Summary
It is evident to DARC that there is not widespread support for the Intervention changes. There is widespread support for improved and increased services and infrastructure. However these must be based on evidenced-based effective community development strategies, proper consultation and a philosophy of self-determination, not via imposed, racially discriminatory policies such as the Intervention.
Section One will outline the results and analysis of surveys relating to Income Management that were conducted with affected Aboriginal individuals. Overall, the vast majority of respondents disliked the Intervention changes, and reported significant difficulties with the Income Management system. (These will be discussed in detail in Section One and a full transcript of complaints can be found in Appendix One). Income Management is creating hardships for many, not taking them away. This is the result of both poor policy, as well as poor implementation of the policy.
DARC feels it is essential that these voices of the people who are affected are heard by the Government. Compulsory Income Management is not widely accepted, nor is it acceptable as a race-based policy. Many people voluntarily reported (often as their primary complaint) the increased racism they were experiencing as result of the Intervention, as well as their frustration that the policy is inherently discriminatory.
There is no evidence that compulsory Income Management reduces the risk of child sexual abuse nor that it improves conditions of chronic disadvantage and poverty, or assists those with chronic alcohol dependence. The voluntary Centrepay system was well supported by Aboriginal people prior to the Intervention and is a far more appropriate way of encouraging responsible money management. Additionally, some feel that targeted income management may be appropriate for people identified as neglecting their children, however such a system would need to be developed through extensive, appropriate and sensitive consultation with communities.
Numerous conversations and meetings were held with organizations and community associations as well as affected individuals across the Top End regarding the broader Intervention changes. Section Two is a discussion of the main concerns repeatedly raised, and will cover the following in more detail:
- Fear of making complaints due to fear of losing funding for infrastructure, housing, health etc;
- The Intervention has not addressed child sexual abuse or safety;
- Suspension of the Racial Discrimination Act and ongoing consequences of disempowerment, negative stereotyping and increased racism;
- Increase in urban drift and destabilisation of town communities;
- Lack of appropriate, evidence-based, community controlled support programs for people with drug and alcohol issues or victims/perpetrators of abuse in the enabling legislation
- Defunding and destruction of pre-existing programs;
- Ongoing lack of consultation;
- Efficiency and effectiveness of programs and funding allocations, specifically regarding governance and health (for example, child health checks);
- Further concerns regarding Income Management, for example lack of right of appeal to Centrelink and adverse effects on community stores;
- Lack of information to affected communities regarding implications of compulsory 5-year land leases.
It is beyond the scope of this submission to suggest actual programs or strategies that should be implemented in place of the Intervention. It is sufficient to report that Aboriginal people want, and deserve, consultation, respect and proven community development strategies to address the overwhelming issues of chronic disadvantage.
This submission’s focus is thus to highlight the breadth and depth of complaints regarding the Intervention, as well as the negative consequences (both unintended and inevitable) and the increased difficulties people and communities are experiencing. It is our hope that in hearing the voices of Aboriginal people this Review board can more truly report on the effects of the Intervention.