Dear Father Brennan,
I refer to your opinion piece 'Interminable Intervention' which was posted on the Eureka Street website on 13 February 2011.
I acknowledge that the instigation of the Northern Territory Emergency Response (NTER) by the previous government was a major shock to many Aboriginal people and communities in the Northern Territory (NT) and was seen as a serious affront. There was no consultation before it was initiated and the nature of some of the measures and coercive tone utilised undoubtedly caused anger, fear, and distrust.
It also needs to be acknowledged, however, that a widespread emergency did exist, and continues to exist, in many remote communities with high levels of family violence, child neglect, appalling health status, low rates of school attendance, and high levels of crime, including violent crime and widespread drug and substance abuse. Any one of these factors has the potential to permanently damage or destroy a person's life opportunities. Taken together, they constitute a fundamental and endemic threat to the human rights not just of individuals, but of whole communities.
The Australian Government has attempted, with some real success, to acknowledge and span both these realities. The Government has retained the NTER because it believes action was, and is, required. The Government has attempted to progressively reshape it to make it more respectful and effective. In doing this, it has acted in good faith, with determination, and in a genuine attempt to further the best interests of both Aboriginal people and families in the NT and the Australian nation as a whole.
Clearly, I do not accept the way you have characterised the Government's actions in relation to the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (RDA) and the NTER.
I am concerned that your article could mislead people into considering that the Government's measures in the NT are discriminatory in a way that does not comply with the RDA. I reject the use of the expression 'still discriminates in four ways' because it has a clear potential to mislead.
I am confident that the measures now in place are consistent with the RDA either because they are inherently non-discriminatory or are able to be characterised as special measures for the purposes of the RDA. As you know, the RDA takes the definition of what is a permissible special measure directly from the text of the Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination.
The Government has fully reinstated people's rights and protections under the RDA in relation to the NTER. Under the legislation that was passed by Parliament on 21 June 2010, all of the provisions in the NTER legislation that suspended the operation of the RDA are removed. In addition, all of the provisions in the NTER legislation that deemed certain measures to be special measures have been repealed.
Your article makes it clear that you accept the need for special measures in relation to alcohol and pornography in certain circumstances. However, you then go on to reject the need for special measures in relation to other elements of the NTER.
A number of commentators have expressed very different views about the need for special measures in the NT. Clearly, this is an area of public policy where there is a wide variety of views and where community consensus is not easy to find or to forge.
In your article, you characterise the Government's acquisition of the five year leases as an acquisition of 'land that is the birthright of Aboriginal people'. This seems to suggest that the compulsory acquisition had the effect of permanently denying Aboriginal people ownership of the land, akin to an acquisition of freehold. I would like to take this opportunity to clarify that the Government's compulsory acquisition does not alter the underlying tenure or ownership and only extends to securing leases for a term of five years. Upon expiration of these leases, the land will revert to the control of the Aboriginal owners unless further voluntary leases are agreed.
You also argue that leases to support service delivery and government investment should be negotiated freely. The Government has undertaken that there will be no new compulsory leases. It is committed to negotiating voluntary leasing arrangements to underpin all major capital investments on Indigenous land. Security of tenure will ensure that government investments in fixed assets are effectively managed and maintained and continue to be used for their intended benefit.
As your article points out, the views of those affected by the NTER are of critical importance. Before introducing its legislation to redesign the NTER, the Government undertook extensive consultations with Aboriginal people across the NT on future directions for the NTER. The consultation process included over 100 whole-of-community meetings covering all communities and town camps affected by the NTER, 11 workshops with regional leaders and key stakeholder organisations, and over 440 face-to-face discussions between Government Business Managers and individuals and small groups in communities. This was the most comprehensive engagement ever undertaken by government with Indigenous people in Australia.
The Government engaged independent consultants to assess whether people in the consultation meetings were given a fair opportunity to put forward their views and whether the consultations were open and accountable. The consultants' report has been made public on my Department's website.
The Government was influenced significantly by what it heard in the consultations and by the feedback from individuals and communities. A common theme expressed was that children, the elderly and women were now feeling safer, were better fed and clothed, were getting a better night's sleep, and there was less inappropriate pressure on income support recipients for money. People felt that this was due to the combined effects of various NTER measures, including income management, alcohol restrictions, community stores licensing and an increased police presence in remote communities.
In relation to income management, I should note that this is a key part of the Government's commitment to protecting and providing for children and vulnerable people. It ensures that money is available for life essentials and provides a tool to stabilise people's circumstances, easing immediate financial stress. Income management limits expenditure of income support payments on excluded items, including alcohol, tobacco, pornography, gambling goods and activities.
The Government's new non-discriminatory model of income management came into effect on 1 July 2010 in the NT. This has been tailored to apply to welfare recipients in at-risk groups, including those with a high risk of social isolation, poor money management skills and those likely to participate in risky behaviours. Exemptions from income management are available for those who satisfy certain criteria. This generally includes people in full-time study, people with a sustained history of workforce participation and parents who can demonstrate proper care and education of their children.
People who are not subject to compulsory income management have the option to volunteer for income management and can receive an incentive payment for every six months they remain on income management. Under the roll-out of the new income management scheme in the NT, around 60 per cent of people who are no longer subject to compulsory income management have decided to continue to receive budgeting support through voluntary income management rather than exit the system.
Participants of the recent evaluation of the child protection and voluntary income management measures in Western Australia reported improvements in their budgeting and savings, with up to 80 per cent indicating that they were more likely to save money regularly and less likely to run out of money to pay rent and bills. The operation of the new model of income management in the NT will be rigorously evaluated to guide the next steps in a progressive implementation to other locations across Australia.
I trust that this clarifies some of the issues raised in your article.
Yours sincerely,
Jenny Macklin MP is the Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs.