Section Two: Discussion of General Concerns: Overview elaborated from conversations with organizations, communities and individuals
It is of particular concern that many organizations and communities told us they feared making complaints about the Intervention because of the funding that is being allocated to infrastructure, health, housing etc. DARC believes that it is totally unacceptable and indicative of the coercive implementation of the Intervention that people are unable to truthfully report the situation on the ground for fear that essential services will be withdrawn. The federal government needs to address this as a matter of urgency.
Due to these concerns and the wish of those expressing them to anonymity, the following discussion has, to the best of our ability, removed any identifying elements.
Of central concern to people across the Top End is that the Intervention has not addressed the protection of children (vis a vis sexual abuse) adequately, if at all. For example, there has not seemed to be any genuine arrests for paedophilia at all at this stage. Many communities felt they had low levels of sexual abuse and are still waiting for an answer as to why they became a “prescribed area” (the indiscriminate, “blanket” nature of the Intervention being very evident). Other communities had reported criminals in their communities, but were still waiting for something to be done.
Indeed, in many ways the Intervention has potentially increased risk for children, and contributed to ongoing issues that are considered determinants of ill health and abuse.
For example, many feel it has disempowered communities, stripped people of their rights and perpetuated negative stereotypes. The suspension of the Racial Discrimination Act is a very significant concern for individuals, leaders and organizations alike. A recent study4 shows racism has a significant detrimental impact on Indigenous health – as such the implementation of racially discriminatory policies such as the Intervention will only continue to do harm.
Also, town communities are experiencing a significant increase in population – mostly people who drink and who have left remote communities due to the restrictions there, or short-term itinerants who come into town to use store cards. The communities report concerns regarding increased violence, lack of safety etc, as a secondary effect of this migration. Given these people are not town camp residents, and often not family members, many do not understand community protocols and their behaviour further destabilises town communities.
Virtually no programs have been implemented that provide treatment or support for people who have alcohol (and other drug) dependency issues, nor for those who are either victims or perpetrators of abuse.
Pre-existing programs and that were effectively addressing issues of chronic disadvantage, and that were based on best practice community-ownership models, have been sidelined by the Intervention changes. This includes:
- Successful business ventures operating under CDEP
- Other employment engagement strategies
- Alcohol support programs
- Money management programs
Taking the control away from Aboriginal people has only contributed to worsening self-esteem, which in turn creates environments where violence and drug and alcohol dependency will worsen. Many people feel the demonisation of Aboriginal men is also likely to contribute to worsening self-esteem. One man reported his Uncle no longer felt he could give his grandchildren a hug without being labelled a paedophile.
There were innumerable complaints about the lack of consultation throughout the full breadth of the Intervention roll out, especially the speed and chaotic nature of the initial actions, which sowed confusion, fear and suspicion. Whilst it may be easy to dismiss this as something that happened in July last year, the ongoing effects cannot be underestimated, especially in light of continued minimal consultation regarding new and on-going changes.
There is significant concern that the funding allocated in the Intervention has not been an efficient nor effective use of such money in regards to:
- Governance: an extra layer of bureaucracy, adding travel and accommodation expenses, not to mention wages, when many of these people are not local, and do not have the best local nor development related expertise. This is especially so in the area of Income Management, where the costs to Centrelink are enormous and of uncertain benefit given the difficulties Income Management is causing.
- Health: the funding spent on child health checks especially may well have been better used to improve the currently under-funded primary health care services already operating. The lack of efficiency and effectiveness of such checks in view of the duplication of services and costs and the lack of continuity with follow up care is a serious concern.
As outlined in Section One, individuals are experiencing great difficulty with the Income Management system due to not having the system adequately explained. There has been numerous negative impacts including transport difficulties (vis-a-vis distance from shops/Centrelink), a black market for store cards and increased difficulties with budgeting. There has been very little overall benefit. Our further discussions only corroborated these concerns, particularly around transport, as communities and service organizations struggle to provide remote communities with buses or transport options.
Others voiced concern over the removal of “right of appeal” processes within Centrelink, which has created confusion and anger for individuals who feel they should not have to be quarantined. It is a basic right that should not have been suspended.
There was also considerable anger at the impact on local community stores, which were often the centre of economic activity in the community, both as a way of injecting funds back into the community and supporting larger, bulk or communal purchases. Community stores also often supported the costs of funerals and there have been reports that they are now unable to do so, adversely affecting people during the already difficult period of mourning/sorry business.
The compulsory acquisition of land leases is an insidious aspect of the Legislation that we believe has yet to have its full impact. (Of particular concern is the increase in opportunism by the mining industry in bypassing proper channels of consultation, and taking advantage of the disempowerment and confusion in remote communities.) No communities or individuals we spoke to were aware of what the Federal Government planned to do with these new powers – a situation we believe only hampers claims of better consultation on the Government’s behalf, and sows seeds of suspicion. This also needs to be addressed as a matter of urgency.
4. http://www.crcah.org.au/publications/downloads/Racism-Report.pdf