Dissenting Report
The Australian Greens
1.1
The Stronger Futures package of legislation effectively extends the
measures put in place by Northern Territory Emergency Response (NTER) or
'Intervention'. The Australian Greens opposed the Intervention and we likewise
oppose the Stronger Futures legislation. There is no substantive evidence to
show that the Intervention has had a positive effect on the lives of Aboriginal
people in the NT. Rather, Aboriginal people, their representative
organisations, and the community sector have made it clear that the top-down,
punitive nature of the Intervention is actually undermining and disempowering
Aboriginal people and communities. The ineffectiveness of these measures is not
surprising considering international research on Indigenous economic
development points to the success of community driven measures over top-down
approaches.[1]
Extension of an Ineffective and Expensive Approach
1.2
The Australian Greens oppose the continuation of the ineffective and
expensive approach of the Intervention. To date there has been no evidence the
measures of the intervention have been effective. Rather, they appear to be eroding
local governance and disempowering communities. Furthermore. the new
legislative package has not been subject to effective consultation.
Poor Consultation
1.3
It became quite obvious from the start of this inquiry that the
consultation process undertaken by the Government was totally inadequate. The
vast majority of submissions and evidence addresing the consultation process
expressed serious concern at how the consultations were carried out and the way
comments were interpreted in the consultation report.
1.4
Numerous problems were raised about the process throughout the inquiry:
meetings were scheduled at times people could not attend; inadequate notice was
given, not enough time was given to discuss the issues; comments were misreported;
there was no follow up and materials were not translated in local language.
1.5
The Australian Human Rights Commission summarises this in their
submission:
The Commission has previously brought these concerns to the
attention of the government in relation to the inadequacy of the consultation
process as outlined below:
- the timeframe for consultations was inadequate given the scope
and depth of the issues raised in the Stronger Futures Discussion Paper
- significant measures such as income management were not listed
for discussion during the Stronger Futures consultation process
- despite the Australian Government's efforts to work with the
Aboriginal Interpreter Service (AIS), there was neither sufficient time to
translate the paper into the languages of Northern Territory communities nor to
provide the Stronger Futures Discussion Paper to the interpreters sufficiently
in advance of the consultations.[2]
1.6
This was reiterated by the NT Anti-Discrimination Commissioner:
In regard to consultation, as the commissioner in the
Northern Territory, I have been told by many Aboriginal Territorians impacted
by the Commonwealth intervention of their disappointment at federal
consultations. In particular there were concerns that only a few were spoken
to, that the duration of visits was too short and that some Aboriginal
Territorians could not participate because of language, dialect or hearing
impairments.[3]
1.7
Evidence provided by community members and their representative
organisations also points to the inadequacy of the consultation process. This
was particularly evident at Ntaria (Hermannsburg) where it became clear that
there was very little knowledge about the contents of the legislation amongst
community members attending the hearing. This is extremely troubling
considering that the Government undertook consultations in that area.
1.8
The Maningrida community were particularly critical of the consultation
process. Community members commented that meetings were disorganised and
rushed; materials were not given in time for people to properly understand
them; no one returned to follow up; and in one instance men and women were
divided into separate groups for discussion, despite wanting to consult as
group.
1.9
Mr Morrish CEO of, Bawinanga Aboriginal Corporation stated:
Just to clarify in relation to the consultation process, I
want to bring a couple of points to the committee's attention. The discussion
paper on Stronger Futures was actually handed to members of the community
minutes—literally minutes—before the minister arrived for that consultation. I
am not sure how community members, with low levels of numeracy and literacy in
some cases, where English is a third or fourth language, are supposed to digest
a 28-page document in a matter of minutes in order to have an informed
consultation, and for the results of that consultation to be taken back and
considered and used informing the Stronger Futures legislation. Certainly the
Stronger Futures legislation report does not reflect in any knowing way what
was actually said here. There were a number of clear statements made that
certainly have not found their way into that report.[4]
1.10
Members of the Babbarra Women's Centre, supported this:
In fairness to everybody, including the politicians who came
out, there was a lack of preparation. There was a lack of time for the
community to digest, think about and discuss with their families what the
policy really meant and how it would apply to them. Equally, when the minister
and all her staff came in, it was just crazy. It was just so unorganised and
everything branched off and everything was quick. People had not really even
had time to consider the correlation between the policy and addressing it with
the minister. They did not have time to do that...
At that time the men were separated from women or women
separated from men. We were sitting over at the pub down at a big gazebo, tent,
or whatever they call it, and actually no stories were being put together in
the real world. This woman never came back to Maningrida after. She said, 'I'll
be back to consult a second time.' We were hoping that they would be back, but
nothing.[5]
1.11
It is self-evident that this lack of consultation has led to a lack of
understanding amongst Aboriginal people about what the legislation contained.
For example, Miss Shaw from the Intervention Rollback Action Group, speaking
about her Grandfather’s experience, stated:
There were no consultations at his nearest community—the only
one he has ever known and the one he grew up in. So here he is: an old man who
is almost 80—he looks very well for his age—who has lived on the same country
his whole life as a caretaker, who is a prominent elder in his community and who
is the holder of stories of his country. Yet he does not know anything about
the three bills being passed... In my grandfather's community, for example, how
they went about it is that a time and a place were booked for somebody to go
out there, but a few days later a phone call was received to say it had been
cancelled. The people in my grandfather's community were not consulted about
the Stronger Futures. So they do not know. The only consultation that he had
came from land council. If people are not going to have their say and their
input into the Stronger Futures policy then how are you supposed to work in
partnership and have genuine consultation with people? How are you going to
find out what people's needs and wants are?[6]
Stronger Futures consultation report
1.12
These problems were completely ignored in the Stronger Futures
Consultation Report. Submissions and evidence received during the Inquiry
outlined the following criticisms of the report: the report was not reflective
of communities view; the way the information was statistically analysed was
unsound and the information gathered did not inform the Government's approach
or the drafting of the Bill.
1.13
It is deeply disappointing that the Government refuses to provide the
feedback reports from the consultations to the Committee for review. It is
extremely difficult for the Committee to comment on the veracity of the
consultation report and quantitative analysis without the raw data collected in
the feedback reports.
1.14
This is problematic considering that both submissions and evidence
expressed concern at the analysis of data. For example, Ms Cox from Jumbunna
House of Learning clearly outlines problems with the analysis undertaken by
O’Brien Rich:
I have taught research methods for probably about 20 years in
varying guises. You cannot have a system where you have got a whole lot of
people recording things, probably in a fairly haphazard manner, particularly
under what might be called a 'tier one'—which are many hundreds of things—where
you have got a GBM or somebody who is writing some notes while having a bit of
a chat to somebody and then you suddenly collect all of those notes, plus the
notes from the tier two things, which also seem to be fairly chaotic and done
in varying ways. And you hand them to somebody and you say, 'Analysis this.'
They did not put it through an ethics committee. You yourself asked, or
somebody asked, a question on that. It was never cleared through an ethics
committee.
