PARLIAMENT VOTES FOR INDIGENOUS RECOGNITION
• PATRICIA KARVELAS
• The Australian
• February 13, 2013 10:16AM
THE nation’s federal parliament has voted in favour of an historic act of recognition which commits Australia to changing the Constitution to acknowledge indigenous Australians, with Tony Abbott and Julia Gillard joining together in a momentous symbolic gesture, on the fifth anniversary of the apology to the stolen generations.
The Prime Minister paid tribute to the courage her predecessor Kevin Rudd showed in apologising to the stolen generation five years ago, saying the parliament was only able to consider constitutional change now because of Mr Rudd’s actions.
In turn, the Opposition Leader gave his strongest speech yet on the need for change, powerfully arguing that the nation has never fully made peace with the first Australians.
Arguing for constitutional change, Mr Abbott said Australia would be an incomplete nation and a torn people until the nation’s guiding document is changed.
He said Australia only had to look across the Tasman to New Zealand to see how it should have moved on reconciliation, referring to the treaty of Waitangi – a treaty signed on 6 February 1840 by representatives of the British Crown and various Maori chiefs from the north island of New Zealand.
Mr Abbott said that while parliament was fuelled by acrimony, on this issue he and the Prime Minister were partners and collaborators.
“There is much hard work to be done,” Mr Abbott said.
He said it would be difficult to find a form of recognition that satisfied everyone and did not strip other Australians of their rights.
Mr Abbott said Australia now had an opportunity to do what should have been done 200 or 100 years ago.
”We need to atone for the omissions and for the hardness of heart of our forebears to enable us all to embrace the future as a united people,” Mr Abbott said.
”We shouldn’t feel guilty about our past, but we should be determined to rise above that which now makes us embarrassed,” he said.
Both leaders acknowledged finding a form of constitution that made everybody happy would be difficult, but not impossible.
”I believe that we are equal to this task of completing our constitution rather than changing it,” Mr Abbott said.
Ms Gillard admitted she had to abandon a promise to deliver a referendum to acknowledge Indigenous Australians in the Constitution because of the “difficult and volatile times” of the current parliament, as she described Mr Kevin Rudd’s apology to the Stolen Generations as an act of “courage.”
With a referendum pushed aside for two or three years, Labor today asked the parliament to vote for its “act of recognition” as an interim measure to help build momentum for a referendum in the future.
The Bill has a two-year sunset clause to force the parliament to introduce a real referendum which changes the Constitution acknowledging the nation’s first people.
The Bill includes a statement of parliament’s commitment to pursuing constitutional recognition and a substantive statement of recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people.
“We must never feel guilt for the things already done in this nation’s history. But we can and must feel responsibility for the things that remain undone,” Ms Gillard said.
“No gesture speaks more deeply to the healing of our nation’s fabric than amending our nation’s founding charter. So I commend this Bill to the House as a deed of reconciliation in its own right. And as a sign of good faith for the referendum to come. We are bound to each other in this land and always will be. Let us be bound in justice and dignity as well”.
Ms Gillard acknowledged her predecessor as prime minister for his historic apology speech.
“I’m also conscious that on this special anniversary, we acknowledge the courage that enabled Kevin Rudd to offer the apology and the generosity of spirit that enabled indigenous Australians to accept it”.
“We are only able to consider this Act of Recognition and constitutional change because the apology came first,” Ms Gillard said.
The Prime Minister acknowledged the failure of the Parliament she has presided over in reaching unity.
“At the election of 2007, it seemed the prospect of constitutional recognition was very close at hand, supported, as it was, by both major parties. But in difficult and volatile times, we have not yet found the settled space in our national conversation to make the promised referendum a reality”.
“So the government has advanced this Bill for an Act of Recognition. To assure Indigenous people that our purpose of amendment remains unbroken. And to prepare the wider community for the responsibility that lies ahead. This Bill is thus an act of preparation and anticipation. In this legislation, we, the nation’s 226 legislators will serve as proxies for Australia’s 14 million voters, bridging the time between now and referendum day,” she said.
“That is why this Bill has a sunset clause of two years. So that the 44th parliament can achieve what the 42nd and 43rd have been unable to do”.
The Prime Minister said the successful 1967 referendum which counted Indigenous Australians in the census, the people of Australia sought restitution and repair, but their work was incomplete.
“Today, a new generation dreams of finishing the job with the same idealism and the same means. Not through protests or law suits. But by this parliament summoning every Australian elector to a referendum,” she said.
The nation’s peak Indigenous representative body says the hard yards in achieving substantive constitutional reform are now just beginning.
“Today is the first test of multi-partisanship leadership, now all parties must continue to work together to achieve a referendum involving substantive reform not just symbolic recognition,” Congress Co-Chair Jody Broun said.
