All it took was one night of debate in the Senate, for the Stronger Futures legislation to pass into law.
All done in about eight hours, from 6.00pm on June 28, to about 2:15am the next morning.
This was in the face of vast Indigenous opposition to this expansion of the intervention. Rev Dr Djiniyini Gondarra OAM, speaking for 8,000 Aboriginal people in the Northern Territory, declared the day the laws passed a "day of mourning". Similarly, Rosalie Kunoth Monks announced "We will never accept this racist legislation".
Despite launching openly racist policies, there never was any evidence that the intervention improved socio-economic conditions in Indigenous communities. According to the Government's own statistics, things aren't getting better. Among other socio-economic indicators, child malnutrition is up and school attendance has declined.
Indigenous Affairs Minister Jenny Macklin has bragged about introducing a "non-discriminatory system" of income management. Those interested in the nature of this new "non-discriminatory" model can read who it is applied to in a Parliamentary Library background note. It notes, "In the NT, a total of 17 567 people were subject to income management as at 6 April 2012. Of these, around 90 per cent identified as Indigenous."
In June this year, the Ombudsman released a report (PDF) on Centrelink Income Management decisions. Out of more than 1,000 who applied to be removed from income management, 171 were refused. An additional 237 people were forced onto income management. Readers will be relieved to learn that now that Macklin has created a "non-discriminatory" system, 93 per cent of those 408 people identified as Indigenous. As reported [paywalled] in the Australian, the decisions made were routinely arbitrary and unreasonable, contrary to the Government's own provisions of how such decisions should be made.
It is a rewarding experience to read the debate, if one can call it that, on the legislation that entrenches 10 more years of the intervention.
Senator Christine Milne, leader of the Greens, put a simple question to Labor Senator Christopher Evans. She said:
I note that Senator Evans has just said 'we think income management will improve things' and 'we think it has improved things' but there is absolutely no evidence cited. I ask Senator Evans whether he is aware that the 2008 Northern Territory Emergency Response Review Board established by the Rudd government to evaluate compulsory income management recommended 'that compulsory income management in the Northern Territory cease'. Is Senator Evans aware that that recommendation came from the review board established by the Rudd government, and is he aware that the review board's recommendations were based on visits to 31 communities, meetings with representatives of 56 communities, consultation with over 140 organisations, and 222 submissions—and also consultancy work which has not been made public? That constitutes far more than what Senator Evans thinks. What is his view, and why does he reject the Northern Territory review board's advice that income management cease?
A reasonable question, one might think. Senator Evans replied:
I have not seen the report Senator Milne refers to.
Yes, you read that right. The Rudd government handpicked an expert panel to review the intervention. Its scathing report was mysteriously sanitised shortly before its release. Yet even so, the report still urged drastic change, which was completely ignored by the Rudd government, which continued, and has now expanded the intervention. Why? Well, the Labor Senator says "I accept that there is a divergence of views on this but the Government's experience is that these measures are delivering improved results".
For example, "we are seeing reports of more fresh fruit and vegetables being brought into stores", Senator Evans explained.
Senator Milne replied:
Are you aware that the research by the Menzies School of Health Research indicates that income quarantining has had no substantial impact on improving Indigenous child welfare and that there has been little change in store spending patterns? That is contrary to what you have just said, Senator Evans, in terms of fruit and vegetables... I would like to see the significant empirical data which is contrary to what the Menzies centre is saying, because Menzies is saying that there has been little change in store spending patterns.
Senator Evans said he would take the question on notice. Evidently, he did not have any evidence for his claim handy.
Greens Senator Lee Rhiannon read out a list of 57 organisations opposed to income management in Bankstown.
