The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Fresh idea on remote gardens > Comments

Fresh idea on remote gardens : Comments

By Shirley McPherson, published 28/1/2009

At $14 for half a pumpkin, remote Indigenous communities need market gardens. Not just for cheap, fresh food but for job skills.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. All
If, “In a prosperous nation such as Australia, this is surely unacceptable” why is it that people hanging on to life in unsustainable remote locations have been paying $14 dollars for half a pumpkin instead of getting off their backsides and moving into areas where the cost of living is cheaper. It costs money to transport the necessities of life to isolated areas and, if you want to live there (with no good reason in the case of aborigines, who produce nothing and do nothing), then you have to pay.

They hang on with the totally ungrounded expectation that one day there will be a government stupid enough to provide them with all the conveniences of cities and towns in the middle of nowhere.

Now the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs has announced a you beaut enquiry into the community stores when any fool knows the cost of supplying remote areas, even quite large country towns away from capitals cities.

Shirley McPherson is chairwoman of the Indigenous Land Corporation. Why is she not doing something about it, instead of writing articles about it? Why haven’t the people paying exorbitant prices for fresh food removed their digits and done something?

Because, like all cargo cults they expect that governments and therefore taxpayers will take care of it all.

The indigenous people we are supposed to be helping have had 200 years to adapt to a sensible life; many have done so. Those remaining in remote camps have no intention of doing anything for themselves; they won’t be growing pumpkins no matter how much more money is wasted on them.
Posted by Leigh, Wednesday, 28 January 2009 11:43:44 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Farming is a skill that was totally encouraged and backed in the time before supermarkets and forty ton trucks, and little market gardens were grown everywhere.I am told and believe that many communities have plenty of water available, and plenty of land. There are no unfertile soils. Only deficient ones, and fertilizer is cheaper than diesel.

This is a great idea, and should be encouraged. For a reasonable incentive I would bet there are thousands of skilled gardeners, men and women who would love to give some assistance to a community to establish a town garden. A retired farming couple whose children have taken over the farm, would prove ideal, but they would need to be assisted with travel costs and free accommodation while they were there. Many farmers have great butchering skills, growing skills and as great a love for the land as any one in the world.

There is nothing brings a greater sense of satisfaction than a successful crop. Given the fact that a garden attracts all sorts of native animals, many of whom are part of the traditional diet of these people, and a Police Officer with a shotgun to catch them, the benefits could prove enormous. What a great idea. There are about seven or eight great vegetable families, and to have a great diet seven or eight pieces of these different vegetable and fruit families should be eaten. In some remote communities shadecloth would be needed in summer,and would double as bird control.

Pumpkins are cucurbits, but so are choko's, Zucchini, Button Squash, bitter melons, watermelons, rock melons, and lots of yummy varieties of these. Citrus thrives in many areas, Tamarinds grow throughout Northern Australia, and are a valuable source of Vitamin C to fight scurvy. Mangoes, Tamelo's, guava's and many citrus also grow well throughout the region. Sweet potatoes are easy to grow and there are so many varieties the mind almost boggles. This woman is on the right track. Give a man a mfish and you feed him for a day, teach him to farm and he will flourish forever.
Posted by Peter the Believer, Wednesday, 28 January 2009 12:28:58 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Please Leigh, spare us all your pig ignorant comments and maybe try and read a book. Who knows perhaps you might expand your currently tiny little mind.
Posted by BigAl, Wednesday, 28 January 2009 3:52:26 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
No I think Leigh has it about right.
No need for committes, Government departments and politicians who are earning a fortune with pensions beyond all reason.
We are talking gardening not nuclear physics. Lets get some lovely people like Peter Cundall to give them a hand and have a feel good TV programe. If only a few get with this programe it will be an improvement for them but lets also let the slackers know that we are not interested in their whining about expensive food. Especially from people too lazy to get out of their own way.
Posted by JBowyer, Wednesday, 28 January 2009 5:33:31 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I like the idea about growing stuff at the communities, but I asked about it in a NT community I visited years ago, and was told that insects posed a problem - but that surely could be managed. Cultivating local bush food plants intensively might work too.

Leigh's outburst touches on an important issue: what exactly do remote communities aspire to and how do they see their future. The current situation is clearly not working, but I often wonder how the communities would like to be.
Posted by Candide, Wednesday, 28 January 2009 10:48:59 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Not so long ago Landline featured a bush food company who are doing just that - going into remote communities and building partnerships in growing food both for local consumption and for job creation.

http://www.abc.net.au/landline/stories/s531220.htm

It is a marevellous idea for indigenous communities to be able to grow and eat fresh food that has not been stored and transported losing most of its nutritional value. There are many indigenous food crops that can be grown which are highly suited to local soils and climate.

