This article first appeared in The Australian, 16 July 2007

Rumbles from the gravy train

Wesley Aird

According to Indigenous Affairs Minister Mal Brough, the federal Government's move to assume responsibility for child safety in the Northern Territory is not politically motivated. Even if we accept that, it appears some of the critical responses may be politically motivated. Not surprisingly these responses comprise themes, such as funding and influence, that are reasonably human yet not necessarily related to the core issue of children at risk.

Taking the minister at his word, if the situation is a genuine emergency, then as a nation the response must be genuine. To bring about substantial improvements in the lives of indigenous Australians requires substantial and broad sweeping changes right across the board.

As we know, a lot of people don't like change and this is especially so when there is the potential to threaten lifestyles and habits.

This is where the debate diverges from child abuse and neglect and the discussion moves towards subjects closer to black politics.

The emergency response changes the game. In the old game the rules were written in the NT. In this new game the rules are being written in Canberra. The local power-brokers won't be the ones calling the shots and quite possibly they will resist the usurpation of their long-held power. Many influential individuals have built a career in the indigenous industry. These individuals might be either on a government payroll or they might be operating with government funds through an indigenous service provider organisation.

Given that indigenous funding has, at least until now, never been seriously threatened it has always appeared to be a rather secure choice of occupation. The perception of personal security would only be enhanced each year with successive increases in the indigenous affairs component of the federal budget.

Putting aside the amount of funding, the way funding is administered has long been a contentious matter in indigenous affairs. In many instances, there is a cosy symbiotic relationship between the funder (usually a government agency) and the funds recipient (say, an indigenous organisation). The act of handing over funds makes both feel important irrespective of the outcomes (that's because in the past the Government has not been particularly stringent on monitoring outcomes).

A change to the flow of funding is a direct threat to the administration hierarchy and, as can be reasonably expected in a relatively small population, there will be accompanying changes to the social landscape.

Many of the critics are in positions that have an advisory or administrative interest in indigenous Australia. Their criticism goes along the lines of, 'we are doing a fine job, leave us alone'. The bad news for them is that the social indicators attest to the need for a new approach. A new approach sends a clear signal that the work of those previously involved has not been up to scratch. Children have not been protected and abuse and neglect has gone unchecked.

By taking over responsibilities which have in the past been held at the local or territory level, the commonwealth will greatly diminish the procedural authority of a number of individuals enjoying relatively influential positions. Many people, from so-called local indigenous leaders right up to non-indigenous national identities, will be asking themselves what the commonwealth's new approach means for them and their hitherto comfortable existence. Many individuals who have somewhat securely been a part of the game until now, face a real or perceived threat and in response they are coming out as critics of the emergency response.

To add to the complexity, many critics may well have valuable local knowledge and they may have strong social ties in the communities. These issues cut both ways. The information and networks they have could be used to either support or frustrate the fight to instate social order.

Those close to the action will be keen to see what is in store not just in the short-term implementation, but also in the medium term and whether the new impositions become the norm. Without a doubt the devil is in the detail.

The difficulty for Brough is that many of the concerns being voiced by his critics have elements of validity even if some of the motives are questionable. His taskforce approach will have to be objective and technically strong and it must perform its role to the highest standard.

Without a doubt there are politics in this exercise. However, in the main the noise sounds like the usual politics relating to the perceived authority of the stakeholders. As the criticism mounts it is worth reminding ourselves that despite all appearances, this is not meant to be about politics. This is about stopping the abuse and neglect of indigenous children.

Wesley Aird is a member of the National Indigenous Council, the Gold Coast Native Title Group and the Bennelong Society board. The views are his own.