 |
Prime Minister John Howard (left) and Indigenous Affairs Minister Mal Brough during a press conference in Canberra last Thursdsay.
(AAP Image/Alan Porritt) |
BIG READ: The Charge of the Band-Aid Brigade Part Two
Issue 132 - 28 Jun 2007
Issue 132, June 28, 2007: Presenting the myths on child sexual abuse, as reported in the "Little Children are Sacred" report.
Myths
“The Inquiry is well aware of the media and political attention surrounding the issue of sexual abuse of Aboriginal children. Using the consultations and submissions received by the Inquiry, it is important to first dispel some of the myths that have been prominent in various media reports and other comments on the issue.
Myth: Aboriginal men are the only offenders
“While the incidence of sexual abuse of Aboriginal children is a significant problem, it does not follow that all Aboriginal males are offenders, or that Aboriginal males are responsible for all offending against Aboriginal children. It is the Inquiry’s experience that the sexual abuse of Aboriginal children is being committed by a range of non-Aboriginal and Aboriginal offenders - and these are a minority of the overall Australian male population.”
(In addition, many of the offenders who were identified as having assaulted more than one victim were in fact non Aboriginal)
“As would be expected in any community, most of the Aboriginal men the Inquiry spoke with found the idea of child sexual abuse abhorrent and advocated severe, sometimes fatal, physical punishments for offenders. The Inquiry recognises that Aboriginal communities, and Aboriginal men, must be supported to better address the abuse and violence in their communities, but remains concerned that, at times, Aboriginal men have been targeted as if they were the only perpetrators of child sexual abuse in communities.
“This is inaccurate and has resulted in unfair shaming, and consequent further disempowerment, of Aboriginal men as a whole.
Myth: Aboriginal law is the reason for high levels of sexual abuse
“This Inquiry notes that this myth has gained popularity in recent times (e.g. Kimm 2004; Kearney & Wilson 2006; Nowra 2007).
“It is a dangerous myth as it reinforces prejudice and ignorance, masks the complex nature of child sexual abuse and provokes a hostile reaction from Aboriginal people that is not conducive to dealing with the problem.
“My alarm bell is that sloppy and questionable academic research has the power to influence many people. Prejudice and ignorance may be reinforced. Media representations may then support such misconceptions, and hence feed into and trigger political action that has the capacity to create more problems. We do need education for early childhood; education for life; education for healing. But please not education that is fatally flawed (Atkinson 2006:22)
“The Inquiry also believes that it promotes poor responses to a complex problem. (An example of this is the Commonwealth Government’s passing of the Crimes Amendment (Bail and Sentencing) Act 2006.
“A constant theme from both Aboriginal men and women during consultations was that they felt deeply offended by the way the media and some politicians and commentators had spoken about them and their culture.
“This had, in effect, potentially created a further barrier to addressing the issue of child sex abuse.
“The Inquiry believes that the general effect of this misrepresentation of the Northern Territory situation has been that the voices of Aboriginal women and men have been negated by powerful media and political forces. This has hampered the important development of systems, structures and methods that have a genuine chance of reducing violence and child sexual abuse.
“The Inquiry rejects this myth and notes that it is rejected by many other authoritative sources (e.g. Gordon et al. 200); HREOC 2006; LRCWA 2006).
“The reasons for the present level of child sexual abuse in Aboriginal communities are many and varied. They include the effects of colonisation and “learnt behaviour”. The Inquiry does not take the view that this absolves Aboriginal people from responsibility in dealing with this issue, but it goes some way to explaining why it exists and provides an insight into how to deal with it more effectively.
Myth: Aboriginal law is used as an excuse to justify abuse
“The Inquiry has examined the relevant Northern Territory cases referred to in media reports, political remarks and academic research, as well as Northern Territory cases in general, where Aboriginal law has been an issue. The Inquiry was unable to find any case where Aboriginal law has been used and accepted as a defence (in that it would exonerate an accused from any criminal responsibility) for an offence of violence against a woman or a child.
