2007: Delivering on the promise of the 1967 referendum for Indigenous Australians
Hyllus Maris Annual Memorial Lecture
La Trobe University
Speech by Mr Tom Calma
Aboriginal and
Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner
National Race
Discrimination Commissioner
Human Rights and Equal Opportunity
Commission
21 August 2007
Good evening distinguished guests, my Indigenous brothers and sisters
and non Indigenous friends.
May I begin by acknowledging the Wurrundjeri
People of the Kulin Nation on whose land we are meeting on tonight, and thank
the dancers for cultural expression and your welcome to country.
Thank
you also to the Vice Chancellor, Professor Paul Johnson for your introduction,
and to La Trobe University for inviting me to present this year’s Hyllus
Maris Memorial Lecture.
May I also acknowledge Ms Lois Peeler and the
other family members of Hyllus Maris who are with us tonight.
I am very
proud to be invited to join a host of distinguished Indigenous speakers who have
honoured the memory and life’s achievements of Hyllus Maris in past years.
Inspirational women like Jacquie Katona, Lowitja O’Donohue and
Jackie Huggins are a hard act to follow, but each of them in turn has drawn
strength from the leadership, wisdom and insight of Hyllus Maris – as I do
tonight.
I want to share with you the words of Hyllus Maris when she
was reflecting on the influence her mother brought to bear on her life. In
Hyllus’ words, her mother used to tell her:
“You’ve gotta be proud of being Aboriginal. ...You’ve gotta stand up and fight” – that’s what she said.
It didn’t mean to stand up and fight physically, but to take hold of
things and not let anyone really get you down, regardless of who they
were.[1]
I think those words
resonate for a lot of Aboriginal people. Many of us would recall our mothers
and fathers telling us similar things as kids.
But given the turmoil
and distress in Indigenous affairs, particularly in the Northern Territory at
the moment, those words have particular currency for all Australians –
black and white.
Regardless of who we are or where we live – now is
the time to stand up and be counted – as I suspect Hyllus Maris would have
expected of us all.
There are several other outstanding Indigenous
women who deserve special mention tonight.
Events in the Northern
Territory have compelled them to step up to advocate for current and future
generations of Indigenous women and children, and to do so in a politically
charged – even hostile – environment. Their courage under fire
and their steadfast conviction that social justice can and must prevail in
Indigenous communities across Australia, does the memory of Hyllus Maris proud.
I won’t name names, because they are women who do not seek out the
spotlight, or need personal accolades. They know who they are, as I suspect
most of us here tonight do as well.
I want this lecture to be a tribute
to them, as much as it is an occasion to honour and reflect on the incredibly
rich legacy of Hyllus Maris.
The 1967 referendum
campaign
When you look back on Australia’s history in the way
that Hyllus Maris did when she wrote the epic screenplay for Women of the
Sun, there is no shortage of strong black women.
Take the campaign
for the 1967 referendum for example. Not to down-play the contribution of
non-Indigenous women like Jessie Street and Faith Bandler, but where would that
campaign have been without the likes of Oodgeroo Noonuccal (Kath Walker) and
Dulcie Flower and their many sisters across Australia. Not only were they the
public face of the campaign – they were the driving force behind the
thousands of petitions and letters to parliamentarians that forced the wheels of
change to begin turning.
It’s important to take note of these
milestones in our nation’s history.
It’s also important to
reflect on the past and challenge popular mythology that sometimes grows up
around events like the ’67 referendum.
Immediately after the
referendum, Oodgeroo Noonuccal wrote to thank and congratulate the then Prime
Minister, Harold Holt, for ‘a job well done on the referendum’. In
that letter, she commented that the vote showed that ‘the people of
Australia also favour a better deal for Aborigines’ and that she was
looking forward to ‘further enlightened policy especially around
education, housing, employment and health, in the near
future’.[2]
But why have
we had to wait 40 years before this dividend of the referendum even starts to
take shape?
As many of you may be aware, it was only last year that a
coalition of health, human rights and social justice NGOs formed to progress the
recommendation I made in my 2005 Social Justice Report that all
Australian governments should commit to achieving health equality between
Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians within 25 years.
