Howard's 'attack' on child abuse in remote NT communities - what should be done?

While the journalistic commentariat lines up behind Howard's totally inappropriate approach to the crisis in child care amongst remote indigenous communities, it begs the question, what should have been happening in these communities and what should be done now?

It is amazing that Howard's cheer squad is'nt asking why the resources that mainstream society take for granted have not been provided adequately to remote communities. From my perspective, the whole sorry story is a product of the ongoing malaise of colonization, cultural oppression, disempowerment and dispossession. Faced with the grinding reality of deep seated racism, is it really so surprising that these communities are often awash with substance abuse and child neglect? Surprise surprise, we also find these communities have been grappling with totally inadequate official support for community development programs and resources to address substance abuse problems and women's and children's health & welfare.

Radio National's Health Report this morning was illuminating.

Another poor effort by ABC's Insiders to grapple with PM Howard's child abuse intervention in NT

I have sent another comment to Insiders this morning:

"Another breath taking serving on the Howard 'law & order' intervention. Would Howard stoop so low as to play politics with the care of children? Oh yes! He's done it before with Tampa and the Pacific Solution.

Glen's (is this the same Glen Milne who used to have a pretty good grip on what's right and wrong, and whom I considered a friend?) self righteous, and, dare I say it, self-serving support of coming down hard on remote communities to protect children is disingenuous and plays to a paternalistic template that we should have moved beyond by now; and Malcolm is just not bright enough.

Karen made a fist of looking for balance in the strategy, but frankly there is no balance. This is all about politics, and your little chat about early elections underlined that in spades. Come on people, earn your dough and connect the dotted lines.

If Howard was to say sorry and make serious efforts to build genuine bridges to decolonize indigenous people, the path to social rectitude and genuine community would take a great leap forward. Until mainstream society values these people and acknowledges the worth and genius of their ancient culture Australia will be a lesser place than it could be. We have much to learn from the original custodians, especially about the significance of place and community.

Howard has turned demonization of minorities into an art form, which he cashes in on at election time. This one is perfect because protecting children is akin to motherhood. Pity about the overwhelming majority of Aboriginal men in remote areas trying to retain some semblance of dignity in the face of displacement and dispossession. Aboriginal people have been colonized, marginalized and demonized by successive paternalistic regimes that have reinforced the idea that they are inferior and in need of acculturation and integration.

As if our model of isolated, unhappy individuals (numbed by the daily telly and sporting circuses), eking out a wage slave existence in Australia's endless dormitory suburbs, is a template for traditional tribal communities to aspire to. Its all very well for middle class journos on a nice wicket to wax lyrical about interventions and law and order, but please use your collective wit to see beyond law and order and control, which is the tired old language of the colonizer and 'masta'. Can't we grow up? "

Refugees in Australia - Q & A (ix) - Why shouldn't Australia detain children seeking asylum?

Children are vulnerable - that's why international laws are designed to protect them.

Australia's ratification of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) obliges it to maintain standards to protect children's rights and to provide them with humanitarian assistance.

Detaining children is strongly discouraged under the CRC. It provides that children should be detained only as a last resort, and then only for the shortest appropriate period of time. Any detention of children must be subject to periodic judicial review.

Australia's system of mandatory detention of undocumented asylum seekers is a serious breach of the CRC. Far from being used as a last resort, children are automatically detained - and for an indefinite period.

Children seeking asylum in Australia have no opportunity to challenge their deprivation of liberty in a fair hearing, nor are there periodic reviews of their detention as required by CRC.

Most Australian detention centres do not have the capacity to separate families from the general adult detainee group - a specification in international guidelines on refugees.

Refugees in Australia - Q & A (viii) - What are alternatives to detention?

Australia is the only Western country that has mandatory detention for all asylum seekers that arrive in Australia without valid documentation. Ongoing and prolonged detention of asylum seekers places many detainees at risk of mental anguish. There are better, economically viable and humane ways of responsibly handling onshore asylum-seekers. Mandatory, ongoing detention of asylum seekers in Australia, many of who are fleeing grave human rights abuses, is one of the most controversial issues for Australians today. Almost every day, we are bombarded with images in the media of detainees suffering from depression, mental anguish, trauma and psychological damage - yet despite this, a public debate on how to install a new regime has not fully commenced whilst the current government states there is simply no alternate option. So, realistically, is there a viable alternative to detention?

Since the introduction of mandatory detention in Australia in 1992, an array of alternative schemes has been proposed. In 1994 the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (HREOC) headed a Detention Reform Coordinating Committee, who presented an alternative detention model to the minister for immigration in 1996. This model proposes a four-stage refugee determination process taking into account government and public concerns on border protection and national security. In the 1998 HREOC report, Those who've come across the seas, this alternative model was promoted as a solution to a detention system that puts many men, women and children's human rights at risk.

The Refugee Council of Australia has also put forward an alternative detention model. Their model proposes a simple three-stage administration, from closed to open detention, then on to community release. Under the community release stage, family members or community organisations would take some responsibility for the care of individual asylum seekers. Justice for Asylum Seekers (JAS) has also outlined their position on alternatives to detention. They have examined a Reception and Transitional Processing System as an alternative approach to holding asylum seekers in prolonged and ongoing detention.

In posing alternative schemes and models to mandatory detention, comparison to arrangements for asylum seekers arriving in countries overseas demonstrate schemes that provide the balance between maintaining border security and protecting the fundamental human right to flee persecution. Many European countries, such as Germany, Spain and Austria, have a limit on the period of time asylum seekers are held in detention. Other countries, including Finland, Denmark and Belgium, only detain asylum seekers in exceptional circumstances when they feel there is a high risk of absconding.

Presenting the different models for housing and caring for asylum seekers in Australia is the first step in taking forward in the debate on Alternatives to Detention forward. Actually delivering on a humane solution to mandatory detention is the ultimate goal. What's needed is lobbying and dialogue as well as calling for political will to introduce a new system of accommodating asylum seekers in Australia.

Members of Parliament, responsible to their electorate, need to be made aware of alternate options to detention for asylum seekers. Politicians need to be encouraged to represent the views of their local electorate on Alternatives to Detention both in parliament and in the party room. You can write to your local member of parliament and let them know there is an answer to mandatory detention.

Australians All - "Evidence or panic in making Indigenous affairs policy?"

Gregory Phillips, a Waanyi and Jaru medical anthropologist at The University of Melbourne, community healing worker and author of 'Addictions and Healing in Aboriginal Country' (Aboriginal Studies Press, 2003), is critical of the policy-on-the-run approach of Brough and Howard. In his article for Australians All he does'nt let Noel Pearson off the hook either:

"As usual, Noel Pearson and his dodgy brother mate Mal Brough have gotten things half right and half wrong when it comes to dealing with alcohol-fuelled dysfunction in Indigenous communities. Their latest hair-brained idea to forcibly link welfare payments to food, housing and education costs is at best admirable but very poorly thought out, and at worst, a convenient front for a right-wing ideological battle to disband Indigenous communal ownership to land under the guise of Indigenous people all being abusers, crooks and totally helpless.

Perhaps they have got a touch of the white knight syndrome, where Indigenous and non-Indigenous visitors alike to some Indigenous communities are so confronted by what they see in the midst of alcohol-fuelled nightmares that they panic, and set out on a moral self-righteous crusade to change the situation all by themselves?

There is no doubting the dire state of some Indigenous communities that are ticking time bombs of dysfunctional despair. I and many other Indigenous and non-Indigenous health workers have long spoken out and advocated for the safety and treatment issues concerned with family violence and sexual abuse. It is admirable that someone with Pearson’s media profile and cachet among politicians is bringing much needed attention to the issues, but it’s not like he is our first born saviour. Pearson and Brough’s half baked analysis of the situation, coupled with their apparent missionary zeal and knee jerk policy reactions, is how Indigenous policy often gets done in this country, and it’s just not good enough any more. Their attempt may do more damage than its worth for the following important reasons.

My empirical analysis of addictions and healing and in a remote north Queensland community shows that there were problematic levels of use of alcohol, marijuana and gambling, that intergenerational trauma was one of many significant explanations, and critically, that panicking about what to do is the reason why public interventions for the last twenty years have failed to adequately address the situation. The trauma experienced in the community I worked with relates to the current generation’s parents and grandparents being moved to a sedentary lifestyle, being forcibly removed from relatives, being forced to marry against customary kinship laws, and having the power to make basic decisions about one’s life taken away. They all were the reasons why people were using at problematic levels, and help explain the violence and self-destructive behaviour we see today. Some Aboriginal people have taken this pain inwards and sadly, have started to believe some white people’s message that all Aborigines will ever be is “drunken dirty blacks.”

But all is not lost or hopeless. Intergenerational trauma is an explanation, not an excuse.

Pearson makes the critical mistake of thinking the trauma explanation is a front for left-wing ideologues to endlessly make excuses for Aborigines under the guise of poor-bugger-me stories of colonialism’s effects. While some may use it that way, the reality is that Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal people alike need access to the full range of treatment interventions for their addictions. Most of the policing, prohibition and harm reduction public health interventions in Indigenous Australia have failed because while some of them might be important, they do so in the absence of complementary programs that heal the trauma, the source of the malaise.

In Canada, where First Nations communities have chosen alcohol bans and voucher systems in exchange for food and amenities, they have also ensured drug and alcohol users go to culturally appropriate addictions treatment centres to mend their ways and heal their shame. When they return, then they are offered after-care support until they are ready to handle a job and stick with it. Critically, they are also encouraged to take part in spiritual ceremonies and cultural renewal activities, where they can be strongly connected with their true identity again.

Consider this example. Soon after the new alcohol bans on Cape York Indigenous communities came into effect, I visited the community I worked with, and while Pearson’s mates in the State Government were loudly proclaiming the success of prohibition because there were fewer people visiting local clinics for alcohol-related injury, they did not measure or were painfully unable to assess the level of anger and frustration in the community’s drinkers. Take the grog away without also providing healing services for that person to deal with why they were drinking in the first place, and you might end up with a dry drunk. In these cases, even though the physical drinking is gone, the mental, emotional and spiritual sickness remains and simply gets played out in other more internally self destructive ways.

Thus, Pearson and Brough’s answer is naïve. Far from being radical, they are doing what every other public intervention has tried to do and failed: use control alone, and use it in a morally panicked way. With Australia’s alcohol problem increasingly being made public for Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal people alike, we may well need to be prohibit it’s availability in some communities, but to do so with no regard for the evidence, or without assisting people to heal the original source of their self-destructive behaviour, is only to intensify the extreme self-hate and dysfunctional behaviour they are trying to remedy.

The second reason why Pearson and Brough’s solutions are dangerous is because they are willing to allow the problems of alcohol and sexual abuse in all Australian homes to be confined to pointing the finger at Indigenous communities alone. As I have alluded, these issues are of national significance and are in epidemic proportions. There is no doubt we have a particular epidemic in Indigenous Australia made worse by the small size of some Indigenous communities and the public denial despite tireless health worker efforts and media hype. But denial, shame and secrecy are hallmarks of the way these issues have until recently been dealt with in the national mainstream arena too. It doesn’t make it OK in Aboriginal communities, it just makes me question why there is a white knight moral panic obsession with some to point the finger and demonise all Aboriginal people, particularly Aboriginal men?

Perhaps it’s because if the government can encourage the public to believe that all Aborigines are violent abusers and crooks, then it allows them to slip through the back door and take away our communal rights to land under the guise of us not being able to manage our own affairs, or because we haven’t assimilated into the mainstream economy yet? Perhaps Pearson thinks that by giving someone who may not be at a level of full social functioning (an alcoholic for example), an opportunity to start a small business or buy their own home (with what money in what real estate market I’m not sure), then they’ll suddenly become the fine upstanding socially responsible 1950s citizens that John Howard so desperately wants us all to be?

If some people can’t turn up to a work for the dole scheme, how will they run a small business? With what social and personal support and healing services other than family income management, does he expect people to suddenly take part in a mainstream economy? Don’t we need a new national view of the welfare debate, where people who are not at full social functioning are encouraged to deal with their personal issues and find something they love as work, rather than by treating them as social scum and beggars? Don’t we all need an education and training system that helps us find where possible a career that we absolutely love, thereby increasing the likelihood of productivity as a happy by-product rather than a forced social engineering exercise?

Maybe Pearson and Brough just really genuinely care, and are admirably trying to do something to fix the situation? The problem is, they apparently have got the bull by the horns, and have allowed their seeming white knight syndrome to throw out the evidence and with it a well thought out national response. Dangerously, their posturing and shouting is being used politically to de-stabilise Indigenous communal ownership (under the guise of economic development) and thereby spiritual connections to land, yet again.

