The analysis of the Coalition Government's approach to the NTI illustrated the important role of colonialist ideas about the failure of Aboriginal culture and the dysfunction of Aboriginal communities in developing justifications for highly interventionist policy. An analysis of the Labor Government's approach, in contrast, demonstrates that colonialist governance does not always rely on an explicitly negative conception of Aboriginal culture and can be accompanied by a sincere commitment to human rights. Some critics have pointed to Labor politicians' statements about a commitment to human rights as a form of hypocrisy. However, I suggest that it would be better to understand this commitment as a source of tension in Labor political discourse since the commitment to rights—including Aboriginal people's rights to autonomy and self-determination—is positioned by Labor parliamentarians as incompatible with a commitment to the safety of Aboriginal children.
In spite of the policy similarities between the Coalition and Labor governments, the Labor Government sought to differentiate its approach from that of the Coalition Government and to develop a more principled position on the NTI. As discussed in the previous chapter, the Labor party's contributions to the initial parliamentary debate on the NTER legislation, for instance, frequently involved criticism of the Coalition Government's decision to suspend the Racial Discrimination Act as well as concern about the changes to the CDEP and permit system and concern for the non-consultative development of the NTI policy. Once in government, the Labor party professed a commitment to 'resetting' the relationship with Indigenous people.204 This commitment
acknowledged that the NTI had damaged this relationship and involved a commitment to greater consultation with Aboriginal people in the future and a commitment to reinstate the Racial Discrimination Act as part of the NTER legislation.205
The political language of the Labor Government was different from that of the Coalition Government in two chief ways. First, it drew on a language of human rights which had been absent from the Coalition Government's rhetoric. In addition to the pledge to reinstate the RDA, the Labor Government made other symbolic pledges of its commitment to human rights in its government of Australia's Aboriginal people. For example, in April 2009 the government affirmed the statements made in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. In September 2007, Australia had voted against the adoption of the Declaration by the United Nations' General Assembly with the Coalition Government's ambassador Robert Hill explaining that the Declaration's commitment to Aboriginal self-determination impaired the 'territorial and political integrity of a State' and wasn't necessary where Aboriginal people possessed the civil and political rights inherent to a 'system of democratic, representative
Government'.206 By affirming the UN Declaration the Labor Government was distancing
204 For example, see: Macklin, "Compulsory Income Management to Continue as Key NTER Measure.."
205 Ibid.
206 Australian Permanent Mission to the United Nations, "Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, General Assembly, 13 September 2007. Explanation of Vote by the Hon. Robert Hill Ambassador and Permanent Representative of Australia to the United Nations," http://www.australiaun.org/unny/GA%5f070913.html.
itself from this position and agreeing to abide by the articles of the Declaration. These articles included the statement that Indigenous people should have full enjoyment of human rights, including the right to exercise these as a collective, and that Indigenous people have a right not to be subjected to 'forced assimilation or destruction of their culture'. The Labor Government's statement affirmed that Indigenous people 'should be free to live their lives free from prejudice and harmful discrimination', recognised the 'right of Indigenous Australians to practise, revitalise and sustain their cultural, religious and spiritual traditions and customs' and argued that the government and Aboriginal people would be 'partners' in the Closing the Gap policy of which the NTI became a part.207
This human rights language was also present in the discussion of policy for the future direction of the Northern Territory Intervention. The Labor Government frequently acknowledged the importance of Aboriginal participation and the necessity of consulting with Aboriginal people in the further development of the policy and also recognised that the policy could not be successful if it continued to be discriminatory. In their joint November 2009 media release, for example, Minister Macklin and Warren Snowden, MP, outlined the government's long term plan for strengthening the Northern Territory Emergency Response. They argued that,
...the Australian government will continue to take firm action to close the gap in the NT...To achieve this, we will continue to work in partnership with Indigenous
Australians recognising that they are essential to develop effective solutions and drive change on the ground. Moving the NTER to a sustainable development phase can not be achieved while the suspension of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (RDA)
continues.208
The necessity of consultation with Aboriginal people was also acknowledged by Prime Minister Rudd who spoke of the necessity of 'extensive consultations' with Aboriginal people as part of future policy development and who announced that a new Aboriginal 207 Jenny Macklin, "Statement on the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, 3rd April 2009,"
http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/unpfii/documents/Australia_official_statement_endorsem ent_UNDRIP.pdf.
representative body would be formed.209
The second way in which the approach of the Labor Government differed from that of the Coalition Government was in its lesser focus on the failure of Aboriginal culture and communities. The failure of Aboriginal communities and cultures was a consistent theme in the political discourse of the Coalition Government but these ideas are much less prevalent in Labor Government speeches and documents. Where such rhetoric was employed it was often balanced to some degree by more positive statements about the value of Aboriginal culture to contemporary Australia. For example Prime Minister Rudd refers in one speech to the 'manifest failures on the part of individuals and
communities' and to the 'dysfunctional culture of violence and neglect that blights some communities' but in the same speech praises 'the depth and breadth of Aboriginal creativity and culture' and commits to the objective of building a 'bridge of respect between Indigenous and other Australians'.210 Minister Macklin was habitually
restrained in her language. Where speaking of the problems in Aboriginal communities she referred to Aboriginal 'disadvantage' and described the issues facing Aboriginal communities in the Northern Territory as 'challenging and confronting'.211 Typically she
focused, however, upon the goals of government policy including the 'future viability and sustainability of remote communities' and the fostering of 'greater personal and community responsibility' through an emphasis on 'community development and engagement'. While this discussion of personal responsibility, for example, might be seen to imply that Aboriginal people routinely ignored their responsibilities the overall tone of Labor Government speeches was, nonetheless, considerably less censorious than that of the Coalition Government.
The language of the Labor Government was therefore appreciably different from that of the Coalition Government. However, as several commentators on the NTI have noted the Labor Government's language and policy often appeared contradictory. Altman, for instance, argued that while the Labor party adopted a more 'benign tone' than the 209 Rudd, "Closing the Gap Report."
210 Ibid.
previous government—and here he is referring to the shift from an Emergency Response to the Closing the Gap in the Northern Territory policy—the government's rhetoric had 'not been matched by action on the ground'. 212 As I outlined in Chapter
Two, the Labor Government actually maintained and strengthened the Coalition Government's original vision for the Intervention as outlined in Prime Minister Howard's 2007 press conference. For example, the Labor Government's long-term strategy for the NTER embedded the Intervention in the nation wide Closing the Gap
strategy for Indigenous Affairs and maintained most of the central components of the original emergency policy including federal government leases over Aboriginal townships, ministerial oversight of community governance and use of community resources, and the income management regime.213 These are the NTI measures that have
been subject to the most criticism from a human rights perspective for impairing Aboriginal people's enjoyment of collective self-determination; individual autonomy; privacy; land tenure and property; and cultural integrity.214
In these circumstances, several critics have suggested that the change in political rhetoric was either disingenuous or without real value. George Newhouse and Daniel Ghezelbash, for instance, described the Labor Government's position as a 'public
relations exercise' and speculated that the United Nations committee, to which an appeal had been made, would be unlikely to see the NTER as a 'genuine attempt to
substantively improve the wellbeing of the affected communities'.215 Mary O'Dowd
argued that the Rudd Government had 'continued to replicate...the injustices of the past' and that they therefore 'retract their own attempts at justice'.216 These analyses question
212 Jon Altman, "Budget Status Quo Will Just Widen the Gaps," Crikey,
http://www.crikey.com.au/2009/05/14/budget-status-quo-will-just-widen-the-gaps/. 213 Department of Families, "Policy Statement: Landmark Reform to the Welfare System, Reinstatement of the Racial Discrimination Act, and Strengthening of the Northern Territory Emergency Response ".
214 See for example: Anaya, "The Situation of Indigenous Peoples in Australia," 45-49. 215 Newhouse and Ghezelbash, "Calling the Northern Territory Intervention Laws to Account," 59.
216 Mary O'Dowd, "Place, Identity and Nationhood: The Northern Territory Intervention as the Final Act of a Dying Nation," Continuum: Journal of Media & Cultural Studies 23, no. 6 (2009): 812.
the sincerity of Labor politicians' commitment to human rights and to the welfare of Aboriginal people. However, it is more accurate to characterise the situation as one in which Labor parliamentarians' narrowly defined concept of community development led them to adopt many of the NTER policy measures as a method for accomplishing long- term Aboriginal welfare and meeting the government's human rights commitments. I discuss this political mindset in the remainder of this section.
Important components of this political mindset include a very particular notion of community development and an absolute confidence in the government's right to define development goals for Aboriginal communities. Earlier in this chapter I argued that the Coalition government was committed to a conception of equality as 'sameness' and involved a process of bringing Aboriginal people up to a mainstream standard and way of living. The Labor government's descriptions of its goals for NTI policy demonstrate a narrow conception of community development. This is illustrated in the following statement from Minister Macklin in 2009:
Our benchmark will be to progressively deliver in communities or townships the facilities and services you would expect in an Australian town of the same size. The same infrastructure and services that support and sustain healthy social norms so people can reach their potential and businesses can thrive. So children grown up safe and healthy and go to school; where they have the best role model possible – a parent who goes to work each day. So children see their parents taking responsibility for the family's economic security and planning and providing for the future. As well as financial independence, a job gives purpose and meaning to people's lives.217
While many Aboriginal people have expressed a desire for improved services and facilities and the development of better economic opportunities this type of statement suggests that the future of Aboriginal Australia is in all important respects identical to that of non-Aboriginal Australians.
