The 'intervention' legislation : 'just' terms or 'reasonable' injustice? : Wurridjal v Commonwealth of Australia

This article argues that structural racism systematically disadvantages Indigenous peoples in the contemporary politico-legal environment. The most recent example of institutional racism is the Commonwealth Intervention, enacted in 2007, which affects Indigenous Australians in the Northern Territory. While purporting to benefit Indigenous people, this legislation, it is argued, is 'an assault on the rights of Indigenous Australians', overriding as it does the protections afforded under the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth). Although some communities have expressed support for government responses to crisis within their communities, there is still concern over the manner of implementation of the Intervention. Disempowerment, the thwarting of self-determination and undignified treatment are considered among the detrimental consequences of this process. Arguably, the fraught issue of child sexual abuse has been used as an opportunity by the Federal Government to reduce the autonomy of Indigenous people and increase their dependence on government. Some aspects of the Intervention legislation were challenged in the case of Wurridjal v Commonwealth, a case in which the Indigenous plaintiffs were unsuccessful. There is discussion of the part played by Australian courts and legal system in upholding the 'colonial' discourse of white benevolence, which ensures that Australia's Indigenous people remain gravely disadvantaged despite Australia's first world status.