NT intervention leak: a year on, it's a shambles

Home
Politics
Article

Article not found

No Article Found

No related articles.

Share / Save Article

Article Tags

Article not found

No Article Found

Already a Crikey Member? Login below to comment or click here to start a Free Membership now.

Your Email Password
Remember Me

Need your password?

Marilyn Wednesday, 18 June 2008 1:34:13 PM: Howard got no bang for his buck out of this lunacy. I had a letter published in the AGE that week stating that it was a crap plan that would not work. It's a shame for the people involved that I was quite correct.

When Howard got no bang for his buck out of this he took on the Dr Haneef case and got even less bang for his buck. We all knew he had interfered on a political level so three cheers for this lawyers getting the appropriate documents to once again prove what a lying, cynical opportunist he was.

Too bad about the reality on the ground in Iraq and with the Iraqi refugees scarcely rating a mention in the Australian media while they prattle on and on about the non-event of Belinda Neal.
Dave Liberts Wednesday, 18 June 2008 2:36:00 PM: Good article on an important issue. This is the sort of article which is the reason I subscribe. Keep it up.
Robert Wednesday, 18 June 2008 2:51:41 PM: One wonders if the "intervention" was designed by some within the "coalition" as a election year stunt only to be defunded at the following budget. Certainly smells like it from here.
Karen Churchill Wednesday, 18 June 2008 4:08:55 PM: While I share the concerns mentioned in this article about the haste with which the NT Intervention was put in place, surely it is still better than nothing. At the very least it positions the tragedies that occur everyday in our Indigenous population in the forefront of people's minds.
Also, the article contains an inherent implication that paying the salaries of public servants working on the Intervention is a waste of money. I am tired of hearing this well worn sniping implication! Perhaps it would be preferable if public servants worked for nothing - then commentators and the taxpayer would no longer have to stress about the money that is frittered away on their salaries.
(Note - I am no longer a public servant, but was one for about 20 years. So I guess significant amounts of taxpayers money have already been wasted paying me.)
D B Valentine Wednesday, 18 June 2008 4:14:38 PM: Can somebody tell Greg Hunt about this, hes in denial about Howard... still.
David Wednesday, 18 June 2008 4:23:39 PM: As I suspected and at the time said so. Howard is once again proven to be the " Rat " personified. Of course the master Liberal bloggers Bolt and Akerman wouldn't have a word said against their pin up rodent. At the time the Coalition was deeply immersed in their election dirty tricks and Howard was desperately looking for another Tampa. As Marilyn correctly points out, after this monumental cock up he turned his attention on the respectable doctor Haneef, only to have that one blowup in his face. More fool Andrews for being the patsy, he still looks as stupid now as he did back then.
It is beyond me that with all the evidence continually being thrown up, the Liberal lobby still insists Howard the disgraced one, was the greatest since Menzies. History hasnt finished with this grubby administration and those that are left on the Opposition benches have yet to come to terms with the con and deceit that were the last 12 years of that deplorable administration. That Costello and Downer still hide away in the shadows, drawing on their public salaries and expenses for contributing zilch, is a continuous reminder of the grubby years headed by a dispicable PM.
Thanks Crikey for printing that revealing Intervention leak, you can bet on the fact the Murdoch press will not give it much space.
JamesK Wednesday, 18 June 2008 5:29:52 PM: There a 4 references in this article by Sophie Black and 2 photocopies of dot point summaries headed "Child Health Checks" and "Welfare Reform". Leave out the two references in the middle giving estimates of economic growth in the Northern Territory as being irrelevant to an assessment of the NTER.

The first refernce is a radio interview which I listened to and in which Brough acquited himself well. It is short and well worth a listen. The '48 hours' refers to the preparation of a cabinet submission by Brough and his department and Brough makes the point that much of that submission was the preceding 2 years in the making.

The first of the 2 photocopies demonstrate 8,734 NTER CHC's completed as of May 9 and the second shows that 10,654 people are being income managed and School Nutrition Programs are in place in 41 communities, associated outstations and 7 town camp regions.
The last reference is to the very first press conference announcing the NTER and a journalist asks:
"Are there estimates of the total cost?