The
groundswell of support for the campaign and its growing momentum show that many
Australians believe it is an achievable and indeed an essential goal for
Australia in 2007. One of the offshoots of this groundswell is the Oxfam
“close the gap” campaign that you can see displayed on posters
throughout major airports.
The government’s intervention in the NT
has forced a lot of people to go back to the Constitution, and to think hard
about what the change to section 51(xxvi) – the so-called races power
– has really delivered for Indigenous Australians.
Even though
the objective of the 1967 referendum was to remove discriminatory references to
Aboriginal people from the Constitution and to allow the Commonwealth to take
over responsibility for our welfare – arguably it didn’t do justice
to either.
Instead the referendum put in place the legal ambiguity
about whether federal or state governments are ultimately responsible for
providing Indigenous Australians with adequate housing, quality education for
our kids, and access to primary healthcare. This has allowed decades of
buck-passing between the various levels of government, and the only ones to
loose out here have been Indigenous Australians. The legacy we carry is the
17-year life expectancy gap as compared to non-Indigenous
Australians.
According to Constitutional law experts like Professor
George Williams, the referendum also left Australia with the dubious distinction
of being perhaps the only country in the world whose Constitution contains a
‘races power’ that allows the Parliament to enact racially
discriminatory laws.[3] In other
words, in 1967 we missed the opportunity to insert a non-discrimination clause
into the Constitution, or to at least ensure that any laws made for Aboriginal
people would have to be for our benefit and not to our detriment.
On two separate occasions the federal government has introduced laws
that are discriminatory in their impact. The first was to amend heritage
protection laws to prevent them from applying to one group of Indigenous people
in relation to the building of the Hindmarsh Island bridge in
1998.[4] The second followed later
that year after the Wik decision, when the Native Title Act was
amended to incorporate Howard’s Ten Point Plan and confirm extinguish of
native title in certain instances. The principle of Parliamentary sovereignty
means that these two sets of discriminatory amendments prevail over existing
laws, such as the Racial Discrimination Act, which dates back to
1975.
This sorry state of affairs highlights another shortcoming of the
Constitution – namely the fact that it is virtually silent on human
rights. We are distinguished as the only developed Western nation that does not
have a Bill of Rights or any other sort of overarching mechanism to provide this
kind of clarity to our law makers or our
judges.[5]
Instead we continue
to rely on the benevolence of the Parliament to protect the rights and interests
of Indigenous Australians. In the absence of a treaty, a Bill of Rights or any
Constitutional recognition of the distinct status, laws and cultures of
Australia’s First Peoples, we invest in our politicians, and our Ministers
in particular, sweeping powers.
HREOC is concerned that our Parliament
may have added a third example to this list of discriminatory enactments as a
result of the passage last week of the 500 pages of emergency measures
legislation for the NT.
The NT Emergency Measures – the RDA is
a critical safeguard
I want to stress that HREOC has strongly and
publicly supported the aims of the NT legislation, namely to improve the
well-being of Indigenous people in the NT. However, we have also emphasised
that the legislation and the action taken under it must seek to achieve its
objectives consistent with fundamental human rights, and in particular the right
to racial equality.
In other words, we advocate that the legislation
should not try to sidestep the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth)
(RDA).
The RDA was Australia’s first law to protect human rights
and remains a proud achievement for our nation. It implements Australia’s
international obligations under the Convention on the elimination of all
forms of racial discrimination.
As a signatory to the International Convention on the Rights of the Child, Australia has also agreed to act decisively to end violence against
Indigenous children and in so doing, to uphold Indigenous children’s right
to not be discriminated against on the basis of their race.
This is an
important legal obligation to bear in mind in the context of the NT intervention
– particularly in light of comments by the Minister and the Chairperson of
the Emergency Taskforce which suggest that in an emergency situation, some forms
of racial discrimination can be justified.
The reality is that all of
the international human rights instruments prohibit racial discrimination in all
situations – including emergencies.