I think it is actually unethical as a researcher to use data
which was collected in a way which was unprofessional in terms of research
professionalism, and put it through SPSS. It is totally bizarre. I would fail
any of students who came up with something and did it that way. It does not
have any credibility in terms of the level of consistency about the way that
the data was collected. It was collected by people who had a vested interest,
in some cases.[7]
1.15
Here Ms Cox comments on the impartiality of staff recording outcomes
from the consultation:
My concern is that these assertions [from the O’Brien Rich
Report]... make it clear that any credibility at all relates to the quality of
the recording of views given, which is nowhere validated. Or even made public!
The research consultants make it clear that they can at best state their
products as reflecting the documents they received but not whether these are
accurate records of what went on. Given the process, the lack of objectivity by
FaHCSIA staff note takers and their presumed limited formal research skills,
all these results should be treated as very dubious. The question of biases in
the recording of views needs to be addressed as the consultations were based on
materials the Government had prepared and presumably were committed to
implement.[8]
1.16
The evidence presented on the poor quality of consultations and the
consultation report was extensive. This includes a comprehensive analysis of
the consultation process by Jumbunna House of Learning, based out of the
University of Technology in Sydney. Amongst other things the report concluded:
The Stronger Futures consultation process did not comply with
Australia’s obligations to meaningfully consult with Aboriginal and Torres
Strait Islander peoples. Among other failings, the process was deficient
because it:
(i) Did not involve the affected Aboriginal people in the
design or implementation of the process;
(ii) Relied on materials that were dense, complex and were
not translated into relevant Aboriginal languages;
(iii) Was conducted in very general terms, without reference
to specific proposals or potential initiatives, despite the fact that the
proposed legislative measures must have been in draft;
(iv) Was decidedly partisan and did not acknowledge previous
criticisms of Intervention measures or acknowledge successful community led
initiatives to address community aspirations;
(v) Covered so many themes and asked so many questions that
in depth discussion was not possible;
(vi) Did not provide any mechanisms for reaching agreement;
(vii) Did not include a clear process for feedback to
communities to verify records of meetings; and
(viii) Gave insufficient time for considered appraisal of the
complex proposed legislative measures, especially from remote Aboriginal
communities.[9]
1.17
The Government cannot claim they have consulted over particular measures
in the legislation, or that they have informed consent because the Government
carried out their consultation process on the discussion paper not the
legislation. The Australian Greens cannot support policy based on insufficient
consultation and which is biased in favour of predetermined outcomes.
1.18
The poor quality of consultation undermines any claim that these initiatives
can be classed as 'special measures' under the Racial Discrimination Act.
The Government has classed certain aspects of the Stronger Futures suite as
special measures, including tackling alcohol abuse, land reform, food security
measures and amendments relating to pornography restrictions. According to the
Australian Human Rights Commission (AHRC), referencing case law from the
Federal High Court:
where an action is intended to qualify as a special measure under
s 8 of the RDA, the wishes of the beneficiaries for the measure are of great
importance (perhaps essential) in determining whether a measure is taken for
the sole purpose of securing their advancement
In the Commission’s view, the consent of the affected group,
or at least the beneficiaries, is of paramount concern where punitive special
measures operate by limiting certain rights of some, or all, of the affected
group. As Brennan J considered in Gerhardy v Brown, "the dignity of the
beneficiaries is impaired and they are not advanced by having an unwanted
material benefit foisted on them."[10]
1.19
According to the High Court,[11]
the sole purpose of a ‘special measure’ must be to secure adequate advancement
of the beneficiaries. If, as the AHRC says, proper consultation is a
requirement of determining this advancement, the measures in Stronger Futures
do not meet the requirement of a special measure under Australian law. This is
extremely concerning as the impact of these measures on Aboriginal people is
significant, and failing to meet this criteria could leave the Government open
to legal action by affected people and communities.
An approach which undermines and
disempowers
1.20
It has been made clear during the inquiry that the NTER has caused
erosion of community governance and disempowerment of Aboriginal people. In
particular through: the manner in which Federal, State and Territory
Governments engaged with Aboriginal communities; the general ‘top-down’,
punitive nature of NTER measures and their interaction with simultaneous reforms.
[12]
The parallel reforms to CDEP, remote service delivery, housing, homelands and
abolition of Community Councils in the local Government reforms has "reduced
control at the community level and increased centralisation of decision
making."[13]
As the AHRC notes comments “The feelings of disempowerment affecting these
communities are symptomatic of a lack of control over issues directly affecting
groups.”[14]
1.21
It is clear to the Australian Greens that Stronger Futures has not
departed from this approach, nor has the Government made any attempts to
address these major problems. This is extremely troubling as evidence
indicates a top-down approach will not be effective and acutally undermines
what the Government says it is trying to achieve: Aboriginal people having
stronger futures and taking control of their lives.
1.22
Removing the ability for Aboriginal people to control their lives has
negative impacts on their mental and physical health. As AMSANT notes:
the draft legislation will directly impact on health and
wellbeing outcomes through its impacts in relation to the social determinants
of health, impacts that we argue the government appears largely ignorant of. ...
control and empowerment, culture and social exclusion and racism. These
determinants are impacted in various ways by the Stronger Futures legislation
with serious and unintended though predictable impacts, predictable because
this is what the evidence shows us. For example, there is Canadian research
which showed that first nation communities in Canada with the lowest levels of
youth suicide were those with significant elements of community control and
cultural empowerment. The Stronger Futures bills, by comparison, in failing to
abandon an intervention approach, will further undermine the control and
empowerment of individuals and communities and will enhance factors associated
with social exclusion and racial targeting. Such adverse outcomes can be
expected in relation to, for example, the continuation of compulsory income
management, the expansion of powers of the federal, state and territory
authorities, continued blanket bans on alcohol and restricted materials, and
continuation of the extraordinary star chamber powers of the Australian Crime
Commission directed at Aboriginal communities.[15]
1.23
This disempowerment was articulated in the evidence given by members of
Maningrida Community. Mr Oliver, acting CEO of Malabam Health Board commented:
Do you all know what a lorrkon is? It is a hollow log. We use
logs for coffins. Since the intervention and since this new policy has come in
that is all we are seeing. We are seeing hollow people walking around. This
place is definitely different from the place it was before the intervention.
That is not to say that we do not have our issues; we do, as do a lot of other
communities. Personally, and again this is only my personal view, they seem to
be exacerbated and have been since the intervention. I am not confident that
Stronger Futures is going to rectify any of that, but that is what we have got
to deal with.[16]
1.24
This dissatisfaction with the Intervention was reiterated by Mr Gondarra
of the Dhurili Clan Nation:
If we want to see Aboriginal people better in education,
better in jobs and better in any other area, we need to work together to build
better legislation, because this particular legislation is not on. The
Australian people should be asked to reject this legislation because it is racist.
It is not helping our people. That is why we come before you and you are
listening to us because we represent not stakeholders, not a department, not
the service providers. We come here to represent people who are struggling,
people who feel pain, people who are confused—what is going on?
