The Stolen Generations

[brian ross]

Just for Bogan:

Brian Ross wrote

Governments, rarely except when really, really pressed admit error, Reboot. Why? 'cause it opens them up to compensation claims. In the case of the Bringing Them Home report, they admitted what has occurred and the extent they believed it had occurred. I'd suggest you read that report and like Bobby, get some facts behind your arguments, instead of just feelings. It is harrowing reading, I will admit

Any question of compensation had already been settled by the High Court of Australia which ruled that the "stolen generations" was legal fiction. The only "stolen generation compensation case was 'Cubillo and Gunner vs. federal government and It fell down flat. The judge said of Gunner's case the he had never been stolen, "but had been convinced by others that he must have been."

The Victorian Labor government set up a fund to "compensate" "stolen generations" people anyway, but they were embarrassed that no "indigenous" people in Victoria came forward because they had no recollection of being "stolen" by anyone. This was later rectified by government agents visiting "aboriginal" communities and saying "Hey, do you want some free guvmit money?"

The High Court? I assume you're referring to the case of Gunnar, Cubillo, et al v Commonwealth? It did not rule that the Stolen Generations were legal. What it ruled was in that case, there was insufficient evidence to prove that they were illegal, Bogan.

The High Court upheld the validity of the 1918 Ordinance but that removal could only occur if it was considered as being best interests of the Aboriginal child, "judged by the values and standards prevailing at the time". In this way the Court left open the possibility that the removal of some Aboriginal children may not have been authorised by the 1918 Ordinance. Only one member of the Stolen Generations, Bruce Trevorrow in South Australia,[27] has obtained compensation as a result of litigation.[2] Limited compensation schemes have been implemented in New South Wales and South Australia.[28]

[Source]

You would be much better at look at the case Trevorrow v State of South Australia in 1998 in which Bruce Trevorrow proved he was stolen from his parents and was awarded over $525,000. In June 2011 Neville Austin became the first victim of the Stolen Generations in Victoria to gain compensation from the Victorian Government. There is the matter of Tasmania where Under the Stolen Generation of Aboriginal Children Act 2006 compensation was distributed between living members of the Stolen Generations but also the children of those who had died. 106 Aboriginal people qualified for one-off compensation. So, perhaps instead of crowing over one case, why not look at the multiple cases which have succeeded?

[Bogan]

Brian Ross wrote

The High Court? I assume you're referring to the case of Gunnar, Cubillo, et al v Commonwealth?

No, Brian, You don't have clue about any of this, do you? Since you can't bother to do any research to validate your belief in this monstrous lie. Let me enlighten you.

The whole "stolen generations" hoax was the invention of one Peter Reid, who like yourself appears to hate the white race, his country, his culture, and his civilisation, even though he prefers to live in it. Due to his activism on behalf of Australia's most unproductive ethnic group, Read learned that many aboriginal children had been separated from their parents by successive state and federal governments for various reasons. Desperate to find something, anything, to stoke the fires of aboriginal grievance and resentment. And to find another way to get the taxpayer to give more buckets of money over and above the incredible total of over $30 billion dollars squandered every year for no gain to 700,000 people, many of them of questionable aboriginal heritage anyway, Read went to Sydney's Mitchel library with a very large shovel to hopefully dig up some dirt.

He found that successive conservative and "progressive" state and Federal governments had removed aboriginal children from their parents for a number of very good reasons. The chief being, that aboriginal people just do not look after their kids. But there were many other reasons. Some were taken into care by their parents pleading to the government to take their kids because they admitted that they could not care for them. Others were "removed" because of the child's need for medical attention. Two thirds were "removed" as teenagers to get them an education or a an apprenticeship that would gain them employment. Others were removed because they were half or even quarter caste and due to full blooded aboriginal's hatred of "yeller feller" half castes, governments were were worried that if the children were not removed from a tribal situation they were in danger of being murdered. Others were "removed" after being arrested for criminal behaviour.

From this "research" Read spun up the yarn that became known as "the stolen generations." This charge was, that for decades, successive conservative and "progressive" state and Fedarl governments had been engaged in the practice of "stealing" aboriginal children by tearing them away from beseeching arms of their parents in order to "breed out the black" and therefore commit "genocide" on the aboriginal race. It was such an idiotic charge that nobody but a Humanities graduate could be stupid enough to believe it. But there exists within Australian society a whole army of self flagellating Brian Ross clones who are desperate to believe anything which can be used to prove that their own society equates to Nazi Germany.

According to Keith Windshuttle, who later examined the same records as Read, there were only three references out of thousands in the Mitchel Library's records which could be construed by a hostile researcher as supporting a case that aboriginal children were removed for reasons which were not in accordance with a humanitarian reason. One case had under the "reason for removal" heading "for being aboriginal" and two others had just "aboriginal" under the heading.

