Yesterday a group of well-qualified commentators released a report called Will they be heard?, which involved a detailed analysis of more than nine hours of consultations between FaHCSIA and Aboriginal communities at Bagot, Utopia and Ampilatwatja, plus government summaries of all consultations held.
Will they be heard? Not when is a consultation a continuation of the problem rather than the possible solution such as the federal government’s attempt to justify its NT intervention.
Three community consultations in detail versus 500-plus, well spun? Who to believe?
They concluded the consultation process was designed to gain support from Aboriginal communities to preserve the special measures introduced in the intervention, thought to be good for communities, and therefore failed to record appropriately strong objections and concerns expressed about the whole intervention. The report therefore questions the validity of the process and expresses concerns that it could be used to justify retaining current discriminatory measures.
The response of minister Macklin was swiftly dismissive. Despite, the high status of people involved, e.g. Malcolm Fraser, Alastair Nicholson and Larissa Behrendt, Macklin dismissed it as it covered only three meetings out 500-plus, claiming also her process was validated by independent consultants CIRCA (hired by FAHCSIA). Her media release was triumphalist in structure, starting with the following “findings” that entirely backed the government’s views.
Overall, people said that children, women and the elderly were now safer, better fed and clothed; they were getting a better night’s sleep; and there was a reduction in humbugging for money for alcohol, drugs and gambling. This was attributed to a combination of NTER measures, in particular income management, alcohol restrictions, community store licensing and the increased police presence;
People identified income management was delivering benefits, particularly to children, women and the elderly. The benefits included more money being spent on food, clothing and school-related expenses, and assisting with saving for large purchases, such as fridges and washing machines.
I have read the three transcripts of meetings in Bagot, Ampilatwatja and Arlparra/Utopia, which presumably were not very different to the rest in the issues raised and process deficiencies. None of the above issues were raised spontaneously by locals at any of these meetings, despite being told of their presumed benefits. When prompted, one or two comments were made but most of the discussion on income management was about resentment, shaming, being subject to compulsion and surveillance of spending and the many practical difficulties the processes imposed on them in managing bills and spending. Similarly, the public servants pushed hard to get responses on the shops’ improvements, and fended off complaints about why they didn’t control prices as they controlled so much else.
It seems incredible to me, as a long-term researcher, that the responses of these quite substantial communities would be so very different in their priorities and concerns to the other 70 communities. The design of the process, by stating the government position up front and then asking for feedback on specific parts of the program, made it more difficult for people to raise wider questions and be critical of the wider policy and processes. Despite this attempt to direct discussion, the reports suggested that meetings wanted to, and did, move beyond the constraints. The question then becomes how much weight was given to the discussions that were not on the official preferred topics?
The CIRCA report, which is also on the website, offers evidence of how such differences in the reporting has happened. They confirm that the consultations they attended did comply with the brief they were given by FAHCSIA, i.e. they were run by public servants who explained to all what the intervention had done for them and then invited comments on a defined list of topics they wanted feedback on. However, the CIRCA report notes some tensions and states.
For example, in some tier 2 community meetings, the two proposed options for income management were not discussed, as participants spoke very passionately about not wanting income management to stay, and given this response, it was not relevant to then ask people to discuss the two options proposed in the discussion paper.
Later, the report states:
The summary of the income management section identifies the level of opposition to the two income management options included in the discussion paper. However, the summary identifies the voluntary model with triggers for those not managing their money as the preferred model. We believe this over-simplifies the level of discussion and responses to some extent, as many said income management should be stopped, and the trigger model was acceptable as an alternative solution, rather than the preferred solution.
This can hardly be seen as an endorsement of the process from FAHCSIA’s own consultants. If we combine these doubts with the concerned citizens reporting on the transcripts, filmed meetings and other reports, and the acknowledgment later in the government report of some concerns, the intentions of the government to maintain very unpopular programs is ridiculous.
The government report itself states:
a) the need for and desire of Aboriginal people to take greater ownership of solutions to the problems that the NTER is seeking to address;
b) that Aboriginal people valued the opportunity for genuine consultation and involvement in the development of policy and programs to address these complex problems, and considered this to be central to achieving successful, long-term outcomes
Macklin appears to be using this process to retain aspects of control and shaming that are inherent, for instance, in income quarantining by claiming these can be justified as special measures under a reinstated Race Discrimination Act. She must not ignore views that are widely held in the NT that aspects of the intervention have damaged potential good relationships with governments and undermined the capacity of local communities to take control of local issues. Small gains in practical areas do not balance out major insults to dignity and respect.
