Who needs “constitutional niceties” when you have paternalism?
In the wake of the “Ampe Akelyernemane Meke Mekarle: Little Children are Sacred report by the Northern Territory Board of Inquiry into the Protection of Aboriginal Children from Sexual Abuse, Prime Minister John Howard has declared an “emergency” for Aboriginal Australians and has decided that the constitution be damned he will swoop in (this is an election year) and do what he has not done for the last ten years….attempt to alleviate some of the problems Aboriginal children face specifically in remote communities/towns. Howard’s plan is, as he admits, “interventionist, it does push aside the role of the Territory to some degree. I accept that but what matters more – the constitutional niceties or the care and protection of young children?” Howard and his Minister for Aboriginal Affairs have compared the sexual abuse of Aboriginal children in the NT to natural disasters (the tsunami last year or hurricane Katrina, perhaps) where overt governmental disregard for rights can and should be ignored because there is a state of “emergency.”
The NT report is clear on the fact that child sexual abuse is a problem. I have no doubt it is both in Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal communities, in remote towns and in urban areas. The government is focused on the NT because it can do there what it cannot in the States. So under Howard’s plan the government will take over 60 Aboriginal communities through 5 year leases and there will be “free compulsory medical assessments for all NT Indigenous children under 16, a ban on x-rated pornography and a boost to police numbers.” Howard and Brough also have their sights on Aboriginal permits–under this plan the government can forgo the permits now required to enter some Aboriginal communities (this has been on the chopping block for some time, but this “emergency” has given the PM the moral power he needs to cut through the niceties of land rights).
Many commentators have noted the outright racist overtones of the plan, the problems with linking government welfare to “benchmarks,” and the undermining of indigenous rights and self-determination. This is all true, as it has been for some time under the Howard government. But the truly scary part is Howard’s admission that he is trampling on constitutional rights, but oh well. This is the same logic the Bush administration used to push through the Patriot Act after 9/11–in times of crisis “we” have to sacrifice some “freedoms” for the good of all. The illogic disregards the fact that constitutional rights are not crisis-optional, they are, in fact, meant to withstand crisis and maintain rights.
As I read numerous takes on the Howard plan I also read a blog entry by Gayprof called “what is this going to cost me?” about gay rights in the US and in particular states in the US. Ruminating on the state of rights for queer people he writes:
In this country, we queer people are not free to navigate the nation or pursue our best economic interests without necessarily thinking about how it might impact our basic civil rights and standard of living. [...] Queer people can’t expect that they will receive fair and equal protection under the law in all parts of this nation.
His focus on the “whims” of specific states aligned with the Howard governments focus on the NT and specifically small Aboriginal communities they call “affected areas.” As Jane Simpson notes about the flaws in the plan:
They don’t address the fact that many of the bad things happen not in the small communities, but in the fringe camps of the big towns. The talk is of “prescribed areas” and “affected areas”. I bet Darwin and Alice Springs won’t count as affected areas. And so the desire for freedom will suck more people out of the smaller communities to the towns.
The problem with assigning the “crisis” label to a problem that has widespread and complex reasons for its existence is that after the short term emergency crews have left, the underlying problems remain, only now you have a population that has less control and has once again been demonized and pathologized by a nation attempting to wrestle with their own sense of self worth.
About The Author
Kim Christen
I am an Assistant Professor at Washington State University. I use this blog to keep myself writing. I blog about Australian Aboriginal politics, Indigenous issues, Indigenous new media, cultural politics, and other issues that come up. I made the icon above at Portrait Icon Maker
Other posts byKim Christen
Author his web sitehttp://www.kimberlychristen.com
This really infuriates me. They’ve done an excellent job of hijacking the report, concentrating on the findings and effectively ignoring the recommendations, and instead using it as a justification to repatriate land, further homogenise culture and, essentially, encourage assimilation.
Unfortunately, such is the political climate under Howard, that issues are polarised and made binary; if you don’t support the government’s plan, you are protecting the interests of child molesters. This is, I think, primarily the reason Rudd has thrown his weight behind the government’s plan. In an election year it’d be too risky to go out on a limb and oppose any such part of it (just yet). In one respect though, he’s doing a good job of diffusing this as an election issue, since there’d be no way to differentiate between either party.
I heard an excellent commentary this morning, something along the lines of ‘why is it that we think aboriginal people would only hinder our efforts in addressing this situation, that we appear to have to remove them from any decision making on the issue? Why can’t the government involve the communities in the plans to tackle the problem? Surely they too want what’s best for their children.’ My guess would be that it’s much too complicated and messy to consult with the communities when it’s much easier to blanket-ban alcohol or seize land altogether, especially when the government’s only got about three months to do anything.
Did someone say
Children Overboard & Tampa,WMDs,Interest Rates, Child Abuse? See a running theme?In the 80,s there was a theme Cultural Revival is Survival so why hasnt worked or how do do you assess it.A judge in WA has said men in these communities were using their position and mythical powers in the process of child sexual abuse. Is it cultural?
Anne,
Sorry for the delayed response, your comment got lost in the 500+ bits of spam I got in the last three days.
Anyway, I don’t think that labeling abuse “cultural” is what I suggested. Judging if “cultural revival” has “worked” is tricky business. There certainly has been an invigorated sense of pride in cultural practices since the 1980s–an answer to the decades of cultural suppression. But that could never have been the “solution” to the problems that face Aboriginal communities because of their continued structural marginalization in Australia. Particularly, what my post was getting at was that these issues have been around for at least ten years and Howard has not only not done anything to improve them, but has steadily CUT funding for services that are provided to every Australian citizen.
The myth of Aboriginal people getting “special rights” or “more” social services is very widespread and dangerous, but it has no basis in policy or program fact. Cultural revival is one part of Aboriginal communities, but it will not an “answer” to the problems that stem from poverty and social marginalization by the state.
these comments are helpful . What is needed is a detailed analysis, which joins the dots and makes it all intelligible in a systematic way and examines the systemic racism . of how it is unproductive , how it is a waste of resources [ eg sending in medical specialists rather than focussing on primary healthcare ] & how this elates to lack of consultation with existing providers , how white fellas benefit most from the supposed millions to be spent , how the compulsory aquisition of property is carried out , how this relates to the Howard negation of native title through the ten point plan, how it relates to starving ATSILS of funds fo r11 years ,so as to be unable to fightr it in court etcetcetcetc. lets see some systematic analysis
cjc
Hello. I think you are eactly thinking like Sukrat. I really loved the post.