When the President of HREOC and
I appeared before the one-day Senate Committee examining the NT emergency
legislation, we argued that because the legislation would impact significantly
– almost entirely – on Indigenous communities - it is inevitable
that there will be discriminatory effects.
The only way to make sure
that the legislation does not breach the RDA is if the government can show that
it is a ‘special measure’ – a type of affirmative action that
is necessary, and has the sole purpose of benefiting Indigenous
communities in the NT.
These are not easy legal tests to meet.
Part of the challenge is coming up with the cold, hard data that proves the benefits outweigh any negative consequences.
The fact
that governments don’t have the baseline data about exactly what the
current circumstances in Indigenous communities are – gives you some idea
of the scale of the challenge that either the Howard or the Rudd government has
ahead of itself to prove their intervention is a ‘special
measure’.
Then there are the individual measures themselves –
and the host of un-intended negative consequences that they might have.
Even if only some of the adverse side-effects that have been raised are
borne out in the process of implementing the measures – the overall effect
could be detrimental to Indigenous communities.
Time doesn’t allow
me to go into any detail about HREOC’s concerns with the individual
measures of the government’s emergency response. They are outlined in our
submission to the Senate Inquiry, on HREOC’s website, if you are
interested.
However, to give you some idea of road that lies ahead, I
want to talk about how the measures are likely to impact on the Bawinanga
Aboriginal Corporation. It is an Indigenous owned and controlled corporation
that supports 32 outstations and some 800 Indigenous people in the Maningrida
region in west Arnhem Land.[6] Its 20
different business enterprises produce an annual turnover of $26 million –
hardly an example that supports Minister Brough’s criticism that all
collective ownership in Indigenous communities is a communist-style disaster
that should be abandoned in favour of individual ownership.
Not
surprisingly, Bawinanga is the biggest employer in Maningrida. Most of its 600
staff are CDEP participants – the community development and employment
program that is to be abolished by the NT emergency measures. The
government’s reasoning here is that CDEP has become a dead-end and people
are not progressing into ‘real jobs’ in the commercial labour
market. So it proposes to provide training and skills development so that
people will be more qualified for ‘real jobs.’
But even on
the government’s own figures, less than 2,000 of the estimated 8,000 CDEP
participants in the NT will get ‘real jobs’ – the rest will
end up on Work for the Dole, perhaps indefinitely cleaning up their communities.
When you couple this outcome with the installation of a government
business manager in each Indigenous community to take control of running all
Commonwealth funded programs and services, the real question is whether this
outcome will improve the well-being of Indigenous people, or further disempower
them.
We know from experts like the respected Indigenous psychiatrist,
Associate Professor Helen Milroy, that if the NT intervention results in further
dispossession or an extreme sense of powerlessness, this will constitute a
‘retraumatisation’ of Indigenous people. In her opinion, this will
have a negative effect on:
- Mental health including possibly higher rates of depression, stress and anxiety;
- Social and emotional wellbeing through increasing anxiety and uncertainty and hence this may precipitate family and community despair and dysfunction, poor or maladaptive coping and contribute to substance use and possible violence as well as loss of trust; and
- Physical health as there is a strong relationship with chronic stress and poor health outcomes including diabetes and cardiovascular disease.[7]
According
to the Minister’s media release, one of the perceived benefits of moving
people off CDEP ‘wages’ and onto social security is that as welfare
recipients, people’s income will be able to be quarantined. In other
words, by abolishing CDEP, the government will be able to ensure that about
6,000 Indigenous people in the NT will be spending at least half of their money
on food, clothing, housing and other essentials.
Whilst HREOC
acknowledges that this is precisely what some Indigenous people –
particularly women – in the NT have been asking for so that they can avoid
being ‘humbugged’ for money by relatives – there looks set to
be a range of adverse flow-on effects. These are economically, socially and
culturally damaging consequences.
For example, once CDEP is abolished,
former participants are no longer classed as wage-earners and will lose their
ability accrue superannuation and other basic employment
entitlements.
