El Hombre como génesis de lo existente

Indigenous community safety policies have been fraught with politically motivated interventions that, in the past, have damaged relationships between the nation state and Australian Aboriginal people. Over the past 10 years, community safety has remained a strong theme in the Indigenous policy through the NTER, the Stronger Futures Program84, the Closing the Gap Strategy, and the Indigenous Advancement Strategy85. This section critiques discourse on Indigenous community safety for lacking focus and placing the onus of responsibility for managing crime problems on Aboriginal people and their communities, without attempting to change unsafe or unruly behaviours using a strengths-based approach. It then moves on to analyse two policies in further depth: welfare conditionality and income management, and second, community-oriented policing in the Northern Territory.

4.3.1

Indigenous community safety as political discourse

For several decades, Aboriginal women and academic researchers had called for government attention to address the profound experiences of violence, abuse and neglect in Aboriginal communities across Australia (Howard-Wagner, 2007; Partridge, 2013). Indigenous spokespeople overwhelmingly call for family violence and child protection initiatives to work with Aboriginal elders86, and their communities, rather than adopt a state-centric approach where government actors steer the operational agenda. Irrespective, over the past 10 years, Australian Government strategies for improving safety in Australian Indigenous communities has been criticised for lacking community consultation and for being politically motivated rather than evidence-based (Altman & Hinkson, 2007; Howard-Wagner, 2012a; Partridge, 2013; Watson, 2011).

84 _{The Stronger Futures Program was the succession to the NTER with few minor changes. Discourse during the} Stronger Futures Program promoted ‘a new way of engaging’ with remote Indigenous communities to possibly reduce the stigma created through the NTER. Although this focus on partnership-based approaches during the Stronger Futures Program also focused on ‘shared responsibility’ for achieving outcomes (COAG, 2012; Minister for Indigenous Affairs, 2011).

85 _{The Indigenous Advancement Strategy focused on transactional policy whereby the government wanted to be} seen delivering on a policy outcome by spending money in different areas. Part of the focus was on safety and wellbeing, which largely followed the lead of the Closing the Gap Strategy.

86 _{Some Indigenous spokespeople such as Behrendt (2007) and Marcia Langton (2008) were supportive of some} elements of the Northern Territory Intervention but they argued that intervention was required that worked with communities and elders in addressing the problem.

Indigenous community safety became a prominent policy issue through the NTER. The federal government commissioned Rex Wild QC and Pat Anderson to examine the extent and nature of factors contributing to the sexual abuse of Aboriginal children, and the service barriers to Aboriginal children receiving protection and assistance.87 In 2007, the Government responded to the Northern Territory Board of Inquiry’s report The Little Children are Sacred

(Wild & Anderson, 2007). The report called for Commonwealth and Northern Territory government attention to the issues of Aboriginal child and sexual abuse as an immediate national priority, and to establish initiatives in a collaborative approach involving extensive community consultation. Instead, the Australian Government implemented few of the 97 recommendations made in the report (Altman, 2007; Altman & Hinkson, 2007; Cripps, 2007; Howard-Wagner, 2007; Watson, 2011).

In response to the report’s release, the Government suspended the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth)88 and in practice exercised political, legislative and ideological control over 73 Aboriginal ‘prescribed’ towns and many more outstations. The introduced measures89 _included

alcohol and pornography controls; income management of welfare payments, linking welfare payments to school attendance, and reintroducing work-for-the-dole measures; and increased police presence, and government surveillance and acquisition of Aboriginal land (Altman & Hinkson, 2007; Partridge, 2013; Cripps, 2007). Many of these strategies continue today through the Stronger Future and Closing the Gap strategies.

In 2009, the federal Labor government announced a new legislative package that was designed to improve outcomes in Indigenous communities over a span of 20 years. The Closing the Gap Strategy, outlined in the National Indigenous Reform Agreement, was designed to create measurable targets to improve socioeconomic conditions of Indigenous people (Council of Australian Governments (COAG), 2009b). The Agreement targets the areas of early childhood education, school performance, health outcomes, economic participation, home ownership, community safety, and leadership and governance. But no accountable measures or targets were identified for community safety, justice or leadership and governance (COAG,

87 _{The full terms of reference can be found in the NTER Taskforce’s Final Report to Government (NTER} Taskforce, 2008).

88 _{Details of the process are documented by the Australian Human Rights Commission (2011).}

89 _{The Northern Territory Intervention and subsequent policies undoubtedly brought a national focus to FDV} interventions and the protection of Aboriginal children’s wellbeing (Cripps, 2007). This was accompanied by a significant increase in funding and initiatives that had a positive impact on improving community wellbeing (Shaw & d’Abbs, 2011). But it was the racially biased and discriminatory practices that led academics to argue that these policies were paternalistic (Altman & Hinkson, 2007; Watson, 2011).