Madam Chair, we want you to take this message from us. It is
eating us like a cancer. We are always going to be, from the fifties until
today, 2012, a puppet on a string of somebody else. We are not a free people. We
are supposed to be the first people, the first
nation, of this country. You should be learning so much from us than we are
learning something from you. This is very important for us. We should be able
to educate our people to stand and work together to build.[17]
1.25
As the AHRC writes, there is an:
Extensive body of research and evidence that shows Aboriginal
community governance is a key factor for the sustainable development of
Aboriginal Communities...This is supported by research from the Harvard Project
on American Indian Economic development which demonstrates that when Indigenous
Communities ‘make their own decisions about what development approaches to
take, they consistently out-perform external decision matters as diverse as
governmental form, natural resource management, economic development, health
care and social service provision.[18]
1.26
The top-down, paternalistic, punitive nature of the Intervention from
the out set has meant that its ability to improve the lives of Aboriginal
people in NT was extremely limited. Evidence of this can be found in the
summary provided by Dr. Bath, NT Children’s Commissioner, of ongoing child
welfare issues in the NT:
The safety and wellbeing of children in remote areas and town
camps is severely under threat in the Northern Territory and remains so. Their
circumstances are perilous, even when compared to the circumstances of
Indigenous children in other Australian jurisdictions. There is a mass of data
supporting that contention. They have been documented widely. There have been a
few improvements.
1.27
He then goes on to site the following:
- Up to 70% of children in some communities affected by otitis media
- Anaemia present in up to 40 per cent, with an average of around 22 per
cent of remote area kids
- Exposure to neglect is dramatically on the rise.
- alarming rates of child suicide,
- Infant mortality rates are still about 3½ times those of
the rest of the country.
- 46.8 per cent of children in the NT have multiple
developmental disabilities. If we look at what is called the intervention zone,
which is mainly the remote communities and the town camps, it has been
estimated that the number rises to 60 per cent.
- Indigenous people in the Northern Territory are
hospitalised after being assaulted—at twice the rate of Indigenous people in
other parts of Australia.
- In 2010, for the night patrols in a target population of
29,000 adults they responded to over 100,000 incidents of violence.[19]
1.28
The ineffectiveness of the Intervention in improving the wellbeing of
Aboriginal people in the NT is also evident when looking at the Closing the
Gap in the Northern Territory Monitoring Report. The report details how
school attendance has declined since 2009, that child hospitalisation rates
have increased and confirmed incidences of personal harm and suicide have more
than doubled since 2007. The Intervention was supposed to improve the lives of
Aboriginal people but it has further disempowered them and has wasted resources.
These resources could have been used to develop programs that were better targeted and were developed in partnership
with Aboriginal people.
1.29
The Australian Greens oppose the continuation of the current
approach through Stronger Futures. It is disempowering, ineffective and
expensive – with the total cost of the Intervention climbing above $1 billion
dollars. We can only imagine what better outcomes would have been achieved if
this money was spent on properly targeted, community directed programs.
Tackling Alcohol Abuse
1.30
The Australian Greens support measures to address alcohol abuse but such
measures must be developed in partnership with the community. The Greens are
concerned that the measures contained in the Stronger Futures legislation don’t
adequately address alcohol abuse and may have unintended consequences. We
support the emphasis on locally developed alcohol management plans but share
community concerns at the increased layers of bureaucracy in developing them.
We are also concerned that the harsher penalties contained in the new
legislation may increase the rate of imprisonment and note that failing to
address a floor price on alcohol undermines the effectiveness of all these
measures.
Alcohol bans and alcohol management
plans
1.31
The Australian Greens believe that blanket bans on alcohol, such as
those imposed by the Intervention, are not the most effective way of tackling
alcohol abuse particularly as the necessary supports such as adequate access to
rehabilitation services have not been provided. We share the concern of AHRC[20] that this legislation automatically
transitions prescribed areas into alcohol protected areas, imposing alcohol
restrictions without consultation.
1.32
As Aboriginal Peak Organisations Northern Territory (APO NT) explain:
Until communities are in a position to own a decision to ban
alcohol, they will find ways to circumvent it. The continuation of blanket bans
(‘alcohol protected areas’) perpetuates the status quo, which has resulted in a
drift to unsafe drinking and to townships[21]
1.33
This is supported by the submission of the AHRC:
evidence indicates that interventions imposed without
community control or culturally appropriate adaptation and which stigmatise
alcohol users do not work and can be counterproductive[22]
1.34
It is clear that for measures to be effective, they must be developed
and implemented in partnership with Aboriginal people. The Australian Greens
support alcohol controls where they have community support. The focus of the
approach should be on phasing out alcohol bans and supporting communities to
develop alcohol management plans (AMPs).
Australian Greens Recommendation 1
1.35 The Australian Greens recommend that alcohol bans
should be transitioned to AMPs and communities should be adequately resources
and supported to develop them.
1.36
In principle, we do not have a difficulty with the Minister approving AMPs
as long as the process is not delayed by layers of bureaucracy.
Australian Greens Recommendation 2
1.37 The Australian Greens support the Committee
recommendation that a time limit is placed on approval process of AMPs, and
suggest a maximum of 30 days.
Assessing licensed premises
1.38
The Australian Greens support the provision which provides the Minister
with the authority to request that the relevant Northern Territory Government
Minister appoint an assessor to conduct an assessment of a licensed premise if
it believed that the sale or consumption of liquor at or from a premise is
causing substantial alcohol-related harm to Aboriginal people. However it is
unclear why this provision relates only to harm to Aboriginal people, rather
than to the community more generally.
1.39
As Dr. Boffa, Public Health Medical Officer of People's Action Alcohol Coalition
(PAAC) noted:
...it would be preferable to remove the reference to
Aboriginal people in the provision that gives the Commonwealth the powers to
intervene and ask for an independent audit on particular alcohol outlets. It is
not a racial issue. I think that could be amended to read that where any
particular outlet is deemed to be causing excessive problems for 'the
community', and not for 'Aboriginal people'. This is not a racial issue. In the
Northern Territory, non-Aboriginal people drink at twice the level of other
Australians and have much higher rates of alcohol related problems. Non-Aboriginal people who are addicted to alcohol are just as likely to
gravitate towards the cheapest forms of alcohol as Aboriginal people are. There
is nothing racially based about the message we are proposing and we do not
think the bill should single out Aboriginal people in that way, although we do
support very much the intent behind giving the Commonwealth minister the powers
to order an independent review of particular outlets that are causing
particular harm to the community.[23]
Australian Greens Recommendation 3
1.40 The Australian Greens
recommend that paragraph 15(1)(a) of Division 5 of the Stronger Futures in the
Northern Territory Bill 2011 be amended to remove reference to 'Aboriginal
people' and replace that reference with 'the community'.
