Under the NT intervention legislation rammed through parliament, the Howard Government has armed itself with far-reaching powers to become directly involved in the operations of community service providers working in prescribed areas.

Crikey has obtained a background briefing document from the office of Green’s Senator Rachel Siewert, which examines the draconian “direction of services and seizure of assets” provision contained in the legislation, along with a range of related measures. The paper describes the new powers as “unprecedented and all-encompassing”.

Part 5 of the Northern Territory National Emergency Response Bill goes to “Business Management Areas“.

Section 67 (2) of the legislation allows the Minister to give a direction in writing to a community service provider to provide the service in a specified way within a specified period. The Greens take on this provision is that is could apply to any association incorporated in the NT that is providing a service in any of the 73 communities prescribed in the legislation, regardless of whether the service they are providing is government funded.

Section 68 appears to allow the Government to seize or direct the use of any asset in possession of an organisation operating in a prescribed community, regardless of whether that asset was purchased with government funding.

Section 72 provides for the appointment of a government “observer” of community service entities who has “the same rights and obligations as a member of the entity or committee other than voting rights”.

Community Services Minister, Nigel Scullion has suggested that these are “reserve powers” which would only be applied after negotiation with organisations involved.

However, the Green’s assessment is that there are no provisions in the legislation which specify that these powers must be held in reserve, or can only be invoked in particular circumstances. Nor is there legislative requirement for negotiation or consultation.

A stirred–up Siewert gave the Minister both barrels during the course of last week’s Senate debate on the legislation:

Saying that these are “reserve powers” is a very cute way of fooling people into thinking that it is all okay – that it is not really going to happen This legislation is outrageous.

Chris Howse, Policy Manger for the North Australian Aboriginal Justice Agency told Crikey that “there is no precedent anywhere for measures as coercive as these” and expressed grave concern that “failure to abide by a ministerial direction with regard to services or assets may give rise to a civil penalty enforceable by the Federal Court.”

Howse observed that “one finds it hard to see a connection between these measures and the intervention’s stated aim of dealing with child abuse in Aboriginal communities.”

The Greens document also examines provisions in the new legislation to govern the use of very broadly defined “publicly funded computers”. The law requires the installation of an accredited filter system and the keeping of records about who uses the computer, and the date and time of the usage.

An “acceptable use policy” must be developed and audits of the computer provided to the Australian Crime Commission.

Lawyers from one end of the Territory to the other are smirking behind their hands at the sheer impracticality of these provisions. This is an expression of good intention from legislators more used to treading manicured Manuka lawns than the red dust of bush communities, where life isn’t lived in the precise and orderly fashion of the suburbs.

Consensus here is that it can’t work.