Read then addressed a taxpayer funded talkfest in which he told the shocked and startled aboriginal attendees that for nearly a hundred years, successive Australian government had "stolen" 100,000 aboriginal children from their parents for the purpose of committing genocide on the aboriginal race, a fact that they were strangely unaware of until Read piped up with his charge.

Naturally, the circling schools of ambulance chasing, human rights lawyer sharks smelled blood in the water and a new opportunity to enrich themselves on the rivers of gold provided by the taxpayer. Around 2000 writs for "compensation" for this dastardly deed were quickly filed, with each one valued at a around a million dollars each.

The first one was Gunnar and Cubillo vs, Federal Government. The plaintiff’s advocates had tried to push the line in court that both Gunner and Cubillo should be compensated because both Cubillo and Gunner had been illegally taken without their mother’s consent. This was, they claimed, because of a general policy by the NT government to remove all half caste aboriginal children from their families. The compensation lawyers chose Gunnar and Cubillo because they said it was the best example of children being stolen by governments to "commit genocide" by
"breeding out the black." If Cubillo and Gunnar were the best, then God help the worst because the court case failed miserably. One of the claimants was "stolen" because her mother had asked for the child protection services to take the child, and the records which were still extant were brought to court to prove this. The other was removed when the dirty, racist wife the station owner learned that the mother and child had been abandoned by the white father, and the child's uncle was digging his grave. She alerted the child protection agencies that the child was in mortal danger and the child was removed.

Before the Cubillo, Gunnar vs> Federal Government court case decision was handed down, the whole charge of the 'stolen generations" was handed to the High Court of Australia for a legal decision as to whether the "stolen generations" charge had any basis in legal fact. This was necessitated by the 2000 writs for compensation filed in courts. IF the High court ruled that there was no case to answer, all of those writs would go right into the garbage can where they belonged.

This became the famous Kruger Vs. Commonwealth High Court Case. The plaintiffs were seeking compensation from the Commonwealth for wrongful imprisonment and deprivation of liberty. The activist lawyers advocating for the existence of "the stolen generations" argued before the high court that their charge of wrongfuil imprisonment and deprivation of liberty was valid because of five reasons.

1.infringed the doctrine of separation of powers;
2.offended the common law doctrine of legal equality;
3.restricted their freedom of movement and association;
4.the removal of children constituted genocide; and
5.Removal prevented children from the free exercise of their religion

In all five cases the High Court rejected proposals of the "stolen generations" ambulance chasing lawyers. Legally, the "stolen generations" is a dead duck.

After the shock of the High court's decision to the activist caste (similar to the scenes of shock after Brexit, the election of Trump, and the loss of Shorten's Labor party in the last Federal election) came another blow. Justice O'Loughlin ruled against Gunnar and Cubillo.

The summations from the Judges in the Cubillo, Gunnar cases and the Kruger case give some insight into just how spurious and legally indefensible the whole "stolen generations" fiasco was.

Justice O’Loughlin. Gunnar, Cubillo vs Commonwealth

I cannot accept that submission. It failed to recognize the decisions of the High Court to which reference has already been made that classified the legislation as protectionist and beneficial. It failed to recognize that there was then, and is now, an acceptance of the need to enact special legislation and special consideration for aboriginal people. Finally, there was absolutely no causative link connecting “race” to a failure to have regard for the welfare of children.

Douglas Meaher QC, who led the defence of Guanar, Cubillo, vs. commonwealth the government.

The opinion proved to be wrong in every respect. It was wrong on the facts he assumed. It was found to be wrong by the High Court on the cause of action based upon the Constitution. It was found to be wrong by Justice O’Loughlin in respects to other causes of action.

Justice Daryl Dawson, High Court. Rejection of he "genocide" argument

……there is nothing in the 1918 Ordinance, even if the acts otherwise fall within the definition of genocide, which authorizes acts committed with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, any aboriginal group. On the contrary, as has already been observed, the powers contained in the 1918 Ordinance were required to be exercised in the best interests of the aboriginals concerned or the best interests of the aboriginal population generally. The acts do not, therefore, fall within the definition of genocide contained in the Genocide Convention.

Justice Michael Mc Hugh, High Court. Rejection of the "genocide" argument.

The 1918 Ordinance did not authorize genocide. Article II of the Genocide Convention relevantly defines genocide to mean acts “committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group” as such. The acts include “imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group”, and “forcibly removing children of the group to another group.” There is, however, nothing within the 1918 Ordinance which authorize the doing of acts “with intent to destroy, in whole or in part”, the aboriginal race.

Brian Ross wrote

It did not rule that the Stolen Generations were legal. What it ruled was in that case, there was insufficient evidence to prove that they were illegal, Bogan.

The High court of Australia ruled upon the five reasons the "stolen generations" lawyers used to validate the charge that aboriginal children were wrongfully imprisoned and deprived of their liberty. In other words, "stolen". The High court rejected all five reasons. The "stolen generations" charge is a legal dead duck. All 2000 writs submitted to the courts were withdrawn. But just like Trump's presidential win, or Brexit, you lefties can't just accept the verdict.

[Bogan]

Brine Ross wrote

Sorry Briney, I missed your last bit. I will deal with it now.

You are trying to claim that the Trevoorow vs. State Government of South Australia proves that Read's Charge of 100, 000 children, 50,000 children HREOC "Bringing them Home" report, Robert Manne's 25,000 children were "stolen" by successive conservative and "Progressive" (meaning "Labor") governments for the purpose of committing "genocide" by breeding out the black? Well , the first thing you crazy lefties should do is settle on just how many children were "stolen." With numbers ranging from 25,000 to 100,000, it is indicative that your side has no idea what the hell it is talking about.

The case centred around a sick aboriginal baby boy who was taken to hospital by his parents. The baby was removed from the hospital by a decent and concerned child protection officer who thought that the child was suffering from malnutrition, and she broke the laws of South Australia by removing the child. No conspiracies between successive state and federal governments, Brian. No genocide.. No "breeding out the black." A straight out case of a decent child protection officer acting with the best of intentions, by breaking the law to remove an aboriginal baby from it's parents that she genuinely thought was not being cared for.

She probably had that view because too many aboriginal parents do not take care of the kids at all. Here a re few examples.

[Deborah Melville.

Foster child Deborah died in the dirt in a suburban Darwin backyard, propped against a trailer. She was suffering from a leg infection which had spread into the bone, and was visited by FACS case workers the day before she died. A FACS worker assured the child, “I am not here to take you away.”

A manslaughter trial and coronial inquiry was told that Deborah probably died in excruciating pain, and that she had been unable to control her bowel and bladder in the days before her death. Because of this, her carers, Denise Reynolds and Tony Melville, put her outside to sit in the dirt. One witness told the manslaughter hearing that Reynold’s had said that “If Deborah wanted to wet and soil herself, she can go outside and do it like an animal.”

Though Deborah was living in filthy circumstances, FACS reported that she was “happy and healthy.”

Peter.

Seven week old Peter starved to death in the back of a hot car on the Stuart Highway in 2005. Peter was born to a drug using mother who’s six other children were known to FACS. In 2002, one of the children, a daughter, was taken (stolen?) and taken to Alice Springs Hospital at three months old, “haunted and looking like a bony skeleton.”

Peter at death weighed 1kg less than his birth weight, and during his brief life, FACS officers were repeatedly contacted with reports that the baby was extremely skinny. There were various attempts to remove Peter from his mother’s care, but she was unco-operative, and FACS did not ask the police to forcibly remove (steal) the child.

Joy.

Joy was assessed by health workers as being ‘at risk of severe harm”, and she was one of eight teenage girls in a remote mining town who were being sexually abused by a government official. The teenager, who was born with fetal alcohol syndrome, had a long history of neglect in her aboriginal family. As early as two, she was deposited at a local health clinic because nobody was looking after her. But repeated attempts by the police to get FACS to intervene to protect Joy came to nothing.

Former Minister's Mal Brough's speech at Deakin University.

And those who have not read the report, Little Children are Sacred, its two authors visited 45 communities in the Northern Territory. They didn't find sexual abuse in some of those communities, they didn't find it in most of those communities, they found it in every single community; 45 out of 45. Think about that, the enormity of that for a moment. People coming forward with the most horrendous stories. We have children as young as three with gonorrhoea, we have twenty-four year old grandmothers, we have so many babies being born with alcohol foetal syndrome that their capacity to pass on the oral history of their people is gone before they're even born. We have physical and sexual abuse of boys and girls and men and women. It knows no boundaries.

Aboriginal children's plight in Toomalah


Authorities have been accused of turning a blind eye to child sexual abuse in the small Indigenous community of Toomelah.
Toomelah, an Aboriginal mission on the border of New South Wales and Queensland, is home to 300 people. Earlier this year 7.30 examined the breathtaking scale of dysfunction in the town. Living conditions are almost third-world, employment is non-existent, drug and alcohol abuse is off the scale, crime rates are higher than ever and children are still sexually abused.

Alice Haines now lives in Canberra, but she lived on and off in Toomelah when she was young. "As a child I had experience being sexually abused by many men," she told 7.30. "I can't comprehend how bad it got, but I think it's as bad as it can ever get ... being sodomised since you were two years of age or however young you are. "I can't believe how it can get any worse than that. That's the pitfall. Ridiculously pathetically damaging." She says the abuse is still going on back in Toomelah.

Letter to the Editor, from a doctor treating aboriginal patients.


