Aboriginal Child Protection
ANALYSIS OF THE INQUIRY AND SUBSEQUENT INTERVENTION OF:
Ampe akelyernemane meke mekarle: “little children are sacred”. Report of the Northern Territory Board of Inquiry into the Protection of Aboriginal Children from Sexual Abuse.
The 2007 inquiry into The Protection of Aboriginal Children from Sexual Abuse was prompted after a number of allegations were made relating to the sexual abuse of Aboriginal children in the Northern Territory. Also known as the Little Children are Sacred, the purpose of the inquiry was to investigate child sexual abuse allegations in Aboriginal communities and identify improved means to protect Aboriginal children from such abuse.
Summary of ‘The Terms of Reference for the Inquiry’
(Please see Appendix 1 …show more content…
for the full Terns of Reference for the Inquiry)
The inquiry was solicited to:
• Examine cases of sexual abuse of Aboriginal children, focusing on unreported cases.
• Study the factors contributing to abuse.
• Investigate the ineffective reactions to Aboriginal child sexual abuse, seen as resulting from: isolation, language barriers, inadequate reporting systems and the fact that Aboriginal families and communities to not understand the reporting system.
• To consider the effectiveness of government responses to and efforts protecting Aboriginal children from sexual abuse.
• Establish why cases of child sexual abuse are not being reported.
• Identify how both government and non government agencies might work together to construct a more effective system of child protection
• Discover how the NT Government could better support Aboriginal communities to better prevent and manage child sexual abuse.
• Establish ways the government could assist in the education and support of Aboriginal people to prevent the sexual abuse of Aboriginal children.
Due to the myriad of contributing factors associated with child abuse, some have said the terms of reference were not wide enough (James, 2006) however, rather than being overwhelmed by volume, the terms of reference included the most relevant issues (Anderson, 2006).
The inquiry visited 45 Northern Territory communities, held 262 meetings and received 65 written submissions from individuals and organisations. From this, the inquiry gathered a large amount of information which was assembled into 97 recommendations. The landmark report exposed a deeply disturbing environment of sexual abuse across the Northern Territory requiring an urgent but multidimensional long-term response to a very complex …show more content…
problem.
The report was released in the middle of 2007, with a great deal of surrounding political attention. Irrespective of the reports ‘integrity and worthiness’, it is regarded by many as merely another to add to the alarmingly large number of reports whose recommendations relating to the ill health and clear disadvantage of Indigenous Australians have been largely ignored (Brown & Brown, 2007). The terms of reference in the report were supposedly guided by and ‘the impetus for the federal government’s intervention’, however ironically only a small number of the reports terms of reference have been considered or put into practice (Brown & Brown, 2007).
According to the inquiry, sexual abuse of Indigenous children is alarmingly rife and often unreported in Northern Territory Indigenous communities. The inquiry suggests that the sexual abuse of Indigenous children is occurring largely due to the combined consequences of alcohol and drug abuse, unemployment, pornography, and poor health, education and housing; the collapse of Aboriginal culture and society (Highland, 2007/2008). The inquiry specified that alcohol prevailed as the most serious danger to the health and safety of Indigenous children (Highland, 2007/2008).
The report made a total of 97 recommendations to attempt to overcome Indigenous child sexual abuse in the Northern Territory. Recommendations included working on: educational services; strengthening support services; building greater trust in communities between Government departments, the police and Aboriginal communities; reducing alcohol consumption; and empowering Indigenous communities through inclusion and ownership of future directions; and reducing alcohol and drug consumption (Anderson, 2007).
In response to the report, the Liberal Prime Minister John Howard and the Minister for Indigenous Affairs Mal Brough declared that the sexual abuse of Aboriginal children in the Northern Territory was a matter of ‘national emergency’ (Anderson, 2007). The government response entailed: sending police and army personnel to inflict law and order; alcohol prohibition; banning the sale and possession of hardcore pornography; restricting welfare payments; medical examinations of children under the age of 16; enforcing school attendance; and basically seizing control of a large number of Aboriginal communities in an effort to battle Indigenous child abuse in the Northern Territory (Anderson, 2007; Highland, 2007/2008). Figures 1, 2 and 3 below show some scenes with government professionals in Northern Territory Aboriginal communities.