There is also a real concern that the abolition of CDEP
will be the death-knell for the many outstations across the NT.
In
Bawinanga’s case, it has invested over $35 million worth of infrastructure
in servicing the outstations of the region. This includes providing culturally
appropriate housing, a safe water supply reticulated to houses, an electricity
supply and waste disposal facilities – all of which are now in jeopardy if
there is a population exodus.
But why, you might ask, would the
government want to encourage a population exodus to towns like Maningrida that
already have a housing shortage and an average of 16 people living in each
house?[8]
It appears inevitable
that people will be compelled to move to larger centres where they can access
Centrelink services, have a better chance of complying with the ‘job
diary’ requirements of Work for the Dole, and access a range of services
that the government will cease funding on outstations, as part of its
‘normalisation’ policy.
But the irony here is that even
Minister Brough has acknowledged that outstations, and I quote:
....quite often have a much more disciplined lifestyle, and school attendance
is not the issue that it is in the larger centres. So quite often they are
more functional, without alcohol and without the problems besetting the larger
[population centres].[9]
On the
face of it, I can understand why government might decide to direct funds to the
larger population centres, where there are economies of scale in providing
essential services like housing, education and health services.
But the
economic development of the Maningrida region owes much to the Indigenous
cultural and environmental knowledge that is taught and practiced by those
living on the outstations. That’s how Bawinanga has come to develop a
successful land and sea ranger program, a multi-million dollar ‘bush
tucker’ business, an award-winning tourism operation, a crocodile
industry, and why it recently scored a lucrative Customs contract to provide
regular border security patrols along the coastline.
Take away the
outstations and you risk taking away the cultural integrity and very identity of
many Indigenous peoples.
How is the safety of children going to be
improved by them relocating to Maningrida where there is a housing shortage and
insufficient teachers to meet current demand?
How will it improve the
communities’ wellbeing?
The first hurdle is consultation and
consent
The first critical hurdle for government is to get the
consent of Indigenous communities in the NT.
A fundamental feature of
‘special measures’ is that they are done following effective
consultation with the intended beneficiaries and generally with their consent
– in this case the thousands of people living in the 74 prescribed
Indigenous communities across the NT.
Development and human rights
experience, both in this country and worldwide, shows that unless communities
have the opportunity to take some level of ‘ownership’ of the
solutions to the problems they face, the best intended initiatives will
fail.
However, the Minister for Indigenous Affairs has sought to
side-step the need to consult or to obtain some level of community consent
before embarking on his radical intervention.
His retort has been that
this is an emergency, and anyone calling for consultation or suggesting other
perceived ‘delaying tactics’, is endangering the children.
But this is a spurious argument. It is at odds with the universal
notions of human dignity and self-determination – rights that all peoples
– including Indigenous Australians – should enjoy.
It
falsely suggests that there is some hierarchy of human rights – with the
rights of the child at the pinnacle. But this is simply not the case. All
human rights are inter-dependent and overlapping – but one body of rights
does not prevail over another.
As UNICEF has explained in its handbook
for governments on how to apply the International Convention on the Rights of
the Child:
Interpretations of the best interests of children cannot trump or override
any of the other rights guaranteed by other articles in the
Convention.[10]
For example,
the Convention has a lot to say about how governments should balance their
responsibility to exercise a duty of care in relation to children, with the
rights and duties of parents who have primary responsibility for securing the
best interests of the
child.[11]
Governments must
ensure that the human rights of every Indigenous man, woman and child are
respected in a mutually reinforcing and coherent way. We cannot build a healthy
nation on racism and division.
It is time to draw breath. It is over time to sit down with the Elders and community leaders and traditional
owners – and to involve them in answering the question of how to address
child abuse and violence in their communities. It is not too late to embark on
a genuine consultation process – in fact it is critical that this
happens.
In contrast to the Commonwealth’s approach in the NT, the
WA Government has made community consultation a hallmark of its initiatives to
address child sexual abuse in Indigenous communities in the Kimberley, Pilbara
and Goldfields-Esperance communities. It made a strategic decision early on
that military personnel would not be sent into communities, but more police
would have to be brought in from other parts of the state to restore law and
order. This was a tough decision to make, because by refusing the military, the
WA Government forfeited any Commonwealth assistance in the form of Federal
Police officers or medical teams.