Dr Dean Robertson, Tennant Creek Hospital, NT

Dear Dr Hutchings

I was interested to read of your “Twisting Mirrors” seminar that you are organizing (Strewth, The Australian newspaper, 5/2/10) The Australia reports that the exhibition will explore the “mimetic instruments by which current social policy and journalism in Australia construct a “performance” of a degraded indigenous social condition in order to justify ongoing state intervention in indigenous lives.”

Tonight, while I write this, I am the doctor saddled with a nightshift at Tennant Creek Hospital, some 2000 Klms north of your hallowed hall of academia. Beside me is a child with nowhere to go because all of his family members are blind drunk. The parade of the bashed and bleeding has begun. Hanging in the night air is the sickly sweet stench of blood and alcohol, cut by the plaintive wails of beaten humanity. The suffering is enormous, but is expected and even accepted by its victims. Working here is like dodging punches in a teeming public bar while stitching smashed faces. The starving babies hardly get a look in.

There is no need to “construct a performance” of a degraded indigenous social condition. All around me the indigenous social condition is utterly appalling. The more that journalism exposes the indigenous social condition, the better. Australians should be ashamed. I think that ivory tower liberals should stop wasting public money that would be better spent improving housing, health and education in indigenous communities. Quit arguing with fancy language and wake up to the reality. We all bleed the same colour.

In a case similar to the one in which a volunteer "ethics" teacher got sacked for telling the truth about the "stolen generations, a judge got reprimanded for telling the truth about too may aboriginal people neglecting their kids.

Judge's 'clearly offensive' Indigenous parenting barb subject of complaint consideration

By Jacqueline Breen

A previously-reprimanded judge who accused a woman appearing before him of abandoning her children in "that great Indigenous fashion" to go and drink alcohol may find his "clearly offensive" comments the subject of a formal complaint, a peak legal body in the Northern Territory has said.

[Bogan]

f66.png

[Nicole]

Brilliant Bogan! I desperately needed some de programming!

[Bogan]

Thank you, Nicole.

I write a lot of this to give ammunition to our supporters on topics like this and HIGW. I know that Brian and NDP are more into stifling debate than promoting debate. And as far as Brian is concerned, I now regard him as a totally dishonest character who rails against racism while doing it himself. I think that Brian in particular simply comes on sites like this to practice his trolling techniques, which I must admit, were very effective on me for a long time.

I hope I have imparted some information that you did not know about the "Stolen Generations" that will help you in future when crossing swords with some innocent, doe eyed young lefty who stumbles into the right wing shark pool of Political Animal? And starts going on and on about the so called "stolen generations."?

Interestingly, Keith Windshuttle wrote in his book that the whole idea of removing half caste aboriginal children to train them to be productive citizens was a proposal put forward by the Communist party of Australia, and accepted by the incumbent governments of the time as a good idea. So now we have the crazy situation of lefties today trying to blame the white race for a supposed evil act perpetrated on the oppressed aborigines, that their predecessors proposed themselves.

[brian ross]

Oh, I am very interested in debate, real debate. You have given me much to think about, Bogan. I will return once I have thought about and done more research on the topic.

[Valkie]

Oh, I am very interested in debate, real debate. You have given me much to think about, Bogan. I will return once I have thought about and done more research on the topic.

Look out Dr Google, here comes bwyannnnnnnnnnnnn
bwyannnnnnnnnnnnn
I would have thought, with his 2345 doctorates and degrees, coupled with over 200 years of service.
That he woukd be able to prove stolen generations.

What a farce
Any means by which a lazy conquered race can get cash is open.

[Bogan]

The week before the 2016 election, the super intelligent, prescient, and always outraged Greens Party realised that they had a problem reconciling the horrendous tales of aboriginal children, some as young as 3, with gonorrhoea, with the idea that we-e-e-e-el, maybe, that was a very good reason why aboriginal children were "stolen" by the "racists." But since the Greens had very publically supported the idea of a "stolen generations", then they were now between a rock and a hard place if they now supported the idea that State and Federal governments should "intervene" and rescue the at risk kids, before any more of them were raped, sodomised, and murdered.

Instead, they released a policy where they had a bob each way. Unable to admit that their party of Mensas and moral giants had ever been wrong, and not wanting aboriginal children to die or be sexually assaulted just to make the Greens look good, the Greens instead released a policy regarding the "stealing" of aboriginal children, and a solution. Their spokesperson, Senator Rachel Siewart declared her support for non intervention. In her and her party's opinion, fewer aboriginal children should be removed from their parents who starve, bash or neglect them. "There are far too many aboriginal children in out-of-home care", she sniffed.

But not wanting to admit that the best solution is to "steal" the at risk kids and either allow caring white familes to adopt them, or put them in an institution where at least they would be fed and educated, Rachel and her caring crew dreamed up the perfect solution which most of you have figured out already. What the Australian government must do, Rachel declared, is, (wait for it, wait for it) to spend a lot more money teaching aboriginal parents to stop spending all their money on grog, and to stop starving, bashing, fucking, and neglecting their kids. Ta daaaaaa!