Thirdly, Pearson’s arrogant ‘tacking to the political right’ without first engaging his own mob, is the reason why many other Aboriginal people disagree with his approach. It is not so much what he does, but how arrogantly and disrespectfully he does it that gets people’s backs up. Remember, Aboriginal people are used to be ignored and controlled and told what the answer is for them. Pearson risks being just one of a long line of others who want to change the world without talking with Aboriginal people or without grounding his interventions in the evidence. Does he want to be a hero to the mainstream middle class elite who love the “pull yourselves up by your own boot straps” message? Or does he want to do the harder but more rewarding work of engaging with and bringing his own people along with him? In any case, how dare some in the mainstream elite ignore what other Indigenous leaders say, just because they don’t subscribe to the Pearson saviour game. Pearson naively characterises many of those who disagree with his approach as the “rights agenda” only – apparently they ignore responsibilities too. He likes to pigeon-hole those who disagree with him as coming from a citified, academic-only, uppity worldview with no grounding. Again, this is poorly thought out and incorrect analysis.

To Pearson I say this, I am of a well-grounded and well-educated generation of Indigenous community workers who will not put up with Indigenous policy-on-the-run any more. We need evidence based, well thought out national Indigenous policy, target setting and performance measures for every sector of the Australian nation to take their responsibility in the challenges ahead. I expected more from Pearson than to seize a political moment for his own individual policy-on-the-run objectives. I expected it from Brough.

ABC 's Insiders on Howard's punitive solution to indigenous child abuse in the NT

I frequently listen in to the ABC's Insiders, a weekly take on federal politics. It is an interesting dynamic with sun-tanned Barry orchestrating a panel of ' journos' from the right wing columnist set (mostly paid by Murdoch), the Fairfax stable and from the public broadcasters. The entertainment is mainly generated by an exposure of the abject silliness of the right-wing set, turning themselves inside out to support Howard and attack Rudd, and the fun the panel has sending up the latest bloopers from our political representatives. All pretty light weight really.

Today we had a serious discussion of Howard's strategy to punish social dysfunction and hardship, as manifested in child sexual abuse in the Northern Territory. I sent the Insiders website the following comment:

"I can't believe that seasoned journalists can be so naive as to believe Howard is not playing politics with this issue. Fran Kelly sounded like Alice through the looking glass. Gerry sounded his usual pained apologetic self ('no one understands just how clever I am!')

It is not difficult to work out the politics. If its not asylum seekers its the weakest minority in our society under the hammer. The fact that child welfare problems are a function of decades of paternalistic repression and neglect that has robbed traditional communities of their dignity and cultural pride, and the resources they need to enable local solutions, does'nt figure in the Howard/Brough punitive stance.

Aboriginal community leaders and advocates have been crying out for self-determined solutions to problems of social and economic disadvantage for decades and getting 'white fella' rule in response. This crisis cries out for a multi-layered strategy that focuses on education and other forms of prevention, not punishment (except where criminality is proved). The compulsory medical checks component is draconian and offensive.

This has 'Tampa' written all over it. Can anyone sniff an election in the wind? I would not be surprised if Aboriginal land rights are threatened down the track under this backward looking power grab."

Refugees in Australia - Q & A (vii) - What is the problem with mandatory detention?

It is the issue of mandatory, prolonged detention of asylum seekers arriving in Australia without authorisation, that has polarised many opinions in the community. Amnesty International recognises the need to maintain national security and where initial detention may be necessary for health, security and identification checks. However, the debate must remained focused on the effects of long-term, prolonged detention, and why this is a violation of fundamental human rights.

Since 1 September 1992 all people arriving in Australia without proper travel documents are immediately detained. They remain in detention from a few hours to up to a few years until they are either granted a visa or deported. This includes all people seeking protection as refugees. By contrast, people who enter Australia on a valid visa and who then claim protection as a refugee are not usually detained.

Detention of asylum seekers without proper travel documents is automatic. There are no charges laid, and no appearance before a magistrate or court to decide if detention is absolutely necessary or appropriate. Except for rare situations, Australian law prohibits the release of detained asylum seekers while their refugee claim is being assessed.

