Northern Territory National Emergency Response

The justification given for introducing the measures was the Little Children are Sacred report published in June 2007, being the findings of an inquiry into child sexual abuse in the NT commissioned by the Northern Territory Government.

Paul Toohey, writing for The Bulletin wrote that the policy was poll-driven,[1] although it gained the broad support of the Rudd Labor opposition and some Aboriginal leaders.

The media release served as ministerial regulation to implement a taskforce of eminent Australians, led by Magistrate Sue Gordon, chair of the National Indigenous Council.

[5] According to Brough's media release, the implementation of the Taskforce reflected the government response to Ampe Akelyernemane Meke Mekarle, the Little Children are Sacred report, handed to Clare Martin, the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory, on 30 April 2007.

[citation needed] The Northern Territory National Emergency Response Act 2007, introduced under Howard's fourth term as Prime Minister of Australia, received Royal Assent on 17 August 2007, and amended in September.

The nine measures contained therein were as follows:[13] Though the plan achieved broad bi-partisan support in the Parliament, it was criticised by the Northern Territory Labor government, the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission[17] and by several Aboriginal leaders and community spokespeople.

[citation needed] In 2010, James Anaya, a United Nations Special Rapporteur, found the Emergency Response to be racially discriminating and infringe on the human rights of Aboriginal people in the Northern Territory.

[20] Anaya acknowledged that emergency action was needed but said that measures like banning alcohol and pornography and quarantining a percentage of welfare income for the purchase of essential goods represented a limitation on "individual autonomy".

[21] Organisations such as Australians for Native Title and Reconciliation (ANTaR) have argued that breaching the Racial Discrimination Act is not necessary in order to protect the children in the affected areas.

While finding some support among organisations like the Australian Greens, Anaya's Report was widely condemned in Australia, with the Rudd government's Indigenous Affairs Minister, Jenny Macklin, saying that her duty to protect the rights of children was paramount.

Claims made by critics of the Intervention are as follows: A delegation of Northern Territory Aboriginal leaders met with the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Navi Pillay, at Charles Darwin University in May 2011.

[32] Some Aboriginal commentators and activists, such as Noel Pearson, Marcia Langton and Bess Price, offered support, criticising aspects of the response while believing it to be necessary and worthwhile.

[38][39][40][41][42][43] Following the announcement of the Intervention plan by the Howard government, Cape York Indigenous leader Noel Pearson offered support, telling ABC Radio National on 22 June 2007: I'm in agreement with the emphasis on grog and policing.

But the difference between the proposals that we've put forward to the Government and the proposals announced by Minister Brough, there is a difference in that we would be concerned that those people who are acting responsibly in relation to the payments they receive, should continue to exercise their freedoms and their decisions, we should only target cases of responsibility failure.Writing in February 2008, Aboriginal academic Marcia Langton rejected arguments that the Intervention had been a "political ploy" and argued that the policy in fact marked the death of a "wrong-headed male Aboriginal ideology":[44][excessive quote] There is a cynical view afoot that the Intervention was a political ploy – to grab land, support mining companies and kick black heads, dressed up as concern for children.

It was a product of the failure of Northern Territory governments for a quarter of a century to adequately invest the funds they received to eliminate the disadvantages of their citizens in education, health and basic services.

The combined effect of the righteous media campaign for action and the Emergency Intervention has been a metaphorical dagger, sunk deep into the heart of the powerful, wrong-headed Aboriginal male ideology that has prevailed in Indigenous affairs policies and practices for decades.