No costing for this program was of course offered to let the taxpayers know what this latest taxpayer funded bureaucratic pipe dream was going to cost them. But since aboriginal people as individuals already cost the Australian government double what everybody else costs in terms of welfare for negligible return, you can bet it was going to be an expensive one. Only billions of dollars of more money on top of the incredible $33 billlion already spent on 670,000 self declared "aborigines" can "close the gap" between aboriginal dysfunction and the rest of society.

But no matter, The Greens had once again found both the reason and the solution to aboriginal dysfunction. If governments did not take up the sensible solution which the Greens, in their sagacious wisdom had presented, then that was not their problem. As part of the government charged with protecting aboriginal children, The Greens had both supported the highly moral "stolen generations" alegation and ensured that such evil would never be repeated, at the same time absolving themselves of any responsibility to help enact any practical legislation that would stop the continued mistreatment of aboriginal children by aboriginals.

[brian ross]

Brine Ross wrote

Sorry Briney, I missed your last bit. I will deal with it now.

You are trying to claim that the Trevoorow vs. State Government of South Australia proves that Read's Charge of 100, 000 children, 50,000 children HREOC "Bringing them Home" report, Robert Manne's 25,000 children were "stolen" by successive conservative and "Progressive" (meaning "Labor") governments for the purpose of committing "genocide" by breeding out the black? Well , the first thing you crazy lefties should do is settle on just how many children were "stolen." With numbers ranging from 25,000 to 100,000, it is indicative that your side has no idea what the hell it is talking about.

How can we, Bogan? Afterall, it is well known that the Government(s)’s did not keep perfect records of how many children they removed from Black parents. We have only the testimony of those who were removed (and who are still alive) to go on and what the Government(s) admit to. You can deny those all you like but those testimonies make harrowing reading to people with a conscience.

The case centred around a sick aboriginal baby boy who was taken to hospital by his parents. The baby was removed from the hospital by a decent and concerned child protection officer who thought that the child was suffering from malnutrition, and she broke the laws of South Australia by removing the child. No conspiracies between successive state and federal governments, Brian. No genocide.. No "breeding out the black." A straight out case of a decent child protection officer acting with the best of intentions, by breaking the law to remove an aboriginal baby from it's parents that she genuinely thought was not being cared for.

She probably had that view because too many aboriginal parents do not take care of the kids at all.

Immaterial. She was shown to have acted illegally, Bogan. Address that, not what you believe she believed. Address what the Court addressed – the illegal removal of a child because it was black.

Former Minister's Mal Brough's speech at Deakin University.

And those who have not read the report, Little Children are Sacred, its two authors visited 45 communities in the Northern Territory. They didn't find sexual abuse in some of those communities, they didn't find it in most of those communities, they found it in every single community; 45 out of 45. Think about that, the enormity of that for a moment. People coming forward with the most horrendous stories. We have children as young as three with gonorrhoea, we have twenty-four year old grandmothers, we have so many babies being born with alcohol foetal syndrome that their capacity to pass on the oral history of their people is gone before they're even born. We have physical and sexual abuse of boys and girls and men and women. It knows no boundaries.

Ah, Little Children are Sacred? Ah yes, the report that provoked the Intervention in the Northern Territory? Yes? The Intervention that did not address one of the 97 recommendations of the Little Children are Sacred report? The Intervention that failed to find a any children that had an STDs? Tsk, tsk, Bogan, you’ll have to do better than that.

The Intervention may have been required but it was required for reasons other than the Little Children are Sacred report. It needed to address the recommendations from that report. The intervention was required to address the complete and abject failure of the paternalism of the White authorities towards Indigenous People – a policy which the Intervention actually reinforced. Tsk, tsk.

You like to quote many quotes to justify what you believe, Bogan. How about you quotes that point out the failings of the Government policies which you appear to support?

The Northern Territory Intervention in 2007 saw the introduction of a host of draconian controls over Aboriginal lands and communities.
By
Paddy Gibson

21 Jun 2017 - 11:53 AM  UPDATED 21 Jun 2017 - 11:54 AM

Some of these included compulsory leasing of land, prohibitions on alcohol and pornography and welfare quarantining. It also saw a large increase in budgets for law enforcement and child protection, along with housing and health services. Many of these measures were continued under the “Stronger Futures in the Northern Territory” policy from 2012, which remains in place today.

The initial justification for the Intervention made by Indigenous Affairs Minister, Mal Brough, was that paedophile rings were operating in Aboriginal communities. These allegations were refuted by the Australian Crime Commission in 2009 after thorough investigation. However, many other serious social problems affecting Aboriginal communities including alcohol related harm, high rates of family violence and incarceration, were also put forward as justification for the draconian new regime. Sadly, despite more than $2 billion being budgeted by the Commonwealth for the Intervention and associated policies since 2007, many of the social problems facing communities have actually become worse.

