Evidenceless on Indigenous Income Quarantining

This is an article I wrote on the recent study of the Menzies School of Health Research on the lack of evidence that income quarantining was improving Indigenous nutrition. It was published on new matilda.

http://newmatilda.com.au/2010/05/24/exaggerating-vegetables

INDIGENOUS POLICY

24 May 2010

Exaggerating The Vegetables

By Thalia Anthony

The Government likes to say that the NT Intervention has improved Indigenous health — but the problem is there's no proper evidence for their claims, writes Thalia Anthony

The brave new world of Indigenous policy has been built on the promise of evidence-based outcomes — especially in relation to Indigenous health.

The Indigenous Affairs Minister, Jenny Macklin, has repeatedly voiced her support (pdf) for "evidence-based policy interventions that close the gap between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians". This apparent belief in evidence is the same sentiment that was used by the Howard government to justify the Northern Territory Intervention and its removal of Indigenous rights to land, welfare income, self-determination and non-discrimination.

That government maintained that quarantining Indigenous welfare income improved health because it encouraged people to consume more fruit and vegetables. Before the Intervention, Mal Brough, the former Indigenous affairs minister, stated (pdf) that evidence "proves that reducing discretionary income and ensuring payments are directed to their intended purpose makes a real and positive impact on those we are seeking to assist. The question, therefore, is how do we achieve this more widely".

So where does that leave the current Government when evidence emerges that the Northern Territory Intervention is not leading to improved Indigenous nutrition? This was the revelation last week when researchers in the Northern Territory’s Menzies School of Health Research reported that income quarantining was not increasing purchases of fruit and vegetables.

The new study is significant because it’s the first quantitative study of food sales in prescribed Indigenous communities that used qualitative data to directly test the Government’s evidence-based claims.

The finding that the Intervention was not improving Indigenous health outcomes was not new, and indeed a series of independent reports had found that Indigenous health was not improving under the Intervention. Irene Fisher, the Chief Executive Officer of the Sunrise Health Service, revealed (pdf) that anaemia rates (which are a direct result of poor nutrition) among children under the age of five rose from 20 per cent in June-December 2006 to 55 per cent in June-December 2008. The University of Technology Sydney’s Jumbunna Indigenous House of Learning identified that the Intervention was not promoting the consumption of fruit and vegetables because their prices in community stores were prohibitively expensive (pdf).

The Menzies School’s research is new in that it is the only quantitative study that assesses food purchases. It compares expenditure across 10 stores in Northern Territory Indigenous communities in the 18 months before and the 18 months after income quarantining was introduced. Accordingly, it tests the Government’s claims and qualitative studies that Indigenous people are eating more fruit and vegetables since the Intervention.

The Menzies study, published in the Medical Journal of Australia, found that income quarantining was not making any difference to healthy food sales in Indigenous communities. Incidentally, there was also no impact on tobacco sales — another major health issue for Indigenous people. The only remarkable increase was expenditure on soft drinks. The authors concluded:

"These findings suggest that, without an actual increase in income as occurred with the government stimulus payment, income management may not affect people’s spending overall. The findings challenge a central tenet of income management — that people’s spending habits will be modified in a positive way with mandatory restrictions on expenditure alone."

With her passion for evidence, the Minister should have welcomed the first empirical report on fruit and vegetable sales. However, Macklin’s response to the Menzies School’s research was dismissive. Instead, she referred to an earlier qualitative study (produced by the Australian Government’s Institute of Health and Welfare) which claimed that the perception of healthier food choices proved the positive impact of income quarantining. That study (pdf) had been based on telephone interviews with 66 store owners, an earlier survey of 49 Government business managers and an earlier report of consultations with Indigenous people from four communities. According to it, two-thirds of Indigenous people interviewed "had a positive view" of income quarantining.

