Do we need another "Intervention"?

The "Intervention" was a government initiative of the early 2000's. It involved taking over some of the welfare payments being made to some indigenous people and leaving a smaller amount for discretionary spending.  It involved bringing in alcohol free zones. Some welfare payments were tied to school attendance. There was a greater police presence in some indigenous areas.

The plan was supported federally by both Labor and the Coalition but it was opposed by the state Labor government and Human Rights Commissions. It was also supported by many indigenous elders.

These "interventions" were also heavily criticised by people who claimed "indigenous people have the right to self-determination". They claimed that the result was increased levels of incarceration for those who would not abide by the measures.  That the measures did result in lower levels of domestic violence and increased school attendance was not seen as a measure of success. It was claimed there were "other" ways of helping indigenous people. The measures were dropped and there has been an increase in domestic violence issues. Alcohol related issues have increased. School attendance is down. There are more instances of children not being even adequately cared for.

Should those measures have been kept in place? There are still people arguing that they were wrong, that this is not how indigenous affairs should be handled. 

These arguments are being made even while billions (yes, billions - not millions) of taxpayer dollars are being spent for no measurable improvements. Argue that the reverse is true and we are told it is the fault of "the system" - whatever that is. We are told that indigenous people need "greater" rather than lesser control over their own affairs.

Is that working? No it is not. It will not work. Handing more control to indigenous "leaders" has been shown over and over again not to work. The latest horrific (and it really is horrific) murder of a young child came about partly because of this. The child had been the subject of repeated welfare reports. Nothing was done. The police were involved. Nothing was done. She slept on a mattress in the "living room" of a house not really fit for human habitation. Not so long ago it had been a new dwelling that, appropriately cared for, was more than adequate. The child's grandfather is head of an indigenous housing organisation and is reportedly receiving a very high income. Everything suggests this child should have been safe, well housed and well cared for but she was not. What is more it was considered so "normal" by the authorities they did not intervene. 

Yes, it sounds "racist" to say that. When suggestions are made about what might be done then there are claims of "if you do that then there will be another "stolen generation" so we have to leave them where they are". 

Perhaps it is time for more people to read the report into the "stolen generation" and look at the number of successful claims. There has been just one successful claim in this state - but we are still told there were "many" children just taken from their families. 

I would not agree with a policy that in any way forcibly removed children from their families if they were being even just adequately cared for at home. That said I wonder whether we do not need to intervene much more strongly when children are not being properly cared for. Is it perhaps time to stop the nonsense of "the right to self-determination" when such large sums of money are being spent for no visible benefit?