1. Many more Aboriginal children are being forcibly removed from their family and culture

The Intervention was accompanied by a massive injection of Commonwealth funding for "child protection” services in the NT. The NT Department of Children and Families budget increased from approximately $10 million in 2006 to $36 million in 2015. Overwhelmingly, these resources are focused on surveillance and removal of Aboriginal children, rather than support for struggling families. The cost of keeping a child in “out of home care” in the NT is upwards of $100,000 per child per year.

According to figures from the Productivity Commission, the number of Indigenous children in “out of home care” has increased more than threefold, from 265 children in June 2007 to 920 in June 2016. Over the same period, the number of non-Indigenous children in care slightly decreased. The rate at which non-Indigenous children are being placed on child protection orders has decreased markedly from 113 in 2006-07 to just 48 in 2015-16.

Meanwhile, the rate of placement according to the ‘Aboriginal child placement principle’, supposedly mandated by NT law, has decreased from 56% in 2006-07 to just 36.2% in 2012-13. The current NT Royal Commission has heard horrific stories of children, including newborn babies, being forcibly taken hundreds of kilometers away from their communities, even interstate, losing all contact with their family and culture. Some Aboriginal community leaders before the Commission have described this as a stolen generation.

2. Punitive measures have not increased school attendance

The NT Intervention has been accompanied by new measures which penalise parents whose children are not attending school. The School Enrolment and Attendance Measure (SEAM) introduced as a pilot in 2008 and expanded from 2013 makes welfare payments conditional on school attendance, while the NT government has run a parallel system of fining parents of truants. Changes to social security legislation introduced in 2010 link exemptions from income management school attendance. Despite this, the rates of school attendance of Aboriginal children under the Intervention have gone backwards.

Government monitoring reports looking specifically at “prescribed communities” under the Northern Territory Emergency Response (NTER) legislation showed that attendance rates dropped in both primary and secondary schools under the NTER, with overall rates declining from 62.3% just before the Intervention to 57.5% in 2011.

Less specific, more recent figures show that the situation has still not improved. Figures from the Productivity Commission “Overcoming Indigenous Disadvantage” reports show the Indigenous attendance rate in “remote” NT schools in 2009 was 80.2% and in “very remote” schools was 61.8%. The same figures in 2015 had declined to 78% in “remote” NT schools and 61.6% in “very remote” schools.

3. The Intervention saw an increase in youth suicide and huge spike in self-harm

In 2006-07 there were 57 reported incidents. In 2011-12 there were 316 incidents. This is an almost six fold increase. Commenting on the increase, then Social Justice Commissioner Mick Gooda said, "One view put forward is that these figures reflect an increased police presence in communities which caused incidents to be discovered which would have previously gone unreported. I harbour serious doubts about this being the main explanation for an increase of this magnitude.”

Over a similar period there was a big increase in the rate of youth suicide. The 2012 Indigenous Social Justice Report said:

"In the Northern Territory between 2006 and 2010, the rate of suicide for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander young people aged 10-17 was 30.1 per 100,000 compared to rate for non-Indigenous people in the same age bracket of 2.6 per 100,000. These rates for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander young people have increased 160% when compared to the previous period of 2001-2005. In contrast, non-Indigenous suicide rates have reduced to about a third of the previous period’s levels. The rates of suicide of young Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander females are particularly shocking. Girls makeup 40% of youth suicide in the Northern Territory when the national average at this age is less than 10%.”

More recent suicide figures for this age bracket are not currently available, so we cannot draw direct comparisons with the period between 2010 and today. However, 2014 ABS statistics showed that both the overall NT Indigenous suicide rate and the rate for under 25s had not decreased on earlier data and remain the highest rates of any Australian jurisdiction.

Nation-wide, the suicide rate in Indigenous communities is estimated to be 40% higher than the rate of non-Indigenous suicide.

4. The Intervention housing program has had a minimal impact on shocking rates of overcrowding

The NT Intervention was accompanied by the Strategic Indigenous Housing and Infrastructure Program (SIHIP), with $647 million budgeted to construct 750 new houses and a major renovations drive across communities. Extra funding allocated through the Stronger Futures period means that more than 1000 new houses have now been built in NT communities since the start of the Intervention.

There has been minimal improvement in shocking rates of overcrowding during this period. According to Productivity Commission figures, the proportion of Indigenous people living in overcrowded housing has decreased from 59% in 2008 to 53% in 2014. These improvements are no greater than the national average, and are still more than twice the rate of Indigenous overcrowding in any Australian jurisdiction.