In a direct challenge to the words of Tony Abbott, Congress has called for constitutional reform “that protects rights and prohibits discrimination”.
“We now expect clear commitments from all sides of politics to a referendum timeframe and the concrete steps required to make it happen,” she said.
Co-Chair Les Malezer said, “Within the two years of the timeframe of the legislation all parties must work together to develop the referendum question.
“Congress will work to better inform our Peoples about these proposed reforms.
“Congress supports a persuasive, community led campaign complemented by multi-partisan support and strong leadership by the Government so that all Australians can understand and support the fundamental need for these reforms.
“Any process from here on in must ensure full participation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people,” he said.
“It will, as the Prime Minister candidly admitted, be a challenge to find a form of recognition which satisfies reasonable people as being fair to all. It won’t necessarily be straightforward to acknowledge the first Australians without creating new categories of discrimination which we must avoid, because no Australian should feel like a stranger in their own country”.
ABBOTT LAMENTS FAILURE ON TREATY
• 14 Feb 2013
• The Australian
• PATRICIA KARVELAS
ZoomBookmarkSharePrintListenTranslate
TONY Abbott has lamented Australia’s failure to sign a treaty between indigenous Australians and the government in his strongest declaration of support for a referendum to change the Constitution to recognise Aborigines.
But the Opposition Leader warned that his side of politics would not support change that entrenches ‘‘new categories of discrimination’’.
The federal parliament yesterday voted in favour of a historic act of recognition that commits to changing the Constitution to acknowledge indigenous Australians, with Mr Abbott and Julia Gillard joining together in a symbolic gesture, on the fifth anniversary of the apology to the Stolen Generations.
While the Prime Minister paid tribute to the ‘‘courage’’ her predecessor, Kevin Rudd, showed in apologising to the Stolen Generations, Mr Abbott said the nation could not move forward without the change to the Constitution.
For his part, Mr Rudd used a Reconciliation SA breakfast in Adelaide marking the anniversary of his speech to say constitutional recognition for Aborigines should have already been in place.
Mr Abbott revealed that division on the way the change should look is far from resolved.
He used his speech to warn that moves to include an anti-racial discrimination clause would not get his support. ‘‘It will, as the Prime Minister candidly admitted, be a challenge to find a form of recognition which satisfies reasonable people as being fair to all. It won’t necessarily be straightforward to acknowledge the first Australians without creating new categories of discrimination which we must avoid, because no Australian should feel like a stranger in their own country.’’
Arguing for constitutional change, Mr Abbott said Australia would be an incomplete nation and a torn people until the nation’s guiding document is changed.
He said Australia only had to look across the Tasman to New Zealand to see how it should have moved on reconciliation, referring to the Treaty of Waitangi, which was signed in 1840 by representatives of the British Crown and various Maori chiefs.
He said while parliament was fuelled by acrimony on this issue, he and the Prime Minister were partners and collaborators — Australia now had an opportunity to do what should have been done 200 or 100 years ago.
‘‘We need to atone for the omissions and for the hardness of heart of our forebears to enable us all to embrace the future as a united people,’’ Mr Abbott said.
‘‘We shouldn’t feel guilty about our past, but we should be determined to rise above that which now makes us embarrassed.’’
Ms Gillard admitted she had to abandon a promise to deliver a referendum to acknowledge indigenous Australians in the Constitution because of the ‘‘difficult and volatile times’’ of the current parliament.
With a referendum pushed aside for two or three years, Labor yesterday asked the parliament to vote for its ‘‘act of recognition’’ as an interim measure to help build momentum for a referendum in the future.
The bill has a two-year sunset clause to force parliament to introduce a real referendum.
The nation’s peak indigenous representative body says the hard yards in achieving substantive constitutional reform are now just beginning.
‘‘Today is the first test of multi-partisanship leadership — now all parties must continue to work together to achieve a referendum involving substantive reform, not just symbolic recognition,’’ congress co-chair Jody Broun said.
In a direct challenge to the words of Mr Abbott, congress has called for constitutional reform ‘‘that protects rights and prohibits discrimination’’.
CONSTITUTION NEEDS TO INCLUDE AUSTRALIA’S FIRST CHAPTER
February 14, 2013
Aden Ridgeway
I was born when Aboriginal people did not have the vote.
It wasn’t until I turned five that any of us were counted as citizens.
I grew up on an Aboriginal reserve, where most of the major decisions in our lives were controlled by white authorities. It can be hard, particularly for younger generations of Australians, to reconcile that such things happened so recently in our history. It seems such a far cry from where many of us are today. But I am barely into my 50s.