“Similarly, the Gordon Inquiry in Western Australia found no actual criminal cases in that state where legal argument on behalf of men charged with family violence or child sexual abuse has been put to the court to the effect their behaviour was sanctioned under Aboriginal law (Gordon et al. 2002).
“The Law Council of Australia has stated that there is “no evidence that [Australian] courts have permitted manipulation of “cultural background” or “customary law” (Law Council of Australia 2006:17).
Myth: Aboriginal culture is the reason for under-reporting
“Many of the Aboriginal people with whom the Inquiry spoke were interested in discussing the problem of child sexual abuse. During these discussions, it became clear to the Inquiry that child sexual abuse was not a highly visible problem and one of which many people were still unaware. That is, many people did not know what “’sexual abuse” was and were confused about what constituted “sexual abuse”. In a number of communities, the attitude was “we are happy to work to stamp out sexual abuse in our community but we don’t know what it is”.
“Further, many of those who did suspect sexual abuse was occurring were unsure how to deal with it.
“The Inquiry noted that, in many cases where the sexual abuse was obvious, the local people had notified the Police or the local health centre. The reasons why other cases were not reported were varied and complex. They included fear and distrust of the Police, the criminal justice system and other government agencies; shame and embarrassment; language and communication barriers; lack of knowledge about legal rights and services available, and lack of appropriate services for Aboriginal victims. This is discussed in greater detail in the next section, (Reporting Sexual Abuse of Indigenous Children).
“The Inquiry did recognise certain aspects of Aboriginal culture that may discourage some Aboriginal people from disclosing abuse, in particular the obligations under the kinship system.
“However, the Inquiry agrees with the conclusion of the Law Reform Commission in Western Australia in its report on customary law in that while: cultural issues may play a part in the under-reporting of sexual and violent offences against Aboriginal women and children, it is clear that there are numerous other and arguably more compelling reasons why Aboriginal women and children do not speak out about the abuse to government justice and welfare agencies. (2006:26)
Myth: Aboriginal men do not have an important role to play in preventing child sexual abuse
“The Inquiry was pleasantly surprised to meet with groups of up to 60 men in some communities. The men with whom the Inquiry met appeared sincere in their abhorrence of child sexual abuse and were keen to do something about it.
“However, it was a common theme in virtually all places visited by the Inquiry that Aboriginal men felt disempowered. Aboriginal women have been speaking out about issues like sexual abuse and requesting assistance for decades. Many Aboriginal women have been working hard for years to improve their communities.
“Many of the women with whom the Inquiry spoke said they needed their men to join with them in dealing with this problem. As one Yolgnu woman said:
“Our communities are like a piece of broken string with women on one side and men on the other. These strings need to be twisted together and we will become strong again.”
One cannot read these sections of this report without the overwhelming feeling that things are about to get worse before they get better.
Those communities will now have to contend with an army of strangers in their midst.
It is hard to believe, in the total context of the report, that Howard and Brough’s unilateral declaration and crisis intervention will assist the very children they claim to be seeking to protect.
There is an almost universal view among a range of medical experts in the field that the intervention may in fact exacerbate the problems.
We would also urge our readers, and all Australians, to consider the words of the Prime Minister against the first words of the Little Children are Sacred Report.
It says this:
“There is nothing new or extraordinary in the allegations of sexual abuse of Aboriginal children in the Northern Territory. What is new, perhaps, is the publicity given to them and the raising of awareness of the wider community of the issue.
“Sexual abuse of children is not restricted to those of Aboriginal descent, nor committed only by those of Aboriginal descent, nor to just the Northern Territory. The phenomenon knows no racial, age or gender. It is a national and international problem.”
Howard and Brough made it clear their time for talking was over when the report suggest the time for talking has just begun.
Both said they had acted because NT Chief Minister Clare Martin had, in their view, sat on the report for eight weeks and was taking a “business as usual” approach.
No member of the Canberra press gallery, at the news conference or since, has bothered to ask the Prime Minister to explain why it was that his former Aboriginal Affairs Minister Amanda Vanstone had sat on the last major federal report into this issue for 18 months before publicly releasing it way back in January 2001.