Voices from the Frontline - 10 years on from the NT Intervention

Here are Indigenous people impacted by the NT Intervention. Hear their stories.
In May this year, David Ross from the Central Land Council argued recent Commonwealth investments were “a drop in the ocean compared to the need”. Mr Ross pointed out that the Little Children Are Sacred Report that was used as a pretext for the Intervention called for the immediate construction of 4000 houses and 400 additional houses each year until 2027.

Under the Intervention, funding for new housing and for housing maintenance has been contingent on Aboriginal communities signing over township lands, to the Commonwealth, under long term leases of between 40 - 99 years. Hundreds of millions of dollars’ worth of housing stock previously built and owned by locally controlled Aboriginal housing organisations has been transferred to Commonwealth control under the Intervention.

5. Income Management has made life harder for many and remains racially discriminatory

The NT Intervention forced all recipients of Centrelink in prescribed communities onto Income Management. Under this system, half of regular payments and all lump sum payments quarantined and cannot be paid as cash. Use of quarantined payments must be negotiated with Centrelink and since 2008 has been most often paid onto a ‘BasicsCard’ that can only be used on approved items at approved stores.

In 2010, the Gillard government reinstated the Racial Discrimination Act with respect to Income Management. Instead of just Aboriginal communities, anywhere in Australia can now be declared an “income management area” and the whole of the NT was declared. Since then, the scheme has been extended to other areas in Australia, most of which have large Aboriginal populations. The NT scheme is still far more draconian than any other, targeting all young people or long term unemployed on benefits, instead of specific groups referred by social services. The NT scheme still makes up more than 80% of all people on income management Australia wide.
Approximately 90% of people on income management in the NT are Indigenous and 80% of all people across Australia on income management are Indigenous.

Ten years of the NT Intervention - Ten testimonies from the grass-roots

On June 21st 2007, the Racial Discrimination Act was suspended to allow the Northern Territory Response Act 2007 a controversial move that still effects communities in the Northern Territory.
A 2012 government commissioned review of income management surveyed over 800 people on the system. More than two-thirds of people said that income management is discriminatory. Similar numbers report feelings of embarrassment arising from income management, and three quarters feel it is unfair. A majority said the scheme had made their life harder or not improved things.

The Commonwealth’s own Joint Parliamentary Committee on Human Rights found in a 2016 review that Income Management in the NT was racially discriminatory according to standards outlined in UN conventions and recommended an end to the blanket targeting of welfare recipients taking place under the NT scheme.

More than $1 billion has been allocated from the Commonwealth budget for income management Australia wide since the launch of the NT Intervention. The estimated administrative cost per person per week is $80. Despite this enormous expense, the government commissioned review of income management in the NT argued in their final 2014 report:

The evaluation could not find any substantive evidence of the program having significant changes relative to its key policy objectives, including changing people’s behaviours.
More general measures of wellbeing at the community level show no evidence of improvement, including for children.

The evaluation found that, rather than building capacity and independence, for many the program has acted to make people more dependent on welfare.

The NT Intervention forced all recipients of Centrelink in prescribed communities onto Income Management.

6. The abolition of the Community Development Employment Projects (CDEP) has created mass unemployment and exploitation

Prior to the NT Intervention, approximately 7500 people were employed across Aboriginal communities in the NT working on Community Development Employment Projects (CDEP). CDEPs were mostly local Aboriginal government councils running municipal and other community services. The scheme was abolished under the Intervention and CDEP participants were transferred from wages onto Centrelink payments.

The Rudd government introduced an NT Jobs Package to replace CDEP positions with “real jobs”, creating 2241 new positions. However, figures gained through Senate estimates in 2011 showed 61 per cent of these positions were only part-time and many are on the lowest level of public sector pay. The net result of this reform process has been a loss of many thousands of waged jobs. Aboriginal unemployment rates across remote Australia have skyrocketed from 11 per cent before the Intervention, to 28 per cent today. This figure does not register the many thousands of unemployed people not registered with Centrelink.

An exploitative Work for the Dole scheme has replaced CDEP. Under the current scheme, called the Community Development Program (CDP), Newstart recipients are required to work for 25 hours per week to receive their entitlements. Often this is municipal work and private companies can also use CDP participants without paying them wages. There are no protections under industrial law and payment is well below award wages. Many CDP workers are on Income Management, meaning they only receive approximately $5 cash per hour for their work.

If CDP workers do not attend work they must be docked one days “pay” and can be cut off Centrelink entirely for up to eight weeks. At a Senate Estimates hearing in March 2017, the Prime Ministers Department confirmed that more than 200,000 breach notices have been handed out since CDP began in July 2015.

Aboriginal unemployment rates across remote Australia have skyrocketed from 11 per cent before the Intervention, to 28 per cent today.