Figures 1, 2, 3
Figures 1, 2 3:
Local children with army medics/taskforce chair and a health check professional in Northern Territory Aboriginal communities (Australian Government: FaHCSIA, 2007).
Eight months have now passed since the Liberal government announced the federal assault on sexual abuse of Aboriginal children in the Northern Territory.
Despite the intense national attention the report roused, health workers sent in by the government have checked fewer than half of the children in their target group (Peatling & Metherall, 2008). According to the Australian Medical Association, Northern Territory president Dr Peter Beaumont, there are still “nowhere near enough doctors in the territory” to conduct the medical checks (Hart, 2007). Dr Beaumont suggests that the governments strategy was not planned sufficiently, that ‘you can’t just bring people in and train them in a few days and expect them to know how communicate and deal with Aboriginal people’ (Hart,
2007).
According to Michelle Gratton (2007), a report from the Combined Aboriginal Organisations of the Northern Territory has warned that if the Government’s ‘national emergency’ measures are employed without Indigenous community consent and ownership, they will not be successful. A key member of this group, Olga Havnen suggests that ‘the Government’s approach is not sustainable or effective. It doesn’t show a commitment to the long term. Instead of the strategy implemented, what was necessary was a ‘well-thought-out, costed plan with a timetable’ (Havnen cited in Gratton 2007).
According to ANTaR (Australians for Native Title and Reconciliation) director Gary Highland, the government was right to declare the abuse of Aboriginal children in the Northern Territory as a matter of ‘national emergency’, however the way the government has sought to overcome the problem has concerned ANTaR. Highland (2007/2008) suggests ‘that unless changes are made to the Government’s approach its attempt to stop child abuse in Northern Territory Aboriginal communities will fail’, ANTaR even goes as far as proposing that ‘some of the measures being proposed will in fact add to the suffering of Indigenous children rather than overcome it (Highland, 2007/2008).
Although the Howard Government suggested that the Little Children are Sacred report had prompted the ‘national emergency’ strategy it implemented, the strategy does ‘not reflect the recommendations of the report’ (Highland, 2007/2008).
‘The Government response is inconsistent with the Little Children are Sacred Report’ Highland, 2007/2008).
Speaking at an Indigenous Health Conference in the Gove Peninsula, Pat Anderson (cited in Sweet, 2007), co-author of the Little Children are Sacred report said that ‘there is no relationship between the federal response and our recommendations. We feel betrayed and hurt and angry and pretty pissed off at the same time’.
The strategy implemented by the Howard Government seemingly has not taken into account the strategies recommended by the report (Anderson, 2007). The media have suggested that the government’s response has more than anything been about ‘electioneering’ or concealing other policy agendas (such as land rights). The government intervention is a paternalistic approach that clearly contradicts the recommendations of the report: an approach that engages with Aboriginal communities to help determine the best possible actions to overcome child sexual abuse (Anderson, 2007).
The government has implemented strategies that were not raised in the report and seemingly don’t even relate to child sexual abuse (such as assuming control of Aboriginal land), while issues raised in the report are yet to be addressed (family support services and education campaigns) (Anderson, 2007). Above all, the report recommends that trust needs to be developed between government departments, police, and community members. The government intervention with its heavy police and army personnel trying to identify and stop child abuse is not instilling any trust within Aboriginal communities. The problem of child abuse will not be solved by a short term police and bureaucratic exercise. The solutions to overcoming child sexual abuse in Indigenous communities’ lies within Indigenous communities; Inclusion and ownership are essential in overcoming such problems. As Malcolm Fraser and Lowita O’Donoghue (2007) suggest ‘These latest measures have been introduced without any overt sign that there has been consultation with Aboriginal leadership or with Aboriginal elders from different communities. Without respect, without discussion and agreement it is difficult to see any measures working as effectively as we would all want’.