PRIME MINISTER:

No, no, no, I mean it will be some tens of millions of dollars. It's not huge but there could be some costs in relation to the extra police. There'll be costs in relation to the medical examinations of children, that is very extensive task and I'll be asking directly the AMA, which has spoken very strongly about this, to encourage doctors, and I believe there'll be many doctors in Australia who will be more than ready to help in regard to this."

I humbly suggest that quite a different article could have been written with the same evidence.
In terms of the article itself and the predictable comments above, it is so sad to see so many people with such a blind hatred of John Howard that it seemingly it is impossible for them to assess the situation on its own merits even when that situation in question is the abuse of children on a horrifying scale and our society's response to the Sacred Child Report.

At least Crikey provides some balance with another article in this issue if only one community's experience: Intervention Anniversary: a positive difference for one community by Bob Durnan, a community development worker living in a remote Aboriginal community west of Alice Springs. All in all, however, this a lamentable excuse for reporting and analysis.
Florence Howarth Wednesday, 18 June 2008 5:54:18 PM: Costly farce that will lead to the people involved being disadvantage in the long run. What little say these people had over their own lives have been removed. Imagined what the $3000 could have bought if spent on such things as housing and education instead. Real progress would have been made.
Florence Howarth Wednesday, 18 June 2008 5:54:25 PM: Costly farce that will lead to the people involved being disadvantage in the long run. What little say these people had over their own lives have been removed. Imagined what the $3000 could have bought if spent on such things as housing and education instead. Real progress would have been made.
David Wednesday, 18 June 2008 6:28:55 PM: JamesK you may be in denial over the tactics employed by Howard leading up to successive elections, I and the majority of Australians are not. He used deception, trumped up arrest, a torrent of fear and scare mongering and bullying plus tens of millions of tax payers money on propaganda, and try to win the last election. Your many who cant stand the rodent are millions, the millions who finally had a guts full and tossed the twerp out on has backside. You will read what you want to read into that report, you will never convince those who voted against him and his henchmen they didnt get exactly what they deserved. I repeat, history hasn't finished with them yet.
JamesK Wednesday, 18 June 2008 9:58:42 PM: David, Your comment adds to mine rather than detracts from it. I pity you and your rank stinking hatred. Its in you and not me. I do not feel that stinking hatred. To read the Sacred Child Report and not to want to do something effective and as soon as humanly possible is a sign of sickness. Your politics are repulsive and much more so than John Howard's ever were.
james Thursday, 19 June 2008 4:50:50 AM: What a bunch of cheap shots, Crikey. I thought you were better than this.
Alan Hatfield Thursday, 19 June 2008 5:58:19 AM: Sophie Black uses the same formulation that most reporters/observers have used, viz. 'Mal Brough called a press conference to announce a "National Emergency" in response to the "Little Children Are Sacred" report'. My recollection is that the former Government's initiative completely ignored ALL of the recommendations of that report. So, while it is correct to say that the above report was the "trigger" for the initiative, the fact that the initiative ignored all of the recommendations of the report means that the link between the report and the subsequent initiative is at best very weak or, probably more accurately, non-existent !! In fact it is quite unfair to the authors of the report to have the initiative taken linked to their report in any way.
Alan Hatfield Thursday, 19 June 2008 5:58:21 AM: Sophie Black uses the same formulation that most reporters/observers have used, viz. 'Mal Brough called a press conference to announce a "National Emergency" in response to the "Little Children Are Sacred" report'. My recollection is that the former Government's initiative completely ignored ALL of the recommendations of that report. So, while it is correct to say that the above report was the "trigger" for the initiative, the fact that the initiative ignored all of the recommendations of the report means that the link between the report and the subsequent initiative is at best very weak or, probably more accurately, non-existent !! In fact it is quite unfair to the authors of the report to have the initiative taken linked to their report in any way.
Alan Hatfield Thursday, 19 June 2008 5:58:23 AM: Sophie Black uses the same formulation that most reporters/observers have used, viz. 'Mal Brough called a press conference to announce a "National Emergency" in response to the "Little Children Are Sacred" report'. My recollection is that the former Government's initiative completely ignored ALL of the recommendations of that report. So, while it is correct to say that the above report was the "trigger" for the initiative, the fact that the initiative ignored all of the recommendations of the report means that the link between the report and the subsequent initiative is at best very weak or, probably more accurately, non-existent !! In fact it is quite unfair to the authors of the report to have the initiative taken linked to their report in any way.
Alan Hatfield Thursday, 19 June 2008 6:03:56 AM: Sorry. I pressed the "Submit" button too many times !!!
Sophie Black Thursday, 19 June 2008 8:57:14 AM: Alan, thanks for the feedback,
I don't believe it's a mistake to link the NT intervention with the Little Children Are Sacred Report as it was the government at the time who stated that the report gave them the impetus to call a National Emergency.