Things have come a long way since the 1960s. But it’s important to understand that many Aboriginal people have experienced such exclusion. This is a story of change within our lifetime.
Our task of putting these things right as a nation is not yet complete, because the constitution still does not acknowledge the existence of the first Australians. It has not yet said: yes, you were here.
It is also silent on the entire first chapter of Australia’s history. The one that reaches back tens of thousands of years and connects every Australian today – black or white – with the oldest living culture in human history.
Our founding document still contains traces of the views that allowed the first Australians to be denied a vote in our own land. Those views are there in section 25, which says the states can ban a whole race of people from voting. They are also there in the ”race power”, which lets governments make laws that can discriminate in any way against a whole race.
I abhor the fact these provisions still exist.
We need to fix this.
I am not a newcomer to this cause. The other day I came across a couple of old boxes in my garage. They contained my working papers from 1999, when Gatjil Djerrkura, Lowitja O’Donoghue and I consulted the then prime minister John Howard about the wording of a preamble to our constitution that would acknowledge the first Australians. Alas, that proposal sank along with the republic referendum.
But many indigenous Australians, and indeed Howard himself, continued to press the importance of constitutional recognition. Howard rededicated himself to the task in 2007, and it has long been the policy for parties across the political spectrum.
Constitutional recognition would allow the first chapter in the Australian story to be acknowledged and heard. It would do this not just for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people but also for everyone else, because this is part of the shared story of every Australian.
New Zealanders perform the haka before rugby matches, with Maori and white players joined in a celebration of their indigenous culture. It is my hope that we can aspire to something just as uplifting here. That starts with having a constitution that proclaims how proud we all are of our long and impressive indigenous history.
When we talk about the things that bring Australians together, this is one that ought to be on the list. It is up there along with sportsmanship, fairness, egalitarianism, democracy and being a place that embraces people from all nations. This is part of that distinctive Australian identity.
This is also about speaking three great truths.
We were always here – and the great lie of ”terra nullius” is no more.
We have not come here as immigrants – whether by the first boat or the last. And we are still here and will be in the future.
We make an enormous contribution to the modern nation and Australia’s national identity.
Wednesday’s Act of Recognition passed in Parliament, signals the determination of political leaders of all hues to support recognition of the first Australians. It does not itself trigger a referendum. But the legislation has a two-year sunset clause, which urges the nation to get cracking to create the preconditions for a successful ”Yes” vote.
I want to see that day come sooner rather than later. I want Australians to have a chance to put right the final piece of work left from the 1967 referendum, when we removed from our constitution the ban on Aboriginal people being counted as citizens.
Back then, more than 90 per cent of the people voted to count us in. Now it’s time to write us in.
Because that moment in 1967 forever changed the life of a five-year-old boy on the Bellwood Aboriginal mission at Nambucca – even if the neighbouring town of Kempsey recorded the highest ”no” vote in the country. He became a senator.
I want every five-year-old child to know not only that they now count, but also that Australia sees their culture as an enormous source of pride.
Former NSW senator Aden Ridgeway is a spokesman for Recognise, the movement to recognise Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in the constitution.
STORY DIDN’T BEGIN IN 1901
14 Feb 2013
The Australian
ADAM GILES -Adam Giles is a minister in the Northern Territory’s Country Liberal Party government.
TO know your history is to know yourself. This is why I am convinced Australia’s Constitution should take a longer view of our nation’s history. The Australian story did not begin with Federation in 1901. It began with the oldest living culture in history.
Acknowledgment of pre-settlement history would break down barriers and build us as one. Australians are over the days of us and them. We want to be at peace with our past and we can get to that point only if we can recognise our full history.
There is an implicit transaction on offer in the quest for constitutional recognition. It is the final step in what Australia began in the 1967 referendum. The rest of the nation would be saying to Aboriginal people, ‘‘We value you and your cultures’’ and Aboriginal people would be saying, ‘‘We will share this with you.’’
I confess I am a convert to this cause. I am a practical and conservative politician who has long believed in the power of jobs, education and economic development to transform lives but I have become increasingly convinced that the practical and symbolic go hand in hand.
Indigenous recognition at a referendum will give our Constitution a stronger backbone and proclaim that Aboriginal people and culture are part of who we are as a nation. You change the Constitution lightly. Ours has delivered strong, stable government . I hear those who say, ‘‘If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it’’, and previously that has been the basis of my complacency on this act of symbolism. However, in a couple of important respects, it is broken and it does need fixing. Section 25 says the states can ban a race of people from voting.
There is a proud conservative tradition of safeguarding our heritage and traditions. Constitutional recognition of our indigenous history fits squarely in that legacy. There are also proud traditions in liberal and conservative history of opposing racism, slavery and discrimination.
