Twelve months have passed since the Howard government announced a number of dramatic measures to deal with what it described as a ''national emergency in relation to the abuse of children in indigenous communities in the Northern Territory''.
These included restrictions on the sale, possession and transportation of alcohol, bans on X-rated pornography, medical examinations for all indigenous children in the territory and welfare reforms designed to stem the flow of money spent on alcohol and drug abuse.
It was the most far-reaching, if not controversial, Commonwealth indigenous affairs initiative of the modern era. It was sparked by the findings of a government-appointed board of inquiry into the protection of Aboriginal children from sexual abuse. The Little Children are Sacred report offered compelling reasons for urgent Commonwealth intervention, though it was by no means the first such report to detail the violence and drug abuse that blights so many indigenous communities throughout Australia. Nevertheless, the flying squads of police, army and medical personnel inserted into remote NT settlements following John Howard's June 22 announcement were welcomed by indigenous and non-indigenous Australians alike as a long overdue measure.
Federal Labor, too, voted in favour of the Bills to legalise the intervention, but remained critical of certain aspects of the initiative, including the decision to scrap the Community Development and Employment Scheme. Shortly after winning the November federal election, Prime Minister Kevin Rudd reiterated Labor's bipartisan support for the intervention, but indicated the new Government would reinstate the employment scheme (after an appropriate revamp), and the permit system giving Aborigines full control over who came and went from their communities (although medical, police and social workers would be allowed automatic access to continue their work).
Labor has always insisted it would review the progress and effectiveness of the intervention before committing to its long-term future, and earlier this month the Government announced it had appointed a former director of the Kimberley Land Council, Peter Yu, to head the first major review of the intervention, with support from a former member of the NSW Aboriginal Child Sexual Assault Taskforce, Marcia Ella-Duncan, and a former Australian Electoral Commissioner, Bill Gray.
But it has also completed its own 12-month ''report card'' on the intervention.
Indigenous Affairs Minister Jenny Macklin says this has shown evidence of improvement in the areas of children's nutrition and school attendance, but ''there's a lot, lot further to go''.
One aspect of the intervention where progress remains slow is health checks. As of last month, only about 63 per cent of children in remote communities had undergone medical checks. The continuing shortage of doctors willing to serve in remote areas of the NT, as well as the recent decision of the Australian Medical Association to end its involvement in recruiting doctors to help with the intervention (apparently in protest over the lack of ''appropriate funding''), highlights just how difficult a task the Government has set itself in delivering services to indigenous communities comparable to elsewhere in Australia.
Also, there is evidence the intended beneficiaries of the intervention (or at least the adults) are unhappy, angry and confused, both by the continuing lack of consultation and by the unnecessary hardships imposed on people as a result of the the welfare quarantine measures.
Labor has yet to address the income management issue; the result is that there are likely to be widespread demonstrations across the country demanding the end of the intervention.
Even the lawyer who co-wrote the Little Children are Sacred report, Rex Wilde, has criticised the Commonwealth over its failure to consult and address some of the underlying causes of the abuse as the lack of adequate housing in remote communities.
Wilde's report was a shocking reminder of the failure of successive governments to properly address indigenous disadvantage in regional and rural Australia. While there was an element of political opportunism in Howard's dramatic response (and failure to consult widely before he acted), the intervention was necessary and welcome.
Despite the inevitable missteps and miscalculation, Labor appears committed to its continuation.
It really has no alternative if it is serious about ensuring that Aborigines in remote areas have access to the same levels of housing, health, and education services enjoyed by non-Aboriginal Australians. That said, it has a duty to review the progress, and to listen carefully to the recommendations of Yu, Ella-Duncan and Gray when they are delivered.