However the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (AIHW) report expressed a number of serious concerns with its methodology. One problem related to the fact that the study’s point-in-time and qualitative research were not very convincing, and "would all sit towards the bottom of an evidence hierarchy". As well, they found that in the Government’s research the "overall evidence about the effectiveness of income management in isolation from other [Northern Territory Emergency Response] measures was difficult to assess". Those "other measures" include the increase in the supply of fruit and vegetables in Indigenous community stores, and the greater numbers of non-Indigenous government workers in communities, which would likely have an impact on fruit and vegetable purchasing.

Further, the AIHW pointed out the fact that interviews with Indigenous people "included only a relatively small number of clients (76) from 4 locations, who were not randomly selected for interview", and found that overall, "There was a limited amount of quantitative data on which to base the evaluation findings".

The shortcomings in the Government’s evidence have attracted widespread criticism from experts in Indigenous policy indicators. The Director of the Centre for Aboriginal Economic Policy Research (CAEPR), Professor Jon Altman, noted that "in the area of income quarantining there is still fraught methodology, so it is store operators rather than customers that are surveyed, and while 68.2 per cent of store operators report more healthy food purchased, it is unclear if this ‘more’ is in dollar terms or quantity."

The United Nations Special Rapporteur on Indigenous Rights, James Anaya, who has reported on the racial discrimination underpinning the Intervention, also stated (pdf) that evidence of the success of the income quarantining "is ambiguous at best". The Government’s own review of the Intervention concluded that, "there was little evidence of baseline data being gathered in any formal or organised format which would permit an assessment of the impact and progress of the NTER upon communities".

So if the Government was to use the empirical evidence of the Menzies School to improve Indigenous nutrition, what would it do? The answer is that it would provide subsidies for fruit and vegetables in community stores. The Menzies School found that the one time that food spending increased was at the time of the government stimulus payment. This corroborates Jumbunna’s finding that Indigenous people weren’t buying fruit and vegetables because of the very high cost of these foods in their communities, and affirms Jumbunna’s recommendation to subsidise food.

However Macklin has decided to take a different path. Rather than seeking to verify evidence, the Minister is leading a bipartisan push to extend income quarantining to non-Indigenous communities in the Northern Territory and Australia-wide by 2012. This leaves one wondering what evidence has to do with any of this. A senior fellow at CAEPR hasnoted (pdf) that, in reality, "evidence in Indigenous affairs plays just a small role in a much larger argumentative struggle" between different "ideological tendencies". The current Government’s ideological tendency has been away from Indigenous rights and towards neo-paternalism, according (pdf) to the director of CAEPR.

This form of paternalism, however, may not be for "their own good".

Evidence Disputes NT Intervention

It's been almost three years since Indigenous welfare has been quarantined under the Federal Government's Northern Territory Intervention into remote Indigenous communities. This has seen at least 50% of all Indigenous welfare recipient's income put onto a BasicsCard that can only be spent on designated items in designated stores.

Of course, there is a strong human rights argument against quarantining Indigenous welfare. It contravenes international rights to non-discrimination. Consequently, the Racial Discrimination Act (that protects the right to non-racial discrimination) had to be suspended to allow the passage of the legislation.

However, today we also have an empirical study that has found that welfare quarantining has NOT resulted in healthier eating choices by Indigenous people. Evidence suggests the Intervention is not working, and yet the Federal Government intends to expand welfare quarantining later this year. This reveals that the policy is more about the racial ideology of paternalism rather than healthier outcomes for Indigenous communities.

See article by authors of study on food choices before and after the Intervention:

http://www.crikey.com.au/2010/05/17/income-management-isnt-working-and-macklins-twisting-the-truth/

Justice on Palm Island

Sen Sgt Hurley made an application last year to re-open the coronial inquest into the death of Mulrunji on Palm Island. He had been found responsible for death in two earlier inquiries. This led to his prosecution for manslaughter (the first of an officer for a death in custody).

Hurley was subsequently acquitted (because the jury found that he lacked the state of mind for manslaughter). Hurley then sought to clear his name by re-opening the coronial inquiry.