The government's certainty about its chosen path of development for Aboriginal
217 Jenny Macklin, "Speech. Importance of Delivering Remote Indigenous Housing in an Efficient and Affordable Way - Delivering Indigenous Housing. 15 September 2009," http://www.jennymacklin.fahcsia.gov.au/speeches/2009/Pages/speech_indig_19aug09.a spx.
communities produced an awkward tension between the government's commitment to resetting its relationship with Aboriginal people and its pledge to improve the welfare and safety of Aboriginal children. By understanding development in such narrow terms, and by encompassing the measures of the NTI into this definition of policy progress, the government has created a situation where there appears to be a potential trade off
between Aboriginal political involvement and policy success. It is a 'potential' trade off because there is always the possibility that Aboriginal people, if consulted, might decide to subscribe to the government's conception of development. Indeed, attempts to
encourage Aboriginal people to support the government policy are common under the Labor Government as illustrated by Prime Minister Julia Gillard's 'call for changes in behaviour' which urges Aboriginal people to support the Closing the Gap policy and to 'take care of your children; to take a job when you find one; to create a safe
environment; to send your kids to school, pay your rent, save up for a home; to respect good social norms and to respect the law; and to reach out to other Australians'.218 The
most noticeable thing about Gillard's statement, apart from the fact that it clearly subscribes to the notion of development which I outlined above, is that it directly addresses Aboriginal people. This contrasts with much of the discourse of the Coalition Government which only spoke about Aboriginal people rather than to them.
Having said this, the Labor Government has shown much less interest in hearing from
Aboriginal people. While the Labor Government did initiate the development of a new national body for Aboriginal representation its record as regards consultations on the NTI policy was very poor. Consultation occurred but the terms of that consultation were strictly defined by government. One government press release summarised the
government's position as they initiated the consultation process:
The Government is strongly committed to compulsory income management as a tool to reduce alcohol-related violence, protect children, guard against humbugging and
promote personal responsibility...We will be developing the most robust system possible to protect women and children. We will not adopt a policy which compromises the
218 Patricia Karvelas, "'Gap Won't Close If You Don't Act': Julia Gillard," The Australian, http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/gap-wont-close-if-you- dont-act-julia-gillard/story-fn59niix-1226003313411.
benefits and protections for vulnerable people in communities secured through the current income management arrangements. The Government will consult with Indigenous communities in the development of this framework.219
The government was therefore committed to consultation but only on limited terms, and key aspects of its strategy for Aboriginal development were kept off the consultation agenda.
I would characterise the Labor parliamentarians' mixed feelings about consultation as the clearest example of a broader tension, in Labor party thought, between a
commitment to improve child welfare, on the one hand, and a commitment to the human rights of Aboriginal people on the other. These mixed feeling are demonstrated in a speech by the Prime Minister Kevin Rudd in February of 2009. In this speech Rudd emphasises his commitment to consultation but then qualifies his statement by arguing that this commitment would not prevent the government from '…moving quickly, when necessary, to protect vulnerable people'.220 It is possible that Rudd was suggesting that a
government can both consult and move quickly on important policy issues. However, I suggest that the statement is actually indicative of a view of consultation as a luxury rather than a necessary tool for policy development. I suspect that this qualified support for consultation has helped the Labor Government to dismiss many of the concerns expressed by communities and other actors in Indigenous Affairs policy. This new tension between Aboriginal rights, including consultation over changes in government policy, and effective government is indicative of a broader shift in Indigenous Affairs rhetoric, and I discuss this shift further in Chapter Five.
To conclude, overall there were a number of differences between the political discourse of the Coalition and Labor governments. The political rhetoric of the Labor Government was much more attuned to a discourse of human rights and political consultation than that of the Coalition Government. The Coalition Government had drawn upon a highly
219 Macklin, "Compulsory Income Management to Continue as Key NTER
Measure.."Humbugging is the practice of demanding money from friends and family members and often involves violence or other forms of intimidation.
derogatory discourse about Aboriginal community and cultural failure to justify the introduction of the highly interventionist Northern Territory Intervention. In contrast, the Labor party professed itself committed to the resetting the government's relationship with Aboriginal people, to consulting with Aboriginal people about the future direction of the NTI and respecting human rights by reinstating the Racial Discrimination Act. However the Labor Government maintained many of the original features of the NTI including those features which contradicted their claimed commitment to human rights. Some commentators on the NTI see this as evidence that the Labor Government's commitment to human rights was disingenuous. Here I have offered an alternative explanation. This suggests that the Labor Government's narrow conception of
development – as the progression of Aboriginal communities from non-viable societies to viable market-based societies – led to the development of a belief among Labor parliamentarians that a trade off may exist between their commitment to human rights and their commitment to Aboriginal development and welfare. The Labor Government therefore perceived itself as supporting the human rights and welfare of Aboriginal people while it perpetuated both the discriminatory elements of the Intervention and the Coalition Government's exclusion of Aboriginal people from the processes of
government.