Harsher Penalties
1.41
There was a great deal of concern expressed throughout the inquiry about
increasing penalties for possession, consumption and supply of alcohol. In particular
that amounts under 1.35 litres could attract a penalty of up to 6 months
imprisonment.
1.42
APO NT noted this is their submission:
The NT already has amongst the harshest penalties in
Australia for bringing alcohol into remote Aboriginal communities...A punitive
response has not worked and there is no evidence than an additionally punitive
response is what is needed.[24]
1.43
The Australian Greens oppose increasing penalties for offences relating
to less that 1.35 litres, as it is unclear that punitive approaches are
effective and it will likely lead to increased imprisonment of Aboriginal
people in the NT.
1.44
This conclusion was supported by numerous submissions and evidence
given.
1.45
Mr Hunyor, Principal Legal Officer from North Australian Aboriginal
Justice Agency (NAAJA), asked:
where is the evidence that it is going to make any difference
to increased penalties? I think one of the issues we need to look at every time
an increase in penalty and an increase in imprisonment is imposed is: what is
the opportunity cost if realistically that is going to mean sending more people
to jail?[25]
1.46
This concern is supported by the AHRC:
The NTER Evaluation Report indicated there was a clear
increase in alcohol related offences...The Commission therefore reiterates its
standing concerns that the alcohol offences under the NTER continued by the
Stronger Futures Bill may result in increased imprisonment of Aboriginal and
Torres Strait Islander peoples[26]
1.47
Infringement notices provide a viable alternative to harsh penalties.
Currently the legislation only makes an infringement available for the offence
of defacing an ‘alcohol protected area’ notice. The Australian Greens believe
that police officers should be allowed to issue notices for alcohol related
offences under 1.35 litres.
1.48
It became clear throughout the inquiry, that what was needed was
additional resources dedicated to culturally appropriate alcohol counselling
and rehabilitation[27]
– not increased penalties.
1.49
Ms Rosas from NAAJA highlighted the inappropriate emphasis on penalties
rather than rehabilitation:
NAAJA recognise the need to do more to stop the damage caused
by alcohol abuse in our communities, but increasing the penalties for alcohol
related offences is not the answer. Aboriginal people already make up 80 per
cent of the jail population in the NT. Locking more people up is not going to
fix our problems and banning alcohol has not solved the problem. The alcohol
bans have pushed drinkers further from their communities into very unsafe
situations. We need to treat the disease. There is no professional counselling
or treatment available in remote communities and we need rehabilitation
centres. We need culturally relevant programs and services and we need more
education in the schools to teach the younger generation the dangers of
drinking and drug use. Governments need to work with elders to take ownership
and responsibility of alcohol management plans and be part of the solution.[28]
Recommendation 4
1.50 The Australian Greens share the concerns outlined by
NAAJA and others and therefore recommend that current penalties for possession,
consumption and supply of alcohol are not increased and that additional
resources are committed for rehabilitation and counselling services in NT.
1.51 However, if the proposals proceed we recommend that
the Bill is amended enable police to issue infringement notices for offences
less than 1.35 litres to be issued.
Supply Reduction Measures
1.52
What is sadly lacking from the Stronger Futures legislation is any
attempt to reduce supply such as through setting a minimum floor price for
alcohol and take-away free days. Evidence to the inquiry indicated strong
support for this type of measure and provided strong evidence for the
effectiveness of such measures.
1.53
PAAC highlighted:
National and international evidence indicates a direct link
between:
- Raising the cost of alcohol and reducing consumption in the population;
and
- Reduced alcohol consumption and decreases in alcohol-related harm,
including hospitalisation and death
The World Health Organisation (WHO) research shows that the
most effective measures are to raise prices based on alcohol content, and to
reduce the availability of alcohol through strict licensing schemes limiting
opening times and the number of outlets.[29]
1.54
They recommend:
The most effective supply reduction measures which the
Commonwealth can and should take to reduce alcohol consumption in the NT are:
A minimum floor price on take-away alcohol at the price of
full strength beer (1.20 per standard drink); and
A take-away alcohol-free day preferably tied to a set welfare
benefits payment day, but in any event to have one day a week on which to take
away alcohol is not sold.
1.55
These measures were supported in numerous other submissions and evidence
given, including that of the AHRC, the United Church, the NT Coordinator
General and AMSANT.
1.56
It is disappointing to the Australian Greens that despite such clear
evidence, the Government has not pursued a floor price, and continues with
measures such as alcohol bans, which have less evidential basis and will be
less effective if a more holistic approach to alcohol is not taken.
Australian Greens Recommendation 5
1.57 The Australian Greens recommend that the Stronger
Futures legislation be amended to include the ability to establish a mandated
floor price on alcohol across the NT, and explore – in consultation with
communities, the implementation of take-away free days.
Land Reform
1.58
Submissions and evidence was broadly supportive of the aims of the land
reform measures in the legislation.[30]
It was in fact, the only area in the legislative package that had broad
support.
1.59
The Australian Greens acknowledge that there is a genuine and pressing
need for land reform in the NT to facilitate granting of leases for community
infrastructure, utilities, home ownership and businesses. As such, we also
support the intention of the legislation. However, we share the concerns of the
CLC and the NLC who considered that the NT Government is better placed to make
the reforms and that the regulation making power in the legislation is very
broad.
1.60
As the CLC writes:
Ideally, comprehensive reform would be led by the Northern
Territory government. In the absence of such proactive leadership by the
Northern Territory government, the approach being taken by the Australian
government in the Stronger Futures in the Northern Territory Bill 2011 and the
Stronger Futures in the Northern Territory (Consequential and Transitional
Provisions) Bill 2011 is understandable but is not ideal. The regulation-making
power proposed in relation to CLAs is very broad and we do not support it in
its current form. The delegation of such extensive power over an important
reform agenda to the executive creates difficulties because it requires the
Aboriginal land owners and the land councils to unreservedly trust the
executive to devise an appropriate reform agenda at an unspecified point in
time over the next 10 years.[31]
1.61
During the inquiry FaHCSIA implied they would give the NT Government
time to complete the reforms before they acted.[32]
Due to the urgency and importance of engaging in land reform, the Australian
Greens support this section of the Bill, on the basis that it is only used as a
last resort and that the NT Government is given time to proceed with the reform
before the Minister takes action. We seek commitment from the Minister in this
regard.
1.62
Finally, the Australian Greens share the concern of the Committee, that
Land Councils must be adequately resourced if they are to work on CLAs as part
of reform process. We therefore support the recommendation of the Committee
that section 23 (1)(eb) should be amended to remove "at the Land Council's
expense".
Food Security
1.63
It is interesting to note that few submissions, and even less evidence
addressed store licensing provisions. Generally submissions were supportive,[33]
but there was some concern from one community store that licensing would have a
negative impact.[34]
1.64
The Australian Greens are broadly supportive of a store licensing
regime, which improves food security in Aboriginal communities and is community
driven. However, we are concerned that the penalties in the legislation are
unnecessarily harsh, and the monitoring powers are too broad.