The government intervention has the potential to undo a great deal of progress made through generations of struggle for recognition of ‘Aboriginal people’s right to have control over the future of their families and communities’ (Anderson, 2007). The unintended consequences of the intervention include; suicide and unemployment, an environment of fear which may further reduce the likelihood of abuse being reported; and a framework that will see all Northern Territory Aboriginal communities the same- considering Aboriginal adults as abusers and all Aboriginal children as abused (Anderson, 2007).
At this point it remains unclear how the intervention methods used by the government will assist in creating sustainable, safe and nurturing communities. This is predominantly due to the fact that there doesn’t appear to have been a focus on how to improve outcomes for child abuse victims or how to strengthen the families that have been effected by child abuse so as to prevent further cases of abuse. Anderson (2007) wonders if the intervention measures used by the government ‘will protect Aboriginal children at all’. Concerns are based largely on the poor coordination and planning of intervention measures which have been suggested to waste desperately needed resources; resources which are being largely used to install the bureaucracy rather than provide services (Brown & Brown, 2007).
In conclusion, apart from the noted concerns relating to the government intervention into child abuse in Northern Territory Aboriginal communities, there remain opportunities to improve the health and social outcomes for people in these communities. The focus must be altered to look at the more complex societal problems associated with the abuse of Aboriginal children, as hinted by the report. As Anderson puts it: ‘the incidence of child sexual abuse, whether in Aboriginal or so-called mainstream communities, is often directly related to other breakdowns in society. Put simply, the cumulative effects of poor health, alcohol, drug abuse, gambling, pornography, unemployment, poor education and housing and general disempowerment lead inexorably to family and other violence and then on to sexual abuse of men and women and, finally, of children. It will be impossible to set our communities on a strong path to recovery in terms of sexual abuse of children without dealing with all these basic services and social evils. Even then, the best that can be hoped for is improvement over a 15 year period - effectively, a generation or longer’.
Ampe akelyernemane meke mekarle: “little children are sacred”. Report of the Northern Territory Board of Inquiry into the Protection of Aboriginal Children from Sexual Abuse.
The 2007 inquiry into The Protection of Aboriginal Children from Sexual Abuse was prompted after a number of allegations were made relating to the sexual abuse of Aboriginal children in the Northern Territory. Also known as the Little Children are Sacred, the purpose of the inquiry was to investigate child sexual abuse allegations in Aboriginal communities and identify improved means to protect Aboriginal children from such abuse.
Summary of ‘The Terms of Reference for the Inquiry’
(Please see Appendix 1 …show more content…
for the full Terns of Reference for the Inquiry)
The inquiry was solicited to:
• Examine cases of sexual abuse of Aboriginal children, focusing on unreported cases.
• Study the factors contributing to abuse.
• Investigate the ineffective reactions to Aboriginal child sexual abuse, seen as resulting from: isolation, language barriers, inadequate reporting systems and the fact that Aboriginal families and communities to not understand the reporting system.
• To consider the effectiveness of government responses to and efforts protecting Aboriginal children from sexual abuse.
• Establish why cases of child sexual abuse are not being reported.
• Identify how both government and non government agencies might work together to construct a more effective system of child protection
• Discover how the NT Government could better support Aboriginal communities to better prevent and manage child sexual abuse.
• Establish ways the government could assist in the education and support of Aboriginal people to prevent the sexual abuse of Aboriginal children.
Due to the myriad of contributing factors associated with child abuse, some have said the terms of reference were not wide enough (James, 2006) however, rather than being overwhelmed by volume, the terms of reference included the most relevant issues (Anderson, 2006).
The inquiry visited 45 Northern Territory communities, held 262 meetings and received 65 written submissions from individuals and organisations. From this, the inquiry gathered a large amount of information which was assembled into 97 recommendations. The landmark report exposed a deeply disturbing environment of sexual abuse across the Northern Territory requiring an urgent but multidimensional long-term response to a very complex …show more content…
problem.