Amnesty International does not oppose all detention for people arriving in Australia without valid documentation. There are instances where initial detention may be necessary, for example to establish a person's identity or perform health and security checks. However, international human rights law requires that governments do not detain people automatically or beyond what is a reasonable length of time. In Amnesty International's view, delays in a refugee determination process, whether caused by appeals or other factors, are not sufficient justifications to continue an asylum seeker's detention.

Detention of all asylum seekers without charge or judicial review amounts to arbitrary detention. It this aspect of detention - ongoing and prolonged with no notification of release - that amounts to a serious violation of the rights to liberty and freedom from arbitrary detention.

Any person arriving in Australia, regardless of their modes of transport or lack of documentation has a right to seek protection from persecution or torture. Amnesty International urges the Australia government not to discriminate against people seeking refuge and protection from torture because they arrive in Australia without valid documentation. The 1951 Convention on the Rights of Refugees (Refugee Convention), a human rights treaty that Australia has ratified and thus agreed to adhere to, clearly outlines that a refugee seeking protection from persecution shall not be penalised for entering a country without valid documentation. This applies to Australia. Currently, Australia is punishing those who deserve our compassion.

Amnesty International has grave concerns about the effects of arbitrary, ongoing detention on detainees, particularly on children. Many people kept behind razor wire fences of detention centres have survived torture and ill-treatment, escaping from situations of violence and abuse. Many have lost loved ones and have been forced to leave their homes suddenly. Having survived traumatic experiences, the effects of being isolated in sometimes remote, harsh environments further accentuate their mental despair and anguish.

Up to 80 per cent of detainees are granted refugee status and provided with visas to remain in Australia. This very high rate heightens concerns that those kept in detention have experienced grave human rights violations and are not economic migrants whose illegal entry into Australia the policy aims to prevent.

Amnesty International is one of many organisations expressing concerns regarding the conditions and effects of detention.

In May 2002, the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention (WGAD) and the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) sent delegations to investigate conditions of detention and the legal regime governing the detention of asylum-seekers without trial or judicial oversight. In July 2002, the OHCHR delegate described the detention regime as "offensive to human dignity" and reported "serious concern" about the human rights situation of people in immigration detention, particularly children and unaccompanied minors. In December 2002, a WGAD report expressed similar concerns about "the psychological impact" of the detention regime, its "automatic and indiscriminate character, its potentially indefinite duration and the absence of juridical control of the legality of detention". The Australian government rejected the findings of both reports.

In November 2002, the national Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (HREOC) found that Australia had breached its international human rights obligations by transferring six asylum-seekers from immigration detention to prisons, where they were arbitrarily detained without charge alongside convicted felons. One man had been held without judicial oversight in prison and immigration detention since December 1997.

In December 2002, the HREOC found that five asylum-seekers in Port Hedland detention centre had been arbitrarily detained for more than six days in isolation in dim or dark rooms before an immigration official became aware of their treatment. During the six days, they were allowed outdoors only twice for 10 to 15 minutes, and only one was given a change of clothes after five days. Despite reports by the official, the government took no action until alerted by AI Australia.

Refugees in Australia - Q & A (vi) - What about mandatory and arbitrary detention? What are the alternatives?

There are alternatives: Under Australian Law anybody who arrives undocumented is not only detained, but must remain in detention until they are either accepted as a refugee or deported. There is no access to judicial review. It is claimed that this model of mandatory detention without review is designed to deter and control onshore arrivals of asylum-seekers, and ensure that people are available for deportation if necessary.

Most Western countries recognise that a process must be in place for all entrants to a country to verify identity and to undertake health and security checks. Yet once these initial procedures have taken place there are alternatives to keeping asylum seekers in detention while the refugee assessment is carried out.

Ongoing, arbitrary detention with no recourse to judicial review is a violation of human rights. Asylum seekers have been detained for up to four years and children have been born into detention. There are better, more economically viable and more humane ways of responsibly handling onshore asylum-seekers.

For example, Sweden receives similar numbers of asylum seekers to Australia, despite having less than half the population. Detention is only used to establish a person's identity and to conduct criminal screening. Most detainees are released within a very short time, particularly if they have relatives or friends living in Sweden. Of the 17,000 asylum seekers currently in Sweden 10,000 reside outside the detention centres. Children are only detained for the minimum possible time (a maximum of six days). Detention is one way of receiving refugees, but it is not the humane or just way. It doesn't have to be like this.