7. Restrictions on courts considering Aboriginal culture, custom and law in bail and sentencing decisions continue

The Northern Territory National Emergency Response Act 2007 prohibited courts from considering Aboriginal culture, custom and law when making bail and sentencing decisions in the Northern Territory. This was a violation of principles of equality before the law and rights to a fair trial. All other groups in Australia have a right for all of their circumstances to be considered when courts are making bail and sentencing decisions - including their culture and customary obligations.

These laws did not only impact on sentencing for crimes committed by Indigenous people. For example, in 2007 a construction company dug a pit toilet on an Aboriginal sacred site at Numbulwar in the NT Gulf Country while building a compound for the new Government Business Manager installed by the Intervention. They were only fined $500 for this and, on appeal, the NT Supreme Court ruled that the cultural harm caused could not be considered by the court.

Under the Stronger Futures legislation introduced in 2012, changes were made to exempt matters involving Aboriginal heritage protection. But the legislation NTER provisions prohibiting consideration of customary law in bail and sentencing in the NT are now enshrined in the Crimes Act, with no sunset clause.

The NT National Emergency Response Act 2007 prohibited courts from considering Aboriginal culture, custom and law when making bail and sentencing decisions.

8. The number of Indigenous people in prison has exploded

According to figures from the Australian Bureau of Statistics:

The number of Indigenous men in prison has doubled over the past 10 years, from 668 in March 2007 to 1,327 in March 2017.

The number of Indigenous women in prison has increased more than three-fold from 30 in March 2007 to 106 in March 2017.

The current Royal Commission investigating abuse of children in youth detention reports that between 2006 - 2016 the number of children and young people entering detention more than doubled, from 120 to 254.

The number of young Aboriginal females entering detention increased from just 5 in 2006 to 48 in 2016.

Indigenous adults make up 84% of the NT prison population and Indigenous children and young people make up 94% of the NT youth prison population.
If the NT were a country, it would be second only to the United States in terms of rates of incarceration.

Indigenous adults make up 84% of the NT prison population and Indigenous children and young people make up 94% of the NT youth prison population.

9. Discriminatory alcohol bans remain in force and there is no evidence they have reduced harmful drinking

Prior to the NT Intervention, many remote communities had taken initiative to have dry areas established under provisions of the NT Liquor Act.

The Northern Territory National Emergency Response Act 2007 established blanket bans on alcohol across Aboriginal land. Police were given powers to enter homes and vehicles on Aboriginal land without a warrant to enforce this prohibition. The restrictions were extended for a further 10 years under Stronger Futures legislation introduced in 2012, but with increased penalties. Penalties under this law include the possibility of a 6 month jail sentence for possessing a single can of beer on Aboriginal land.

Stronger Futures laws also introduced the possibility of community negotiated “alcohol management plans” to potentially replace the blanket restrictions. However, a 2016 review by the Joint Parliamentary Committee on Human Rights found: “All of the existing alcohol restrictions imposed by the NTNER, and continued by the Stronger Futures measures, remain in place across the NT. As at late 2015, only one AMP has been approved by the current minister… for the Titjikala community. In that case, the AMP operates alongside the existing alcohol restrictions; it does not replace those restrictions. In addition, the current minister has refused to approve seven AMPs submitted by community groups.”

The review also found, "the measures limit the right to equality and non-discrimination as they directly discriminate on the basis of race” and that “the government has not produced any evidence as to the effectiveness of the Stronger Futures measures in reducing alcohol related harm”.

The Northern Territory National Emergency Response Act 2007 established blanket bans on alcohol across Aboriginal land

10. Extreme rates of family violence have not decreased

The extreme rates of family violence in many NT Aboriginal communities provided one of the central justifications for the NT Intervention. However, this problem has not improved under the Intervention and there is evidence to suggest it has become worse.

The Office of the NT Children’s Commissioner conducted an analysis of hospitalisation figures relating to the NT in 2014. This demonstrated that the rate of hospitalisation for Indigenous women in the NT had increased 23% between 2008 – 2012 while the rate for non-Indigenous women in the NT remained steady. This makes Indigenous women 61 times more likely to be hospitalised for assault than non-Indigenous women in the NT.

The extreme rates of family violence in many NT Aboriginal communities provided one of the central justifications for the NT Intervention.

An Evaluation of the Northern Territory Intervention published by the Castan Centre for Human Rights Law in 2016 argues: “There has been a dramatic increase in the number of family violence cases, which is likely an effect of both extra policing and mandatory reporting. The rate of increase seems to have slowed according to most recent figures from 2013-14, which report only a 3.2% increase. However, this suggests that programs that have attempted to address family violence in the Northern Territory have been ineffective”.

Aboriginal community controlled organisations and many other Aboriginal community leaders have insisted throughout the Intervention, that seriously addressing these problems requires respect for self-determination, and the urgent allocation of resources for community led development.

It is time these voices are heard.

Now there is obviously evidence that the Intervention was a failure. Are you willing to admit to that, Bogan?