These included;
The Australian Arab Business Network; the Australian Immigrant and Refugee Women's Alliance; the Australian Services Union; the Bankstown Area Multicultural Network; the Bankstown Community Resource Group; the Bankstown Women's Health Centre; the Cabramatta Community Centre; the Combined Pensioners and Superannuants of New South Wales; the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union New South Wales; the New South Wales Council of Social Services; the Darug Tribal Aboriginal Corporation; the Ethnic Child Care, Family and Community Services Coop; the Ethnic Communities Council of New South Wales; the Finance Sector Union, New South Wales/ACT Branch; the Fairfield Local Aboriginal Access Group; the Federation of Ethnic Communities Council of Australia; the Gandangara Local Aboriginal Land Council; the Granville Multicultural Community Centre.
They included;
The Lebanese Community Council of New South Wales; the Lebanese Muslim Association; the Metro Migrant Resource Centre; the National Association of Community Legal Centres Inc; the National Tertiary Education Union New South Wales; the Network of Immigrant and Refugee Women of Australia Inc.
How has the Government interacted with them, Senator Rhiannon asked. Senator Evans chortled - one of the organisations listed was Green Left Weekly. He wouldn't consult with them.
Greens Senator Ludlam then put another challenge to Senator Evans. He asked the senators present to visualise how
...that you come in here in the morning and have in your pocket a little BasicsCard which controls exactly how much you get to spend on certain things and which is issued by some people in Bidyadanga, up on the north-west coast, whom you have never met. How humiliating and how weird would you find it?
Senator Ludlum noted that Eva Cox from Jumbunna Indigenous House of Learning found that
the studies and statistics available showed no valid or reliable evidence of measurable benefits of income management to individuals or communities.
Ludlum noted that Aboriginal Peak Organisations Northern Territory similarly found that there is no "clear evidence base that demonstrates" the success of income management "in achieving its objective of protecting vulnerable women and children and encouraging socially responsible behaviours amongst welfare recipients."
Ludlum requested Evans "to address these comments with provision of anything at all which could help the chamber make its mind up".
Could Senator Evans provide any evidence in favour of income management?
Senator Evans response was as astonishing as it was revealing. Abstaining from referring to any evidence, he took a different approach:
You may be worried about humiliation; I think you ought to be worried about poverty, child abuse, social dislocation, alcoholism and foetal alcohol syndrome, as I know you are. But you have to balance your preciousness about humiliation, which is not matched by the 4,000 people who did it, and the serious social issues occurring in these communities. You can meet with Green Left Weekly and other groups in Sydney and discuss broad policy and philosophical objectives but in the end you have to get down to saying, 'What can we do to help these communities that are suffering some of the worst social conditions in the world in the middle of one of the most prosperous economies in the world?' This is a genuine attempt to come to terms and to assist people to deal with those issues. You have a philosophical opposition to that, but we have taken a different view.
A different view indeed.
When one refers to "preciousness about humiliation", it is worth considering what effect these measures have had on Indigenous communities. The Australian Indigenous Doctors' Association said in its Health Impact Statement that the Intervention measures "will leave a negative legacy on the psychological and social wellbeing, on the spirituality and cultural integrity of the prescribed communities."
It explained that,
any improvements in physical health may be outweighed by negative impacts on the psychological health, spirituality, and cultural integrity of almost all the Aboriginal population in prescribed communities (and, arguably, in the NT)." This is because of the "centrality of human dignity to health.
Thus, witness the attempted suicide and self-harm statistics. In 2007, there were 57 incidents. In 2008, 123. In 2009, 165. In 2010, 183. In 2011, 261.
Perhaps they, too, had a "preciousness about humiliation".
When United Nations Special Rapporteur on Indigenous people, Professor James Anaya visited Australia, Macklin was excited at his arrival. It was a "pleasure and privilege" to welcome "one of the world's leading human rights advocates and legal scholars".
"Professor Anaya, your visit around Australia will shine a light on human dignity", Macklin said.
He did. He announced that the intervention "measures overtly discriminate against Aboriginal peoples, infringe their right of self-determination and stigmatise already stigmatised communities."
Ten more years, no evidence, and scorn for those who are precious about humiliation.
A day of mourning was declared, and a day of mourning it should be.
Michael Brull is studying a Juris Doctor at UNSW. He tweets @mikeb476. View his full profile here.