It was under Robert Menzies that Aboriginal people federally got the vote. It was under Harold Holt that the great moment of national unity at the 1967 referendum came about. In 1970, the Liberal Bolte government in Victoria handed back 1600ha at Lake Tyers and 200ha at Framingham to two Aboriginal trusts. It was Billy Wentworth, as Aboriginal affairs minister, who first proposed giving the Gurindji people control of their land at Wave Hill station.
The Liberals have always been part of the philosophical basis that has been symbolically formed to drive our nation. Malcolm Fraser passed the first land rights act and John Howard pushed for indigenous constitutional recognition in 1999. So, how can we continue to leave untouched the sections of our Constitution that still let governments discriminate and ban a race of people from voting?
We need a referendum that allows Australians to take away from governments the power to discriminate based on race and ensures our founding document reflects our full history as a nation. Only then can we say we truly know ourselves.
RECONCILIATION UNITES LEADERS
14 Feb 2013
The Australian
Opinion
Bipartisanship on indigenous recognition is welcome
IN a place renowned for its unyielding political combat, partisanship and policy grandstanding, the House of Representatives yesterday witnessed a rare display of unity in support of a cause entirely worthy: the passage of a bill recognising the contribution of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples to Australia. The bipartisanship and goodwill was effusive. On the anniversary of the apology to the Stolen Generations, the Prime Minister acknowledged the courage of her predecessor, Kevin Rudd. The Leader of the Opposition praised Ms Gillard’s ‘‘fine speech’’ and paid tribute to Gough Whitlam’s advocacy for the 1967 referendum and Paul Keating’s controversial words on reconciliation at Redfern Park in 1992.
Many Australians will be hoping that this generosity will last. But in pledging his support to work towards proposals for constitutional recognition, Mr Abbott recognised the challenges that lay ahead. The task is to agree upon an appropriate form of recognition in the Constitution. The expert panel identified several constitutional changes that Australians should be asked to consider in a referendum. In addition to a statement of recognition, the panel proposed deleting sections of the Constitution and adding new ones. It is no easy task; for while Australians of goodwill understand the sentiment of reconciliation, enshrining it in a form of words that does not give rise to legal misinterpretation is another matter altogether. Also, Australians are often cautious in agreeing to changes to the Constitution. Nevertheless, it is a task that must be undertaken.
While recognition is important, it should not divert attention from improving employment and education opportunities and addressing complex problems such as welfare dependency, violence, and alcohol and drug abuse. In the meantime, constitutional recognition and removing sections that discriminate against indigenous Australians is a cause that all Australians should support. But there are significant obstacles ahead. Constitutional law is complex. Finding the same level of bipartisanship as was evident yesterday will not be easy, even though it is essential. The expert panel recommended that the referendum should proceed only when it has bipartisan support. Mr Abbott’s comment that he and Ms Gillard are ‘‘partners and collaborators’’ will be essential to its success.
LONG TAKES FIRST STEP IN SECOND SYMBOLIC WALK
Stuart Trintoil
The Australian
14 February
A nationwide march will campaign for indigenous recognition
NINE years ago, a despondent Michael Long stepped out to walk to Canberra to talk to a prime minister. As he walked from Melbourne, his thoughts gradually crystallised into the question he would put to John Howard: ‘‘Where is the love for my people?’’
Long, an AFL champion who did much to drive racism out of football, has now stepped out on a new journey, as a point man in the campaign for the constitutional recognition of Aborigines.
Inspired by the 2004 Long Walk, the Journey to Recognition, launched yesterday, aims to take the quest beyond the parliament and put it ‘‘into the hands of the people’’, walking through every state and territory, f rom the southern winter to the heat and colour of the Garma Festival in northeast Arnhem Land.
The walk will begin after the ‘‘Dreamtime at the G’’ AFL game in Melbourne on May 27 and Long will take the first symbolic steps.
Returning to the Essendon Football Club last night, which paved the way for Aboriginal footballers and is now reeling from a drugs-in-sport scandal, Long said Australia grew when it confronted racism and faced up to the wrongs of the past with the national apology to the Stolen Generations, five years ago yesterday.
‘‘We have the oldest culture in the world and we have so much more to offer, I reckon,’’ he said. ‘‘I think this might be an important moment in history that takes us even further as a country. I think it’s exciting.’’
Speaking at the National Press Club in Canberra yesterday, advocates Tanya Hosch and Jason Glanville, who will carry much of the campaign, said recognition would strengthen the fabric of the nation and reforge the Aboriginal story.
‘‘Over the last 200 years, our society has told Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children a story as destructive as it was untrue,’’ Mr Glanville said.
