Aboriginal Law Bulletin
|
|
Home
| Databases
| WorldLII
| Search
| Feedback
Aboriginal Law Bulletin |
|
by Phil Elsegood
Maggie Brady has indicated in her report, Children Without Ears: Petrol Sniffing In Australia, that there is an increasing amount of literature concerning the phenomenon of Aborigines and petrol sniffing, and yet much of this literature does little more than describe the practice and its symptoms it is unfortunate that no-one seems willing to take the initiative and suggest a plan of action that may go some way towards addressing the root cause of the practice, and possible intervention techniques.
Before any intervention can be looked at however, the ownership of the problem needs to be explored. It seems appropriate to view this from two perspectives: 1. A social cultural; and 2. A legalistic view.
One of the greatest difficulties faced by researchers in this area is clarifying who in fact perceives petrol sniffing as a problem. Certainly non-Aboriginal staff in all communities express great concern about the incidence of petrol sniffing. Some of these people are motivated by a genuine concern for the effects the practice has on communal harmony, while others are concerned about the traumatic effects it is having on them and their families. As a result of these differing motivations, the way in which these groups interact with Aboriginal community members and bureaucratic agencies is quite different. This in turn results in differing responses by Aboriginal people depending upon who they have been listening to.
In quiet non-threatening, non-authoritative situations, there appears to be general agreement among a great number of Aboriginal people that petrol sniffing is a very real problem for the culture and that the people with primary responsibility are the parents. When placed into a confrontative situation with authority figures. such as the law, or welfare agencies, the response is very different in most cases the response then is; You brought the petrol, it's your problem. You fix it'. Unfortunately the authorities too often respond, to some degree to this request. Insufficient time and effort is taken to engage in some form of meaningful dialogue. Of one thing we can be sure, however petrol sniffing is having a major impact on cultural values in rural Aboriginal society, and is Indeed a 'problem' for Aboriginal people. Why then don't parents do something to stop it?
As Brady (1985) noted, discipline is considerably less important among Aborigines than among their non-Aboriginal peers, particularly in relation to the pre-adolescent group.
If one views the pre-contact (prior to 1788) society of the Australian Aborigines, reasons why this should be so are evident. Australian Aborigines lived a semi-nomadic lifestyle in family groupings averaging about 25-30 people. While life could be said to be more simplistic than today it was by no means easy; and each person within the family contributed to the overall survival of the group. There were no 'free' resources\ and divisions of labour were clearly defined. There was little materialism, as twentieth century Australian society perceives it and most objects were held in common. The only exceptions were objects of sacred significance, and any interference with these by unauthorised persons resulted in severe punishment. Nocturnal activities were minimal, and limited to the general area around the camp. For children the dark was to be feared as the dwelling place of spirits. In such an environment, discipline, particularly in relation to pre-adolescent children would not need to be particularly rigorous. It is only on the attainment of adulthood with its incumbent ceremonial obligations, that discipline need attain any importance.
When this type of experience is then transplanted into an urban environment it becomes clear that parenting skills and forms of discipline which were adequate for a bush situation are no longer appropriate. An example of such an urban situation is Maningrida on the Arnhemland coast in the Northern Territory. Established by the Government in 1957, it quickly grew into a town of between 1,200 and 1,500 people. It can only be described as an urban environment. The facilities include a store, a school, a garage, a hospital, a police station, roads, town water, electricity and housing. It also possesses among its residents some 75 European staff in managerial or similar positions. Among its Aboriginal population are some twelve different language groups, many of whom were less than friendly in pre-contact times. It also boasts one of the highest populations of petrol sniffers in Arnhemland.
During the early 1970s in response to increasing tension, and a resurgence of interest in relocating to traditional areas, some 600 people established either permanent or occasional outstations away from Maningrida effectively halving the population. This has had no apparent effect on the incidence of petrol sniffing. There are a number of possible reasons for this which are not addressed by Brady (1985).
1. Despite attempts to service outstation areas to decrease the need of people to come into Maningrida, there is still considerable movement of people to and from outstations, the excitement of the 'big town'.
2. Many of the outstations lack amenities which people have come to expect after 90 years in Maningrida, such as good water, electricity and mosquito proof housing.
3. For most people who desire to have their children educated, there is no alternative but residence in Maningrida.
4. Aboriginal people say some Maningrida people 'cant live in the bush anymore, they don't know how. Chief among these are the older petrol sniffers.