Today Coroner Hines found that not only did Hurley cause the death but was involved in cover-ups with other police officers. Below is the report from the Courier Mail.

http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/queensland/chris-hurley-caused-mulrunjis-death-then-lied-about-magistrate-finds/story-e6freoof-1225866792041?from=public_rss

Chris Hurley caused Mulrunji's death then lied about it, magistrate finds

POLICEMAN Chris Hurley caused the death of Cameron Mulrunji Doomadgee in the Palm Island police lockup then lied about it because he feared retribution, a magistrate has found at the third inquest into the controversial death in custody case.

Deputy Chief Magistrate Brian Hine accepted the fatal injuries suffered by Mr Doomadgee - a burst portal vein and a liver which was cleaved in two - were caused by Senior Sergeant Chris Hurley.

However he was unable to rule whether the injuries were inflicted deliberately or accidentally.

Mr Hine said the injuries could have been caused by Sen Sgt Hurley accidentally falling on top of Mr Doomadgee or by the officer ``dropping a knee into his torso''.

He also accepted Sen Sgt Hurley had punched Mr Doomadgee in the face and abused him during his attempts to force him into the police station.

Hurley then dragged a "limp" Doomadgee to the cell.

There's no doubt he was dead weight at this stage, Mr Hine said.

There also was no doubt Hurley fabricated evidence that he fell to Mulrunji's side when the pair scuffled.

Hurley then lied about the circumstances of Doomadgee's death to cover it up, and also out of fear of retribution from the Palm island community.

Mr Hine said that once Hurley made the lie, he was trapped.

He also said the police investigation was inappropriate, unacceptable and had its integrity compromised.

He recommended the CMC be empowered and resourced to investigate death in custody cases.

The inquest was reopened last year after Queensland's Court of Appeal upheld a District Court decision to overturn the 2006 findings of deputy state coroner Christine Clements.

Mr Doomadgee died on the floor of a cell at the Palm Island watchhouse on November 19, 2004, after he was arrested for creating a public nuisance.

A Townsville jury acquitted his arresting officer, Senior Sergeant Chris Hurley, of manslaughter in 2007.

The incident sparked a riot on Palm Island in which the police station and an officer's home were burnt down.
Last month counsel assisting the inquest Ralph Devlin, SC, told the court he was seeking an open finding.

Indigenous over-representation in juvenile justice

This week the NSW Juvenile Justice Review delivered the following findings, which included identifying the substantial over-representation of Indigenous youth:

1. The last decade has seen a growth in 'getting tough on crime' rhetoric from politicians in NSW. The evidence for this is best demonstrated in the changes to the Bail Act 1978 over that time, with 18 amendments being made since 2000.

2. The changes to the Bail Act have had a range of unintended consequences that have negatively impacted on the juvenile justice system. [ie dramatic increase in juvenile remand rates]

3. Individual departments and agencies 'processing' juvenile justice are not always coordinated.

4. Children and young people who enter the juvenile justice system are likely to have family dysfunction, intellectual disability, poor mental health, dislocation from education, and homelessness. There is substantial evidence that intervening early in the lives of children at risk will divert them from entering the juvenile justice system.

5. Children and young people make up 26% of all persons of interest (i.e. of all ages) proceeded against by NSW Police. The NSW Police effectively divert many of them from offending behaviour through the use of the Young Offenders Act. However, the use of diversionary options is not uniformly applied across all Local Area Commands.

6. The Children's Court provides a full range of support and sentencing options to offenders, but the range does not extend to regional and remote locations. [ie areas more likely to affect Indigenous youth]

7. There has been an increasing use of control orders (incarceration) by courts, and this coupled with a significant increase in the use of remand, has seen a significant increase in the numbers in detention. The evidence, both Australian and international, is that detention is counter productive by providing neither a deterrent or reducing re-offending. 'Quite simply greater use of detention is not making NSW a safer place'.

8. 'It is readily apparent that Indigenous children and young people are significantly overrepresented in all categories'. 'Indigenous overrepresentation is rooted in deep social disadvantage'. 'In seeking to improve this situation the Review recommends a fundamental rethink of the approach to addressing Indigenous disadvantage. Without new approaches to improving Indigenous social cohesion, overrepresentation will remain a feature of juvenile justice both in NSW and Australia more generally.'