The report was released in the middle of 2007, with a great deal of surrounding political attention. Irrespective of the reports ‘integrity and worthiness’, it is regarded by many as merely another to add to the alarmingly large number of reports whose recommendations relating to the ill health and clear disadvantage of Indigenous Australians have been largely ignored (Brown & Brown, 2007). The terms of reference in the report were supposedly guided by and ‘the impetus for the federal government’s intervention’, however ironically only a small number of the reports terms of reference have been considered or put into practice (Brown & Brown, 2007).
According to the inquiry, sexual abuse of Indigenous children is alarmingly rife and often unreported in Northern Territory Indigenous communities. The inquiry suggests that the sexual abuse of Indigenous children is occurring largely due to the combined consequences of alcohol and drug abuse, unemployment, pornography, and poor health, education and housing; the collapse of Aboriginal culture and society (Highland, 2007/2008). The inquiry specified that alcohol prevailed as the most serious danger to the health and safety of Indigenous children (Highland, 2007/2008).
The report made a total of 97 recommendations to attempt to overcome Indigenous child sexual abuse in the Northern Territory. Recommendations included working on: educational services; strengthening support services; building greater trust in communities between Government departments, the police and Aboriginal communities; reducing alcohol consumption; and empowering Indigenous communities through inclusion and ownership of future directions; and reducing alcohol and drug consumption (Anderson, 2007).
In response to the report, the Liberal Prime Minister John Howard and the Minister for Indigenous Affairs Mal Brough declared that the sexual abuse of Aboriginal children in the Northern Territory was a matter of ‘national emergency’ (Anderson, 2007). The government response entailed: sending police and army personnel to inflict law and order; alcohol prohibition; banning the sale and possession of hardcore pornography; restricting welfare payments; medical examinations of children under the age of 16; enforcing school attendance; and basically seizing control of a large number of Aboriginal communities in an effort to battle Indigenous child abuse in the Northern Territory (Anderson, 2007; Highland, 2007/2008). Figures 1, 2 and 3 below show some scenes with government professionals in Northern Territory Aboriginal communities.
Figures 1, 2, 3
Figures 1, 2 3:
Local children with army medics/taskforce chair and a health check professional in Northern Territory Aboriginal communities (Australian Government: FaHCSIA, 2007).
Eight months have now passed since the Liberal government announced the federal assault on sexual abuse of Aboriginal children in the Northern Territory.
Despite the intense national attention the report roused, health workers sent in by the government have checked fewer than half of the children in their target group (Peatling & Metherall, 2008). According to the Australian Medical Association, Northern Territory president Dr Peter Beaumont, there are still “nowhere near enough doctors in the territory” to conduct the medical checks (Hart, 2007). Dr Beaumont suggests that the governments strategy was not planned sufficiently, that ‘you can’t just bring people in and train them in a few days and expect them to know how communicate and deal with Aboriginal people’ (Hart,
2007).
According to Michelle Gratton (2007), a report from the Combined Aboriginal Organisations of the Northern Territory has warned that if the Government’s ‘national emergency’ measures are employed without Indigenous community consent and ownership, they will not be successful. A key member of this group, Olga Havnen suggests that ‘the Government’s approach is not sustainable or effective. It doesn’t show a commitment to the long term. Instead of the strategy implemented, what was necessary was a ‘well-thought-out, costed plan with a timetable’ (Havnen cited in Gratton 2007).
According to ANTaR (Australians for Native Title and Reconciliation) director Gary Highland, the government was right to declare the abuse of Aboriginal children in the Northern Territory as a matter of ‘national emergency’, however the way the government has sought to overcome the problem has concerned ANTaR. Highland (2007/2008) suggests ‘that unless changes are made to the Government’s approach its attempt to stop child abuse in Northern Territory Aboriginal communities will fail’, ANTaR even goes as far as proposing that ‘some of the measures being proposed will in fact add to the suffering of Indigenous children rather than overcome it (Highland, 2007/2008).