For those who resist the temptations of town the likelihood of eliminating petrol sniffing behaviour is high. Few instances of petrol sniffing have been reported from outstations, despite the availability of fuel. There are a number of possible reasons for this which are related to both the reinforcements associated with sniffing, and the behavioural aspects of communal petrol sniffing. For many Aboriginal children, and indeed adults also, life holds very little excitement, or even promise of excitement Living conditions are poor and overcrowded, basic facilities are lacking. Money is limited, employment is practically non-existent, and schooling has little meaning or value. So is it any wonder then that membership of a group which provides excitement camaraderie and a sense of importance, is eagerly sought? The petrol sniffing group provides all of these reinforcements. Petrol sniffers gain from the group excitement euphoria, sexual gratification and a feeling of power. This feeling of power is not only exercised against white community members, but also against Aboriginal community members. It was once suggested that sniffers committed break and enter offenses against non-Aboriginal people as a means of venting their frustration and anger. An Aboriginal community worker put forward a more simplistic view. He proposed that ‘if you break into an Aboriginal house, you find an empty fridge, no good stuff, but you break into a white man's house, it's like being in a department store’. With the changing materialism of some Aboriginal people, and the acquisition of desirable goods such as sound equipment and rifles, there is an increasing incidence of stealing offences against Aboriginal property.
At the same time as the group provides reinforcement there also develops, in terms of lifestyle, a radically different way of living. In most communities petrol sniffing is a night time activity. The participants commence sniffing late in the afternoon and continue until the early hours of the morning. They then find a place to sleep, where they remain for most of the day. Food is rarely consumed unless stolen during the search for additional petrol supplies.
Thus in terms of deviancy and group membership, the nocturnal nature of the activity itself becomes reinforcing. On outstations however this pattern changes.
In Maningrida. and other large urban centres, the town is well lit all night allowing sniffers to move around with confidence. In the bush however, there is no night light and children are still afraid of the spirits who live in the bush at night as a consequence people sleep at night and engage in activities during daylight hours. At the same time the outstation group is engaged in exciting activities, such as hunting, fishing, preparation of artifacts, swimming and visiting other camps, which are reinforcing for those belonging to this group. There is little reinforcement for being a lone petrol sniffer, or one of a very small group of sniffers.
It is because of the virtual absence of petrol sniffers in outstations that the court has seized on this form of court order as a means of controlling the behaviour of petrol sniffing offenders. The effects of such court orders have been less than satisfactory. How then does the court respond to petrol sniffing offenders and what role, if any, does the court have?
The most important point to be considered is as Brady (1985) notes, that sniffing petrol is not an offence. I must strongly agree with her, because making it one will not alleviate the problem. Neither will it make dealing with those who engage in the practice any easier for the judicial system. At this time the only way the court becomes involved with petrol sniffers is when they commit offences, or under an application of neglect by the child welfare authorities. It therefore seems appropriate to look at the range of offences and what action the court has taken to deal with them. It would also seem productive to look at why these measures invariably fail and what long term effect they may have on the individuals, their community and the culture as a whole.
By far the most common offences are theft related. These maybe larceny, break, enter and steal, interference with motor vehicle, and malicious damage, wlth the occasional burglary.
Of lesser occurrence are rape, indecent assault, attempted murder and arson. The offenders range in age from five years to late 20s-early 30s. with the under ten years being deemed not legally responsible for their actions. Invariably the offences are committed in company, usually while under the influence of petrol. The offences are usually committed against non-Aboriginal persons, though not always, and against Government property.
The court has responded in a variety of ways:
1. Discharge without conviction;
2. Bond the offender;
3. Fine the offender;
4. Community work order on the offender;
5. Goal the offender;
6. Bond the parents;
7. Fine the parents;
8. Adjourn the matter to see whether offender's behaviour alters.
By far the most innovative orders have been those which have required various forms of family or community involvement as a condition of a bond. The majority of the orders have been unsuccessful however, because they failed to adequately consider the environment in which they were being made and involved inadequate consultation with Aboriginal people. The most popular conditions attached to these orders have been:
a. Residence away from the major urban centre in an outstation;
b. Placed in the care of a traditional authoritative figure for the purposes of initiation;
c. Placed in the care of either natural or classificatory parents, with such people being subject to a monetary order;
d. Conditions as to associates, employment, schooling.
There are numerous reasons why these orders arc inappropriate, the major one being that Aboriginal people have little acceptance of the power of the court and while very nervous, even frightened, when confronted by the 'majesty of the court' they have no fear of the court's ultimate power, ie. incarceration. The inappropriateness of the orders however needs to be examined.