No member of the Canberra press gallery thought to ask the Prime Minister why he had called a national summit on violence in Aboriginal communities way back in July 2003 and walked out at the end to declare the fight against it a national priority at the time.
The summit came and went. The violent abuse of women and kids continued.
No-one thought to ask the Prime Minister why he accepted no responsibility for implementing a range of policies over the past 11 years which forced the closure of a raft of community and youth support programmes, including women’s resource centres and night patrols which were aimed at fighting the scourge.
Howard and his Government have known about this for years.
Northern Territory Chief Minister Clare Martin should not escape political reproach on her handling of this crisis.
But be clear.
One cannot read these sections of this report without the overwhelming feeling that things are about to get worse before they get better.
Those communities will now have to contend with an army of strangers in their midst.
It is hard to believe, in the total context of the report, that Howard and Brough’s unilateral declaration and crisis intervention will assist the very children they claim to be seeking to protect.
There is an almost universal view among a range of medical experts in the field that the intervention may in fact exacerbate the problems.
We would also urge our readers, and all Australians, to consider the words of the Prime Minister against the first words of the Little Children are Sacred Report.
It says this:
“There is nothing new or extraordinary in the allegations of sexual abuse of Aboriginal children in the Northern Territory. What is new, perhaps, is the publicity given to them and the raising of awareness of the wider community of the issue.
“Sexual abuse of children is not restricted to those of Aboriginal descent, nor committed only by those of Aboriginal descent, nor to just the Northern Territory. The phenomenon knows no racial, age or gender. It is a national and international problem.”
Howard and Brough made it clear their time for talking was over when the report suggest the time for talking has just begun.
Both said they had acted because NT Chief Minister Clare Martin had, in their view, sat on the report for eight weeks and was taking a “business as usual” approach.
No member of the Canberra press gallery, at the news conference or since, has bothered to ask the Prime Minister to explain why it was that his former Aboriginal Affairs Minister Amanda Vanstone had sat on the last major federal report into this issue for 18 months before publicly releasing it way back in January 2001.
No member of the Canberra press gallery thought to ask the Prime Minister why he had called a national summit on violence in Aboriginal communities way back in July 2003 and walked out at the end to declare the fight against it a national priority at the time.
The summit came and went. The violent abuse of women and kids continued.
No-one thought to ask the Prime Minister why he accepted no responsibility for implementing a range of policies over the past 11 years which forced the closure of a raft of community and youth support programmes, including women’s resource centres and night patrols which were aimed at fighting the scourge.
Howard and his Government have known about this for years.
Northern Territory Chief Minister Clare Martin should not escape political reproach on her handling of this crisis.
But be clear.
The crisis of abuse and violence in Aboriginal communities are not of her making.
It should be remembered that she came into Government in 2001, after the release of the Federal Government’s last major report on this issue, after 25-plus years of Liberal Party rule in the NT - which ended five years after Howard became Prime Minister.
Would the Prime Minister have intervened during any of those five years? We think not.
Martin has clearly fumbled on this issue but the report makes clear that the “inquiry team worked closely with the relevant Northern Territory Government departments, not only for their advice on the practicality of our recommendations, but also with a view to bypassing the usual and inevitable delays and implementation caused in sending off reports and recommendations for further analysis and advice.”
It continues:
“We understand that the recommendations contained in the report have the broad support of those departments, although financial implementation issues have been raised with us.”
This brings us back to Howard at his press conference in Canberra.
He told the media his response would cost “some tens of millions of dollars”.
Again, an illustration of how little he is on top of his job.
The Howard Government has received a raft of reports putting the unmet need in basic housing and infrastructure in Aboriginal communities at more than two billion dollars and rising because of the rapidly expanding population.
It has never been willing to commit to a long term plan to tackle this unmet need despite enormous budget surpluses. It has, however, found more than a billion dollars to splurge on politically advantageous advertising campaigns.
