Rhetoric, Aboriginal Australians and the Northern Territory Intervention: A Socio-legal Investigation into Pre-legislative Argumentation

Abstract

Presented within this article is a systematic discourse analysis of the arguments used by the then Australian Prime Minister and also the Minister for Indigenous Affairs in explaining and justifying the extensive and contentious intervention by the federal government into remote Northern Territory Aboriginal communities. The methods used within this article extend the socio-legal toolbox, providing a contextually appropriate, interdisciplinary methodology that analyses the speech act's rhetorical properties. Although many academics use sound-bites of pre-legislative speech in order to support their claims, this analysis is concerned with investigating the contents of the speech acts in order to understand how the Prime Minister's and Minister for Indigenous Affairs' argumentations sought to achieve consensus to facilitate the enactment of legislation. Those seeking to understand legislative endeavours, policy makers and speech actors will find that paying structured attention to the rhetorical properties of speech acts yields opportunities to strengthen their insight. The analysis here indicates three features in the argumentation: the duality in the Prime Minister's and Minister's use of the Northern Territory Government's Little Children are Sacred report; the failure to sufficiently detail the linkages between the Intervention and the measures combatting child sexual abuse; and the omission of recognition of Aboriginal agency and consultation.

Why are Indigenous Affairs Policies Framed in ways that Undermine Indigenous Health and Equity?

“…We found the NTER framing was not aligned with evidence on what works for health equity. Rather, the Federal government used the evidence in the Little Children Are Sacred report to frame the issue of child sexual abuse as an emergency, and silence dissent (Roffee, 2016). This finding reinforces the need to understand what drives policies to address or be consistent with the evidence for health equity.…”

“…Five focused on media, and two examined 'speech acts' (e.g. media releases, speeches, interviews, and press conferences; Macoun, 2011;Roffee, 2016). The media analyses highlighted the negative portrayal of Aboriginal communities, the use of racialized constructions of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, denial of their voices and agency, and how media coverage was dominated by individual responsibility and failed social policy framings (Dunne Breen, 2015;McCallum et al, 2012;McCallum & Waller, 2013;Mesikammen, 2016;Proudfoot & Habibis, 2015).…”

“…For the two analyses of speech acts, Macoun (2011) examined how Aboriginality was framed as primitive or savage, justifying colonialism and settler sovereignty. Roffee (2016) analysed then Indigenous Affairs MP Mal Brough and Prime Minister John Howard's speech acts and concluded that they used the framing of a "state of emergency" (p. 138) to push consensus for the NTER and prohibit debate, and denigrated Aboriginal communities to justify government intervention.…”

“…How the media framed the issues has been the focus of other research (Dunne Breen, 2015;McCallum et al, 2012;McCallum & Waller, 2013;Mesikammen, 2016;Proudfoot & Habibis, 2015), and was not the central question for our analysis. Roffee (2016) argues the importance of examining pre-legislative speech acts as they seek to create consensus on the issue, often using persuasive imagery, and illuminate the interests of actors, and how language choice can be manipulated to drive the agenda. The Little Children Are Sacred report and the Alternative Plan were also included as key documents.…”

Indigenous and Deaf People and the Implications of Ongoing Practices of Colonization: A Comparison of Australia and Canada

“…The laws and policies in effect during that time (written and implemented by non-indigenous people) meant that non-indigenous people were defining humanness and defining “aboriginality.” The invader’s efforts to dehumanize First Peoples and eradicate their culture not only continue to be perpetrated today, but have had far reaching effects that continue to be felt (e.g. Australian National Audit Office 2018; Roffee 2016; Reconciliation Australia n.d.), as will be discussed below.…”