The WA police have spent time
developing a rapport with Indigenous communities – especially the women
– and I think this has helped people to feel more empowered and more
confident about coming forward to report their concerns. Maybe this has
something to do with why some 36 Aboriginal men and youths have been charged
with child sex offences in WA since
February,[12] but none as yet in the
NT.[13]
Isn’t it all
about the children and an emergency situation?
This brings me to a
vexing question about the legislation – one that Muriel Bamblett,
Chairperson of the Secretariat of National Aboriginal and Islander Child Care or
SNAICC, posed last week: Where are the children in all of this?
As she
pointed out:
There is no mention of children in the main bill, which supposedly addresses
the emergency of child abuse. That is why the majority of Indigenous leaders,
academics and practitioners in social work and child protection are continuing
to say that this bill has nothing to do with children. That is why the authors
and advisers who delivered the [Little Children are Sacred] report have
condemned the Government for failing to pay due regard to their considered
recommendations.[14]
And as I
have been suggesting since the emergency measures were first announced –
why isn’t there a requirement that all government employees, contractors
and volunteers entering Indigenous communities to implement the measures have a
police and child protection check to ensure they pose no threat?
So I
decided to take a look at the official figures for child abuse in the NT to see
how they compare with the figures for non-Indigenous kids in the NT, and with
the rest of the nation.
There are a number of qualifications that
experts would make when interpreting data on child sexual assault, because not
all cases of abuse are reported or proven, and care needs to be taken when
making comparisons between different states and
territories.[15]
That said,
the official data about child sexual abuse in Indigenous communities in the
Northern Territory does not appear to justify the characterisation of an
‘emergency’ situation, at least in comparison to other states and
territories.
The data shows that:
- In all states and territories, the rate of Indigenous children on care and protection orders was higher than the non-Indigenous rate. However, the NT has the lowest rate of Indigenous children on child protection orders of all the jurisdictions (11.4 per 1,000). Victoria has the highest (52.8 per 1,000).
- Further, although the rate of Indigenous substantiations (or instances where the authorities suspect abuse has occurred – but it has not been proven in a court) is a staggering 10 times the non-Indigenous rate in SA and Victoria, the rate in the NT is at the lower end of the scale – at 3.5 times the non-Indigenous rate.[16]
In other
words – children in Indigenous communities are at a much higher risk of
abuse and neglect than non-Indigenous children – and serious action is
needed by governments, Indigenous communities and others.
But if the
Minister was to be guided solely by the figures – his emergency
intervention might be more warranted in Indigenous communities in some of the
southern states – rather than the NT.
A culturally appropriate
information campaign is needed
Now that the legislation has been
passed, it is also the right time to embark on a culturally appropriate public
information campaign so that the communities affected understand what is being
done, why it is being done, and what new responsibilities they have. This was
HREOC’s recommendation to the Senate Committee, which the government, to
its credit has agreed to implement.
Many of the new laws carry serious penalties for non-compliance including
significant monetary fines, quarantining of discretionary spending money, and
prison terms for alcohol offences. There is already confusion, fear and
apprehension in Indigenous communities about what the government’s
intervention really entails, when the various measures will take effect and how
long they will be in place. Despite the best efforts of the Emergency Taskforce
and indeed the Minister, a huge communications challenge still remains.
The scale of the challenge should not be underestimated –
especially when you bear in mind that English is a second or third language for
many Indigenous people in the NT. People are living in remote communities, and
most are from an oral rather than a written culture.
If the government
was challenged by the task of explaining industrial relations reforms under the WorkChoices legislation to the nation – it has a Herculean effort
ahead of itself with the NT package.
For the past three years, HREOC has
emphasised to government the importance of undertaking broad-based community
education in Indigenous communities about human rights, family violence and
customary law. We have put up funding applications to deliver these programs in
the NT and elsewhere – only to have the applications repeatedly knocked
back.
