Regards,

Matt Costigan

*It would have an immeasureable impact on their everyday lives’.

In In this point I am not so much referring to the social problems that have been caused, for instance, through years of being systematically impoverished and discriminated against (which is a primary reason there is widespread substance abuse). Rather, I am referring to every day activities—from the practice of ceremony to having relationships and conversations, to living a self-determining life that isn’t checked by a glaring and invasive military presence.

For instance, as you may be aware, one of the features of the intervention legislation banned any project dedicated to improving community life - with a provision added that any organization giving money to such efforts (community development) can have their assets seized.

Secondly, for more than twenty years Indigenous communities throughout AU have been crying out for help to resolve the damages caused to community life, particularly those caused as during the stolen generation. Their pleas were met with contempt by every level of government. And then this intervention comes into play and not only does the government avoid every one of the 97 recommendations made in the "little children are sacred report," but they also banned what few efforts communities and NGOs have independently organized.

Now, I’m sure you can agree that in order for any person or community to overcome any form of abuse, it first and foremost requires participation. It requires people taking steps to improve their lives and to address the causes of the problems they are facing. The intervention is disabling people from doing this.

In addition, the legislation made it illegal for communities to have any sort of private meeting. It also quarantined welfare for families unless they send their kids to Anglo school… This is the sort of thing the government did during the stolen generation, Matthew. It’s an act of cultural genocide.

‘It grossly criminalizes indigenous people’.

I see what you’re saying here; but under the AU intervention all people in the 70+ communities are being treated as prospective criminals. Grandmas, Gradmpas, brothers, cousins, victims of abuse. No one is exempt.

‘It blatently mischaractarizes the facts to justify the need for an intervention’.

This is not so much the case in AU, you’re right. The extent of problems are certainly well known. Rather, I would say the facts are being co-opted to justify something that has very little to do with "saving the children." Pat Anderson (coauthor of little children are sacred) pointed that out last year - how "there is no relationship between the Federal response and our recommendations. We feel betrayed and disappointed and hurt and angry and pretty pis*ed off at the same time."

‘It is entirely discrimatory’.
The point also does not so much apply to the AU intervention, because of the point you make.However, I must point out that there has been a great deal of opposition to the intervention–there has just been a media a blackout about it. There have been numerous protests , and gatherings since the intervention was first proposed. Lots of opposition has also been expressed by indigenous and non-indigenous people alike. See http://www.womenforwik.org, and federalintervention.info, nationalaboriginalalliance.org, for examples.

‘It quite clearly subverts indigenous rights’.

In this point, I was referring to Indigenous Rights on the whole; eg, those defined in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. These include: the right to unrestricted self-determination; the inalienable collective right to the ownership, use and control of lands and natural resources; the right to maintain and develop their own political, religious, economic, cultural and educational institutions; the protection of their cultural and intellectual property; and the right to free, prior and informed consent.

While Australia has yet to ratify the UN declaration, these rights are generally accepted by indigenous People (throughout the world) as being self-evident. In a manner of speaking, they also take priority over State Rights. So then, while indigenous people certainly have the right to health services, etc., the "enjoyment" of these rights should not violate or nullify the rights of indigenous People.

The Intervention legislation certainly violates these rights, while doing very little in practice to alleviate poverty or to end any form of abuse… in the short term, or while the intervention is in effect, perhaps. But it can’t do it in the long term.

It would be a different story if, say, the government was giving communities money to start healing centers and other social programs tailored to the specific needs of each individual and community; and, of course, if it was applying any of the recommendations in little children are sacred which communities have been asking for longer than you or I have been alive.

First of all, the Australian legislation was the result of a comprehensive report titled ‘Little Children Are Sacred’. It detailed the horrendous living conditions in many indigenous communities in the Northern Territory. Inadequate housing, abysmal school attendances, health problems, substance / alcohol abuse, unemployment and child abuse (amongst other things) all highlighted how marginalised many indiginous citizens have become (or have remained). It was a shocking report. More pertinant to your article, however, is the fact that it was widely accepted as accurate by indigenous and non-indigenous Australians alike.

With that in mind, and because you linked the two interventions, I want to address the five reasons you gave as to why the law ‘must be called into question’. I will go through them one by one:

*It would have an immeasureable impact on their everyday lives’.

Well, lets hope so. Health, education, housing, family, opportunity are all things that us lucky ones have in our everyday lives. But perhaps you didn’t actually mean it in a perjorative sense.

‘It grossly criminalizes indigenous people’.

It is true that the Australian Government is sending more police (and the army) to help with the intervention and restor law and order. However, the scope of the legislation is such that it is a weak arguement to suggest that it is ‘gross’. Measures have been taken to prevent crime such as ensuring less alcohol is consumed and that indigenous people have more economic opportunities. Two rather large factors in crime I would think.

‘It blatently mischaractarizes the facts to justify the need for an intervention’.

As I mentioned earlier, the ‘Little Children are Sacred’ report was widely accepted by all Australians black and white.

‘It is entirely discrimatory’.

Well, virtually entirely. This is aimed at specific group of people within a specific demographic (it is only for the Northern Territory, the other states are unaffected). The former Howard government had to bypass the Racial Discrimination Act to get it through which does raise some issues. However, in reality it is a specific group of Australians who need this help. Also, there have been no legal challenges and barely a dissenting voice (and before you think it I want to add that many indigenous leaders have been given the opportunities speak out - not that they need to be ‘given’ an opportunity, they are prominent Australians). The conclusion - Australians on the whole see this as a necessary part of the road to an inclusive and reconciled country. Oh, and I say ‘virtually entirely’ because there are some ‘whitefellas’ who live in these communities and the legislation applies to them also.

‘It quite clearly subverts indigenous rights’.

You are probably referring to the suspension of Native Title which allowed communities to control who came in to their communities and what their land was to be used for (eg. mining). It is important to note that this has been suspended for five years, not taken away completely. This has probably been the most contentious part of the legislation. It is seen as necessary so that the people implementing the legislation on the ground can do so freely. However, some indigenous folk see it as a land grab. In response to these concerns, the new Labor government has indicated this is the most likely aspect of the intervention to be changed when it conducts the scheduled 6 month review soon. You, however, used the plural of right. I’m not sure what other rights have been subverted. Don’t people have the right to health services, decent housing, education, economic opportunities and to be cared for and not abused?

This is not to say that this action has been meekly accepted by the indigenous communities (nor the wider populace). There has been and still is an enormous amount of discussion but there is one constant in every point of view - something has to be done. There is also a bipartisan political approach to these issues. Also, just last month (on the first sitting day of the new government) a formal apology to the ‘Stolen Generations’ (in which the invidious ‘Protection Board’ was heavily involved) was offered. This was long overdue and both welcomed and accepted by the indigenous community.

Perhaps you already knew this, perhaps not. If you did then please don’t misrepresent my country (for better or worse) so egregiously again. If you did not, then perhaps you and your readers might find my little letter useful.

Regards

Matthew Costigan