2009b; P. Sullivan, 2011). The strategy does not articulate how the government intends to reduce Indigenous incarceration rates, reduce the transgenerational impact of family violence and trauma, or prevent Indigenous youth’s interaction with the criminal justice system.

The Australian Government adopts a narrow reading of the concept of community safety and meanwhile does not engage with the need to develop partnerships with Indigenous communities and act upon their self-identified needs. Released in November 2009, National Indigenous Reform Agreement outlines that safer communities are those where:

Indigenous people (men, women and children) need to be safe from violence, abuse and neglect. Fulfilling this need involves improving family and community safety through law and justice responses (including accessible and effective policing and an accessible justice system), victim support (including safe houses and counselling), child protection and also preventative approaches. Addressing related factors such as alcohol and substance abuse will be critical to improving community safety, along with improved health benefits to be obtained. (COAG, 2009b)

Since the NTER, Indigenous community safety strategies have continued to focus on four areas of intervention: reducing alcohol and substance misuse, reducing FDV, increasing police presence, and improving the criminal justice responses to these issues. While interventions in these areas are welcomed by many Indigenous academics and spokespeople (Cripps & McGlade, 2008; Langton, 2008; Lloyd, 2014), many argue that tackling these issues without consideration for the broader historical, social and economic issues will not address the underlying problems90 (Blagg, 2002; Cripps & McGlade, 2008; Memmott, et al., 2001).

Academics criticise the Closing the Gap Strategy because these targets91 are perceived to address ‘gaps’ which are constructed as deficiencies, inadequacies and deficits (Fforde,

90 _{As discussed in section 1.4.2, there are various theories that seek to explain the underlying problems that} contribute to the high rates of violence and crime in Australian Indigenous communities. This research does not claim to have solved this long-standing debate; however chapters five, six and seven propose the underlying neighbourhood problems and behaviours that contribute to harmful situations in Gunbalanya.

91 _{The ability to measure a policy’s effectiveness is critical for an evidence-based approach. This debate reflected} how the Closing the Gap Strategy attempted to create a simplified and memorable message that the public our engage with. Instead, the short-falls of this was the highly critical response by academics. AIHW’s report (2018c) shows the complexity of measuring the disparity in outcomes between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians where the report highlights the intergenerational problems (e.g. Indigenous incarceration, delinquency and child

Bamblett, Lovett, Gorringe & Fogarty, 2013); rather than drawing on an empowerment or capacity building approach that would inspire Indigenous-led development (Howard-Wagner 2012b; Hunt, 2010). Patrick Sullivan (2011) refers to this approach as the bureaucracy of “normalisation” because it aims to bring remote Aboriginal peoples’ living conditions to a standard comparable with mainstream Australia. The National Indigenous Reform Agreement states that Indigenous people living in remote areas have the right to: “standards of service and infrastructure that are broadly comparable with that of non-Indigenous communities of a similar size, location and need elsewhere” (COAG, 2009b, pp. A-23). As Sullivan (2011) identifies, Indigenous Australians are expected to aspire to the standardised and normalised development goals of mainstream Australia.

The unintended effect of not having a nationally coordinated approach on Indigenous community safety has meant that current strategies have been inconsistently applied within the Indigenous Affairs portfolio92. An example of this has been the varying approaches taken by the Australian Government to articulate its agenda in making progress on Indigenous community safety through the Prime Minister’s Closing the Gap Reports. These reports show a changing rhetoric that is potentially susceptible to current political attitudes. To briefly illustrate, former Prime Minister Tony Abbot, in the 2014 and 2015 Closing the Gap reports, defers the federal government’s responsibility for improving safety to state and territory governments. The 2014 Report states:

All Australians have the right to live in a community where the ordinary law of the land is observed. We will continue to support the efforts of Indigenous communities to tackle alcohol fuelled violence through alcohol regulations… (Commonwealth of Australia, 2014, p. 14) A year later in 2015, the Closing the Gap Report states:

abuse) are multifactorial and sometimes due to difficult to measure concepts (e.g. colonisation, loss of traditional lifestyle and social marginalisation).

92 _{Use of the term ‘community safety’ is actually inconsistent across federal government portfolios too. As an} example, the Third Action Plan of the National Plan to Reduce Violence against Women and their Children 2010– 22 outlines the federal government’s most recent attempt to tackle family violence and build safer communities. This approach identifies the need for community driven trauma-informed care, wrap-around services for victim support, placed-based and culturally informed services (Commonwealth of Australia, 2016). This plan recognises the complexity of family violence in all societies, not just Indigenous communities, and that violence needs to be addressed holistically with a culturally relevant approach that addresses the historical effects of colonialism (Commonwealth of Australia, 2016). This contrasts with the featured statements made in the Closing the Gap reports.

Responsibility for ensuring community safety primarily rests with the states and territories, and the Commonwealth is committed to working with them and holding them to account in making Indigenous communities safer… (Commonwealth of Australia, 2015, p. 25)

In comparison, the Closing the Gap Report in 2017, released under Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull, presents a radically contrasting picture. It recognises that there are many layers to “building safe and resilient communities, including adequate infrastructure and access to services” (Commonwealth of Australia, 2017a, p. 95). The report recognises that there are links between risk factors, such as overcrowded housing, substance misuse and violence and incarceration, which must be addressed, and solutions developed, in partnership with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities. Furthermore, there is a recognition that poor education outcomes and few employment opportunities contribute to Indigenous people being over-represented in the criminal justice system (Commonwealth of Australia, 2017a). To date, the Closing the Gap initiatives have used political rhetoric to justify their responses to these complex, ‘wicked’ problems93 _{in Indigenous policy rather than building tangible,}

evidence-informed responses to reducing crime, violence and delinquency.

Evidence from various government and non-government sources suggests that the broad range of community safety issues affecting remote Indigenous communities could be better explained with terms such as ‘neighbourhood problems’. This range of issues includes alcohol and substance misuse, housing instability and overcrowding, lack of employment and culturally appropriate education, gambling and card games, sorcery, and family violence amongst others (Putt, et al., 2011; Shaw & D’Abbs, 2011; Willis, 2010). The relationship between neighbourhood problems and community safety is analysed in chapter five.

4.3.2

Programs that aim to improve interpersonal safety

In a practical sense, Indigenous community safety policies have taken shape in a range of different programs and funding initiatives, but they have not clearly and consistently been formulated in a strategic framework. These policies have been implemented by, for example, funding Aboriginal patrols, alcohol management programs, permanent police stations and

93 _{See Head (2008) and Hunter (2007) for a discussion on ‘wicked problems’ in Indigenous affairs and Hunter} (2007) for a discussion on the complexity of community safety issues as a ‘wicked problem’, specifically in relation to the NTER.

CEPO, and Aboriginal legal aid services, amongst others.94 _{Community safety has also been}

used by the federal government to justify programs that have no clear link between program objectives and either reducing violence and crime or improving safety. As discussed below, the various approaches to income management and conditional welfare have been justified on the basis that they will reduce alcohol-related violence and other unsafe behaviours (Hunt, 2017; Klein, 2016; Puszka, Greatorex & Williams, 2013), even though the evidence supporting this claim is questionable (Hunt, 2017).

Welfare conditionality and policing are examples of government strategies whose effects continue to marginalise and fragment Aboriginal people’s livelihoods. As explored later, welfare conditionality and culturally inappropriate policing often have disabling effects that increase social disorganisation including poor community functioning. In Gunbalanya, a punitive approach to welfare increases poverty, Aboriginal people’s reliance on welfare supports and increases harmful behaviour such as theft and gambling (refer to section 6.3). Similarly, police officers’ mistrust in Aboriginal people and police inaction to violent events further enable social disorganisation. Without operational police being out in the community and focusing on liaison, engagement and collaboration with Aboriginal community members, then policing will continue to fragment Aboriginal leadership and locally driven solutions (refer to section 8.4).

4.3.2.1 Welfare conditionality and income management

Income Management was originally introduced in Australia as part of the NTER in 2007, under the Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Welfare Payment Reform) Act 2007

(Cth). Income Management was accompanied by numerous other racially targeted interventions which were questionably justified on the basis that Aboriginal people are incapable of spending welfare money responsibly, and therefore required state supervision (Partridge, 2013; Watson, 2011). Quarantining Aboriginal peoples’ welfare payments was compulsory for all welfare recipients who lived in prescribed areas whether they had children or not (Altman, 2007; Klein, 2016). The logic behind state quarantined funds was that there would be less cash available in communities to spend on undesirable consumptions, such as liquor, pornography and gambling, and this would lead to a decrease in violence and crime. By

94 _{For evidence of the unclear and inconsistent approaches, refer to the various Closing the Gap reports} (Commonwealth of Australia, 2012, 2014, 2015, 2017a), media releases (Minister for Indigenous Affairs, 2008, 2011, 2013), and government reports (Arbib et al., 2010; Commonwealth of Australia, 2008).

restricting the purchase of these items, individuals would be encouraged to make ‘responsible’ financial decisions (Altman, 2007; Klein, 2016). This was irrespective of the fact that engaging in these recreational pursuits is not illegal in the Northern Territory (Mendes, 2013).

Since their introduction during the NTER, income management policies have taken on a number of reforms. In 2008, income management became New Income Management, under the Stronger Futures legislation, with the next phase of the policy being the Cashless Debit Card (Klein, 2016).95 New Income Management overall broadened the population being affected by the policy to non-Indigenous people as well, although Indigenous people were predominantly affected with an inclusion rate of over 90 per cent (Bray, 2016). Through the Cashless Debit Card, the trials involved the quarantining of 80 per cent of state welfare for all adult recipients in Ceduna, Wyndham and Kununurra (Hunt, 2017). The government’s administration of income management allows greater control over the conditions in which welfare is spent.

Different forms of state paternalism are used in contemporary Indigenous policy to incentivise ‘responsible’ behaviour by linking welfare payments with school attendance and work-for-the-dole schemes. These forms of welfare conditionality borrow some of their ideas from behavioural economics or ‘nudge’ theories96 _{that seek to predict and mould human}

behaviour towards economic efficiency (Klein, 2016). These programs extend the neoliberal rationalities of what constitutes rational economic behaviour by incentivising individuals’ behaviours, and are examples of what Garland (1996, 1997) refers to as the “responsibilization strategy”. The School Enrolment and Attendance Measures attempt to foster parental ‘responsibility’ for their children’s school attendance by leveraging behavioural reform (D. R. Taylor, et al., 2016). Similarly, welfare recipients’ receipt of unemployment benefits through the Community Development Program (CDP), and other similar versions of this policy, have become tied to the participants’ attendance at work-like activities. Mutual obligation agreements require the recipient to attend work-like activities, otherwise a significant portion of the recipient’s welfare benefits are suspended (Jordan & Fowkes, 2016).

95 _{New Income Management included a voluntary component where recipients could self-nominate for the} program. Klein (2016) provides a comprehensive review of the differences between the various approaches to income management used by the Australian Government.

96 _{Refer to Halpern (2015) and Whitehead, Jones, Pykett and Welsh (2012) for a comprehensive review of ‘nudge’} theory in behavioural economics.

4.3.2.2 Policing remote Northern Territory communities

Increasing the permanent police presence and community-oriented policing in remote Northern Territory communities was a core element of the Closing the Gap strategy’s community safety objectives. The Report on Government Services (Commonwealth of Australia, 2018b, p. 6.24) states that the recurrent expenditure on police services across Australia was $459 per person in 2015–16, with an average annual increase of 2.4 per cent from 2008–09; in comparison, the Northern Territory’s police service expenditure per person was nearly triple the national average, at approx. $1,250. The Report also finds that police integrity and efficiency in the Northern Territory was rated comparable with the national average; and in the Territory, the number of operational police staff per 100,000 population was approximately double the national average, as well as in comparison to all other states and territories (Commonwealth of Australia, 2018b). These figures suggest that increasing the numbers of police are not the only solution to improving community safety as over-policing is a serious concern; however, police administration needs to consider the ways in which police engage with remote Aboriginal people with a community-oriented way of preventing crime and harmful behaviour.

Pilkington (2009) highlights that a culturally appropriate and respectful manner of policing remote Aboriginal communities would incorporate practical aspects of Aboriginal dispute resolution mechanisms, effective communication with elders to resolve problems, recognising that Aboriginal people have different understandings of violence and retribution that need addressing, and respecting Aboriginal people’s ownership of property. These are a few of the many ways that a culturally respectful manner of policing needs to be incorporated into the Northern Territory justice system in order to promote justice diversion and reduce the focus on incarceration, infringements and punishment. As explored in chapter eight, the contemporary approach to punitive policing often creates greater harm and little rehabilitation. As part of the Closing the Gap framework, a trial of sworn CEPOs in eight remote Aboriginal communities was funded by the federal government (J. Young, Putt, Dunnett, Spicer & Marshall, 2013). The CEPO program aims to promote crime prevention and community engagement through active collaboration with service providers and community members. Initiatives of this program include promoting awareness about social harms including dangerous driving, alcohol and substance misuse and gambling amongst others (NTG, 2018). This is accompanied by each CEPO staff promoting positive relationships with

youth and other community members by being a positive role model and mentor, and by