The review did NOT recommend law and order or mere rehabilitation. Rather, it recommended 'justice reinvestment'. This involves:
+ Diverting funding from building juvenile justice centres to evidence-based prevention and early intervention programs and services for local communities.
+ Could be implemented through spiral development or immediate widespread implementation.
+ Approximate costs of $348.14 million to reinvest into addressing the underlying causes of crime. [This would otherwise be spent over the next 6 years to meet forecast juvenile justice centre capacity.]
+ Significant long term benefits for the community.

National Congress of Australia's First Indigenous Peoples

This was published this week with the launch of the National Congress on ABC. http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/05/03/2889261.htm

Aboriginal Congress Attacked as Lesser ATSIC

By Emily Bourke

Updated Mon May 3, 2010 9:44pm AEST

There is a new organisation to represent the interests of Aboriginal Australians, but just a day into its existence, questions are being raised about just what it will do.

Human rights groups have hailed the National Congress of Australia's First Peoples as a turning point in Australia's reconciliation process, but sceptics say the body has limited financial and political power and may follow the same fate as other peak Indigenous bodies.
The congress is the latest incarnation of a national Aboriginal representative group and follows the controversial demise of ATSIC amid corruption scandals in 2005.
ATSIC was succeeded by the advisory National Indigenous Council, which was scrapped in 2008.
Wesley Aird, a former member of the National Indigenous Council, has questioned the purpose of the new organisation.
"Now we've got something else and I find myself sort of saying, 'oh, here we go again'," he said.
"The Government made an election promise. It has set up a body, so we can tick the box for the election promise that's been fulfilled. But the big question now is what is this body going to do?
"We know that it's not going to represent all Indigenous people. It doesn't have funding to hand out which is a good thing, so we avoid the Indigenous parallel of pork-barrelling.
"But there is a question around its relevance when what we should be doing is spending government money wisely, not on separatist convoluted processes. The money should be going into service delivery on the ground."
Mr Aird says the biggest challenge is for the congress to stay relevant in a way that encourages the Government and its departments to keep coming back for meaningful advice.
"When you're relying on government funds as a fallback position, you have to wonder, does that make it too easy and does that mean that they're able to slacken off a bit, knowing that they've got a bit of money in the bank and that they'll be OK for a while?"
"Whereas some other lobby groups, industry representative groups, they have to work damn hard to make sure their members keep paying their subscriptions and that means they have to keep doing a good, relevant job to those people that they want to influence."

Structural concerns

The Australian Human Rights Commission has described the congress as groundbreaking and praised the establishment of an Ethics Council to ensure the highest levels of professionalism.
But Dr Thalia Anthony, who has published widely in the area of Indigenous people and the law and is based at Sydney's University of Technology, is concerned about the structure of the congress.
"It made it very clear at the outset that there can be no national elections," she said.
"It's not going to administer services and it's not going to do what the national steering committee, that recommended this body, wanted it to do, and that's to provide a future funds to guarantee ongoing income for the body."
Dr Anthony says the congress is a lesser version of ATSIC.
"[The Government] has put limitations from the outset in order for it to not have a role that it relates to service delivery or relates to election, so a separate governance role.
"I don't see how it could ever attempt to fill that gap that ATSIC left when it was dissolved."
Congress co-chairman Sam Jeffries says the political agenda is yet to be established.
"We would certainly need the assistance from, not only Government, but from corporate and philanthropic and private sector groups etcetera to work in partnership with Aboriginal and Torres-Strait Islander people to," he said.
"[We'll] certainly deal with ... social issues in the community [and] economic development matters - those sorts of things."
Mr Jeffries says the congress should be up and running by the end of 2010.
"That will be the measure or be the benchmark of our success," he said.
It might not have any responsibility for programs in Indigenous communities, but many are hoping the congress can help Government and agencies close the gap of Indigenous disadvantage.