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 and by several Aboriginal leaders and community spokespeople. The plan was also given strong support by other community groups and Aboriginal leaders. The
Australian Human Rights Commission's
Social Justice Report 2008 said that, despite the likelihood of under-reporting, the 2005–2006 ABS statistics for confirmed child abuse did not appear to support the "allegations of endemic child abuse in NT remote communities that was the rationale for the NTER".
Pretext The use of sexual abuse as the catalyst for the Intervention has been subject to debate. One view is that sexual abuse is a
Trojan horse for other purposes such as regaining government control over disputed land.
Racial Discrimination Act The measures of the response which have attracted most criticism comprise the exemption from the
Racial Discrimination Act 1975, the compulsory acquisition of an unspecified number of prescribed communities (Measure 5) and the partial abolition of the permit system (Measure 10). These have been interpreted as undermining important principles and parameters established as part of the legal recognition of indigenous
land rights in Australia. 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. 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". 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.
Consultation More generally, a lack of consultation with Aboriginal community leaders is often cited by critics of the response, alongside the fact that the action addresses very few of the specific recommendations contained in the
Little Children are Sacred Report, while introducing many measures not suggested in the Report. 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. Opposition Spokesman
Tony Abbott queried whether Anaya had adequately consulted with people who had lived through the Intervention; Indigenous activist
Warren Mundine said the report should be "binned" and Central Australian Aboriginal leader
Bess Price criticised the UN for not sending a female reporter and said that Anaya had been led around by opponents of the intervention to meet with opponents of the intervention.
Criticism The Intervention in the Northern Territory came under fire by a variety of groups. Claims made by critics of the Intervention are as follows: • In 1999, a report titled
Violence in Indigenous Communities was prepared by Dr
Paul Memmott, but was suppressed until 2001 and not acted upon. • An inter-governmental summit on violence and child abuse was held in 2006. This pointed to the cost and blame shifting that characterised federal-territory and state relations, but no further action was taken. 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. The delegation stated that the situation had deteriorated under the Intervention.
There is greater discrimination against them, Ms Pillay said they told her. ''Firstly, they said there's been an intervention and it started off badly without them being consulted, and secondly, there is insufficient respect for their land,
she said. The delegation said Aboriginal people were under pressure from the Gillard government to sign leases over land they already own. They see that as a land grab,'' Ms Pillay said. An analysis into the speeches and arguments made by the then Prime Minister and Minister for Indigenous Affairs found that the rhetoric used justified the government's extensive and contentious Intervention into the remote Indigenous communities. The speech acts implied that the Ministers were the heroes of the situation. However, it has since been documented by several sources that some of the verifying sources that instigated the events of the Intervention were fabricated by then-minister
Mal Brough and coercive in nature. The rhetoric implied that the communities were helpless and incapable of responding to their own issues. By doing so, the Ministers justified ignoring the recommendations of the
Little Children are Sacred report.
Support Some Aboriginal commentators and activists, including
Noel Pearson,
Marcia Langton, and
Bess Price, offered support, criticising aspects of the response while believing it to be necessary and worthwhile.
Galarrwuy Yunupingu initially supported the response, but by 2010 had lost faith in it. 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"; that it was the "inevitable outcome of the many failures of policy and the flawed federal-state division of responsibilities for Aboriginal Australians". In 2011, after more than three years of the Intervention, Central Australian Indigenous leader
Bess Price told ABC television that she had seen progress: among women, who could now "speak for themselves", as well as children and young people. ==Legacy==