Jun 21, 2010

NT intervention three years on: government’s progress report is disturbing

Today we are halfway through the Howard government’s original normalisation phase for the NT intervention and the latest six-monthly report is both serious and disturbing, writes Professor Jon Altman.

Today marks the third anniversary of the Howard government’s "national emergency" intervention in 73 prescribed Aboriginal communities in the Northern Territory. In the "name of the child" the basic liberties of Aboriginal people were suspended and a draconian and paternalistic state project of improvement was launched to "stabilise, normalise and then exit" these communities: stabilisation was to take one year and normalisation four. On Saturday June 19, the latest six-monthly Closing the Gap in the Northern Territory Monitoring Report July – December 2009 was posted on the FaHCSIA website in two detailed parts totalling more than 100 pages. Despite a six-month delay as the report was compiled, it provides the latest information collected by a variety of government agencies on the intervention. This is a serious and disturbing report that unfortunately is accompanied by the now almost de rigueur positive spin media release from ministers Jenny Macklin and Warren Snowden -- "Improving community safety under the Northern Territory Emergency Response". The word "improving" is ambiguous and provocative because there is an increase across a wide range of violence and other crime statistics. As in the last report for January to July 2009 multiyear comparative coverage from the time of the intervention is only available for schooling, health and crime and the best data are provided by Northern Territory agencies. On schooling, enrolments are up slightly, but attendance has declined very slightly (-0.3%) and remains at a reported 62.2% (page 17) despite school nutrition programs at 65 schools and the employment of 200 people (161 local indigenous people) in school meals delivery. On health, hospitalisation for children aged 0–5 years are down (page 24) as are audiological and dental follow ups (page 25). Readers are warned that these raw hospitalisation data should be interpreted with caution, but nevertheless for the second report in a row child malnutrition is up despite 88 licenced stores (page 30) and 16,695 income managed customers (page 33). On crime (previously termed promoting law and order, now the rather saccharine "safe communities"), alcohol, substance abuse and drug related incidents (page 53), and domestic violence and assault reportage and convictions (page 54) are all up. Also up are s-xual assault reportage and convictions (page 56) and reports of child abuse (page 58). All personal harm incidents, besides armed person and sexual assault, are up with some, such as attempted suicide/self harm and mentally ill person, increasing quite markedly (pages 54–55). It is emphasised (page 52) that increases in reported crime are likely to be associated with increases in police numbers and may be associated with improvements in community safety. This may be the case, but for attempted suicide and mental illness? And this same logic, of better servicing driving up negative numbers does not seem to be applied to health or other areas. This latest monitoring report provides information for many areas such as provision of early childhood facilities and programs, economic participation (which includes income management for some reason), land tenure, and governance and leadership. For this transparency it needs to be commended. But much of the analysis is just description of dollar inputs and outputs rather than outcomes and there is no assessment of whether the NTER represents good value for money to the Australian taxpayer (including Aboriginal taxpayers in prescribed communities). Importantly at an appendix the Commonwealth Ombudsman’s Report documents complaints about BasicsCards being common, which is hardly surprising given that a reported 29% of 3.8 million attempted transactions were unsuccessful (page 33). Of equal interest on the third anniversary of the intervention are some of the program delivery and broader policy issues that are not mentioned. Let me focus on just three areas where an alternative narrative and far more critical assessment can be provided from existing public information. First, the area of housing and land tenure reforms appears to have gone from bad to worse with reports that some of the handful of post-intervention housing delivered under the Strategic Indigenous Housing and Infrastructure Program (SIHIP) might need to be demolished owing to poor workmanship. Indeed there is the spectre that with normalisation standards hundreds of houses in prescribed communities might need to be demolished with a net possibility that shoddy work and population growth might actually result in more rather than less overcrowding. The state is capable of providing housing for its staff very quickly, but for Aboriginal citizens at only a snail’s pace that would have been unacceptable to all during the ATSIC era. Indeed, alongside this recent revelation is emerging evidence of inter-governmental tension with the NT government now saying that it was blackmailed to participate in SIHIP and the NT Auditor-General delivering a highly critical report of the program. Also in the May Budget was news that the Home Ownership on Indigenous Land program was being defunded with prospects for "normalised" individual home ownership dropping off the policy reform agenda. This is hardly surprising