To be successful though, it is the communities that need to take this idea on board. As Peter the believer said...give a man a rod etc. It is up to the individual communities to decide in which way they wish to improve their own wellbeing and create real opportunities for improvements in health and lifestyle. Taxpayer money would be well spent on programs such as these if it works and has a positive trickle down effect for the community.
Posted by pelican, Thursday, 29 January 2009 8:22:30 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
When I went to Bamaga there was a field that I was told used to grow enough vegetables to supply the local area as well as provide the Torres Strait islands with some fresh produce. It had a huge circular irrigation system like turf and dairy farmers use but it had all been abandoned and fresh produce was being brought in at great expense. While it wouldn't be too hard to bring in people to run a profitable business it seems impossible to achieve this locally.

All of the strategies that have been tried in the past, from the paternalistic approaches of the missionaries and station owners to the bureaucratically driven CDEP programs, have produced minimal lasting effects for the people in remote Australia. Perhaps we need to look at other places and programs in the world that have similar circumstances and have been successful. The ideas behind the micro credit movement seem to be able to initiate businesses within communities while minimizing some of the impediments that can result from traditional organisational structures. Maybe we can learn from this and other successful approaches to this situation.
Posted by Grumbler, Thursday, 29 January 2009 9:33:42 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Please, BigAl, read a book on punctuation and grammar; it is ‘try TO read a book’, not ‘try AND read a book’.

I spend several hours a day reading. Reading, in fact, is my main interest.

I note that you don’t have any opinions of your own, preferring to snipe at other people with opinions, like a spoilt, nasty child. You will be very happy with CJ Morgan and his gang – nothing to say, just rubbish others.
Posted by Leigh, Thursday, 29 January 2009 9:45:18 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
In the case of Bamaga, the top end of Cape Yorke has all sorts of agriculture restrictions imposed by quarantine regulations to protect our cattle industry from diseases and possibly vegetable growing is similarly restricted so that pests can't come into Australia from Papua New Guinea. Call the Emergency Disease Watch Hotline on 1800 675 888 if you don't believe me.

Aboriginal communities have been left impoverished by Intervention policy that removed aboriginal ownership of assets worth more than $400,000. The intervention is being micromanaged from Canberra which leaves contractors unsafe in vulnerable situations, there is at least one workers comp case bought be a contractor bashed while at work when the Canberra supervisor failed to check up on their where abouts in a timely manner. More insiduously the intervention has robbed aborigines of any vestige of control or autonomy over their lives.
It takes time to rebuild esteem and self management skills
Posted by billie, Thursday, 29 January 2009 9:50:09 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I can't believe the learnt stupidity of regarding this as a political issue.

In this problem, the basic unit of ethics, decision-making and action is the individual, not 'the community'.

It's no wonder they're waiting for vegetables if they're waiting for the community to provide it.

It's quite simple. Someone has to decide to accumulate the capital, do the work, undertake the risk, and await the result.

They won't do it if they think it won't be worth it. It won't be worth it if the government is already subsidising them risk-free to live in permanent dependence.

And it won't be worth it if traditional values mean everyone else in the community has an equal claim on any gain made by the person who undertakes the savings, work and risk.

The only reason these so-called 'communities' exist out there is because they are rotten boroughs of the welfare state. Their traditional economy is no more. And they are not a part of the modern economy. They are subsidised to live in dependence and poverty paid for with money forcibly taken from someone else, who must actually engage in worthwhile productive activities that people would willingly pay for, an idea that seems completely lost on the author. She is completely mystified when faced with the need to explain how food actually gets to our tables. She thinks everything comes from government committees taking it from someone else.

The moral and intellectual bankruptcy of the author's parasitic political ideology is sickening.
Posted by Wing Ah Ling, Thursday, 29 January 2009 7:09:53 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
There are so many native bush tucker plants that can be grown in any community, along with all sorts of conventional crops, if they’ve got the water supply and a basic level of management skills.

The core of the issue is motivation. The people need to see that it will help their future.

The Landline story brought to our attention by Pelican outlines just the sort of thing that should be happening; working with Aboriginal communities, which would provide jobs and improve their health and quality of life.
.
Wing Ah Ling, you’ve popped up again. So you’ve deserted the ‘Population pressures’ thread. After imploring everyone to answer your questions, you’d prefer to abandon the discussion that you’ve prompted rather than answer my questions! ( :>/
Posted by Ludwig, Thursday, 29 January 2009 10:48:02 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Whilst we live in hope, shall probably die in despair, waiting for Jenny Macklin and the committee to look into why all those once largely self sufficient communities so dramatically reduced their self sufficiency.

