“A significant gap remains”

Image: http://www.hreoc.gov.au/social_justice/health/index.html

Aboriginal communities and human rights groups are in full cry over a legislation feared to being approved by the Australian Senate this week. The 3.4 billion dollar “Stronger Futures” policy is intended to improve the lifes of indigenous peoples in the Northern Territory yet extending the blanket ban of alcohol and pornography in their communities and forcing them to income management. Ben Schokman from the Human Rights Law Centre in Melbourne explains some of the objections.

Ben, the forthcoming “Stronger Futures” policy continues and extends controversial measures that have been introduced under the expiring Northern Territory National Emergency Response, better known as the intervention. During its introduction in 2007, the government suspended Australia’s anti discrimination law, the Racial Discrimination Act – a fact that has been criticized not only by the UN. Does “Stronger Futures” comply with the RDA?

When the Emergency Response was introduced, it consisted of a range of draconian, extraordinary measures which were targeted specifically at Aboriginal people. Even though some minimal changes have since been made to the measures to reinstate the Racial Discrimination Act, the measures continue to have a disproportionate impact on Aboriginal people.

So even though the new legislation aims at “building stronger futures together” from your perspective it still intervenes too much?

You have to look behind the actual face of the legislation to assess its impact, and that’s where the continuing racially discriminatory aspects remain. The government is changing the way it is selling its policy to the Australian people. But in reality there has been very little change in any of the actual measures which were implemented under the Emergency Response.

Indigenous leaders and human rights groups stress the underbelly of the legislation: the continuing blanket ban of alcohol and pornography, compulsory income management as well as the “School Attendance and Enrollment Measure” which predicates families’ welfare payments to school attendance of kids. Isn’t it justified that the government demands rewards in exchange of its 3.4 billion dollar investment for schools, housing and social services? Prime Minister Julia Gillard often emphasizes that her government has done more for Australia’s indigenous peoples than any other government before.

I think the large problem with Stronger Futures is the continuation of a very paternalistic and punitive approach to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities. The history of Australia and many other countries that have indigenous populations show that paternalistic and punitive measures aren’t successful. A lot of the measures aim at closing the gap between Australia’s indigenous peoples and the majority, yet over a period of five years there has been very little development, and indeed in many of the key indicators Aboriginal communities are continuing to go backwards. There is no clear evidence to justify the continuation of these measures. They are simply not working.

Then why has no one taken legal action against the legislation?

The problem, legally, is that what we would need to prove in a court is that the measures are actually detrimentally affecting Aboriginal communities. While there’s no clear evidence that they are benefiting communities, there is also no clear evidence that they are not.

The list of remaining disadvantages for Australia’s indigenous peoples seems to be just about endless. Aboriginal peoples face widespread poverty, high rates of deaths in custody, a lower life expectancy than the majority, high rates of suicide and child mortality. From your perspective, what needs to be done to close the gap effectively?

I don’t think anyone should try to pretend there are simple solutions. We are talking about generations of disadvantage, of vulnerability and, I think it is probably fair to say, of psychological abuse. These are not easy issues to unwind. From a rights based perspective, one of the clear first steps to be taken is to respect the right of self-determination of Aboriginal peoples. From a common sense perspective, communities need to be empowered to work out ways in which solutions can be developed for these very complex problems.

Do you view the proposed referendum to acknowledge Aboriginal peoples and Torres Strait Islanders as Australia’s first peoples as an important step?

Reform of the Australian Constitution would be a small although important step, but more broadly what needs to happen in Australian law, policy and practice is a vastly different way in which all Australian governments engage with Aboriginal people.

Would a change of the constitution have consequences for legislation such as the intervention or Stronger Futures?

The proposed changes to the Australian Constitution wouldn’t necessarily prevent something like the Emergency Response from being introduced in the future. But any legislation like that would be required to undergo greater legal scrutiny than what took place with the Emergency Response.

The Australian government endorsed the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples in 2009. How do you rate its current implementation?

If Australia is a country that is genuinely committed to resetting its relationship with its Aboriginal people, if it is interested in closing the gap of Aboriginal disadvantage, then ensuring genuine and proper compliance with the UN would be an important step. When it comes to the implementation of the Declaration in Australia, there is still a significant gap between what we say and what we do. And as long as that remains the case, there will continue to be a significant gap between the rights of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders people and the broader Australian society.