Howard Brough Intervention - PHM Analysis

Revision as of 11:26, 12 August 2007

This page is under development.

Analysis: The politics of the intervention

We generally think that the Howard Brough Intervention is a cynical attempt to gain electoral advantage, this being the first driver of the intervention. Why do we think this? How does it work? Have we looked fairly enough at the logic of the Intervention?

A second driver is the opposition of the incumbent government to any Indigenous (in particular land) rights or other expression of self-determination or sovereignty which might present barriers to economic ‘development’ on Aboriginal land (including mining, farming, tourism and nuclear waste dumping). In this sense the Invasion is part of the on-going Colonial Project.

A third driver appears to be a general ideological distaste for the collectivist traditions of community ownership and a belief in the bourgeois virtues of home ownership, nuclear families and the disciplinary role of social security. In this degree, the Invasion reflects a return to assimilationism.

The face value argument in support of the Intervention

Evaluating the Intervention at face value, there are inconsistencies and illogicalities:

First, why now? It is disingenuous to suggest that the Commonwealth has only now become aware of the problems of family violence and child sexual abuse;

Second, it flies in the face of the existing focus on Family Violence in the current national Aboriginal health policy framing document and the principles that support it such as Aboriginal community control;

Third, the underfunding by the Commonwealth (in particular housing and infrastructure) is part of the problem. Why not respond with a massive injection of funds into housing as was identified as necessary in the 1987 NAHS. (See the Housing for Health data which gives the lie to the view that poor housing stock is due to vandalism.)

Fourth, why no consultation? The lack of consultation with communities and with the States/Territories suggests hasty (and very limited) planning and a political coup mentality. There has certainly been no attempt to negotiate a shared approach.

Fifth, the whole package appears to lack a coherent program logic? Many of the elements of the intervention have no rationale, for example:

o the link between child health examinations and child sexual abuse (is it a forensic examination or not; if not, what is the logic, how does it link to sexual abuse and what are the arrangements for follow up if this program is to be only in place for six months?

o existing clinics are already doing child health checks; what will these checks add to this process? has there been any attempt to demonstrate inadequate coverage?

o overriding land rights legislation; how does this impact on either alcohol use or child sexual abuse?

o overriding the permit system; how does this impact on alcohol abuse or child sexual abuse?

o lack of experience and expertise of many of the personnel now being used;

o short term nature of intervention with no plans for follow up;

o arrogant dismissal of the advice of the Wild & Anderson report.

Distinguishing between the HB Line and the Pearson Line

Since Vanstone the Coalition has been arguing against the viability of remote settlements (notwithstanding the achievements of the outstations movement including better health and social capital outcomes, (see Rowley, K et al 2000 Diabetes Care, 23, pp 898 – 904; McDermott, R. et al 1998 ANZJPH, 22, pp 653 – 658 and Morphy CAEPR paper Dec 2005)) and has been arguing for bringing Aboriginal populations into to the regional centres and cities. Whether the health and well-being of people so moved would improve is highly debatable. Since Vanstone the Coalition has denounced welfare dependency, most famously in the pools for schools farce and the discourse of mutual obligation.

Clearly the Coalition has gained some support from Noel Pearson’s critique of passive welfare and equally clearly he is willing to work closely with the Coalition. However, there are some important differences.

Pearson is trying to find ways of bridging continuing contact with traditional lands plus engagement in the mainstream economy. It is not clear that the Coalition has any interest in this bridging element of the Pearson line.

Pearson sees welfare dependency as a problem which must be recognised by the communities affected. He is seeking to encourage community leadership to speak about the problems and to find ways to overcome them. The very top down nature of the HB Invasion suggests that this element of the Pearson line does not carry much weight with the Coalition.

Recognising handouts and ‘welfare’ as part of the colonial process

Whatever the merits and possibilities of CDEP and related programs it is an historical fact that handouts were historically an important part of the dispossession process in many parts of Australia. In due course welfare payments plus forced aggregations continued this dynamic. Welfare, in this perspective, was part of clearing the land for colonial development.

This recognition points towards two possible pathways for addressing the problems of welfare dependency: the first might be something about building bridges towards greater participation in the mainstream economy (while honouring Indigenous identity and community and links with Land); the second might be an ahistorical victim-blaming onslaught, casting Aboriginal people as morally deficient and needing the individualist bourgeois disciplines of the market (the mutual obligation discourse).

Again, it is important to distinguish the Pearson Line from the Coalition Line on this. The Coalition is still engaged in the colonial project of continued dispossession and now the welfare dependency (moral deficit) argument is being used in support of this project.

Negative consequences of discourses of deficit

The Coalition has continued to promote discourses of deficit in relation to welfare, parenting, alcohol and drugs and child sexual abuse. These are likely to be very damaging with in terms of self-image and in terms of the understanding and support of non-Indigenous Australians.