Or shall unacceptable truths be recognized ?

The critical issues concerning food supply, quality and cost, how these impact on the health and economic circumstances of communities are the same for all communities.

When Parliament, Ministers, committees look only at "Indigenous Communities" they start NOT prepared to be open and honest, preferring to continue their practice racist filtering of reality.

.
Posted by polpak, Friday, 30 January 2009 10:46:39 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ludwig

The difference between your questions and mine, are that mine are all on-topic, and yours are all off-topic. But I rejoin you in the population thread anyway.

Personal argument is 100 percent irrelevant. Your argument must stand or fall on its own merits in reason and evidence. The onus is on you to prove it, not just blandly assume what is in issue. I shouldn’t be expected to make the argument for you, and then disprove it.

I shouldn’t have to explain these basics of rational argumentation, and logical thought, but apparently I do. You can assume my good faith.

You seem to be surprised that someone is questioning your belief system. You should be more concerned that no-one on your side of the argument has yet been able to muster a competent answer.

“There are so many native bush tucker plants that can be grown in any community.”

Yes but obviously it was the Aborigines who showed that fact to everyone else in the first place. The problem is not a shortage of plants, nor of labour, nor of time, nor of land, nor of capital to support the people during the period of production.

The problem is too much governmental action, not too little of it. Can’t you see that? It’s staring you in the face.

The problem here, as in the thread on sustainability, is that when anyone discusses how best to use or supply scarce resources, such as pumpkins or fuels, they are discussing economic problems. The principles of economics apply. If we ignore the costs, as you do in both threads, any suggested outcome seems beneficial. But we end up using more resources to get the same outcome, thus wasting natural resources or human effort.

When people who are clueless about the basic principles of economics propose solutions, it is like someone who doesn’t understand Boyle’s Law (temperature, pressure and volume of a gas all related) suggesting how to make a boiler. They don’t understand that the outcomes *from the point of view of what they are trying to acheive*, are worse.

http://www.amazon.com/Economics-One-Lesson-Shortest-Understand/dp/0517548232
Posted by Wing Ah Ling, Saturday, 31 January 2009 2:54:39 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
“The problem is not a shortage of plants, nor of labour, nor of time, nor of land, nor of capital to support the people during the period of production.”

Agreed Wing Ah Ling.

“The problem is too much governmental action, not too little of it. Can’t you see that?”

Um, no I can’t.

Just because government efforts to date have basically failed doesn’t mean that there has been too much government action, it means that there hasn’t been the right sort of action.

“…they are discussing economic problems.”

This is not just an economic issue. It is an issue of motivation, ownership, jobs, social improvement, etc. It shouldn’t necessarily matter if efforts to grow bush tucker or conventional crops aren’t economic for the first few seasons. If they are effective in galvanising community involvement, and thus in improving quality of life in remote communities, then great. That is far more important than economic viability.

Of course if they are not economic, the government will have to subsidise the enterprises. Subsidies could then be wound down as they become economically viable.

If enterprises are maintaining a significant improvement in quality of life but are not achieving viability, then they should continue to be subsidised. Much better this than letting them collapse and the communities going back to emptiness and despair.

.
Please see my response to the first half of your post on the ‘Population pressures’ thread:
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=8421#133784
Posted by Ludwig, Sunday, 1 February 2009 7:50:59 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
You are so right Shirley. My husband tried to do this in several of the remote indigenous communities we lived and worked in in WA, NT and QLD. Everyone was totally happy with the idea so long as he or some other 'white fella' did all the work! Good luck!
Posted by Helen54, Sunday, 1 February 2009 8:20:26 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Wing you said:

"When people who are clueless about the basic principles of economics propose solutions, it is like someone who doesn’t understand Boyle’s Law (temperature, pressure and volume of a gas all related) suggesting how to make a boiler. They don’t understand that the outcomes *from the point of view of what they are trying to acheive*, are worse."

Are you seriously comparing economics to science. Economics is at best a social science, some have even suggested philosophy.

If economics and economic variables were as clear cut as proven scientific principles many of the articles publishes on OLO would not be necessary and there would be no debate. Clearly people disagree about the principles of economics, what works, what doesn't and what other variables influence outcomes - which suggests there are other socio-humanist factors at play.
Posted by pelican, Tuesday, 3 February 2009 6:14:24 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy