NT Intervention: where to from here?

Hon. Mal Brough

When I conceived the NT Intervention I had a clear set of goals that I aimed to achieve. These goals were expressed as three stages; stabilising, normalising and exiting.

I appreciated the enormity of the task and the urgency. Urgency was paramount for three reasons. First and foremost was the safety of the women and children. Second was the need to achieve real and practical progress on the ground to gain the support and confidence of the local communities. Finally I understood that the five year time frame provided through the legislative frame work and the funding commitment would be barely adequate to affect the long term reforms required to achieve an acceptable quality of life.

The scale and scope of the first phase of the intervention was always going to attract intense media scrutiny and would face significant challenges and resistance, however I always felt that the greatest challenge by far and the most difficult phase to achieve would be the "normalising" of these communities. The success or failure of this phase will determine if long term positive change is achieved or if the intervention was nothing more than a short respite from the misery of life for so many in remote communities. The time has come for the Government to outline in detail the next phase. Minister Jenny Macklin issued a press release on the 22nd March 2009 outlining the progress of the intervention. The statistics quoted are welcome and I applaud progress where it has been achieved. However the key sentence in this statement "The Australian Government is moving to the sustainable development phase" was not accompanied by any detail. What does the Government mean by "sustainable development phase"?

Time is of the essence if real long term change is to be affected. In the absence of any detail of what the government means by "sustainable development phase" I will address just two of the issues that must be considered in developing and implementing the next phase of the NT Intervention.

My consideration of the subject is based on the understanding the NT intervention encompasses 73 diverse communities that face a wide range of differing circumstances, challenges and opportunities. My conclusion from this statement is that no single approach will create the desired result in each of the 73 communities.

Communities with a chance

At one end of the scale you have communities rich in economic opportunities with the potential to create sufficient employment to sustain the population, through to those with virtually no economic potential at all.

First of all I will deal with those communities that are the lucky ones that already have employment opportunities, police are in place, education facilities are on the improve, health and nutrition is improving and new housing has been committed. Most would argue that any community in this situation can look forward to a healthy and prosperous future. Unfortunately it is not that simple.

In these circumstances there will be those who make a success of their lives but the likelihood of "closing the gap" is extremely remote without addressing the hidden issues.

In the past I have concentrated my public comments on the practical impediments of land reform that remain critical to building a sustainable economy. However, here I want to discuss two other factors that I believe must be tackled if communities in the situation I have described are to have any real chance of success.

Health and Capacity Constraints

The first of these is the legacy issue of alcohol, petrol sniffing, drugs and abuse that has left many community members with a diminished capacity for work and social inclusion. In Fitzroy Crossing a study is about to be undertaken to ascertain the extent of Alcohol Foetal Syndrome. This will be an important indicator of future challenges but it doesn't help us understand the extent of the learning difficulties, the employment constraints or the social dysfunction restricting the adult population today. Understanding the scale of this challenge should drive the policy responses. If the degree of mental illness, alcoholism, drug addiction and trauma due to violence are of such magnitude to restrict the capacity for a community to function normally surely that information must be understood and taken into account when developing solutions.

After decades of abuse and neglect serious questions need to be asked as to the extent of the human capacity constraints flowing from this neglect and abuse and what limitations it places on the capacity for communities to succeed. If for argument sake 20 per cent or 30 per cent of a community's adult population has a reduced capacity to independently maintain a home or to hold a job or to raise and protect children what chance does such a community have to function normally?

Add to this equation the almost non existence of specialist health professionals within these communities to deal with these issues and the mental illnesses that flow from them and you start to appreciate that building the infrastructure and providing the police are the easy part.

The Government must establish the extent that these problems exist in each community as the next step in ascertaining the resources required to build strong viable communities. I realise the investment required is enormous, however given the Government has already announced it is committed to major housing upgrades in 26 communities valued at over one billion dollars this is in fact insurance against this investment being trashed and the cycle of disappointment and destruction continuing.

Barriers to Employment

There are many barriers to employment including numeracy and literacy levels, insufficient educational attainment and training, humbugging (negative peer pressure), addictions and cultural responsibilities.

All of these and many more add to the challenge of sustaining employment outcomes in remote communities.

Despite all these challenges there are small numbers of men and women in most communities who have persevered and who work for a living. These people deserve our full support, acknowledgement and encouragement.

The issue I wish to address is the negative impact the welfare system has on employment.

At virtually every community meeting I attended as Minister the critical issue of employment opportunities would be raised. Whilst I did not doubt the questions were genuine and that there were those people who did want to work I also knew that in so many communities where jobs did exist they were rarely taken up. Aurukun, Mutitjulu and Alice Springs are just three examples where so many more people could have full time work but either chose not to or were incapable of working.

There are many contributing factors including those I have discussed earlier, however there is no doubt the fact that there is no "need" to work due to the welfare system is the single major contributing factor. When faced with a choice between working 5 days a week, turning up every day and putting work responsibilities ahead of lesser priorities; too often work loses out. Whilst it can be argued that this response is largely due to the difficult local environment there is no doubt in my mind that once the "need" to work is a higher priority more people will take the work option thus improving their own lives and in turn contributing to improved community environment.

Once the "need" to work is firmly established greater success will be achievable in school attendance and training courses and other activities directly related to employability.

If government fails to address this fundamental issue of cause and affect, then a difficult goal will be become virtually impossible to achieve.

Communities with no chance

My final comment relates to the communities that have no economic future. It is unacceptable to continue to ignore the reality of the situation and pretend that some time somehow there will be a miracle and that they will become thriving successful communities providing the dignity of work and opportunities for generations of school leavers to come. I have always maintained that once the local situation has been stabilised and made safe an honest dialogue must commence between the Government and these communities about their future.

This conversation will take time but it must commence now. Too often I listened to sincere people tell me of their dreams of a better future that unfortunately weren't based in reality and weren't sustainable. It isn't easy being honest with when it is so much easier to give false hope then fly back to Canberra.

If saying sorry and reconciliation is to mean anything then now is the time for honesty in discussing and deciding the future for the people who call remote indigenous communities home.