Will they be heard? illustrates clearly that at these consultations Aboriginal people showed strong concern about the continuation of such special measures and discomfort at the impact that the measures have had on their lives to date. These concerns included:
- Concern about the discriminatory application of the intervention
- Concern about compulsory income management
- Resentment about the implication the Aboriginal people use pornography
- Concerns about the prominent signs relating to alcohol and pornography bans erected at the entrances to their communities
- Concern that little has been delivered in services and infrastructure since the intervention.
As a non-indigenous person, I’m outraged and very sad, that aboriginal people are still being treated with this veil of paternalistic patriarchy. As a woman, I’ve frequently been treated with paternalism, and now as a more senior person, it’s worse. How demoralising it must be to have to live like this, day in and day out. From what I’ve heard and read about, is that aboriginal people aren’t being listened to, and just as important, aren’t being included in resolving problems/issues that they nominate as negative, or not working, or just plain racist. I had such high hopes prior to the ’07 election, and I just feel sad and very angry for indigenous people. No wonder they die too young – bloody worn out I’d say!
Has the sewerage pipe/s been fixed yet? It’d been like that for several weeks. If I was Jenny Macklin, I’d have had someone there the same day, or the next day at least? I think it was in the Ampilatwatja area! And what about the people in the out of town camps near Alice Springs? The govt’s method of consulation, was to pin the notice on a fence post?? What an insult?
This is not new – I have been reading through some papers and references that all say the same thing – what works to address the most pressing issues affecting remote Aboriginal communities are strategies that are developed with Aboriginal community participatory planning, consultations where government officials actually go to listen rather than talk talk and talk and point at their whiteboards or power point dot point presentations – and that take place with all Aboriginal language, clan, gender, and age groups in the community included. There are numerous well documented examples of successful initiatives such as the Aboriginal Law and Justice Strategy, the Living with Alcohol programme, and remote Aboriginal community owned Night Patrols (rather than merely community based as they now are). These have all been either dismantled or co-opted by government agencies, where any failures are of course blamed on Aboriginal people. How often do policy and decision makers have to hear/read about these things?? Unfortunately, government is in a position where they hold the purse strings and make the decisions – so they can decide to be deaf to the things they do not want to hear.
deaf ear? what a f*cken surprise
Ignoring Aboriginal people’s concerns is entirely the reason why the intervention will never work, and dare I say it can only make things worse. This has been the problem since who knows when with governments trying to look (or just trying) as though they are making things better. The gap is only there because governments refuse to admit they don’t have a clue how to deal with this issue, or because they refuse to let go of control, yet the best solution is quite simple. Listen to the Aboriginal people.
I was present at one such tier 2 negotiations. I’ve made several requests to our GBM for a copy of the official transcript that I believe as a resident I’m entitled to. I’m yet to receive my copy and wonder if the fact that I’m not Indigenous has anything to do with the delay.
The media release about the Report on the so called consultations bears little relation to the “consultations” that I witnessed and took part in.
An example:
“There were some strongly expressed views about the signs notifying the NTER alcohol and pornography restrictions;” says the Media Release.
We told the public servants that we were thoroughly offended by these signs, that they served no useful purpose other than sending the message to visitors and travellers that our community was swamped in alcohol and had a pornography problem, we asked them how they would like to have such signs outside their own suburbs, that until the Intervention many people in our community didn’t even know what pornography was. That the legislation was superfluous in that laws existing prior to the Intervention adequately dealt with these matters, and why were Aboriginal communities singled out to have this extra layer of punitive laws imposed on them? That the signs and the relevant legislation had to go to give us back our dignity and more… No one spoke in favour of these signs (one of which has been graffitied with “Kevin Rudd- Kuna rrurpa”).
“there were some strongly expressed views….” yes indeed.
A Deaf Ear….. I’ve heard the public servants that often come here to hold “meetings” and “consultations described as “Langa pati”.
In Warlpiri: langa= ear(s), and pati= hard inpenetrable ground