Enforcement and monitoring
provisions
1.65
As the AHRC notes, in the legislation “new enforcement arrangements
carry civil and criminal penalties which may not always be a necessary or
proportionate response to non-compliance”[35]
1.66
This is supported by APO NT:
APO NT is extremely concerned that the enforcement regime for
a licence breach is extremely harsh, and that many stores will be unable to pay
penalties. It will be extremely difficult for people in some communities to
access any food and grocery items if community stores are forced to close (by
virtue of incapacity to pay fine or by injunction)[36]
The AHRC also expressed concern that monitoring provisions
regarding entry, access to records and compulsion to provide information could
potentially interfere with community store manager’s and owner’s right to
privacy.[37]
1.67
The Australian Greens share the concerns outlined above and recommend
that the Government closely monitor the use of enforcement and monitoring
provisions to ensure they are being applied proportionately.
Consultations
1.68
The Australian Greens welcome the requirement for consultation when making
a determination about whether a community store licence is required. However,
we note with concern the comments of the AHRC, that failure to meet this consultation
requirement does not effect the validity of that determination.[38]
It is vital to ensure that consultations are meaningful and effective.
In this regard, we support the best practices standards outlined by the AHRC in
appendix 2 of their submission.
Food Costs
1.69
It is of great concern to the Australian Greens that this legislation
does not attempt to address the issue of cost of food in remote communities in
the NT.
1.70
As APO NT pointed out “there are no measures imposed in the draft bills
to ensure that costs remain low and no suggestion that subsidisation has been
considered by the Government.”[39]
This was supported by the AHRC: “While improving store management and
governance is part of the solution to increasing access to affordable healthy
choices, it is undermined by poor food supply in the Northern Territory.”[40]
1.71
Considering the impact of high food costs across the NT on the health
and wellbeing of Aboriginal people, the absence of measures to mitigate it is a
glaring gap in the legislation.
Australian Greens Recommendation 6
1.72 The Australian Greens recommend that the Government
explore ways to address food costs in the NT paying particular attention to
recommendations 13-20 from the inquiry into community stores in remote
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities.
Customary Law
1.73
The Australian Greens support the provisions which will allow
consideration of cultural practices and customary in bail or sentencing
decisions for offences related to cultural heritage. However, we believe the
legislation does not go far enough. The existing provisions, implemented as
part of the Intervention, remove the discretion of judges to consider of
Aboriginal customary law and cultural practices, and as such are deeply
discriminatory, contribute to already climbing rates of incarceration and
undermine Aboriginal culture.
Prohibition on considering Aboriginal
culture is discriminatory
1.74
Numerous submissions and evidence point to the inherent inequality in
prohibiting judges from considering Aboriginal culture, when the dominant
culture is being considered all the time.
1.75
Representatives from NAAJA commented on this in their evidence:
There is an American academic, Patricia Williams she is a
black woman who describes the majoritarian privilege of not noticing one's
self. That is the danger with this sort of law, that we, being white fellows,
do not recognise our culture and our custom as we think that is the status quo.
When it is Aboriginal people it is custom and culture and it is excluded. That
is why at the core of this law there is something that really should trouble
us.[41]
1.76
This is supported by evidence from the Central Australian Aboriginal
Legal Aid Service:
We strongly oppose the exclusion of cultural practice and
customary law from bail and sentencing considerations. .... Basically, our
position is that this puts Aboriginal people into a different position for
sentencing and bail purposes than any other member of the population when they
come before the courts. It is a discriminatory practice that needs to be
abolished. The argument that this gives better protection to Aboriginal women
and children is a fallacious argument and in some instances people will be
worse off because of this particular provision. Our strong position is that
that section of the bill should be deleted.[42]
Commentary
on the discriminatory nature of these provisions is not limited to the inquiry.
Chief Justice Riley of the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory has
commented on the negative impact of the law.
the court is not entitled to consider why an offender has
offended and pass an appropriate sentence. The court is required to ignore the
actual circumstances of the offending.’ This ‘means that the court must
sentence in partial factual vacuum... Aboriginal offenders do not enjoy the same
rights as offenders from other sections of the community. It seems to me this
is a backwards step.[43]
Contributing to increased in
incarceration
1.77
It is well known that the NT has the highest imprisonment rates in the
country. This rate is on the rise - in 2010-2011 the NT had the highest
proportionate and percentage increase in prison numbers.[44]
Removing judicial discretion to consider mitigating factors in bail and
sentencing will do nothing to address this serious issue.
1.78
As APO NT noted "A system that inhibits the discretion of the court
and the power of the experience and qualified decision maker to consider and
weigh up all relevants facts, can only contribute to this alarming and
increasing imprisonment rate."[45]
1.79
The Australian Greens firmly support this statement.
Measures disempower Aboriginal
people
1.80
Finally, prohibiting the consideration of customary law sends a clear
message to Aboriginal people – their culture does not matter. This is a serious
dismissal and stands in stark contrast to international law and best practice
which shows the vital role culture plays in improving outcomes for Indigenous people.
1.81
Ms Rosas, director of NAAJA commented on this issue:
For Aboriginal people before the courts, the law still
excludes our customary law and culture from bail and sentencing. This says to
our people that our customs and culture do not count or that they are part of
the problem. This is insulting and offensive to us as Aboriginal people. The
law says to the courts that they cannot apply the ordinary principles for
setting their sentences. The courts cannot take into account all relevant
factors when sentencing Aboriginal people. This is unfair and unjust. These
provisions must be scrapped. Instead, government should be working with elders
to take responsibility for offending in their communities.[46]
1.82
This was sentiment was echoed by APO NT:
The emphases on culture that is often observed in Government
consultations with Aboriginal people must be recognised. Aboriginal and
customary law and culture has the potential to be used as a means of empowering
Aboriginal people to take responsibility for offending within their own
communities. Its exclusion sends the wrong message: that Aboriginal culture and
customs are not valued; and is in direct conflict with the expressions of
Aboriginal people that culture must be strengthened.[47]
1.83
These provisions, taken from the Intervention legislation and slightly
softened, are counterproductive to the Government's own aims of improving the
wellbeing of Aboriginal people in the NT - building a 'stronger future.' They
undermine Aboriginal culture and are clearly discriminatory.
1.84
As such the Australian Greens strongly oppose these provisions.
Australian Greens Recommendation 7
1.85 We recommend removing Items 3 and 8 from Schedule 4
of the Stronger Futures in the Northern Territory (Consequential and
Transitional Provisions) Bill 2011.
1.86 If these measures are not removed we recommend an
independent review of the impact of provisions is undertaken three years after
commencement.
Permits
1.87
It is disappointing to the Australian Greens that these Bills do not
address changes made to the permit system as part of the Intervention. When
the Intervention legislation was introduced to Parliament in 2007 the former
government went to great lengths to imply a relationship between the permit
system and child sexual abuse in Aboriginal communities, without presenting
either any concrete evidence linking abuse of the permit system to cases of
child abuse (or other aspects of Aboriginal disadvantage), or putting forward a
logical argument of how the permit system might facilitate child abuse. They
failed to demonstrate either correlation or causation.