‘‘It was the colonial fiction of a dying race; a tale of disadvantage and limited potential. And then we came to wonder how it was that such disadvantage became a self-fulfilling prophecy. That myth is the direct historical cause of much of the indigenous disadvantage that still exists today.’’
Mr Glanville said recognising the first Australians ‘‘won’t just put words on a page’’, but would help to close gaps in life expectancies and tell a ‘‘true founding story’’ that was not about the failure of a dying race, ‘‘but a story of ingenuity, creativity, adaptation and survival.’’
Ms Hosch said recognition was ‘‘a time for us to be our better selves’’ and ‘‘banish the lingering stain of discrimination from our constitution’’. She compared the symbolism of recognition with Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address.
‘‘In the grand sweep of history, Australia has a remarkable chronicle,’’ she said. ‘‘As other civilisations rose and fell across the globe over tens of thousands of years, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples adapted and survived.’’
Recognise campaign director Tim Gartrell said the Journey to Recognition was aimed at recruiting grassroots supporters ‘‘to fix the silence of our Constitution about the entire first chapter of Australia’s history’’.
SEND 10,000 INDIGENOUS TO UNI: RUDD
MARK SCHLIEBS
From:The Australian
February 13, 2013 11:34AM
KEVIN Rudd says it is “unbelievable” that the Constitution still does not recognise indigenous people and is calling on his government to update its closing the gap targets to include tertiary education.
While Julia Gillard was heralding the passage of an act of recognition that commits Australia to changing the Constitution to acknowledge indigenous Australians, the former prime minister was in Adelaide to mark the fifth anniversary of his apology to the stolen generations.
Mr Rudd told the Reconciliation SA breakfast that Constitutional recognition should have already been in place.
“It is, for me, unbelievable that here we are in the year 2013 and we still do not in our foundational legal document recognise the fact that the concept of Terra Nullius was nonsense and is a nonsense and will forever be a nonsense,” he said. “When we came nearly 200 years ago, a twinkle in the eye of god and space, for tens of thousands of years before that indigenous Australians had made this vast continent their home.
“Surely, it is not beyond our wit and wisdom as a people, to finally reflect that in the foundational constitutional document of the nation.”
But Mr Rudd said Australians should also reflect on “what the Prime Minister is doing” by having the act of recognition.
He later told the audience that there had been a failure to lift indigenous attendance at universities to acceptable levels.
“The next frontier for closing the gap is universities. We must, as a nation, see the same number of indigenous kids at our universities, proportional to their size of the population,” Mr Rudd said.
“Aboriginal Australians represent some 2.5 per cent of our national population. The Indigenous participation at universities is barely at 1.2 or 1.3 per cent.
“We need to make up the difference. I’m talking about adding something in the order of another 10,000 indigenous students to the nation’s universities.”
He said the target should be achieved sooner than the 2030 suggestion in the Gonski review of education.
NSW ABORIGINAL LAND COUNCIL BATTLES FOR CSG ‘FAIR SHARE’
CRIKEY
13 FEB 2013, 7:31 PM
SOURCE: BILL CODE, SBS
CSG protesters in the Northern Rivers have an opponent many didn’t expect. The NSW Aboriginal Land Council wants to prospect for gas in the area, saying its people need a share of the profits from CSG.
Sydney protests last month targeted the land council for alleged inadequate consultation.
But NSW Aboriginal Land Council CEO Geoff Scott claims protesters are ignoring the need for energy, and the economic realities for Indigenous people.
“Do you want to get benefit from it or do you want to continue to get the scraps off the table? Do you want to continue to rely on government for your livelihood?” he told SBS News.
“I think we owe our children better than that”.
Mr Scott says he has held talks with the Tweed Byron Land Council and others, and will continue to do so.
Activist Harry Boyd has been fighting CSG in the Northern Rivers for several years, but fears CSG will come to the Northern Rivers regardless of how loudly many Australians protest
WHY WE SUPPORT MEASURES TO CONTROL THE SUPPLY OF ALCOHOL: ABORIGINAL MEDICAL SERVICES ALLIANCE NT
CRIKEY
MELISSA SWEET |
FEB 13, 2013 8:25PM |
In her recent Parliamentary statement on Closing the Gap, the Prime Minister raised concerns about the winding back of alcohol control policies in the NT and Queensland.
She said alcohol-related harms had increased after the NT Government’s dismantling of the Banned Drinkers Register last year, and called for the register’s reinstatement. She also called on the Queensland Government “to exercise extreme caution in reviewing remote community alcohol restrictions”.
“I have a real fear that the rivers of grog that wreaked such havoc among Indigenous communities are starting to flow once again,” she said.