As the government is providing funding to enable HREOC to work
collaboratively with Muslim communities to develop and deliver human rights
education resources, it would be prudent and timely to undertake similar
educative work with Indigenous communities, especially in the NT.
A
public, independent monitoring and review process is needed
HREOC has
also been a strong advocate for the need for an independent and public
Parliamentary review of the legislation after 12 months.
In addition,
we recommended that a comprehensive scheme for monitoring progress and outcomes
against benchmarks and targets should be established as soon as possible.
And we said that Indigenous peoples living in the Northern Territory
should be able to directly contribute to both the monitoring and review
processes to ensure that those people undertaking the review hear how the
legislation has impacted on people’s everyday lives.
Although the
government has committed to a two year review –the highly interventionist
nature of most of the measures means that their impacts will be evident in the
short-term. So why wait 24 months to investigate the problems and fix them
– if we could start the process after 12 months?
It is also less
than encouraging that the government has given no indication of whether the
review in two year’s time will be either public or independent –
which HREOC believes it must be.
The government’s track record on
divulging the results of ‘reviews’ of parts of its Indigenous
affairs policy does not inspire my confidence that the review of the NT
legislation will be undertaken with an eye to transparency or public
accountability. If the evaluation of the 8 COAG trials, or the
government’s review of the permit system in the NT in 2006 are anything to
go by, we can expect to see the findings of the NT emergency measures deemed
‘confidential’ – never to see the light of day - or at best
withheld from Territorians for a prolonged period.
There are serious
questions too about government accountability for the expenditure of significant
amounts of tax payer money, a lot of which will not be spent directly on
addressing Indigenous need. Again – this matter should be closely
monitored, scrutinised and reported on from the outset.
It was only as a
result of the Senate Committee Inquiry process that federal departments were
required to provide a breakdown of the two appropriations bills before they were
enacted. That process revealed that ‘coordination’ costs for the
Department of Families and Community Services and Indigenous Affairs (FaCSIA)
alone will be $54.6 million in the first year. This covers costs like operating
the Emergency Taskforce, installing 72 government business managers, and leasing
vehicles to all the government departments working on the emergency
measures.[17]
The cost of
‘employment and welfare reform’ – or administering all the
changes to people’s social security - is another $39.5 million.
The line item for ‘Housing and land reform’, costed at
nearly $20 million is not for new Indigenous houses. Rather, as FaCSIA staff
explained to the Committee:
Given that we are becoming the landlord for these communities for a period, ...this funding will cover’ the cost of providing:
- demountable accommodation in remote communities for government business managers, for Centrelink officers; and
- temporary accommodation for police while permanent police accommodation is constructed.[18]
As
the Senate Committee hearing revealed, there is no scope in the
government’s intervention measures to employ CDEP organisations to carry
out housing construction and repairs or other associated works. Nor is there
any commitment to train Indigenous job seekers with these skills. Instead a lot
of money is being spent bringing in contractors from interstate.
Conclusion
We all know that the government’s
emergency measures will go ahead as it intended when it first announced them
back in June. It has allowed 27 hours of debate in the Senate, held a one day
inquiry, and agreed to implement the Senate Committee’s six
recommendations without legislative amendment.
But now the real test
begins – the test to demonstrate that the emergency measures are
justifiable as ‘special measures’ taken for the advancement of Indigenous peoples – and in a manner consistent with
Australia’s human rights laws and obligations.
This is where I, as
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner, will have an
ongoing role – monitoring the implementation of the legislation and
publicly reporting on how it impacts on the human rights of Indigenous
Australians.
And this is where you – all Australians come in
– to hold the next Australian government accountable to its promise to
improve the wellbeing of Indigenous Australians.
It is people’s
lives, their communities and the oldest surviving continuous culture in the
world that politicians are dealing with here. It’s time to confront and
deal with the unfinished business of 1967 because failure is not an option. We
cannot afford to be discussing these same issues and dreaming of a ‘better
deal’ for Indigenous Australians when the next anniversary comes
around.