1.88
Australian Greens believe that Aboriginal people should have the power
to regulate access to their land. We share the concerns of the APO NT:
APO NT remains concerned that no mention of the changes made
under the NTER to the permit system for access to Aboriginal Land was included
in the Stronger Futures Discussion paper. No acknowledgement of the changes to
the permit system is included in the policy documents or the Stronger Futures
bills. Many residents of communities on Aboriginal land in the Northern
Territory continue to feel as though they have lost control over who can and
cannot come onto their land and wish to see the permit system reinstated in
full.[48]
Australian Greens Recommendation 8
1.89 We recommend that the Government pursue repealing
the permit system amendments made in 2008 that gave public access to certain
Aboriginal land.
Income Management
1.90
The Australian Greens strongly oppose the continuation of compulsory
income management in the NT, its expansion to five communities in other states
and the broadening of referral power to State and Territory authorities –
enabling the expansion of income management across Australia.
1.91
We do not support the expansion of income management and believe that
the entirety of Schedule 1 should be removed.
Income management not discussed in
consultations
1.92
Evidence given during the inquiry indicates that income management was
not discussed during the Stronger Futures consultation – nor were communities
consulted on the five new trial sites where income management is being rolled
out. [49]
Given that income management is a highly contentious measure perhaps the
Government had reservations in opening it up for consultation.
1.93
The AHRC comments:
The Commission is concerned by the breadth of Minister’s
discretion, which allows income management to be introduced across the country
without consultation with the affected communities. Indeed, there is no
evidence that the communities in the five targeted areas were consulted prior
to the Budget announcement or the introduction of the Social Security Bill.[50]
No evidence income management works
1.94
Numerous submissions pointed to the lack of evidence that income
management leads to better outcomes or improved ability to budget. Ms Cox, from
Jumbunna Indigenous House of Learning, stated unequivocally: “My conclusions
were that the studies and statistics available showed no valid or reliable
evidence of measurable benefits of income management to individuals or
communities.” [51]
1.95
APO made similar comments, stating:
It is disappointing that the Government is seeking to expand
the operation of income management without a clear evidence base that
demonstrates its success in achieving its objective of protecting vulnerable
women and children and encouraging socially responsible behaviours amongst
welfare recipients. To date, a thorough and independent evaluation of income
management has not been completed and publicly released.[52]
1.96
Beyond having no evidence it is effective, many submissions to the
inquiry suggest that compulsory income management can actually disempower the
people subject to it. As Public Health Association Australia, noted: “In
addition to undermining autonomy and self-determination, which are
pre-requisites for good health and wellbeing, universal compulsory income
management violates Australia's human rights commitments and the principles of citizenship.”[53]
1.97
Given the lack of evidence and the potential to negatively impact on
community empowerment, it is deeply concerning to the Australian Greens that
income management is being rolled out to five new locations, and the Social
Security Legislation Amendment Bill empowers the Minister to give referral
powers to State and Territory agencies– ostensibly extending income management
by stealth across Australia. As APO states, “Given that income management does
not have unanimous support across Australia, the inclusion of a provision which
enables the executive arm of Government to extend it so significantly is
troubling.”[54]
The potential of voluntary Income
management
1.98
The Australian Greens believe that a form of income management may be
useful for some people in managing their finances but it will not be effective
unless people enter into it voluntarily, and the processes involved are
transparent and clear.
1.99
This was supported by evidence given during the Inquiry. As Ms Moore
from PHAA explained:
The Public Health Association strongly supports voluntary
income management with safeguards such as clear and transparent processes that
are understood by the communities and by those individuals who are directly
affected. It should, for example, include clear entry and exit criteria, the
opportunity for the individuals to agree to the terms of income quarantined,
transparent processes of decision making and an integrated service delivery
model with clear referral pathways as well as planned and articulated payment
procedures and guidelines that link this to community leadership.[55]
The Australian Greens could only
support a voluntary system of income management and reject compulsory income
management
Australian Greens Recommendation 9
1.100 We recommend that Schedule 1 is removed from the Social
Security Legislation Amendment Bill 2011.
Referral Powers
1.101
If the Schedule is maintained, we share the Committee's concerns that
allowing referrals from State and Territory agencies may raise access to
justice issues. However, rather than ensuring agencies have a review process as
the Committee recommends, we believe a better approach would be to remove the
power to refer by State and Territory agencies and ensure that decision making
remains with the Secretary of Department.
Australian Greens Recommendation 10
1.102 We recommend that, should Schedule 1 be maintained
in the Bill, Part 1 of Schedule 1 of the Social Security Legislation Amendment
Bill be removed to ensure that State and Territory authorities do not have the
power referral.
1.103 If referral is maintained in the Bill, we recommend
that a maximum of 50% of income be deductible when people are referred from
State/Territory agencies.
School Enrolment and Attendance through Welfare Reform Measure (SEAM )
1.104
Evidence heard during the inquiry was very clear – SEAM is not working
and there is not enough evidence to support its expansion across the NT.
Furthermore, the inquiry revealed that there are numerous community-supported,
effective measures that have a better prospect of improving school attendance.
1.105
The Australian Greens therefore do not support the continuation of SEAM
and are deeply concerned at the Government’s attempts to do so, given the lack
of evidence that it is effective.
No evidence SEAM is effective
1.106
Information provided during the inquiry supports the conclusion that
SEAM has not significantly improved school attendance rates in the trial sites,
and witnesses expressed serious concern that it was being extended across the
NT.
1.107
The APO NT note in their submission:
The official evaluation of the SEAM trials is incomplete.
Nevertheless, the 2009 Evaluation Report makes clear that in 2009 there was no
observable improvement in school attendance. On this basis, APO NT submits that
the introduction of the Social Security Bill, seeking to continue and in fact
extend SEAM, is unjustifiable. Whilst there is optimism in the 2009 Evaluation
Report that changes made to SEAM in 2010 have improved its effectiveness on
school attendance, this is as yet unconfirmed.... APO NT does not support the
expansion of SEAM in the absence of evidence validating its capacity to
contribute to significant and long--‐term improvements in school
attendance.[56]
1.108
This lack of evidence was a theme throughout the Inquiry. For example,
St. Vincent de Paul Society commented:
Prior to the commencement of the 2009 SEAM program, the
senate committee inquiry into the Social Security and Veteran’s Legislation
Amendment (School Requirements) Bill emphasised that “...the outcomes of the
pilot and subsequent evaluation must provide the basis for any further roll-out
of the measures proposed in the Bill”. However, the expansion of SEAM was
announced before the final evaluation of the 2010 model was completed. The
results of the evaluation of the 2009 model concluded that SEAM did not
demonstrably improve the rate of attendance among SEAM children overall, nor
was any effect apparent at any stage of the attendance process in 2009. The
report contained only early data of the 2010 model.