given that the NT Valuer-General estimated 64 prescribed communities to have a compensatory rental value of only $3.4 million, or less than $30,000 each per annum, inadequate collateral for mortgage finance. Second, on the employment front the recently released Labour Force Survey indicates that the employment gap might be increasing nationally. Evidence from the Northern Territory suggests that the employment/population ratio may have improved slightly as the Australian government invested heavily in providing public sector "proper" employment for Aboriginal people. But all this looks likely to change. First, it is reported that 500 Community Development Employment Program (CDEP) transitional jobs with shire councils might end by December 31, 2010. And second the Commonwealth appears committed to shift over 4600 CDEP participants from employment to welfare next year, a move that will see the employment/population ratio decrease by at least 10% in the ideological pursuit of labour market normalisation in situations where standard jobs are just not available. The CDEP debacle is not just likely to move people from work to welfare, but to also disempower and further demoralise people and destroy their community-based organisations. Third is the vexed issue of income quarantining or management, a measure that the government is determined to extend to non-indigenous people in the Northern Territory to avoid the opprobrium of supporting race-based measures that contravene the Racial Discrimination Act. The Rudd government has gone to extraordinary lengths to discredit and demean the only credible research on the efficacy of income management pre- and post-intervention. This research was published by a team of health researchers from the Menzies School of Health Research in Darwin in May, but is not mentioned in the Monitoring Report. And a counter report from FaHCSIA intentionally or unintentionally misrepresents the Menzies School research in Senate Estimates and spuriously questions the peer review processes of the prestigious Medical Journal of Australia. The latest Monitoring Report provides no fresh evidence on the efficacy of income management and it remains unclear if it is the better availability of fresh fruit and vegetables or altered expenditure patterns that might be making a difference. Irrespective, the government will seek to pass legislation that will expend more than $400 million in the next six years on income management processes despite contestation over outcomes. There are some very worrying big-picture policy issues emerging from the evaluative indeterminacy of the intervention despite the massive resource commitments. First is the possibility that the Closing the Gap in the NT National Partnership Agreement between the Australian and NT governments that is to continue its normalisation project to June 30, 2012, might collapse. There is already inter-governmental disputation over the SIHIP alliance model and the housing and infrastructure memorandum of understanding foisted on the NT by the Commonwealth in 2007; and about funding for CDEP transitional employment with shires. Will cracks start emerging in other areas such as health, education and policing? Second, the normalisation project appears to heavily favour state regulation and monopoly supply of services. In some cases such monopolies might be justified because of the small size of communities. But the crucial question arises whether natural monopoly should be community or externally controlled. There is growing evidence that rents imagined to be extracted by local Aboriginal elites are now being extracted by government-sponsored and subsidised store managers and companies, income managers, housing alliances, employment brokers, and others. In short, one could ask who is mainly benefiting from the millions being expended on ameliorating Aboriginal disadvantage, Aboriginal citizens or public and private sector intervention entrepreneurs? And third, the intervention was originally justified as a consequence of a failed state in remote Australia with highly dependent and politically weak Aboriginal communities and organisations wearing the blame. Development in remote Aboriginal communities will inevitably require state subvention for the foreseeable future, but the current delivery architecture is faulty and runs counter to sound principles of participatory development. Rather than empowering communities to strengthen governance institutions to deliver development, in diverse forms suited to local circumstances, the current top-down, monolithic and paternalistic approach is enhancing dependence on the state -- with a high proportion of the resources earmarked for Aboriginal development programs being syphoned off to external, generally non-indigenous, interests. The state policy of normalisation is not delivering even by its own benchmarks. This is unconscionable policy failure without any apparent policy risk assessment or contingency planning. Today we are halfway through the Howard government’s original normalisation phase that has now mutated into the Rudd government’s Closing the Gap in the NT National Partnership Agreement. No one would argue that remote Aboriginal communities deserve equitable needs-based support. But of what form? Much has been made of the extensive NTER redesign consultations undertaken in 2009. Perhaps such consultations should now be asking residents of prescribed communities whether they prefer 2007 pre-intervention "abnormality" to the 2010 version of normalisation?

