In the past month, FaHCSIA has released more than 1000 pages of reports that seek to justify an expansion of the NT intervention.
One of the most important for Minister Jenny Macklin has been the Community Safety and Wellbeing Research Study (CSWRS). This analyses the results of a survey and a voting process with 1343 people across 16 unnamed NT Aboriginal communities. Its findings are a cornerstone of a 400-page evaluation of the NTER.
Despite being touted as proof that communities want the intervention, the 17-page survey form used in communities does not once refer to “the intervention” or the “Northern Territory Emergency Response”.
The survey process ran from December 2010-June 2011 (p4). “Three years” prior to these dates (late 2007-mid-2008), the intervention was in full swing. It is unclear why communities weren’t clearly asked to compare their condition to before the intervention.
Survey participants were never asked about whether they actually agree with, or consent to any law that has been imposed on them through the intervention, much as happened in the “Stronger Futures” consultations. This illustrates contempt for the right and the capacity of Aboriginal people to shape their own future.
The headline statistic for Macklin is “almost three out of four people surveyed by this study said their community is safer now than it was three years ago”. She has implored anti-intervention activists, “Look at the evidence. This has nothing to do with ideology or politics”.
But the ideology of the intervention is on clear display through the CSWRS survey design and the report itself. The survey is fixated on questions about dysfunctional Aboriginal behaviour. Despite this, the clearest evidence provided by the report is that meeting shortfalls in services and infrastructure is the main challenge facing communities.
Despite being touted as the work of independent consultants, the report thanks FaHCSIA’s evaluation branch for guiding the project “from conceptualisation to completion” and thanks 20 government business managers, the on-the-ground authorities imposed by the intervention, for their facilitation role (p3). Prominent pro-intervention personalities also worked as staff.
A central, racist, premise of the intervention has been that the social problems facing Aboriginal communities stem from the degenerate nature of Aboriginal culture.
However, the biggest challenges as voted for by the communities were the need for increased services, and the largest positive response generated through the entire CSWRS survey, in a section on values, demonstrates a clear desire to defend the Aboriginal kinship system and Aboriginal culture:
“Having a strong connection to your culture, living traditionally, speaking language” and “Being close to family and friends” were rated “very important” by 91.2% and 92.4% of participants (with 96% and 97% of participants rating them as overall important) .
These responses were not mentioned in 140 pages of analysis in the CSWRS report, and can only be found buried as raw data in an appendix (p149). In contrast, there are eight pages of analysis into the detail of responses around inter-personal violence. This is just one of the more stark examples of how the ideology of the intervention has profoundly shaped the selective presentation of data, and precluded conclusions that may be uncomfortable for the government.
The report acknowledges on many occasions that its “quantitative” data is unreliable. But these admissions are carefully made, in a way that does not compromise the headline statistics.
i) Are some people saying “what they thought they ought to say”?
With respect to the section on levels of interpersonal violence, the report states:
“Feedback from data collectors also suggests that some of the responses may have been what the participant thought they ought to say, rather than what they really thought — which suggests that the true level of sanction for inter-personal violence may be higher than appears here” (p137).
But this suggestion was not made in any other context.
ii) Are communities safer since the intervention, or have they always been safe?
One of the cruel features of the survey is that there is no opportunity for people to comment on the strengths of their community. There are strong themes of Aboriginal dysfunction and an assumption that government intervention, rather than community initiative, is responsible for positive outcomes. For example, questions gauging strength of leadership or children’s happiness are only posed in comparison with three years previous.
It is clear, however, that large numbers of people wanting to express pride in their community, ignored the three-year comparison and took the opportunity to make a general statement.
This is selectively acknowledged in the report. For example, on responses to the statement, “there is more respect for elders than three years ago”, the report says:
“It may be that people are in effect saying that respondents are commenting (sic) more on the extent of respect for elders in the community, rather than whether or not it has changed in the last three years” (p83).
This analysis has serious implications for Macklin’s headline assertion — that three-quarters of people feel safer than three years ago. Perhaps many just think their community is a safe place to be?The stand-out finding of the report is that many in communities appreciate any increased investment in services, but that shortfalls in services and infrastructure are still of urgent concern.
Parallel to the survey, the CSWRS ran a ballot on key changes and challenges facing the community. This seems to have been a more collaborative process than the survey design, with community feedback playing a role in setting the categories for voting.
