"This is our Hurricane Katrina," declared Australian Prime Minister John Howard in launching the Northern Territory Emergency Response back in 2007. The NTER, or "the Intervention" as it has come to be known, was an extraordinary set of measures implemented by the Howard Government in Aboriginal communities in the Northern Territory, (notionally) in response to a report into protection from child abuse in the Northern Territory called
The Little Children Are Sacred.
Howard's analogy with Katrina was illuminating. I think he meant it to suggest that Australia ought to be shamed by the extent of Aboriginal disadvantage and abuse revealed in the report, just as the United States was shamed by the levels of entrenched racialised disadvantage revealed by the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.
But the analogy goes further. As with Katrina, the situation in the Northern Territory did indeed demand a response. But the question was: what kind of response? And of course, the answer to that question is shaped by competing understandings of the nature of the problem to be solved.
As folks like
Naomi Klein,
Jamie Peck, and
Kevin Fox Gotham have shown, the disaster that unfolded in the wake of Hurricane Katrina's storm surge has been compounded by a surge of neoliberalisation in New Orleans and along the Gulf Coast of hurricane-like proportions.
In Australia, something similar is happening through the Intervention.
At the time, the Howard Government made a distinction between ideology and what it called 'practical action' to address Aboriginal disadvantage. When Howard was asked on ABC TV's
Lateline program whether the Intervention was a blow against self-determination, he replied:
Well, some may see it that way, but is that
more important than fixing the problem? I mean, see this has been the problem with so many of the
approaches in the past to Indigenous affairs, that doctrines and notions have
been given greater prominence than outcomes and solutions.
So convinced of this was Howard that he was even prepared to ignore a significant part of the very first recommendations of the
Little Children Are Sacred report which kicked off the whole affair. That recommendation stated:
That Aboriginal child sexual abuse in the Northern Territory be
designated as an issue of urgent national significance by both the
Australian and Northern Territory Governments, and both governments
immediately establish a collaborative partnership, with a Memorandum of
Understanding to specifically address the protection of Aboriginal
children from sexual abuse. It is critical that both governments commit
to genuine consultation with Aboriginal people in designing initiatives
for Aboriginal communities.
A range of NTER measures are worthy of critical scutiny ... but right now I want to focus on one of the key measures: income management.
Place-based Income Management
One of the most contentious elements of the Intervention has been the introduction of
income management for social security recipients. 50% of the welfare payments in designated Northern Territory Communities were quarantined, so that they could only be spent on certain goods in certain shops.
 |
| Map of Aboriginal Land and Community Living Areas subject to the Intervention measures, from Yu Report 2008 |
The initial application of income management to welfare recipients in designated
Aboriginal communities by the Howard Government required a suspension of
the provisions of the
Racial Discrimination Act. This is legally
permissible for 'special measures' which are for the benefit of the
targeted group. Of course, the notion that income management constituted
a special measure which was for the
benefit of Aboriginal people was vigorously contested.
The Labor Party supported the NTER legislation in Parliament in 2005,
and continued to support the Intervention when elected in 2007, albeit
in modified form. It commissioned a review of the measures associated
with the Intervention in 2008. After extensive research and
consultation, that review noted that while some welfare recipients
identified some benefits of income management, the compulsory imposition
of income management on all Aboriginal people in identified communities
was widely opposed as both punitive and discriminatory. It recommended
that income management become voluntary, unless triggered by specific
circumstances (such as lack of school attendance or an identified risk
of child abuse).
Labor rejected the recommendation that income management
be voluntary, keeping it compulsory. In doing so, it continued the
punitive nature of Howard's initial response. To
address the concern that compulsory income management associated with
the Intervention was discriminatory, Labor decided to impose income
management on non-indigenous welfare recipients as well.
Really.
So, from July this year, under the new income management is being trialled in five suburban locations around the country: Bankstown (NSW), Logan and Rockhampton (Qld), Playford (SA), and Greater Shepparton (Vic). Compulsory income management has also been in operation in Perth and the Kimberley (WA) since 2008, specifically for those referred by child-protection authorities (as of 29 May this year, there were 158 people in Perth and 74 in the Kimberley on income management, as reported to the Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee).
In these new areas, there are three ways you can end up on income management: voluntarily; through referral by a child-support/protection agency; by being designated as 'vulnerable' by a Centrelink social worker.
 |
| A poster at Kmart notifying customers that the BasicsCard, used by those social security recipients on income management, can be used for certain purchases. These posters are now popping up in Sydney at various locations in Bankstown and beyond (this picture was taken at Ashfield Mall). |