To link the two, however, is not to suggest that any of the recommendations in the report were followed. Crikey included the voices of the authors of the report in our coverage - they urged the government to heed their recommendations and to consult with indigenous communities.

As part of our coverage of the anniversary of the NT intervention, Crikey will be contrasting the recommendations of the original Little Children Are Sacred report with the initiatives carried out under the intervention banner... And we're publishing the full report referred to in this story today.
JamesK Thursday, 19 June 2008 9:05:46 AM: There are 97 recommendations. Here are a few to illustrate:
94. That a public awareness campaign for
Aboriginal people be introduced forthwith to
build on the goodwill, rapport, and awareness
of the problem of child sexual abuse which
now exists in Aboriginal communities, and that
this campaign:
a. include public contact, meetings and
dialogue with the communities and
service providers with the government to
be represented by a suitably senior officer
or officers
b. acquaint leaders of communities and,
as far as possible, all members of those
communities with the key elements of
mainstream law in relation to such issues as
the age of consent, traditional or promised
brides, rights of the parties within marriage,
individual rights of men, women and
children generally, rights of parents and/or
guardians to discipline children, and of the
recommendations contained in this report
and the proposed implementation of it
c. be conducted with advice being sought
from community leaders as to the most
effective and culturally appropriate manner
in which to convey the messages, utilising
local languages wherever appropriate.
high levels of underlying community dysfunction. The
literature is clear: a focus primarily on crisis intervention
and responding to abuse after the fact will not be an
effective means of preventing sexual abuse.
In the following sections focus on addressing the
structural forces that work in communities, and making
recommendations for a greater concentration on societal
and community-level prevention initiatives. The initiatives
are likely to fit well with the Chief Minister’s 20-Year
Action Plan to address the health and wellbeing of the
Territory’s Aboriginal population.
A key element of a successful long-term strategy will be
to define a set of core health and family support services
that can be delivered to communities of all sizes in the
Territory. That is, to determine what services a small

40. That the Northern Territory Government
work with the Australian Government in
consultation with Aboriginal communities to:
a. develop a comprehensive long-term
strategy to build a strong and equitable
core service platform in Aboriginal
communities, to address the underlying
risk factors for child sexual abuse and to
develop functional communities in which
children are safe
b. through this strategy, address the delivery
of core educational and Primary Health
Care (PHC) services to Aboriginal people
including home visitation and early years
services (see Chapter on Health).

33. That, following the conclusion of a prosecution
of an offence involving child sexual abuse,
a full de-briefing take place in the relevant
community dealing with all issues emerging
during the complaint and prosecution process.
The aim of this process would be to achieve,
as far as possible, healing and reconciliation in
the community. The CAT to be responsible for
arranging such de-briefing in conjunction with
a Witness Assistance Service officer and the
local community justice group.
34. That the government invest in the recruitment
and training of Aboriginal Interpreters – a
proportion of whom must be trained and
supported to enable them to work in the areas
of child protection and criminal investigations
of abuse.

34. That the government invest in the recruitment
and training of Aboriginal Interpreters – a
proportion of whom must be trained and
supported to enable them to work in the areas
of child protection and criminal investigations
of abuse.