In the vote on challenges facing the community, huge numbers voted for improved services and infrastructure, including housing.
It is important to note that increased investment in public services has never been opposed by the anti-intervention activists derided by Macklin. These investments come off a base of documented and disgraceful neglect and need to be increased into the future.
The anti-intervention campaign has criticised extreme waste of funds on bureaucracy. We have opposed discriminatory legislation. We have opposed the dismantling of employment and service delivery programs operated by Aboriginal organisations. The survey form gave no opportunity to comment on the impact of these changes, but there is plenty of Aboriginal opinion that the experience since 2007 has been one of profound loss of service and opportunity.
At Daguragu, for example, residents have protested the loss of a host of services that used to be provided by their local community council and the Community Development Employment Projects, both of which have now been abolished. These include a bakery, brickworks, family centre, bus service, art centre and canteen.
The federal government is concentrating efforts on 16 large “priority communities” in the NT. The NT government has added five more, declaring a total of 21 “growth towns”. These are the only communities earmarked for increased investment in housing, services or infrastructure into the future, leaving smaller communities and outstations to languish.
A constant theme through the CSWRS was that smaller communities, and especially the smallest communities, were seen as safer, more robust, with stronger leadership. These are the very communities in danger of being left behind. For example, the Stronger Futures jobs package, announced with the new legislation, guarantees a job in the public sector for students who complete year 12 — but restricts this to students from “growth towns”.
But the survey analysis does not comment on implications for the “growth towns” policy of the findings that there is a statistically significant trend for survey respondents to prefer smaller places. This finding has not been mentioned in any official media release or media coverage.
There is plenty of evidence that the very serious social problems facing NT Aboriginal communities are becoming more acute. Reported incidents of attempted suicide and self-harm (p66) have more than doubled since the intervention. There has been a 41% increase in indigenous incarceration and a 38% increase in the numbers of Aboriginal children being taken into “out of home care”.
The emergency ward in Alice Springs hospital is dealing with increasing numbers of Aboriginal people, many suffering trauma as a result of assaults. Overwhelmingly, alcohol and homelessness are contributing factors in these incidents.
The women’s shelter in Alice Springs, providing a safe haven for women from domestic violence, had its busiest year ever in the past financial year.
But there is still no evidence that the raft of explicitly racist laws, which Macklin’s new legislation would extend for a further 10 years, have the consent of Aboriginal people.
The Australian Indigenous Doctors’ Association said in their Health Impact Assessment of the NTER in 2010:
“The impoverished notion of governance that the intervention represented has profound, far reaching, and serious negative effects on the health (psychosocial, physical and cultural) of the people whose aspirations, knowledge, experience and skills were ignored; and it means that investments in housing or education of health ‘… are unlikely to pay off’.” (pg18)
Elders throughout the NT, Aboriginal peak organisations of the NT (land councils, legal and medical), ACOSS, ANTaR, the Public Health Association of Australia and many others are all calling for the Stronger Futures legislation to be withdrawn.
The CSWRS report does not offer any credible evidence that would support this new legislation. It shows Aboriginal communities want investment in services and infrastructure. There is strong evidence presented that Aboriginal people believe smaller communities in particular are robust, safer, and happy places. The government must abandon the “growth towns” model immediately.
The Labor government’s legislation continues to concentrate power in the hands of government and vilify Aboriginal people. This is not what people asked for and not what will deliver sustained improvement in the lives and livelihoods of remote living Aboriginal people in the NT.
*Dr Hilary Tyler is an emergency physician working in Alice Springs and Paddy Gibson is a senior researcher at the Jumbunna Indigenous House of Learning. Both have been active in the campaign opposing the NT intervention.
Indigenous people could well be wary of contributing to “consultation”. The last time they admitted to having problems (problems common across all socioeconomic groups), they had even more choices stripped away.
It’s like the story about the farmer and the cow. His truck was in an accident, and he and the cow were lying, groaning and bleeding on the road. An emergency responder arrived, looked at the cow and promptly shot it. He then walked over to the driver.
“How are you?”
“I’m FINE! No problems, really!”