They could be very counter-productive in terms of the self-image of men who are now all being painted with a broad brush as potential child molesters. This kind of ideological abuse can damage self-esteem and lead to anger and perhaps in some cases create further negative outcomes.

Racism has historically been an ideological pre-condition for the colonial project. Casting Aboriginal people as sub-human was a necessary part of the violence, segregation and taking away of the children in earlier years. Racism is about widely prevailing stereotypes. Negative racist stereotypes are now being created which will feed further into racism.

The personal experience of racism has been a major barrier for Aboriginal people to participate freely in the mainstream economy whilst still maintaining a strong indigneous identity. One vision of a harmonious multi racial society depicts Aboriginal people maintaining a strong indigenous identity while participating equally and freely in the mainstream economy / society. Racist attitudes and stigmatisation are a barrier to such participation. The discourses of the present Invasion are actively building racist stereotypes.

What does this electoral ploy tell us about Howard’s reading of the swinging voter?

We are convinced, by the precipitous, unplanned, top down, incoherent nature of the Howard Intervention (and his past form in terms of the Tampa crisis and the stigmatisation of refugees), that a major driver behind the Intervention is the expectation that there may be votes to be won for the Coalition in marginal electorates.

How? What is the assumed logic of such an expectation?

One hypothesis might start with a recognition of the insecurities of middle Australia (about employment, education of kids, mortgage, pension, etc). There is a longstanding xenophobic tendency in Australian culture, a readiness to see threats where there is difference; to project our fears onto the different other. This has been most notably expressed in the White Australia policy but also in the treatment of refugees in the last decade. The threat of the Other is then enough to justify inhuman treatment; to accept inhuman treatment we need to dehumanise the Other. The political use of such discourses involves projecting our insecurities onto the Other; creating an Other whom we can denounce and demean and in doing so we can feel better about ourselves; feel more secure in our familiar settings (despite the continuing reality of our insecurity - unemployment, mortgage, pension, education).

This Othering is also an objectifying process where the Other is an object presented as having particular characteristics. Such objectification stands as an increasing barrier to any kind of empathy or deep listening or finding out how the Other feels and experiences life.

There are problems of violence in some Aboriginal communities

The problems of violence (including sexual abuse) have been well known for many years. However, there has been some ambivalence about acknowledging this among some Aboriginal leaders and non-Indigenous solidarity activists.

There has been a concern that acknowledging these problems explicitly might add to the stigma that Aboriginal people carry and retard Aboriginal advancement. There has also been division within the Aboriginal politic over this which has been in some degree a gendered division. Certainly there has been caution among men about explicitly acknowledging the problems. The tensions at Derbarl Yerrigan Health Service several years ago are an example. This caution has commonly been expressed in terms of the risk of further stigmatisation of Aboriginal men further lowering self-esteem with an attendant risk of it expressing itself in alcohol and anger.

It has also been argued, from time to time, that family violence and child sexual abuse are equally problems in the mainstream society which is clearly true. However, prevalence rates may vary and the specific dynamics may also vary.

The reluctance and caution about explicitly acknowledging and discussing the problems have had two broad consequnces: firstly the problem has continued and secondly the development and implementation of comprehensive strategies (programs, campaigns, services, etc) has been delayed.

In some respects the lack of a consensus within the Aboriginal politic over strategies has also delayed action

There are a lot of questions about strategy where confidence and consensus across the Aboriginal politic has yet to emerge clearly.

This uncertainty leads to a certain hesitance across the Aboriginal solidarity movement amongst non-indigenous Australians.

Response of Aboriginal politic to the Intervention was initially surprisingly muted

The early response of many Aboriginal leaders has been surprisingly measured. A lot of criticism certainly and some outrage but in fact some support also and in many cases a measured assessment.

It appears that many Aboriginal leaders are recognising that perhaps some benefit can come out of the Howard Intervention despite the cynicism, neo-colonialism and racism with which it is associated. One possible benefit is that the issue has been forced into the open and that as a consequence there may be a firmer approach within Aboriginal communities to confront the issues.

It may also be that some of the resources which have been mobilised to support the intervention can be diverted to constructive uses.

Broader context of sexual assault

It is worth keeping in mind that sexual violence is a deeply ingrained problem in 'mainstream' Australian society and still largely a taboo subject. Hesitation to name and address this subect is hardly surprising from a group who is already the subject of racism and negative portrayal in the media. There aren't many communities of any type anywhere standing up to say "we have this problem and we're going to act on it".

It is only over the last 30 years or so that the women’s movement has forced sexual assault onto the policy agenda within mainstream society and there is clearly a long way to go.

Back to Howard Brough Intervention in Aboriginal Communities