The Director of the Centre for Aboriginal and Economic Policy Research, Professor John Altman, who has worked in the field for the entire term of the Howard Government and before, has estimated Howard and Brough’s intervention plan would cost an estimated three to four billion dollars if implemented properly.
“If we are going to have lasting outcomes, not just bandaids, we need to tackle systemic issues of health, housing, education and employment,” he told ABC radio this week.
They are the four key planks of Howard’s failed practical reconciliation policies.
A raft of mainstream media commentators have told us this week that we should not doubt the Prime Minister’s sincerity.
Surely sincerity has nothing to do with it.
The Prime Minister is paid to represent all Australians.
As Western Australian Premier Alan Carpenter pointed out repeatedly in the wake of the Howard-Brough announcement, Mr Howard has been in office for 11 years and the problems have got worse on his watch.
We have gone backwards and now he is telling everyone to jump.
Carpenter is a former state minister for Aboriginal Affairs. He was at the table when Phil Ruddock was Howard’s Aboriginal Affairs Minister and a group of Aboriginal women made an impassioned plea for help in front of the Council of Aboriginal Affairs Ministers in Brisbane years ago. Ruddock sat and read briefing papers throughout their presentation.
Premier Carpenter has made it clear he does not accede to the Howard-Brough request to allocate ten police officers from Western Australia to join the occupation forces.
As this edition of Nit went to press we were informed the Howard-Brough crisis intervention, which had been put together in 72 hours in Canberra and Sydney, was starting to fray at the seams.
We are informed the 60 administrators in 60 proscribed communities had dwindled to 30 community managers and had been reduced to nine Commonwealth officers - one for each shire under the proposed new Northern Territory Government local government reforms.
The compulsory health checks of the 23,000 Aboriginal children had become a proposed voluntary all inclusive physical health check up of about 2,000 children in remote communities by Army reserve doctors, as and when they become available.
The proposed 60 or 50 police had dwindled to about ten who were to be assigned to Mutitjulu, which has a police station about 20 kilometres away at the tourist town of Yulara.
There had still be no official announcement about a recall of the Federal Parliament to amend the NT Land Rights Act or the Self Government Act to deal with the “constitutional niceties” that Howard and Brough had pushed aside. None of this is surprising.
Less than 24 hours after it was launched the man credited in some media outlets as having inspired Howard into action, Noel Pearson, was publicly telling Howard and Brough to amend the plan.
In his regular column in the Weekend Australian, Pearson said this:
“The Howard-Brough plan to tackle grog and to provide policing is correct. However the plan needs to be amended so that there is a concerted strategy to build Indigenous social and cultural ownership.
“Howard and Brough need to understand the challenge is this: we must restore Aboriginal law in these communities. We must restore Aboriginal values and Aboriginal morality in our communities.
“Aboriginal law, properly understood, is not the problem. It is the solution.”
He ended the column with this warning.
“Howard and Brough will make a historic mistake if they are contemptuous of the role that a proper and modern articulation of Aboriginal law must play in the social reconstruction of indigenous societies. I support their determination to end the suffering.”
Who would not?
The Anderson-Wild Inquiry found that sexual abuse of Aboriginal children was common, widespread and grossly under-reported.
Their report makes it clear, however, what needs to happen.
“Everything we have learned (since our appointment) convinces us that these (sexual abuses of children) are just symptoms of a breakdown of Aboriginal culture and society.
“There is, in our view, little point in an exercise in band-aiding individual and specific problems as each one achieves an appropriate degree of media and political hype.
“It has not worked in the past and it will not work in the future.”
Later:
“What is required is a determined, co-ordinated effort to break the cycle and provide the necessary strength, power and appropriate services to local communities so that they can lead themselves out of the malaise: in a word empowerment.”
SEE ALSO: The Charge of the Band-Aid Brigade
SEE ALSO: Editorial Opinion
SEE ALSO: NIT FORUMS: Time for some soul searching by Dr Naomi Mayers.
Related Links
http://www.nit.com.au/story.aspx?id=11797
http://www.nit.com.au/opinion/story.aspx?id=11807
http://www.nit.com.au/opinion/story.aspx?id=11808
 
|