Catholic Diocese of Broome

Why is it that successive governments think it is necessary to show the public that they can get tough on the poor and marginalized? During the Howard Government regime, under the auspices of Indigenous Affairs Minister Mal Brough (rhymes with tough), negative reports about Indigenous people in the NT flooded into the comfortable south of the country - reports of child abuse, abysmal health standards, poor achievement at school and an above average consumption of alcohol. The Federal Government’s response was the so-called Northern Territory Intervention.

In a media hype that itself should have been nominated for an Emmy, television reports showed military vehicles containing an abundance of army uniforms cruising into remote desert Aboriginal communities while bewildered local peoples looked on. For those down south this radical action was portrayed as the cavalry coming to the rescue, but to the locals it was just another invasion.

It is well known now that this ham-fisted occupation achieved very little, and in fact some of the statistics that were being bandied around to justify the incursion now indicate a state of affairs existing today that is worse than it was before. Clearly, this was an action more about headlines than real gains for Indigenous Australians.

One aspect of the intervention that has received much attention is the quarantining of income. Originally this was aimed specifically at Indigenous people, a single racial group, which necessitated the suspension of the Racial Discrimination Act – a move that was met with many objections from international human rights observers. The then Opposition railed against it and one particular future Minister is on record as saying: “this all will change when we get into Government”. Since then little has changed. No wonder people are cynical about politicians.

Recently the Senate voted on a Bill regarding Compulsory Income Management under the Northern Territory Emergency Response. The measures introduced will apply to ‘disengaged youth’, ‘long term welfare payment recipients’ and ‘persons assessed as vulnerable’. The effect of the legislation is to now widen the application of income management to non- Indigenous Australians on welfare in the Territory and any ‘declared Income Management Area’. It will most certainly apply to some parts of the Kimberley. The poor and marginalized, irrespective of race, will be snared into this compulsory income management net and for this reason it is now not necessary for the Government to suspend the Racial Discrimination Act. However, since most welfare recipients in the Territory are Indigenous people, this must be viewed as a cynical move to achieve the same objectives as before without any uncomfortable international human rights protests. This is one more instance, like the Stolen Generation, of legislating against Indigenous people ‘for their own good’. Once again public servants, from Centrelink this time, unqualified as they are, are given wide powers to decide who exactly among the poor will be put on income management.

This Bill in fact quarantines the poor and marginalized and does nothing to address the cause of their poverty and marginalization. This Bill relegates poor people to a system of living whereby they no longer have control over their funds and expenditure – a right held in high regard by other, better off Australians. Defining the Income Management Area carefully will ensure it doesn’t affect marginal seats or southern parts where Australians might be more sensitive about such rampant government invasiveness.

It is not good enough that the huge amounts of wealth generated in the north are spent mainly in the comfortable south. And it is not good enough that Indigenous people continue to live in a state of poverty in a wealthy nation. We need poverty removal and not merely poverty management in the Territory and in the Kimberley. Compulsory Income Management does not stop people being poor. It merely manages their meagre means and quarantines their rights.

In areas such as in northern Australia, where there are not the ready possibilities for employment, special attention needs to be given to raising standards of living and opportunity. Useful policies driven by social inclusion, if pursued, will involve affirmative action to address the root causes of poverty. Social Inclusion is not punitive. True Social Inclusion will do more for the welfare of the marginalized than all the interventions from Canberra.