I write to correct several inaccuracies in your analysis of the CSWRS. I am one of the ‘independent consultants’, and the author of the report. I don’t, by any means, disagree with all of the points that you put forward. However you paint the report as being tainted by FaHCSIA’s and government business manager’s involvement. Clearly FaHCSIA’ had involvement in shaped the survey document. However it was extensively re-worked after testing and trialling, and FaHCSIA agreed to all suggested changes. The involvement of government business managers was in providing accommodation the research team – they were not present at any interviews, and in no way shaped the project or people’s responses. It is mere good manners to thank the person you have camped with!
Your comment that ‘Prominent pro-intervention personalities also worked as staff’ is not balanced by the acknowledgement that many anti intervention personalities also worked on staff. But beyond this you are implying that the researchers tried to influence what participants had to say. This comment belittles both the researchers and the participants. The researchers (more than half of whom were local Indigenous people) understood the need to let people have their say, and had the professionalism to put their own views on hold. The participants are extremely likely to know their views and to put them forward. Only in the very sensitive questions on attitudes to violence are they likely to be more careful. That is not because they don’t know their own views – its because they are wary of the topic as a whole.
You also describe the survey as having ‘cruel’ features. I’m at a loss to see how it was ‘cruel’. Many of the interviews took quite some time – the time was taken in people talking about their perceptions of their community. People tended to have both positive and negative things to say, depending on the issue. The survey process respected this, and gave opportunity for comment on each question.
A lot of material was gathered on people’s perceptions of the strengths of their community – much of which is in the report. This is particularly true of safety in small communities. You can’t have it both ways and take the findings of the report as making valid points, and then try to deride the whole methodology.
You assert that ‘the ideology of the intervention has profoundly shaped the selective presentation of data, and precluded conclusions that may be uncomfortable for the government.’ – and yet cite the results of the voting process that clearly prioritise the need for a continued improvement in services. This conclusion was very prominent in the Executive Summary, and referred to many times throughout the report. You also neglect to mention that the results to some other questions were also not referred to in the report. When you have 127 data items, some have to be omitted if the report is not to run into many hundreds of pages. Are you seriously saying that material that helps people to understand how violence occurs in remote communities, and may guide improved service provision should be left out! Of course there was selection in what was left out – the material that was most likely to make a difference to improved service delivery in the future was given priority – by me – not at FaHCSIA’s insistence.
The survey was done by a mix of experienced researchers and local researchers. Everyone discussed the importance of participants having their say. It is unprecedented that such systematic data has been collected across so many communities by such an excellent team. In many ways the impact of the NTER is a secondary consideration. The material gathered has much to teach in how to improve conditions in remote communities – use the findings constructively instead of turning it into a political football.
Thanks to Gillian Shaw for your response, and we would like the opportunity to respond to your critique.
We stand by our assertion that there is bias in the survey. FaHCSIA’s involvement ‘from start to finish’ surely means that it cannot be called independent. The report states that government business managers (GBMs) helped recruit participants. Prominent anti intervention personalities were involved in the editing of the report. We did not mean to imply that researchers tried to influence what participants had to say, and apologise if it could have been construed this way.
However, as we discuss, the very structure of the survey denied people the opportunity to discuss the intervention as a whole, the components of the intervention, and other policies such as CDEP, the Shires, the dismantling of community councils, land acquisition or customary law. It denied people the opportunity to discuss initiatives that were not government-led. It did not ask people to clearly compare life now to before the intervention was introduced. The survey concentrated on aspects of dysfunction rather than safety and wellbeing. This demonstrates the underlying thrust of the survey, and is what we refer to as cruel.
Rather than deriding the methodology as a whole, our comments regarding the interpretations of the data were aimed at illustrating how data can be portrayed as contextual and layered in some situations (such as attitudes towards leadership and violence), and yet this same contextual approach was lacking in other areas such as safety. As you say, you can’t have it both ways. It is our opinion that people in smaller communities especially may well have been saying that they have always felt safe, rather than saying they are safer because of the intervention. We also note in our article that the participatory component appeared to be a more robust and inclusive component of the survey, and we commend its incorporation.
We agree that such a large survey is unprecedented. It is terrible that such an opportunity has been used to justify discriminatory legislation which will last at least a decade. This is how the survey has been used as a ‘political football’. Our article attempted to dissect out aspects which could be constructive, such as (as you agree), the call for increased service provision, the call for support of all communities including smaller ones, and the overwhelming votes valuing traditional culture, speaking language, and being close to family. We too hope that these findings are listened to by governments.