Free Trial

You've hit members-only content.

Sign up for a FREE 21-day trial to keep reading and get the best of Crikey straight to your inbox

By starting a free trial, you agree to accept Crikey’s terms and conditions


Leave a comment

6 thoughts on “NT intervention three years on: government’s progress report is disturbing

  1. Jim Reiher

    “Also up are s-xual assault reportage and convictions (page 56) and reports of child abuse (page 58).”

    Bloody hell… wasn’t that what it was suppose to be all about is the first place? Getting that figure down?

  2. Jenny McFarland

    There is no room in Intervention policies for Aboriginal aspirations, or Aboriginal community ownership of projects and programs, even though participatory development has proved to be the most positive and fruitful strategy across a wide range of national and international cross-cultural development contexts. The damage that has been done to Aboriginal peoples in this region is considerable, and some ground may never be recovered even if there was to be a rapid turn-around in policy and political philosophy. Self-determination never stood a chance, and WTF does “normalisation” mean anyway?? Just like us whitefellas? The history of cross-cultural contact in the Central Oz region is very brief – less than 100 years for some groups. Don’t hold your breath waiting for the punitive and ill-considered Intervention to turn Aboriginal people into compliant whitefellas.

  3. Jon Hunt

    I can quite understand the cynical tone of this article. Another worrying report, yet the government will ignore it. Why?

  4. westral

    They have been throwing money at the problem in one way or another for years. They have tried assimilation, integration, separate development, empowerment, self-determination and finally intervention. All of it goes to make me think that all the experts, sociologists and bureaucrats have never had much idea what they are doing. It has all been “We’ve got a new model” stuff.

  5. SBH

    Sorry Jim Reiher, no it wasn’t supposed to fix that problem. If that had been the purpose the recommendations of the Wild/Anderson report would have been acted on not ignored. The purpose was to fundamentally alter Aboriginal society by destroying the concept of joint responsibility and relationship to the land and relace it with a quarter acre block mentality. See Mal Brough’s comments in todays media. The Libs believed that this would be a powerful tool to address disadvantage.

    And only last week, at a Committee for the Economic Development of Australia conference, Andrew Penfold the CEO of the Australian Indigenous Education Foundation said that initial reports on the success of income management were encouraging.

    And Westral you’re right At the same conference the Australian Employment Covenant’s CEO, when asked what was the major barrier to getting Aboriginal people employed, said that too few of them were job ready and needed more training. So much for the new approach.

  6. presactly

    I’m really quite disappointed by the way the ’emergency response’ has been continued under the current Government.

    SBH is right, if the previous Government was serious it would have applied the recommendations of Wild/Anderson but instead it chose not to. To see these errors continued is most frustrating.

    SIHIP would be a joke, if the outcomes weren’t so tragic, for anyone who has any knowledge of building in remote areas. Why not ask individual communities what type of housing would suit their environment, climate and family structures instead of building 3 bedroom brick boxes across the T erritory? Professor Altman’s comment that government staff housing was provided with no apparent problems is backed up by other media articles about, for example, the new government business managers (who often didin’t last) being provided with accommodation while the rest of the community waited.

    What I find most disturbing is that the Senate this week passed the legislation to extend ‘income management’ to all so-called vulnerable groups across the Territory despite extensive (non-Government) research that this approach does not achieve its stated aims. I understand that this was done so that the exemption to the Racial Discrimination Act could be resolved. But given this approach has been shown not work, why is it being extended to other groups in the Territory, and why is the Government planning to extend it to welfare recipients across Australia? Whatever happened to evidence based policy??

Share this article with a friend

Just fill out the fields below and we'll send your friend a link to this article along with a message from you.

Your details

Your friend's details