How best to "intervene"?

This post has been updated to rectify some factual inaccuracies pointed out to my by a reader – thank you Bob.

I’ve just read an article from the UK about a comment made by the CEO of Barnardo’s that we should think about taking more children into care when they’re babies, to prevent them being damaged beyond repair by people who don’t want to, or can’t be effective parents. This appears to be at least partially in response to the recent case of torture, assault and sexual abuse of two boys by two other boys aged 10 and 12, who apparently come from a “terminally dysfunctional” family.

The issues this raises are similar to, at least in part, to those raised by a feature of Australian society that doesn’t get talked about much, but is quite startling when you find out about it – “The Intervention”. I’ve been meaning to blog about this for a while…

The Intervention was / is an ‘emergency response’ by the Australian government to a report into child abuse in Aboriginal communities in the Northern Territory (NT). By way of a quick overview, the NT covers a vast area and has a small and scattered population. It’s six times the size of Britain with a population of only 220,000 (about the same as Aberdeen or other small cities). Following European ‘settlement’ 200+ years ago and the resulting dispossession, mass slaughter and general destruction of way of life of the indigenous population that had lived there for the previous 40,000 years, some redress of a kind took place when vast tracts of land were granted back to their traditional communities, and aboriginal townships and settlements now dot the NT. (As a side comment, it’s worth noting that around a third of indigenous Australians live in remote and rural areas, compared to 14% of all Australians, but that almost a third live in urban centres – not relevant to this discussion, but a little known fact…)

Anyway, skipping ahead to a few years ago, and the emergence of major allegations of widespread child sexual abuse, coupled with concerns about levels of welfare dependency and alcoholism, and the breakdown of traditional cultural norms and values in indigenous communities. The resulting report, The Little Children are Sacred, catalogued some very horrible and disturbing stuff, which seemed to indicate that many of the concerns were justified. So the question then was what to do about is? (Which is where I’m reminded of the issue by the Barnardos comments).

The then government’s response has been widely reported as ‘calling in the army’, although what this means in practice has been unclear and has apparently been restricted to logistical support rather than a ‘policing’ function. In addition, anti-discriminiation legislation has been suspended to enable ‘welfare quaranting’ of benefits paid to indigenous people in around 70 proscribed communities’ in the NT. There have also been bans on the of alcohol in indigenous communities, and pornography filters placed on public computers. On a less punitive note, there has been additional investment into, and policy prioritising around increasing school attendance rates and providing new community-based services.

I’d love to say that the Intervention has been controversial in Australia, but in truth, I’ve barely heard an Australian mention it. The outback of the NT might as well be on a different planet to urbanised Sydney and I’ve blogged before on the, at best, amazing levels of indifference to indigenous Australians, and at worst, blatant racism.

The Intervention has, however, been controversial to the indigenous population (numbering nearly 500,000 in total), with some polarised views on both sides. Some indigenous leaders and spokespeople have welcomed aspects of it, mainly it seems because some action is better than nothing, and there has been some extra funding for projects and programs as a result. Female community elders have been quoted talking about the benefits of alcohol bans (although note that many indigenous communities had become ‘dry’ through self-determination anyway), and have welcomed the ‘income management’ policy of quarantining welfare payments for use on food and essential items only. Others, however, including many indigenous people, Amnesty and the UN, have heavily criticised the whole approach, condemning it as racist and as a blunt tool to try to shape new community developments.

It’s a thorny set of issues, but I think the following from Australians for Native Title and Reconciliation (ANTaR) sums it up well:
“ANTaR has no problem about governments intervening when children are at risk – indeed they would be negligent not to (and have been ignoring the problems in Indigenous communities for decades) so we want to see the national government stay engaged, commit far more resources to the Northern Territory, and across the nation, to help address the massive problems confronting Indigenous communities, to address the huge backlogs in housing, health programs, education and other community services which other Australians take for granted.

But we want to see this engagement on a different footing: one which respects the human rights of everyone; one which engages Indigenous people in a partnership of equals, not a disrespectful dictatorial situation; we want to see measures which respond to behaviours, not racial categories (so case-by-case income management may be legitimate, but not as a blanket policy); one which builds Indigenous capacity for genuine self-determination and sustainability of better functioning communities.

Governments must work with communities for the long haul, to explore with them the options for their development, opportunities for their young people, and for enabling them to stay on their country with a reasonable range of services and some hope and sustainability for the future.”

Which brings me back to Barnardo’s CEO and his views that removing children from their homes and, presumably either plonking them into nice middle class families or looking after them in one of his charity’s homes, would be a good way to tackle the problems of poor parenting and damaged children.

