Whether the Something he's proposing will actually make things better is, of course, the real issue. Just because you're proposing a change to a flawed policy doesn't mean that the new idea will make things better - it has to be sensibly evaluated in case it makes the situation worse. And it doesn't mean that there might not be a better third option. It isn't necessarily a wedge, because the ALP doesn't have to oppose action on the issue to oppose the Liberal plan - they could come up with their own, better one. How about Noel Pearson's plan to break the cycle of welfare dependency and hopelessness?
So let's look at the Liberals' proposal (numbered by me for convenience of reference in a moment):
- Alcohol will be banned in some regions for six months, and X-rated porn outlawed in communities and on public computers.
- The need for outsiders to have permits to get into townships and roads on indigenous land will be scrapped.
- Every Aboriginal child under 16 will be required to have a medical check-up at federal expense.
- States have been asked to donate 10 police officers each to boost the uniformed presence in each community, working alongside federal bureaucrats who will be sent to live in selected regions as town managers.
- Centrelink will immediately begin quarantining 50 per cent of welfare payments to people in the communities, which can only be spent on food and other essentials. Further money can be docked if children fail to attend school, and to pay for meals for the children.
- Welfare recipients will be forced to help clean up homes and streets to ensure safe and hygienic living conditions, with managers able to inspect houses.
I have no problem with number 2 - I've always been uncomfortable with vast tracts of the country being off-limits to people unless they're of a particular race. And clearly it's inhibited assisting remote communities. Number 4 isn't a bad idea either - clearly the abuse is a law and order issue, and the immediate response to that sort of thing needs to be greater policing. Although whether 60 extra police (if all the states agree) are going to be enough... that's another question. It also depends on which police are sent, and under what brief. (I'd rather Queensland didn't send the ones recently stationed on Palm Island, for example.)
The alcohol thing, number 1 in the list, is of course a huge problem, and I readily admit that I don't know how we solve it. Banning it in remote communities will achieve little, however, as the alcoholics will simply move into the cities. But I suspect that widespread alcoholism is a symptom of the other issues, of hopelessness and poverty, rather than a cause (although obviously once begun it reinforces both of those things). Pornography? It annoys me when people conflate sexual media with sexual abuse. Clearly there's pornography that deserves banning because it shows the abuse of women and children - but it should be banned for everyone, not just certain indigenous communities. Other material, though - the justification for banning it seems incredibly weak. As Cam argues-
While alcohol and pornography, when used inappropriately, may impact human virtue, they do remain individual liberties which is not for the government to prohibit under a national emergency. Also by making those two the focus of the federal response, they have effectively limited the issues relating to child sexual abuse as alcohol and pornography, ie cultural, rather than criminal, ie individual, behaviour. This is not a liberal policy, it is a conservative one.
Okay, points 3 and 6. Free compulsory medical checkups for children is a good idea for all children (so long as it's combined with access to a proper public health system beyond that one checkup), although it'll be very expensive and there are concerns that it "will plunge the Northern Territory's health system into crisis". Still, there's no reason any child in Australia should be entering adulthood without proper medical care, including checkups. Points 5 and 6 - obviously any house in which children are living should be above a certain basic level of hygiene and cleanliness. Shouldn't just apply to welfare recipients, either - making a child live in filth is a child abuse issue.
But is that entirely the recipients' fault? Ken Parish asks:
How will taking federal control of 40 community town areas for 5 years make any difference at all to housing standards? The Howard government sent military forces into a few Territory indigenous communities during its early years in office, and it made scarcely a dent in the housing backlog. In many remote communities, people live 15 or 20 to each house. The cost of clearing the indigenous housing backlog in the Territory alone is generally estimated at more than one billion dollars. The current Commonwealth-NT Indigenous Housing and Infrastructure Agreement commits a total of well under $100 million per year, scarcely enough to keep pace with existing maintenance and repairs let alone make a hole in the backlog. There is no mention of any additional funding in Howard’s announcement today, without which it’s merely empty tokenism.
Clearly there are problems with the proposal. No explanation has been given as to how stretched health, police and corrections systems will cope with the sudden extra demands. No additional doctors have been promised. No extra spending on basic infrastructure, either - clearly a large part of the problem for these remote communities is the abject poverty of their situation, and banning alcohol and telling them to clean their houses will not assist in fixing this problem in the slightest.
Still, it's about time the issue was put back on the national agenda, and not in a waffly "let's talk some more about it" way. Action is required, urgently, and I'm very glad the Prime Minister has finally woken up to the seriousness of the situation. (Even if I suspect the timing is a result of baser motives.)
I just wish I had more confidence that the action he's proposed will actually improve the lot of impoverished aboriginal communities and abused children - that it isn't more stick than carrot, that it's a complete solution, that it's actually achievable with the resources we have available to send (where's John going to get the doctors? Clone them?), and that it doesn't entirely miss the elephant in the room - the utter poverty, particularly in terms of infrastructure, of these remote communities.
Sure, it's a plan - but, apart from finally policing the communities to end the child abuse (which is a no-brainer), will the rest of the proposals make things better? Is this the Something we Must Do?
