Transcript of a speech by ANTaR board member Janet Hunt at a rally for the first anniversary of the announcement of the NT intervention.

One year ago when John Howard and Mal Brough announced the provisions of the NT Intervention (NTI) , they were greeted with shock and disbelief on the one hand, and relief that the plight of Indigenous people had finally captured the attention of national leaders, on the other.

Few could argue with the stated goals of a NTI, to make NT Aboriginal children safer, but many argued with the methods and some questioned the motives – given the poor polling of the Coalition Government as it headed towards an election at the end of last year. Many of us saw little connection between some of the measures and the goal of making communities safer for children.

But the Intervention went ahead: the racially discriminatory legislation was passed in unseemly haste, health checks for kids began, Government Business Managers and the army began to appear in the 73 Aboriginal communities targetted, CDEPs started to close down, some police were posted to communities which lacked them, new alcohol restrictions were imposed (NB many of these communities were dry before) and income quarantining began – among other things.

Much of the early concern centred around the way the Intervention was imposed on communities – the way township land was being resumed and controlled, the permit system was to be revoked and Aboriginal community leaders and their organizations were being bypassed and ignored – along with Aboriginal experts in child abuse and violence – by a boots-and-all Minister. Aboriginal people in communities felt highly disempowered – feared their children would be taken away again, the loss of their community assets – they were confused and bewildered by what was happening. And there were many problems as the Intervention started to take effect. Most particularly Aboriginal men felt demonized and demoralized by the blanket portrayal of them in highly negative terms.

A year on, what’s happened?

Firstly, the Intervention was modified – "compulsory" health checks immediately became voluntary, the new Government stopped abolition of CDEP, and has reinstated it in communities where it had been closed down; though income management proceeds, the way it is being done is changing, largely because small shopkeepers were angry at loss of Aboriginal business; the Permit System has been largely retained with the change of Government.

Secondly, there remain differing assessments about its effects. Accounts of its impacts in the Territory vary considerably: some say it has made communities quieter, safer, and that women are happier because they have more control of their money, there’s less "humbugging" etc.; others resent the blanket imposition of income quarantining, noting especially that it’s now (since re-instatement of CDEP) largely the women whose money is quarantined, while many male CDEP workers do not have wages managed, making it both sexually as well as racially discriminatory; they feel that money is being wasted on highly expensive administration of this system across the board, and on measures (such as the fly-in-fly-out system of health checks) which are not investing in building local, sustainable primary health capacity; they question whether there has been adequate follow-up to the many health issues identified by the checks ( and clearly there hasn’t); they see many unintended consequences – increased number of long grassers in Darwin and most other centres or people moving across the Queensland border and into already overcrowded Alice Springs town camps. In sum, the impact of the Intervention is a mixed picture.

Thirdly, the Minister has recently announced a Review Board to assess progress, see what is and isn't working, look at intended and unintended consequences, and recommend any changes: the Board is asked, among other things, to pay attention to the Government's intention to engage Indigenous "interests" (I think it means people) for more effective policy implementation; give primacy to the interests of families and children; and have regard to the Racial Discrimination Act 1973.

These are positive Terms of Reference, yet measures which are clearly still at odds with the Racial Discrimination Act continue to be promoted and implemented by the Rudd Government in the Northern Territory.

Tom Calma, in his 2007 Social Justice Report scrutinizes the legislation passed with bipartisan support in August last year from a human rights perspective. He rightly agrees that any measure to promote people’s human rights (or in this case the rights of children to live free from abuse) cannot override other human rights in the process. This is a contradiction and is inconsistent with international human rights law and practice.

After a detailed analysis of the legislation the Social Justice Commissioner recommends 10 key actions which the Government needs to take, to bring legislation into line with human rights principles. Among them:

• restore all rights to procedural fairness and external merit review under the NT intervention legislation;
• reinstate protections against racial discrimination in the operation of the NT intervention legislation;
• amend or remove the provisions that declare that the legislation constitutes a 'special measure';
• require consent to be obtained in the management of Indigenous property and amend the legislation to confirm the guarantee of just terms compensation;
• reinstate the CDEP Program and review the operation of the income management scheme so that it is consistent with human rights;
• review the operation and effectiveness of the alcohol management schemes under the intervention legislation;
• ensure the effective participation of Indigenous peoples in all aspects of the Intervention – developing Community Partnership Agreements;
• set a timetable for the transition from an 'emergency' intervention to a community development plan.

ANTaR has consistently opposed the racially discriminatory aspects of the NT Intervention legislation; we’ve argued that that this response is not in line with the recommendations of the Little Children Are Sacred Report which sparked it off; we've argued that the alcohol bans won't stop grog running and that it’s essential to have properly funded drug rehabilitation services put in place, we’ve argued that the welfare reforms are untested and the Emergency Intervention does not draw on expert evidence regarding what is needed to overcome child abuse; and that Aboriginal people were not properly consulted – let alone given opportunity for free, prior and informed consent about the measures to be implemented.

The Review of the NTI provides an opportunity to reshape the response to this national priority.

ANTaR has no problem about governments intervening when children are at risk – indeed they would be negligent not to (and have been ignoring the problems in Indigenous communities for decades) so we want to see the national government stay engaged, commit far more resources to the Northern Territory, and across the nation, to help address the massive problems confronting Indigenous communities, to address the huge backlogs in housing, health programs, education and other community services which other Australians take for granted.

But we want to see this engagement on a different footing: one which respects the human rights of everyone; one which engages Indigenous people in a partnership of equals, not a disrespectful dictatorial situation; we want to see measures which respond to behaviours, not racial categories (so case-by-case income management may be legitimate, but not as a blanket policy); one which builds Indigenous capacity for genuine self-determination and sustainability of better functioning communities.

Shock tactics that move people from work to welfare (as the CDEP changes did) are not what's needed.

Rather governments must work with communities for the long haul, to explore with them the options for their development, opportunities for their young people, and for enabling them to stay on their country with a reasonable range of services and some hope and sustainability for the future.

Proposals flagged by the retiring Task Force leaders in The Australian today to only provide services in 'viable' towns need to be subjected to real scrutiny. Of course, a settlement hierarchy, with different levels of services is normal, but all the evidence points to healthier communities being those who are able to live on their country – caring for it as it cares for them. Can we not use a bit of creativity and innovation in the ways we provide services, especially education and health, to communities that desperately want to stay on country. Is it really beyond our ingenuity and capacity to explore models that will work?

So let's push for the racially discriminatory aspects of the Intervention to be ended immediately; for a more serious and sustainable commitment of resources to overcome huge historic backlogs; building up of Indigenous governance to work in real partnership with governments – so that governments respond to priorities which communities identify – because had this happened years ago the problems would never have reached the crisis proportions evident today. Mal Brough did one good thing: he got the national political leaders’ attention to a situation which had been ignored far too long. The Rudd Government has an opportunity now to turn that national will to a more effective long-term strategy. Our job is to hold them to it – and not only in the Northern Territory but to work across the country with State Governments and Indigenous community leaders.

So now the Jack Boots have been dispensed with, roll up the sleeves, because there's a very big job to do. Let’s hope the Review Board gives some clear, strong directions to turn the "crisis" which the Government "discovered" a year ago in the Northern Territory into a real opportunity for change; and, of course, implement the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.