In a subsequent article for Crikey titled Gillard is wrong, bans won’t stop those “rivers of grog”, journalist Chris Graham took issue with the PM’s claims, and argued that the solutions to alcohol-related problems lie in the communities themselves rather than in government-imposed policies.
In the article below, John Paterson writes on behalf of the Aboriginal Medical Services Alliance Northern Territory that Chris Graham’s analysis is strong on rhetoric but short on evidence.
Controls on the supply of alcohol are vital for improving Aboriginal health and life expectancy, and are widely supported by communities, as demonstrated by recent successful initiatives in Alice Springs, he says.
***
A look at the evidence shows why alcohol control measures are widely supported in the NT
John Paterson writes:
Any analysis of alcohol issues is complex and requires a very careful look at multiple data sets and knowledge of what is going on to explain data trends.
Unfortunately, the article by Graham contains many errors due to a lack of knowledge about – and detailed analysis of – what is going on in the NT.
This lack of adequate knowledge and analysis prevents readers from reaching a comprehensive understanding of what has been happening in the NT. (We are not commenting specifically on the Cape York situation as we are not as familiar with the data and the various evaluations that have been done there).
At the outset, Graham’s assertion that it has been Canberra that has led the game in positing alcohol bans is completely inaccurate and ahistorical.
And, frankly, anti-Aboriginal.
First, there is a very well documented history in the Northern Territory of Aboriginal communities that have successfully demanded – as acts of self determination— alcohol bans in nearly 100 communities across the Territory. Chris Graham should be aware of this.
Second, Aboriginal communities, and the health and other organisations they control, have never argued that prohibition is a silver bullet. Other initiatives—that have been fiercely resisted by government and the alcohol industry—such as restrictions to the volume of grog and number of outlets, the times allowed for take away sales, and floor pricing, have been put forward by these groups, backed by a solid evidence base.
Third, Graham makes no comment on the role of the alcohol industry—as if it is some sort of disinterested but benign third party that has no particular role in human misery.
We hold no particular brief for the Prime Minister in her statement—far from it.
However, Prime Minister Gillard does not suggest that alcohol restrictions alone will solve the alcohol problem – this is an oversimplification of her position.
However, one of the reasons why the NT has the fastest rate of improvement in Aboriginal life expectancy is the decline that has occurred in the consumption of pure alcohol. Addressing alcohol is no magic bullet but is a key part of what needs to be done. This is the view of the Prime Minister, and Graham misrepresents this.
Unfortunately, the article does not make sufficient distinction between alcohol supply reduction measures that apply to the whole community, for example the measures in place in the large population centres in the Northern Territory such as Alice Springs, Tennant Creek, Alyangula and Nhulunbuy, and the special measures that are in place in various permutations in almost one hundred remote Aboriginal communities – measures which also apply to the non-Aboriginal residents in these communities, who usually comprise at least 10% of these populations anyway. The latter must be special measures which comply with the Racial Discrimination Act, and cannot be imposed without community support.
The Prime Minister has not suggested imposing alcohol measures on Aboriginal people only, but she has expressed concern at the dismantling of measures that have been introduced by the demands of the communities affected, are working and have community support. We share that concern.
There have been some very effective population wide measures in place in the NT, such as the de facto alcohol floor price in Alice Springs, achieved by a combination of Licensing Commission action (against selling wine casks larger than two litres) and an agreement operating amongst liquor retailers not to sell bottled wine for less than $8 per bottle and two litre casks for less than $16. This has seen the minimum price increase from 25 cents per standard drink to around 76 cents per standard drink.
This very effective measure has reduced alcohol consumption across the whole Alice Springs population by about 20%. The measure has been formally evaluated by the National Drug Research Institute.
The decline in alcohol consumption in Alice has seen projected admissions for assault to Alice Springs Hospital for Aboriginal women reduced by about 130 per year. This is in spite of the fact that the police assault data in this period has risen sharply.
Although Chris Graham attempts to dismiss this issue in this article, the reality is that police assault data is very subjective and changes in relation to police numbers, new legislation, community reporting, new computer systems and a range of other variables.
Police data cannot be relied upon to objectively measure the true incidence and prevalence of assault in the community. For accurate data we need to turn to more objective endpoints such as hospital admissions. It is important to consider multiple data sources prior to making any sweeping generalisations from a single data source as Graham has done.
The following graph is from the recent report from the National Drug Research Institute (2012) looking at alcohol sales, price and consumption in Alice Springs from 2000 to 2010. It shows a very strong correlation over time between price and consumption. As the price increased, consumption decreased and as the price decreased, consumption increased:
The “river of grog” throughout the NT has been declining significantly since 2007, largely through the removal from sale of cheap, bulk cask wine. This data is published by the Northern Territory Department of Justice.
