This reminds me of the old joke about the academic who, confronted with the evidence that soemthing he didn't like actually worked argued, "Well, yes it works in practice, but will it work in theory?" The fact is the intervention has resulted in reduced levels of violence, improved school attendance, better medical services and improved law and order in communities.

While I agree in principle with the bulk of the articles points regarding Aboriginal land rights and leases, I have to disagree with stopping the intervention.
If this intervention has resulted in incarceration of paedophiles, and the protection of even one child from sexual abuse, then it has been worth it.
We can't let some of these Aboriginal communities continue to 'run' them as they were before, when it turned out that some of the so-called 'elders' were perpetrators of sexual abuse against children themselves, or at least guilty of protecting those that were.

The Government needs to do whatever it takes to protect the children and punish the paedophiles. These men ARE paedophiles, whether they are down-trodden, poor Aboriginal men or not.

And yes, I have worked in the Northern Territory as a nurse, and have seen first hand what is happening in some of those remote communities.
I wonder if the author of this article has seen any of this beyond his judge's chair?

For somebody who reckons "We must inform ourselves ... of the real situation in the Northern Territory", Nicholson makes an ass of himself by not practising what he so vociferously preaches.

His allegation the NTER was motivated by land issues is simply rubbish. The "evidence" he cites (Brough's "attempt to close the Alice Springs town camps, 99-year leases of townships coupled with remote area housing, and the abolition of the permit system") is nonsensical. Brough clearly enunciated at the time he wanted action over the Alice camps because of the overwhelming violence, homicide, substance abuse and child neglect rates on the camps. He was supported by very clear data in making this judgement. He visited the camps a number of times, engaging in discussions with camp residents.

His motivation for wanting 99 year leases over Aboriginal townships was also clearly explained. Development in these towns had been regularly hindered by the greedy "big men" using their power as traditional owners to block development serving the common good. Non-traditional owner were sometimes denied new housing; youth were denied proper recreational facilities; local entrepreneurs who would compete with the big men's businesses were denied land; and communication equipment installation was stalled in an effort to extract windfall payments. Ministers in the Hawke government had also attempted to grapple with these issues.

As for permits, there was a long campaign by journalists to have something done about relaxing them, because it was patently obvious they were used by the same "big men" to avoid scrutiny of conditions in remote "closed" communities.

For example, journalists Paul Toohey, Suzanne Smith and Russell Skelton were repeatedly denied access to investigate issues such as petrol sniffing, domestic violence, men using young girls, the illicit drugs and alcohol trade, suppression of dissident families, and other issues of clear public interest, in NT communities in which these problems were endemic.

Nicholson's assertion these things were all "land" issues, implying Brough was wanting to get hold of Aboriginal land for no valid reason, is untenable, and indicates the general shallowness of his arguments throughout this intellectually and morally bankrupt article.

It baffles me why people like Mr Nicholson, perhaps unwittingly, protect not just the corrupt and criminal but what is really a bankrupt way of life.

Meanwhile, in the towns and cities where most Indigenous people live - why do non-Indigenous people have so much difficulty realising this ? - three or four generations of hard-working Indigenous people have forged far better lives for themselves and, more importantly, for their children. With more than twenty six thousand university graduates, mostly in the cities, around one in every six adults in the urban Indigenous population is a university graduate.

This is not just some one-off 'that's nice' phenomenon: commencements of Indigenous students rose 12 % in 2009, and are likely to keep rising rapidly. There are already an average of four university graduates a day, and by 2020, it could be ten a day.

Think what this means: in a few years, say by 2020, there could be fifty thousand Indigenous university graduates, overwhelmingly from the metropolitan areas where most Indigenous people will be living by then: in the cities, perhaps one in four adults will be a graduate. They will be living and working in the mainstream of Australian society and economy, not in some segregated rump. They will be in the work-force, alongside other Australians, for an average of forty years.

Yes, they will very likely be of mixed ancestry, but they will still value their Indigenous heritage. They will be earning, they will not be unemployed, they will be scattered throughout companies and bureaucracies, in private business and in academia. They won't be going back to the bush any time soon.

And how will the remote communities be faring ? Apart from those from which people have fled [is the flight from Yuendumu an Australian first, people fleeing from their own town ?], and out-stations which have closed, other remote communities will still be dead in the water, sucking up all the governments' attention, and dominating the negative statistics.

While the urban population will be getting on with earning a living.

Joe

Communities in which these problems were endemic, remain endemic, mostly because common rights and responsibilities, those which apply throughout our wider Australian community, are either denied or not enforced in these communities.

Camps with shoddy housing occur when normal guidelines NOT applied.

Normal guidelines applied bring owners and/or managers to court to account for why standards (housing, health, etc) are not met.

Government twists the Racial Discrimination Act and the HREOC into political farces - creations of government, largely due exemption plays, pretend support for equality of rights and responsibility whilst ensuring real equality does NOT occur.

Equality is about rights and responsibilities.

IF this was really about equality Alastair Nicholson would be busy ensuring actual land-title-owners were being held to account for their refusal of valid leases to their tenants (Traditional Owner - aka shareholders).

The Land Trusts managed by the Central Land Council refuses leases to residents - even "Traditional Owners" because giving them leases also gives them rights !

Perhaps Alastair Nicholson prefers to support racism, including the ongoing segregation of families, friends and tradespersons.

Such does occur, explained away, with claims of protecting people, using application of racial testing within these communities.

.

Poor little judgy wudgy sounds like he might be worried his little toesy woesy, [& those of his fellow judges] are getting stepped on.

These people want to control everything, by totally controlling the law, & all access to it. They are always only interested in "the law" as controlled by them, & have no interest in justice, that I can find.

If we wish to have a justice system, we should pass a new law. That is that no person who has ever practiced, or taught, law can ever be a judge.

This bloke reigned over what was probably the most unjust court ever seen in Oz, & appears to want to dispense injustice to the aboriginals, just to keep control of "the law" in the hands of the few.