Stabilise, normalise, eliminate: the Northern Territory intervention as a strategy of settler colonialism

The Northern Territory Intervention and its continuation in the form of the perversely misnamed Stronger Futures legislation (which at the time of writing is set to pass the Senate in a rare instance of bipartisan cooperation) has already been subjected to critical analysis from a wide range of perspectives. Yet five years after the Intervention's announcement and on the eve of its ten-year extension, this radical policy and the agenda it represents continues to defy understanding. Existing analyses and their differing approaches reflect not only the variety of problems with the prevailing agenda of punitive, interventionist assimilationism in Indigenous affairs, but also the complex, often contradictory intentions underlying the legislative measures themselves. Considering the lack of explanation or justification by either the instituting or extending governments regarding the supposed links between the Intervention's objectives and many of the measures involved, not to mention the veil of secrecy surrounding its continuation, ongoing attempts at explanation are essential. Several aspects of the Intervention, in particular, continue to call for further analysis and critique. These include the discriminatory, paternalistic and assimilationist nature of the original legislation and its reiteration and extension in the form of Stronger Futures; the historical development and continuation of these persistent characteristics in relations between Indigenous Australians and the Australian state; the incongruity between the imperatives of 'protecting' black women and children from 'savage' black men, on the one hand, and the compulsory acquisition of land alongside the counterintuitive removal of the permit system and undermining of Aboriginal customary law, on the other; the refusal of successive governments to abide by Australia's international legal obligations and, in particular, their domestic instantiation through the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cwlth) (RDA); the failure of governments from both sides of politics to respond anywhere near as enthusiastically to other Indigenous 'emergencies'; and the insidious strategy of consultation as post-hoc legislative legitimation deployed by Minister or, as Malcolm Fraser and Jeff McMullen have recently taken to calling her, 'Protector: Macklin. The various approaches adopted towards the examination of these and other issues surrounding the Intervention reflect the array of attitudes and practices on which the Intervention is based. However, in attempting to draw together the implications of the Intervention as well as those arising out of its relationship to previous approaches in Indigenous affairs, critics often return to racism and discrimination as a cause rather than a characteristic of the Intervention. Such a conclusion is useful where it draws attention to the historical continuities between supposedly distinctive approaches adopted by various Australian governments in managing and responding to the exigencies of the 'Aboriginal problem'. Yet it falls short of providing an adequate account of the impetus for action (not to mention the expenditure) the Intervention has entailed