This reflects a significant change in alcohol consumption in the NT, and the article’s author, Chris Graham, who seems to be unaware of this data, mistakenly claims that not much has changed. This is what has happened to the consumption of pure alcohol per person:
More detailed data is publicly available showing the gains are much greater where extra measures apply to curtail alcohol consumption, in Alice Springs and Nhulunbuy:
There has been no suggestion by Gillard to impose alcohol restrictions in the NT on Aboriginal people only. As Graham acknowledges, the Banned Drinkers Register (BDR) applied to everyone.
There were many non-Aboriginal people on the register as well, usually placed there for high range drink driving offences etc.
The problem we have is that since the register was suddenly withdrawn there has been no evaluation to objectively look at its impact. There is a huge amount of anecdotal evidence that there has been a very negative impact from its removal.
There is also evidence that at least one of the major hotels has seen a large increase in its takings, due to the greatly increased clientele (comprised of the formerly banned drinkers) in the large bars commonly referred to as “Animal Bars” subsequent to the removal of the BDR. The main call to re-instate the BDR was made at a recent Aboriginal Peak Organisations NT summit on alcohol, so the Prime Minister is simply asking for the return of a measure which has broad support within the Aboriginal community in the NT.
In terms of the voluntary alcohol restrictions that exist in nearly 100 remote communities throughout the NT, these measures have been in place for many years at the request of Aboriginal communities.
Acts of self-determination
Guess what? These have been acts of self-determination, not a directive from Canberra, Darwin, or anywhere else other than the local community. They have not been imposed by governments, and existed prior to the Intervention. The new CLP government, despite some initial fumbling on the issue, has so far decided to leave these measures in place, something about which Graham seems to be unaware.
The stark reality for some remote Aboriginal communities is that the level of susceptibility to habitual excessive consumption of alcohol and other substances is far greater than for mainstream communities. This is not due to any genetic susceptibility but rather it is mainly due to the consequences of extreme disadvantage on the growth and development of young children in early childhood in particular, leading them to be much more vulnerable to bingeing behaviours, and very susceptible to dangerous levels of over-use and habitual use of substances.
These susceptibilities are then greatly compounded by the effects of the social gradient of social determinants of health in general, such as lack of adequate access to good education, employment and comprehensive primary healthcare. Aboriginal Australia is not unique in this respect.
The Australian Early Development Index (AEDI) scores reveal this level of vulnerability – the reality is that many children from disadvantaged homes where excessive alcohol consumption occurs lack the capacity for effective self-regulation, and are much more impulsive than other children at age 4.
These are the vulnerabilities that mean that they do not have the same capability as other children to control their substance use when they encounter peer pressure to experiment with volatile inhalants and drugs such as tobacco, alcohol, cannabis, amphetamines and kava later during their development.
While this susceptibility is present in a very large number of young people, there is a serious need for special measures such as many remote Aboriginal communities have demanded for themselves.
When the AEDI scores of Aboriginal children become comparable to those displayed by children of the rest of the population at age 5, then we can expect after another 10 years have passed to witness a situation where the average susceptibility to alcohol and other substance over-uses is similar to the average levels applying to the total population. At this point communities themselves will know that they no longer need to request special measures to give additional protection against substance misuse.
Until that time, greater alcohol regulation is needed. And guess what: It is Aboriginal communities, as reflected through the demands of the APO NT Grog Summit late last year, who are demanding this. It is not Gillard—or indeed Chris Graham—that holds sway over these views.
The final point that needs to be addressed is the continual suggestion that alcohol is not a key determinant of Aboriginal health. Alcohol is not just a symptom of disadvantage it is a cause.
Prof Sir Michael Marmot, the chair of the WHO Commission on the Social Determinants of Health, following a visit to Aboriginal communities in the NT last year, declared alcohol and other drug use one of the six key determinants of Aboriginal health that needed to be addressed.
Making a difference in Alice Springs
The impact of even addressing alcohol in isolation has just been experienced by Alice Springs in the recent weekend of the Aboriginal All Stars Football match.
There was remarkable quiet and calm in the town, very different from a normal Friday night, let alone one of the busiest nights of the year, with several thousand extra people from remote communities in Alice to enjoy the game and have a break from bush life. There were almost no incidents involving violence or requiring the presence of police. Drunken revellers were conspicuous by their absence.
This atmosphere was the same at the game itself, where there were a lot of families with children having fun, and very few obvious incidents of drunken violence. Taxis and the casino and bars were busy, but ambulances were not.
There have been few violent incidents, and hardly any arrests. Police had one of their slowest nights on record with only one Domestic Violence call-out on Thursday night (the first of three days of additional restrictions) compared with thirteen on the previous Monday night.