Evaluations of comparable programs internationally are mixed
but the literature tends to suggest that well designed, targeted and incentive
based programs work significantly better than sanction based programs. [57]
1.109
The potential negative impacts of SEAM were outlined by Mr Jones General
Secretary, of the Uniting Church Northern Synod:
It may be noted that school attendance rates in the Northern
Territory have continued to decline overall, and the SEAM trial schools
evaluation has also reported failure of the SEAM measure. This negative step
will only further alienate parents and decrease the levels of support within
communities. We request that this aspect be deleted from the SEAM legislation.[58]
1.110
Another area of concern raised during the inquiry was the inability of
SEAM, even if it did manage to get children to school, to address barriers to
learning. As noted earlier, Dr Bath, NT Children’s Commissioner noted that
46.8% of children in NT have multiple developmental vulnerabilities as measured
by the Australian Early Development Index. This is compared to an 11.8%
national average. If we look at the ‘intervention zone’ it is estimated up to
60% of children have multiple developmental vulnerabilities.[59]
Children with these vulnerabilities are going to require special assistance or
“enriched programs to deal with those areas of vulnerability.”[60]
1.111
Measures likes SEAM which focus only on attendance will never be
effective because the resources are not there to help children with special
needs. As Dr. Bath comments:
It is hard. I do not think any of these measures are going to
be effective by themselves, and I think the data on AEDI would support that
contention. What is the point of forcing all those kids into school if they are
not able to sit in a chair and attend to the teacher?[61]
What would work
1.112
Evidence cited during the inquiry pointed to the effectiveness of
holistic, long-term, well designed, targeted and incentive based programs that
are community led and community owned.
1.113
The inclusion of conferences and school attendance plans in the Bill are
a step in the right direction, but they do not go far enough to have a
positive, long-term impact on school attendance.
1.114
Throughout the inquiry numerous examples of effective measures were provided,
often based on independent research or community consultations.
1.115
For example, St. Vincent de Paul Society noted that numerous proactive
solutions to improving attendance were provided by communities during the
Stronger Futures consultations. It is deeply disappointing that these
suggestions were not incorporated into the Bills. They included:
- Development of programs to get elders to help parents get kids to
school
- Return of bilingual education
- More language and culture in schooling,
- Using local elders to teach culture in schools
- homework centre in community where parents could help out at the
centre
- football programs
- linking excursion and incentives to attendance
- Full time parent liason officers
- More teachers and qualified youth workers to work in community to
develop quality
- programs for young people
- Community activities to bring children and parents together
- Local qualified teachers given preference over teachers from
elsewhere
- Recruiting local people into teaching profession
- Specialised teacher training to work in Indigenous communities
-
Get teachers to do specific training about the community and
local culture
- Have the community involved in the process of hiring teachers
- Parent support groups
- School council
- Improvements to early childhood education
- mobile preschool
- community childcare
-
community bus to get little ones into early education
1.116
Other positive measures put forward in submissions and evidence
included:
- Cultural appropriateness of the school setting – including
through the involvement of Aboriginal teaching personnel, parents and community
members in all aspects of the schooling process from initial planning to
implementation and delivery of programs; recognising the importance of
Indigenous discourse.[62]
- Supportive ‘culture’ in the school that actively addresses
bullying and harassment of Indigenous students.[63]
- Sport and motivational techniques - for example, the Clontarf
program in Alice Springs has increased attendance rates up to 92% by using
sport and motivational techniques to motivate students to stay at school. [64]
- High quality teachers who create a stimulating learning
environment in the classroom.[65]
- Flexible school years, which work with cultural commitments.[66]
- Culturally relevant intensive case management[67]
1.117
However none of these measures are possible if schools in the NT
continue to be severely under funded, and if the limited resources they have
are focused on the administration of SEAM rather than more effective
approaches.
1.118
As Ms Havnen, NT Coordinator General said:
The other comment I would make is that it is about the
capacity of the schools to cope. Even if you had 100 per cent attendance, how
many of our schools out bush would have adequate space, classrooms, desks and
chairs and even teachers to be able to cope with that influx of kids? Also, if
you are dealing with a bunch of kids who have been disengaged from school for a
long time, I would suggest that the staffing ratio—students to teachers—would
need to be reviewed as well, because I suspect a lot of those kids would be
very difficult to manage in a classroom if you were just using the regular
class sizes of 25 or 30 students per teacher.[68]
1.119
This was supported by the ARHC:
For some time, though,
concern has been expressed that infrastructure to deliver education in
Aboriginal communities has been seriously inadequate and that the Northern
Territory government has not directed sufficient funding into this purpose ... As
was noted in the Social Justice Report 2008, information about the level of
services and facilities of schools in remote Aboriginal communities in the
Northern Territory is notoriously lacking. This mitigates against appropriate
planning which would ensure that adequate resources are allocated for schooling
facilities.[69]
1.120
The Australian Greens are very concerned that the Government intends to
spend over $110 million over 4 years on a policy that cannot be shown to be
effective when that money could be spent on properly resourcing schools in the
NT and putting in place programs that will actually improve school attendance.
Australian Greens Recommendation 11
1.121 The Australian Greens recommend that schedule 2 is
removed from the Social Security Legislation Amendment Bill 2011 and
that these resources are spent on the measures outlined above.
1.122 If the schedule is not removed, we make the following
recommendations:
- The development
of guidelines, in consultation with communities, for determining when an
absence is ‘satisfactory,’ including appropriate consideration of cultural
practices and obligations.
- School
Councils to be included as ‘persons who are responsible for the operation of
the school’ in their community.
- Legislation
must stipulate that a conference and school attendance plan must be requested
prior to any consideration of cancellation of payments.
- School action
plans must be developed consultatively with families; they must be agreed upon
and in writing and must be understood by the recipient.
- School
councils should be involved in the conferencing and the writing of attendance
plans.
- The Bill must
expressly state that persons responsible for the operation of a school are
officers under the social security law, in order to ensure access to appeal
mechanisms.
- Community
education is needed to ensure Aboriginal people fully understand new SEAM.
A call for a culturally competent approach which supports local governance
1.123
The overriding message throughout the inquiry process was that the
approach taken by the Federal Government is wrong. It disempowers Aboriginal
people and erodes community governance. Because of this it will never be
effective.
1.124
Many submissions called for a new approach - a culturally competent
approach which supports communities to achieve their own development objectives
through proper consultation; local governance and cultural competency. The
Australian Green strongly support such an approach.
1.125
The NT Coordinator General addressed this in her evidence:
I think Aboriginal people also need to have appropriate
levels of resourcing and access to independent professional and technical
assistance to enable communities to make informed decisions when they are
participating in those negotiations. I think it would also be helpful for
government to pay much more attention to the question of capacity development.
I would use the definition as set out by the UNDP, the United Nations
Development Program, that states that this is:
...the process through which individuals, organisations and
societies obtain, strengthen and maintain the capabilities to set and achieve
their own development objectives over time.