Although the Howard Government suggested that the Little Children are Sacred report had prompted the ‘national emergency’ strategy it implemented, the strategy does ‘not reflect the recommendations of the report’ (Highland, 2007/2008).
‘The Government response is inconsistent with the Little Children are Sacred Report’ Highland, 2007/2008).
Speaking at an Indigenous Health Conference in the Gove Peninsula, Pat Anderson (cited in Sweet, 2007), co-author of the Little Children are Sacred report said that ‘there is no relationship between the federal response and our recommendations. We feel betrayed and hurt and angry and pretty pissed off at the same time’.
The strategy implemented by the Howard Government seemingly has not taken into account the strategies recommended by the report (Anderson, 2007). The media have suggested that the government’s response has more than anything been about ‘electioneering’ or concealing other policy agendas (such as land rights). The government intervention is a paternalistic approach that clearly contradicts the recommendations of the report: an approach that engages with Aboriginal communities to help determine the best possible actions to overcome child sexual abuse (Anderson, 2007).
The government has implemented strategies that were not raised in the report and seemingly don’t even relate to child sexual abuse (such as assuming control of Aboriginal land), while issues raised in the report are yet to be addressed (family support services and education campaigns) (Anderson, 2007). Above all, the report recommends that trust needs to be developed between government departments, police, and community members. The government intervention with its heavy police and army personnel trying to identify and stop child abuse is not instilling any trust within Aboriginal communities. The problem of child abuse will not be solved by a short term police and bureaucratic exercise. The solutions to overcoming child sexual abuse in Indigenous communities’ lies within Indigenous communities; Inclusion and ownership are essential in overcoming such problems. As Malcolm Fraser and Lowita O’Donoghue (2007) suggest ‘These latest measures have been introduced without any overt sign that there has been consultation with Aboriginal leadership or with Aboriginal elders from different communities. Without respect, without discussion and agreement it is difficult to see any measures working as effectively as we would all want’.
The government intervention has the potential to undo a great deal of progress made through generations of struggle for recognition of ‘Aboriginal people’s right to have control over the future of their families and communities’ (Anderson, 2007). The unintended consequences of the intervention include; suicide and unemployment, an environment of fear which may further reduce the likelihood of abuse being reported; and a framework that will see all Northern Territory Aboriginal communities the same- considering Aboriginal adults as abusers and all Aboriginal children as abused (Anderson, 2007).
At this point it remains unclear how the intervention methods used by the government will assist in creating sustainable, safe and nurturing communities. This is predominantly due to the fact that there doesn’t appear to have been a focus on how to improve outcomes for child abuse victims or how to strengthen the families that have been effected by child abuse so as to prevent further cases of abuse. Anderson (2007) wonders if the intervention measures used by the government ‘will protect Aboriginal children at all’. Concerns are based largely on the poor coordination and planning of intervention measures which have been suggested to waste desperately needed resources; resources which are being largely used to install the bureaucracy rather than provide services (Brown & Brown, 2007).
In conclusion, apart from the noted concerns relating to the government intervention into child abuse in Northern Territory Aboriginal communities, there remain opportunities to improve the health and social outcomes for people in these communities. The focus must be altered to look at the more complex societal problems associated with the abuse of Aboriginal children, as hinted by the report. As Anderson puts it: ‘the incidence of child sexual abuse, whether in Aboriginal or so-called mainstream communities, is often directly related to other breakdowns in society. Put simply, the cumulative effects of poor health, alcohol, drug abuse, gambling, pornography, unemployment, poor education and housing and general disempowerment lead inexorably to family and other violence and then on to sexual abuse of men and women and, finally, of children. It will be impossible to set our communities on a strong path to recovery in terms of sexual abuse of children without dealing with all these basic services and social evils. Even then, the best that can be hoped for is improvement over a 15 year period - effectively, a generation or longer’.