they did not address this point in detail. Instead, they state:. The committee is of the view that immediate and absolute priority must be given to addressing the issues that affect the welfare of Indigenous children in the Northern Territory. Indeed, the protection of these children from violence and abuse, and the establishment of conditions that will allow them to lead healthy and productive lives, in which they achieve their full potential, is of the utmost importance.
More broadly, there is clearly a need for immediate action to address the disadvantage all Indigenous people confront. These issues include high unemployment, alcohol and drug dependency, poor health and education outcomes, inadequate housing and child abuse. In saying this, the committee acknowledges that many of the issues that the bills seek to address are complex and entrenched; however, this is no excuse for failure or neglect. The legislation contains 'on the ground' practical solutions which the committee believes will go a long way to addressing some of the inherent problems in Indigenous communities.
In this context, the committee notes the close cooperation that has taken place throughout the policy formulation process between all relevant Commonwealth agencies.
Do the measures enacted in the NT emergency response legislation comply with human rights standards? In making this assessment, it is necessary to draw a distinction between the stated intention of the government and its chosen method for implementation.
Measures that violate the human rights of the intended beneficiaries are more likely to work in ways that undermine the overall well-being of these communities in both the short and longer term. For example, the Government has clearly stated that the NT intervention seeks to address a breakdown in law and order in Aboriginal communities.
And yet it potentially involves introducing measures that undermine the rule of law and that do not guarantee Aboriginal citizens equal treatment to other Australians. If this is the case, then it places a fundamental contradiction at the heart of the NT intervention measures. This will inhibit the building of relationships, partnerships and trust between the Government and Indigenous communities. It would also undermine the credibility of the measures, and ultimately, threaten the sustainability and long term impact of the measures.
Similarly, if policy interventions are misconceived or poorly designed, then the possibility of constructing a truly effective long-term response to family violence and child abuse in Indigenous communities will be compromised. The starting point for determining the human rights implications of the NT intervention measures is to recognise that they are intended to address family violence and child abuse in Indigenous communities.
It is essential that governments undertake action to address violence and abuse, particularly when there is compelling evidence that it is widespread.
Australian governments have, from time to time, acknowledged the existence of a pervasive and serious pattern of sexual abuse and family violence in Indigenous communities. And yet, action had rarely been backed by resources or sustained action. For example, as Appendix 2 of this report shows, the Prime Minister had convened a national roundtable on this issue in with limited follow up actions and the Council of Australian Governments had agreed on the urgency of addressing this issue several times in the past decade.
Accordingly, the NT intervention presents a historic opportunity to deal with a tragedy that has existed for too long, and that has destroyed too many families and too many young Aboriginal lives. That is, the belief that an incremental approach to funding services for Indigenous communities is all that is needed to address the gross disparities in social and economic conditions faced by Indigenous people.
Close Search Search. Currently not logged in. It's not hard to look back at the history of colonisation in this country and see that authorities mistreated Indigenous people. But paternalistic policies that serve to criminalise Indigenous people are not simply a thing of our past.
Objections to the Intervention Many Indigenous people objected to the Intervention, expressing concern that it: didn't address the underlying causes of disadvantage which give rise to problems such as child abuse and domestic violence [4] violated the human rights of Indigenous people [5] ignored local knowledge and disempowered Indigenous people only addressed 2 of the 97 recommendations from the Little Children are Sacred Report 6.
Intervention - Denied control. Read Mili's story. Stop and think: racism or rescue effort? The NT scheme is still far more draconian than any other, targeting all young people or long term unemployed on benefits, instead of specific groups referred by social services. A government commissioned review of income management surveyed over people on the system. More than two-thirds of people said that income management is discriminatory.
Similar numbers report feelings of embarrassment arising from income management, and three quarters feel it is unfair. A majority said the scheme had made their life harder or not improved things. Despite this enormous expense, the government commissioned review of income management in the NT argued in their final report:. More general measures of wellbeing at the community level show no evidence of improvement, including for children.
The evaluation found that, rather than building capacity and independence, for many the program has acted to make people more dependent on welfare. CDEPs were mostly local Aboriginal government councils running municipal and other community services. The scheme was abolished under the Intervention and CDEP participants were transferred from wages onto Centrelink payments.
However, figures gained through Senate estimates in showed 61 per cent of these positions were only part-time and many are on the lowest level of public sector pay. The net result of this reform process has been a loss of many thousands of waged jobs. Aboriginal unemployment rates across remote Australia have skyrocketed from 11 per cent before the Intervention, to 28 per cent today.
This figure does not register the many thousands of unemployed people not registered with Centrelink. Under the current scheme, called the Community Development Program CDP , Newstart recipients are required to work for 25 hours per week to receive their entitlements. Often this is municipal work and private companies can also use CDP participants without paying them wages. There are no protections under industrial law and payment is well below award wages. Source: NITV. The Northern Territory National Emergency Response Act prohibited courts from considering Aboriginal culture, custom and law when making bail and sentencing decisions in the Northern Territory.
This was a violation of principles of equality before the law and rights to a fair trial. All other groups in Australia have a right for all of their circumstances to be considered when courts are making bail and sentencing decisions - including their culture and customary obligations.
These laws did not only impact on sentencing for crimes committed by Indigenous people. For example, in a construction company dug a pit toilet on an Aboriginal sacred site at Numbulwar in the NT Gulf Country while building a compound for the new Government Business Manager installed by the Intervention.
Under the Stronger Futures legislation introduced in , changes were made to exempt matters involving Aboriginal heritage protection.
0コメント