I think if we were to use that particular definition about
capacity development, engagement and decision making we might make substantial
progress on the kinds of targets and initiatives that government and
communities both want. [70]
Improved consultation
1.126
The first step in such an approach is to ensure proper participation of
affected communities through improving the Government’s dismal consultation
process.
1.127
The Australian Greens note that the Aboriginal and Torres Strait
islander Social Justice Commissioner has developed criteria for meaningful and
effective consultation processes, based on international best practice.
Australian Greens Recommendation 12
1.28 The Australian Greens recommend that the Government
use these criteria, present in Appendix 2 of the AHRC submission, to develop
guidelines for all consultations involving Aboriginal and Torres Strait
Islander Australians.
1.129 If the Bills proceed, the Australian Greens support
the recommendations of the AHRC which propose that:
the objective clause of the Stronger Futures Bill be
amended to include reference to the effective participation and engagement of
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples in matters affecting them;[71]
and
the Bills are amended so that the definition of ‘consultation’
adopts the Commission’s criteria for meaningful and effective consultation set
out at paragraph 63 and appendix of their submission.[72]
Supporting Community Governance
1.130
As was outlined at the beginning of this report, the Intervention has
had a significant detrimental impact on community governance in the NT. The
Australian Greens firmly believe that until community governance is supported
and strengthened, rather than weakened, any approach on improving the wellbeing
of Aboriginal people will not be effective.
1.131
As the national Congress of First Peoples writes:
There is extensive Australian and international research
which consistently concludes that active participation of Aboriginal people in
decision-making on issues affecting their communities is fundamental to
effective governance and a precursor to sustained development ... Furthermore,
the legitimacy of governance arrangements is conditional on the structures and
processes being recognised as conforming to the cultural norms within each
community. As communities differ in their traditions and culture, no single
model of governance will suit all communities...[73]
Community leadership, with local Aboriginal leaders focusing
on establishing the institutions and processes for representing their
communities and engaging with government, is necessary for sustained
development.
1.132
This is supported by the AHRC, as noted earlier:
The Commission agrees with and supports the extensive body of
research and evidence that shows Aboriginal community governance is a key
factor for the sustainable development of Aboriginal communities...
This is supported by research from the Harvard Project on
American Indian Economic Development, which demonstrates that when Indigenous
communities: “make their own decisions about what development approaches to
take, they consistently out-perform external decision makers on matters as
diverse as governmental form, natural resource management, economic
development, health care, and social service provision.”[74]
1.133
Evidence indicates that communities must be empowered to make their own
decisions.
1.134
The Australian Greens strongly support such an approach, programs which
do not foster local governance are bound to fail. To do anything else would not
only be counter-productive but would fly in face of years of domestic and
international research. It is disappointing that the Government has not
dedicated more resources to this end.
Australian Greens Recommendation 13
1.135 The Australian Greens recommend that the Federal and
Northern Territory Governments must commit to appropriately resource (including
financial and technical assistance), and prioritise programs that facilitate
the development of community governance structures. Such measures enable and
empower Aboriginal communities to engage with and control decision-making about
their cultural, political, economic and social development goals .[75]
Cultural Competency
1.136
Finally, for efforts in the NT to be effective it is absolutely vital
that Governments and their staff have the cultural competency to effectively
implement programs As the AHRC explains:
The Stronger Futures engagement mechanisms and consultation
processes will be ineffective unless they are supported by a skilled and culturally
competent government workforce. The NTER Review Board found that new attitudes
must be developed to redefine the relationship between the bureaucracy and
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples including a greater understanding
of Indigenous cultures and world views.
The capacity of government officials working with Aboriginal
and Torres Strait Islander peoples must be developed to ensure engagement with
local communities is effective.[76]
1.137
Cultural competency is defined as:
a set of congruent behaviours, attitudes, and policies that
come together in a system, agency or among professionals and enable that
system, agency or those professions to work effectively in cross-cultural
situations. Cultural competence is much more than awareness of cultural
differences, as it focuses on the capacity of the health system to improve
health and wellbeing by integrating culture into the delivery of health
services.[77]
1.138
Staff working with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples need to
ensure that their engagement builds and develops cultural safety within
communities. To this end, external stakeholders must:
- remove the
road blocks that inhibit Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples from
taking control
- refrain
from actions and processes that divide Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
peoples
- create
environments where Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples cultural
difference is respected and nurtured
- remove the
structural impediments to healthy relationships in Aboriginal and Torres Strait
Islander communities.[78]
1.139
It is easy to see how the attitudes of Government staff, and the policies they contribute to, can either support or
undermine Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders efforts to reach their own
development goals. The Australian Greens strongly support ensuring that all
staff working with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, or engaging in
any relevant policy development have a very high level of cultural competency.
Australian Greens Recommendation 14
1.140 To this end the, if the Stronger Futures legislation
proceeds, Australian Greens recommend that the Australian and NT Governments
implement the Stronger Futures measures in a culturally safe and competent
manner. This requires the Government to ensure:
- the mandatory use of Identified Positions/Criteria
for all positions in the public service that have any involvement with the Stronger Futures measures, and the requirement for relevant officers to have the
appropriate skills and cultural competency to work with Aboriginal and Torres
Strait Islander peoples and communities
- the development of targeted education and training
programs with accredited training providers to facilitate the development of
appropriate skills and cultural competency
- increasing the capacity of Government Business
Managers and Indigenous Engagement Officers to work with communities and build
community engagement processes with a view to improving community engagement on
the key issues facing communities[79]
Conclusion
1.141
The Australian Greens strongly oppose the passing of the three pieces of
legislation in the Stronger Futures Package. Stronger Futures is nothing more
than an extension of the Northern Territory Intervention. An extension embarked
on without evidence that the Intervention has been or will be effective.
1.142
This extension will mean that the Intervention will ostensibly be in
place for 15 years. While we welcome the commitment of resources for a further
10 years, subjecting people to an ineffective and damaging policy for 15 years
is completely unacceptable. As such we do not support a 10 year sunset clause,
believing it to be far too long.
Australian Greens Recommendation 15
1.143 If this legislation proceeds, the Australian Greens
recommend that measures in the Stronger Futures legislation sunset after 5
years of operation.
1.144
The Australian Greens believe that the Federal Government must
re-examine the approach they are taking in the NT. International research and
best practice points to the importance of empowerment and local governance in
improving outcomes for Indigenous people. Stronger Futures, rather than
empowering Aboriginal people, undermines their governance and devalues their
culture. Until we see a change in approach, until Aboriginal people are
empowered to lead their own development, efforts in the NT will not be
effective.
1.145
The Government should abandon Stronger Futures.
Australian Greens Recommendation 16
1.146 The Australian Greens recommend the three Bills in
the Stronger Futures Package not be passed.
1.147
If neither the Government nor the Coalition can see the fundamental
flaws in the approach of this legislation, substantial amendments are needed to
mitigate the impact of these Bills.
Senator Rachel Siewert
Navigation: Previous Page | Contents | Next Page