This shows what can be achieved when agreement is reached on a set of evidence-based, sensible alcohol restrictions which included:
1. An effective floor price at $1 per standard drink, because cheap two-litre wine casks and fortified wines were not on sale at all.
2. A reduction in total of nine hours in take-away alcohol trading time over three days.
3. The use of photo ID scanning to prevent large volume purchases of beer and mixed drinks (limited to one slab per person per day.)
4. An increased police presence and full-time monitoring of all take-away outlets, with confiscation of alcohol purchased for consumption in prohibited areas.
This package combines what that we know works well, in one town at one time, and it produced a moment to celebrate and be proud of for the whole town.
It shows it is really possible to make a very big difference with supply reduction measures that most people would live with quite easily. It shows that addressing alcohol as a key social determinant of health in its own right is critical to Aboriginal health and the reduction of violence.
• Thanks to NACCHO for assistance with organising this article. Previously at Croakey: What are the priorities of Aboriginal people and communities in alcohol control in the NT?
A STEP SIDEWAYS FOR ABORIGINAL RECOGNITION
CRIKEY
CHARLES RICHARDSON
FEB 13, 2013 11:25AM |
There’ll be feel-good images out of Canberra today as parliament votes on recognition of indigenous people. But the idea that the bill represents a step forward on a constitutional referendum is simply not true.
This isn’t a blog about Australian politics, but sometimes there’s a local story that’s not just interesting in itself but has wider application. That’s the case with a remarkable feel-good piece by Michael Gordon in today’s Age on the “recognition” of indigenous Australians.
The occasion is the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples Recognition Bill (pdf here), due to pass the House of Representatives today. According to Gordon, it “will give momentum to the push to recognise” indigenous people, being “the forerunner to a referendum to enshrine this recognition in the constitution.”
It’s a sad sign of the state of the media that the Age has plenty of room for inspirational quotes and anecdotes about the struggle of indigenous people, but none to tell its readers what the bill actually does or why this procedure has been adopted. So let’s look quickly at the background.
Following the last election, the Gillard government appointed an expert panel to advise on constitutional recognition of indigenous people. Its final report, presented just over a year ago, recommended a series of constitutional changes, but also pointed out that bipartisan agreement would be a necessary condition for putting them to a referendum.
Despite some optimistic reporting (from, yes, the Age again), it quickly became clear that that agreement was not forthcoming. Put briefly (I went into more detail at the time), the problem is that any change in the race-based sections of the constitution would want to be accompanied by a non-discrimination provision, and the opposition will not agree to that because it is too reminiscent of a bill of rights.
Late last year the government bowed to the inevitable and announced that the referendum would be deferred indefinitely. Unwilling to be seen to be doing nothing at all, it introduced the current bill instead.
The bill has only two substantive elements: firstly, a statement by parliament recognising that Australia was “first occupied by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples” and that they have a continuing relationship “with their traditional lands and waters”, and acknowledging and respecting their “continuing cultures, languages and heritage”; and secondly, a requirement for the government to hold a review, to report within 18 months, of the prospects of a referendum.
But there is no timetable for actually holding a referendum and no hint of a way around the deadlock that stymied the government’s original plan. The idea that the bill represents a step forward on a referendum is simply not true.
Nor is there any reason to think that the legislative recognition is of any use to anyone. It says nothing different to what our leaders have been saying for decades; probably no Australian politician in the last 60 years would have disagreed with its sentiments. Elevated statements of general principle, if they belong anywhere, belong in the constitution.
There were good reasons why the expert panel recommended against taking the legislative route, and indeed specifically said (p. 224) it “would be concerned if legislative action were to be used as a substitute for, or distract from, a referendum on constitutional recognition.”
The deadlock over constitutional amendment is not in principle insuperable; if there was strong political pressure on the Coalition to come to an agreement, then no doubt some form of words could be found that would bridge the gap. But that is not the case: the Coalition’s core constituencies have approximately zero interest in Aboriginal reconciliation, so for Tony Abbott there is no downside in holding to his position.
The moral here is twofold. First, constitutional change is about specifics. You can’t pass a fuzzy notion into law, you can only pass actual words. They may be fuzzy words, but there has to be agreement on one actual set of words rather than another. If it’s not possible to find words that meet the competing demands of different interests, then no amount of “agreement in principle” will change that situation.
Second, politics is all about finding ways to overcome differences – ways that we can live together and get things done despite conflicting values and priorities. It may be a bad way of doing that (indeed I think it usually is), but that’s what it’s for. If instead we use the political process to produce motherhood legislation that doesn’t achieve anything and doesn’t settle any real controversy, we’re just wasting everyone’s time.
Like this:
Like Loading...