Australia's Radical Plan to Crack Down on Aborigine Child Abuse

An Australian postcard with aborigine children

If you live outside of Australia, you are probably not familiar with this news. But in a controversial plan, the government has come very near to declaring martial law over aborigine communities. Earlier this month, a government report (full copy here) revealed:

another, previously hidden, price tag on what it termed the "river of grog" [alcoholism] pouring into Aboriginal communities -- rampant child sexual abuse caused by a breakdown in traditional society.

The report's shocking description of juvenile prostitution and children as young as five contracting venereal disease prompted Prime Minister John Howard to launch the most radical overhaul of Aboriginal policy in a generation.

Branding the plight of Aboriginal children as a national emergency, Howard announced the federal government was seizing control of Aboriginal communities across Australia's vast Northern Territory for the next five years.

He said police, with logistical backing from the military, would enforce a six-month alcohol ban in Aboriginal settlements.

Hardcore pornography will also be prohibited under the clampdown, while all Aboriginal children in the Northern Territory will receive compulsory health checks and welfare will only be paid if parents meet strict conditions.

"The reality is that the old approach hasn't worked," Howard said, "that's why we're acting."

Since I am not intimately familiar with the issues here, I simply could not say if this is the right strategy or not. However, I do agree with PM Howard that something different needs to be done. The statistics are grim:

Alcohol causes the death of an Aborigine every 38 hours. Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders, who together make up about 2.5% of Australia's population, live on average 17 years less than their fellow citizens. The average life expectancy for Aboriginal men is 59, compared with 77 for non-indigenous males

Of course, in spite of this, not everyone is happy with the plan, and it has run into strong opposition. And predictably, the traditional tactic of shutting down constructive debate has reared its ugly head: Calling it "racist". (Crying "racism"... that old comfort zone that just never goes out of style...)

Even medical examinations, which I would think would be the least objectionable parts of the plan, are denounced the same way:

The Aboriginal Medical Services Alliance - Northern Territory said compulsory medical checks on indigenous children were racist and were causing anguish to parents. The Australian Medical Association said there were "nowhere near enough doctors" in the Northern Territory to conduct medical checks for an estimated 23,000 children.

"Causing anguish to parents". Incredible. How about anguish to children? Would you prefer the program to be voluntary, knowing that any parent who is sexually abusing a child would be very unlikely to volunteer their examination? The number of available doctors could certainly be a problem. But look here:

Gregory Phillips, one of Australia's first Aboriginal medical anthropologists, does not support compulsory health checks for children under 16.

Mr Phillips says “unless they do that in non-Aboriginal communities in the Northern Territory as well, then it is racially discriminatory”.

“What that does is that every kid in that community, whether they've been abused or not, will take the message that there is something wrong with them and that it is their aboriginality itself that is the problem”.

But non-aborigines are 98% of Australia's population. If you may not have enough doctors to check the 2% of children that are aborigine, how on earth are you going to check them all? Shouldn't you put your limited resources where they will do the most good? Would it really be better that none at all are checked?

The rest of the more rational criticism leveled at Howard essentially boils down to these arguments:

1) Howard is just posturing himself before the upcoming elections

2) This government interference is just too heavy handed

3) The government doesn't understand aborigine society well enough to solve these problems

All of these certainly could be very valid criticisms. But what galls me is that in all this criticism, I have yet to see anyone offer a viable alternate plan other than very nebulous calls for "empowerment". Here is one particular suggestion that is spectacular in both it's vagueness and uselessness:

We need to think from the heart and link hands as a nation over the coming years to recover the strength, dignity and courage that defined Aboriginal society for so long, until us white fellas came stomping across the country, trampling people's lives and seeding the current crisis across Aboriginal society today.

The official report itself provides 97 recommendations for solving the problem. They start on page 21, or they are also summarized here, for anyone who doesn't want to download the file. Some of them would probably be effective, such as those dealing with agency information sharing and health care reporting, and others would take a long time to implement, such recruiting more aborigines into law enforcement and social work. In the meantime, what do you do? Unfortunately, many suffer from the same polite wishfulness and vagueness noted above. For example:

40 a. develop a comprehensive long-term strategy to build a strong and equitable core service platform in Aboriginal communities, to address the underlying risk factors for child sexual abuse and to develop functional communities in which children are safe

46 d. the establishment of multi-purpose family centres or hubs in remote communities and regional centres to provide an integrated holistic approach to working with families

75. That the government actively encourage, support and resource the development of community-based and community-owned Aboriginal family violence intervention and treatment programs and any other programs that meet the needs of children and are designed to respond to the particular conditions and cultural dynamics of each community and commit to ongoing resourcing of such programs

You get the idea.

Personally, I am instinctively against any broadening of government power and interference in private family life. But my own concerns for the safety of children override these concerns in nearly every case. If you make a false accusation against an adult, you can always apologize and provide some sort of compensation later. But you simply cannot turn back the clock with a child who has been sexually abused.

UPDATE 06/26/2007: Fixed several problem links.



Like what you see? Click on any of the labels below to read related articles, bookmark this site, or subscribe to my  RSS Feed