I’ve spent a fair amount of time in the kinds of communities I suspect he has in mind when he talks about families that can’t be fixed – this isn’t explicit in his comments, but I think we can all assume he doesn’t see a great problem with child protection and ‘broken families’ in the middle classes. I know first-hand how desolate ‘disadvantaged’ communities can be. Two or three generations of people in families who’ve never had a job, or any expectation of one; no money coming in apart from the dole; drugs everywhere; no shops apart from the chippy, the bookie, the offy and the corner shop, not a bit of fresh food for miles; crap schools and crap housing. Kids being born to people who are still kids themselves and haven’t had any role models to help them be parents.

It isn’t really a surprise that we’ve got dysfunctional families in places like these, but is taking children out of their homes on a bigger scale than we already do, really the answer? Are we just going to write off a whole generation of new parents because they didn’t have the parenting or education or chances that most of us take for granted and are simply repeating patterns they’ve learned? How about we actually get in there and try to do something a bit more useful, like creating new jobs for people living in communities where there’s 50% unemployment, instead of weeping and wailing about the Global Financial Crisis and how much value it’s wiped off our nice pensions and houses? How about we invest in high quality childcare and education, how about we start designing social housing so that we don’t just dump all the poor people in huge, out of sight, out of mind, peripheral housing schemes with no transport, no fresh food, no jobs nearby, no decent schools, no nothing. How about we stop punishing people for being born poor. How about we try to give people some hope, something to aim for, some ambitions?

Of course, children need to be protected and of course, sometime, that means removing them from their parents. But that has to be a last resort and surely, as with the Australian NT Intervention, we need to be getting a lot more inventive about preventing yet another generation being lost to poverty instead of resorting to blunt social control tactics which are just a slippery slope to a nasty, nasty world where we’ve de-humanised whole swathes of the population.

Climbing Uluru (Ayers Rock)

There's a debate going on in Australia at the moment about whether to ban people from climbing Uluru (or Ayers Rock as it is sometimes known). It mirrors a recent debate that took place in my family when I was back home!

I'm not normally one for banning things but in this case I think the benefits in terms of respecting traditional culture and helping Australia move forward from its tainted history of exploitation of indigenous people, far outweigh the costs of reducing people's freedom to do something that is really not that big a deal.

Here's a well balanced article on the debate from the ABC (Australian Broadcasting Corporation). Original here

"A proposed ban on climbing Uluru in Central Australia has sparked debate between tourists, traditional owners and political leaders.

A draft management plan for the Uluru-Kata Tjuta National Park was released today, recommending a ban for cultural and environmental reasons.

The plan could come into effect within 18 months, but must first go through a consultation process and be signed off by Federal Environment Minister Peter Garrett.

The Northern Territory's Tourism Minister, Chris Burns, says the Territory Government does not back the proposal.

"We have never supported the full closure of the climb at Uluru and that remains our position," he said.

But a traditional owner of Uluru, Vince Forrester, says he is is relieved a ban on climbing the iconic rock is one step closer to becoming a reality.

He says the rock is sacred to the local Aboriginal people and traditional owners have wanted the climb closed since the park was handed back to them in 1985.

"You can't go climb on top of the Vatican, you can't go climb on top of the Buddhist temples and so on and so forth," he said.

"Obviously you have to respect our religious attachment to the land too, so we're saying please do not climb Uluru - we've said it in all languages."

Mr Forrester says tourism operators should not be concerned about the closure.

"The visitors will get more information by walking around the base of Uluru and getting told the stories which Aboriginal people are available to do," he said.

Mixed response

The 346-metre high rock is visited by about 350,000 people a year, about half of whom are from overseas. More than 100,000 people climb the rock against the wishes of the traditional owners.

More than 35 deaths have been recorded on the climb, which can be steep, slippery and extremely hot.

The draft management plan, which is open to public comment for the next two months, notes that recent surveys show 98 per cent of people would not be put off visiting the area if they were not allowed to climb the rock.

But members of the public writing to ABC News Online have had a mixed reaction to the proposed climbing ban.

"This is a secular country. Dictating access to a popular tourist destination based on religious beliefs is unacceptable," wrote one, called Jim.

"By all means close the rock to climbers in adverse weather conditions, but to permanently close it would a denial of the rights of all Australians," wrote Saint Mike.

"The decision to climb or not to climb should remain with the individual, not the park management (white or black)."