Alan Hatfield's recollection is WRONG. Thankfully Brough did ignore many of 'the recommendations' but he acted appropriately on others. I agree with Alan in one regard: it is sad to see so much misinformation trotted out in regard to what is in reality a true reflection of our worth as a society
Chris Johnson Thursday, 19 June 2008 10:32:57 AM: A fundamental and broad-ranging humanitarian reform package is cobbled together in days. By-the-seat-of your pants and “playing it by ear’ policy is just what a developing Australia needed, I don’t think. How many more party-driven as opposed to people-focussed governments are going to f*ck-up the indigenous and broader communities? It’s the signature of the Howard regime. Stymieing national and social development at a time it was well-positioned for major advancement. Not that Rudd is doing much better at this stage with the home-spun ‘we’re watching, we’re listening and we’re taking on board” rhetoric – all evidence he's standing still. It seems political parties with dwindling support can only recruit from the dregs and as the inept in turn, appoint greater incompetents in a no-merit public service the end result is - what we have. Perhaps the only decent thing John Howard did was refuse to apologise to our indigenous ancestors. He well knew he’d wiped himself all over our Aboriginal people and he’d have stood as an even bigger hypocrite had he said ‘Sorry’.
Alan Hatfield Friday, 20 June 2008 7:19:30 AM: Maybe I was overstating the case a little by saying "ALL of the recommendations", But the substance and clear intent of the report was certainly ignored and I remember the report's author's at that time on national media lamenting the fact that this was happening.
Mirek Friday, 20 June 2008 3:37:20 PM: The whole sorry and bizarre tale of the last 12 months reads and feels like a script of a B-grade movie, or an extended and elaborated Chaser-type stunt. The only problem is, that having wasted millions of taxpayer money, the Indigenous people are no better off, and in some cases, worse off. And, of course, the government neglect of the Aboriginal people went on remorselessly for decades, some maintain, for 200 years. So why this `National Emergency`, and the police/military `intervention`, which we now know, was concocted in 48 hours of frantic action? It could not have been a Howard election stunt alone, since Kevin07 almost immediately endorsed it, it also could`nt have been a heart-felt response to the `Little children are Precious` report, since the action was swiftly denounced by the report`s authors as bearing little or no relation to it`s recommendations. On news reports, the `intervention` is portrayed as being a response to, or that the report was a `catalyst` for the intervention. Moet people uncommitted to the two major parties, very quickly smelled a rat, especially the people targeted: the Aboriginies. They feel that all that Government activity is just a smoke screen for a land grab, so that the now-valuable minerals and ores can be got at by the big mining concerns. So this whole stunt, equally supported by Liberals and Labor alike, is not a stupid and pointless waste of public money, it is, in fact, an investment in Australia`s future, in other words, we can`t let the indigenous people stand in the way of progress, can we?
Clive Newton Friday, 1 August 2008 5:10:21 PM: Like many i was appalled when the NT "invasion" was announced: hadn't Howard put the boot into aboriginal people enough? What has disappointed me in the year since is the general journalistic acceptance of the Brough line that suspending the Racial Discrimination Act was a necessity. To the extent that a recent ABC news item on the Pearson plan for welfare quarantining in "communities" in North Qld rattled on and on without even explaining how such racially discriminatory action was going to happen- it was just taken for granted as a "good thing". Do people really not care about the Racial Discrimination Act?Doesn't it seem reasonable to suggest that no good can come from the Federal government actually suspending the act so it can institute racial discrimination? By all means quarantine welfare payments but let's have no more of the Brough racism of applying this only to aborigines. Let's apply it to whiteys as well, including the private school Austudy payments, small business family income support payments, veterans pensions etc etc.
Yours etc
Clive Newton

Also in this section

5 September 2008

NSW Labor in turmoil - Iemma, Costa dumped

Rundle on John McCain's big speech

Finding $39million a month: the pips squeak at PBL

Tim Flannery: Garnaut has made a good first step

Next Crikey Email 1300 hrs 8 September

Please login to continue

Related Articles

Share / Save Article

Article Tags

Also in this section