Thank you
[1] Maris, H., Women of the Sun:
25 years later, documentary produced by Bob Weis, Ronin Films, Canberra,
2006.
[2] Correspondence from
Oodgeroo Noonuccal to Prime Minister Harold Holt, 29 May 1967, reprinted in Momento, magazine of the Archives of Australia, Winter 2007,
p.17.
[3] Williams, G., ‘The
Races Power and the 1967 Referendum’, unpublished article developed
from ‘Race and the Australian Constitution: From Federation to
Reconciliation’ (2000) 38 Osgoode Hall Law Journal 643.
[4] In the Hindmarsh
Island Bridge case – Justice Kirby was the sole dissenting judge who held
that s 51(xxvi) of the Constitution ‘does not extend to the enactment of
laws detrimental to, or discriminatory against, the people of any race
(including the Aboriginal race)’. See Kartinyeri v Commonwealth (1998) 195 CLR 337.
[5] It is
important to note that the protection of human rights is now starting to be
addressed at the state and territory level. Victoria and the ACT have Bills of
Rights in their Human Rights Acts. In addition, Tasmania and Western Australia
have consultation processes underway to consider whether and how they might
introduce similar laws to enhance the protection of human
rights.
[6] See P.I.A. Consultants,
Fogarty, B. and Paterson, M., Constructive Engagement: Impacts, Limitations
and Possibilities during a national emergency intervention, submission to
the Senate Legal and Constitutional Committee Inquiry into the Northern
Territory National Emergency Response Bill 2007 and Related Bills, available at http://www.aph.gov.au/Senate/committee/legcon_ctte/
nt_emergency/submissions/sub03.pdf accessed 20 August 2007.
[7] Personal email correspondence from Associate Professor Helen Milroy with
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner, Tom Calma, 9
August 2007.
[8] BAC submission to
the Senate Legal and Constitutional Inquiry, p.36. It is estimated that this
backlog will cost $85 million to address – not including repairs and
maintenance to existing stock.
[9] Brough, M. (Minister for Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs),
as quoted in BAC Submission to the Senate Inquiry,
p.34.
[10] UNICEF,
p.39.
[11] UNICEF,
p.243.
[12] See ‘Call for
Indigenous summit for Kimberley’, in Sydney Morning Herald, 1
August 2007, http://www.smh.com.au/news/National/Call-for-indigenous-summit-for-Kimberley/2007/08/01/1185647910422.html
[13] See Wilson, A., ‘Five weeks on, still no arrests over child abuse’,
in The Australia, 31 July
2007.
[14] Bamblett, M.
‘Let’s fight these laws together’, in The Age, 13
August 2007.
[15] For a variety
of reasons, large numbers of incident of child abuse may go unreported. As a
result, anecdotal and qualitative data (as provided in the Little Children
are Sacred report) may in fact be more reliable than quantitative
data gathered by authorities. Equally, it is important to recognise that
proving child sexual abuse in a court is notoriously difficult: actual cases may
go unproven, and what might otherwise be a reasonable suspicion of abuse by
authorities (or a ‘substantiation’) may prove incorrect when
tested.
[16] Australian Institute
of Health and Welfare, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Health
Performance Framework, 2006 report: detailed analyses. AIHW cat. no. IHW
20. Canberra, 2007, pp 670 – 676. This data is also presented in the
AIHW publication Child Protection 2006 and will be set out in the next
edition of the ABS and AIHW’s Health and Welfare of Australia’s
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
Population.
[17] Ms Moody
(Group Manager, Funding and Governance, FaCSIA), ), Senate Legal and
Constitutional Committee Inquiry Transcript of Hearings, Reference: Social
Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Welfare Payment Reform) Bill 2007 and
four related bills concerning the Northern Territory national emergency
response, Canberra, 10 August 2007,
L&CA3.
[18] Gibbons, W.
(Associate Secretary, FaCSIA), Senate Legal and Constitutional Committee Inquiry
Transcript of Hearings, Canberra, 10 August 2007, L&CA4.