"I understand the opposition to people climbing it. But at this point, it is a pilgrimage to travel to Uluru and climb it. I suggest that it is as important to Australia in general as it is to the traditional owners, and that should be considered," said another, Si.

"It is not as if anyone built it. It was always there. Climb on it if you want. It is like saying you can't swim in Sydney harbour or walk around the Grand Canyon," wrote Ron Rat.

But others were more supportive of the ban.

"About time. We would be horrified if people were allowed to climb all over our churches or sacred sites," wrote Lilly.

"I think a ban would be great. We should all respect others' cultural and sacred areas," agreed Jenny.

"I have climbed the rock, but would never attempt it again out of respect for the owners," said one person, going by the nickname The Owl.

"When I view it now, it is similar, in a spiritual sense, to a church or mosque. Walking around the base is the most respectful method of experiencing the monolith.

"Land rights is not about legal ownership, it's a link with Mother Earth and our appreciation of the land. We can all enjoy it now, without possible desecration."

Tourists

Most of those who had already visited the rock said they had not climbed it, or if they had, they said they would not do so again.

"I have just visited this magnificent region - both Kata Tjuta and Uluru. I loved it! I did not climb Uluru nor did I wish to - it is far more beautiful and mystical from a distance," wrote Anne-Marie.

"I've been there, and the walk around the rock is rewarding, probably just as rewarding as the climb up," agreed another.

"Our family has recently visited Uluru and gained an appreciation of this wonderful icon," wrote John.

"We were delighted to take the walk around the rock and gain some understanding as to why 'the rock' would have such cultural significance to the traditional owners.

"Uluru is far more impressive than I ever imagined. It is an experience every Australian should have and not climbing the rock is part of the experience."

But some who were planning to visit the national park said they would not be deterred from climbing the rock.

"I am a student in a rural area and I am expecting to go to Uluru next year - I want to be able to experience what other people have been allowed to! Nature is beautiful, let us see its beauty!" wrote a student.

"I would love to climb this spectacular part of our country. I would like my children to see the view from the top," wrote Barrie.

Two people said if the ban was imposed, they would not visit the national park."

NAIDOC week

This week is NAIDOC week, which stands for National Aboriginal and Islander Day Observance Committee. It’s an annual week of celebration of culture, history and achievements of Australia’s indigenous population, or First Australians as they are sometimes referred to.

However, it’s quite amazing to see how little awareness of this week exists in the population as a whole – no mention on TV, in newspapers, in general discussions. The indigenous flag has been raised on the Sydney Harbour Bridge and there are some flags flying in the city centre, but you really need to be looking out for those and there’s really just an overwhelming sense of apathy about the whole thing. Maybe that will change as the week goes by, but I doubt it.

It’s particularly strange (disturbing) as there has been a significant amount of news in the last few weeks about indigenous issues – all of it bad. The Productivity Commission, which is a bit Orwellian sounding, but is actually the Government’s independent research and advisory body, released a report last week showing that despite various policy initiatives and a whole heap of rhetoric, the gap between indigenous and non-indigenous Australians is growing rather than shrinking on a whole range of economic, social and health indicators.

There has also been a lot of news and discussion about whether or not the Government’s “Intervention” into indigenous communities in remote Australia has been a success or not. The Intervention was, and still is, a military-led campaign to go into a set of communities identified as needing an “emergency response” to their state of social and economic wellbeing. The Intervention was a response to a report (Little Children are Sacred) revealing widespread and alarming levels of child abuse in remote indigenous communities, linked to high levels of drinking and the breakdown of community norms and traditional culture. Measures included legislation exempting indigenous people from the Racial Discrimination Act (in order to quarantine their welfare payments aka “income management” – purely on the basis of their ethnicity), compulsory acquisitions of land, restrictions on alcohol sales, deployment of police to patrol communities and the promise of increased funds for new housing and community services. It was revealed today that no new houses have actually been built in the 2 years since the Intervention began.

The Intervention is controversial and has been both heavily criticized and strongly welcomed by indigenous community leaders. It only applies to a certain number of communities in very remote areas of Australia so to a large extent, it feels like it’s happening in a very different world to the one that most inhabitants of this island live in. What some people don’t realise is that there is a much higher population of indigenous people in urban centres than there is in remote areas – and they tend to have equally poor life chances compared to their non-indigenous counterparts.

I find it disappointing that NAIDOC week seems to be coming and going under the radar with only a few flags being waved, while there is very little interest in having an informed and intelligent debate about how indigenous and non-indigenous Australia can move forward from the current shocking statistics.