The outstations were seen by defending lawyers and others as the answer to the problem. If the offenders were placed away from their petrol sniffing peers they could be rehabilitated. They failed to consider one of the major facets of Aboriginal culture. No-one has authority to tell anyone else where to live, how to live, or who to live with. No-one will restrain another person if they wish to relocate even though they know such a relocation may prove injurious. On numerous occasions, 11 and 12 year old boys have returned to major urban areas on supply vehicles to resume sniffing, and when the police demanded an explanation from the adults they were told 'The boys wouldn't get off the truck'. No-one was prepared to accept the responsibility of removing them. The reasons why are quite complicated and involve the Aboriginal notion of responsibility for injury and death and the consequences involved in being judged as responsible for 'causing' harm to another.
At the same time the legal system failed to consider the effect sentencing people to outstations would have, not only on the offender's perception of the outstation as a prison, but also the harmony of the resident group.
For many of the young urban Aboriginal sniffers, the subculture surrounding petrol sniffing is of far more importance than the initiation process. As a consequence when 'sentenced' to be initiated their negative feelings towards traditional Aboriginal culture have been reinforced. One instance saw the ‘business camp’ being abandoned after a young offender attacked the older men with a shotgun. Participation in initiation or any other ceremonies is a matter for appropriate Aboriginal people to decide away from the legal arena.
One of the enduring myths of Aboriginal culture among both the legal and welfare fraternity was that uncles or classificatory fathers had some traditional right to punish young male children, which was not vested in the natural father. While this may be so in the ceremonial area, it is certainly not been found to be the case inane legal area. The types of disciplinary problems noted by Brady (1985) and earlier in this paper appear to be the overriding factor.
In an environment where employment is non-existent, schooling has no meaning and where one, in effect disciplines oneself, these types of conditions are a waste of time. How does one prevent a person from associating with various members of his/her family who may be major figures in the petrol sniffing group.
The court is thus left with the options of fining, gaoling, bonding (own recognisance) or sentencing to a period of community work The concept of community work, while successful in the wider Australian society has little hope of success in an Aboriginal community. There is plenty of work to do but in the majority of cases, no-one to provide supervision. Even if supervision can be found, the offender has to be willing to sign such an order. In the majority of cases, a gaol term is more attractive. Monetary penalties are also not the answer. It has already been established that parents have little disciplinary control over their children. Fining parents to ensure appropriate behaviour is meaningless. At the same time parents and other kin will pay the fines as required, while still exerting no control over the offender, even though such monetary penalties result in severe financial hardship and food shortages.
By far the most disturbing sentence however is incarceration. Learning and behaviour theorists in psychology have long accepted that to increase behaviour you provide reinforcement, to decrease it. you either provide punishment, or withdraw reinforcement. Working on a model which has been relatively successful in most cultures where incarceration is seen as punishment, and withdrawal of reinforcement. The course has gaoled Aboriginal offenders either in juvenile detention centres or special sections of adult gaols, with disastrous effects. The majority of young Aboriginal offenders do not look on gaol as a punishing experience but rather as a very enjoyable period. They are subject to constant stimulation, good food. and the company of their peers. As a consequence when offered a bond or gaol, many offenders choose gaol. Thus, the court instead of decreasing the targeted behaviour is in fact inadvertantly increasing it.
The effect this is having on Aboriginal culture is already quite marked in many communities the young males consider initiation starts with a period in gaol, while for many this is the only initiation they are concerned with. This is not to blame the court for the woes of the world, however. The legal process can do little but respond to the bureaucratic process of which it is but a part. What need to be addressed are the root causes of petrol sniffing behaviour. As long as Aboriginal people continue to function or dysfunction, in an environment in which they have no control over their destiny, but are constantly buffeted by the winds of political change and as long as their direction is determined by non-Aboriginal helmsmen, then we can expect that substances which allow them to escape from an unacceptable reality will continue to be abused, at least by those who can not withstand the pressure.
Reference:
Brady. M. Children Without Ears: Petrol Sniffing In Australia; Drug and Alcohol Services Council, Parkside. SA (1985).
Phil Elsegood is from Darwin and has undertaken extensive work in regards to Aboriginal communities and petrol sniffing.
AustLII:
Copyright Policy
|
Disclaimers
|
Privacy Policy
|
Feedback
URL: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/AboriginalLawB/1986/45.html