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.

Hi there HASBEEN...

I couldn't agree with you more ! As a retired copper, I can't begin to tell you of the enormous damage this bloke and his cohorts have done to people, who've had the misfortune to appear before the Family Court.

It is we the police, who have to pick up the pieces of the many shattered lives who have suffered abominably, from some of the most appalling judgements that have come down from the 'erudite' bench of the Family Court.

How this bloke and his species can ever hold his head up in public, after presiding over and occasioning so much human misery, in the illusion and facade of despensing Justice, I'll never ever know ?

Thank you Alastair Nicholson for naming the shameful violations of human rights which Australia has perpetrated on Indigenous people under the NTER. Ironically the NTER commenced on the day that policeman, Chris Hurley was acquitted of charges in relation to the death in custody of Mulrunji Domadgee on Palm Island. Aboriginal people can be beaten to death in police cells and nobody white will be held responsible, while the government legislates for racial discrimination. Since the NTER Aboriginal people have lost the right to control their income, to choose where to shop, their ability to move around (as their store cards permit them to shop only in places which accept the cards)- this in turn affects people's capacity to attend to cultural business, to afford larger purchases, to transport their kids to school...because they are Aboriginal and live in the Northern Territory. Australia does not need to take away people's income, human rights, land rights as well as their language, their children, their material and cultural heritage in order to provide decent standards of community housing, health, education and policing. Thanks so much to Nicholson for having the courage to speak. The posters who condemn him reveal their racism in their deficit beliefs about Aboriginal people.

What about the Aboriginal children's rights Mog?

Some of the children in those communities don't get enough food because their parents would rather spend it on alcohol and gambling.
Some of the parents are often so drunk they don't look out for their kids and the kids are left to fend for themselves in violent areas.
They are often physically and sexually abused, as well as neglected.

Where are their rights Mog?

Sorry, but the kids rights come before the adults rights as far as I am concerned.
The local community health staff and police know the families where children are at risk. It is these families that should have their incomes managed so that the kids get food at least.

Leaving the kids in that situation equates to child abuse by the rest of our society.
If the kid's situation does not improve by managing the parent's income for them, then it is time to find the kids another family who will give them what they deserve- the basics of life at least.
And yes, I believe this sort of management should apply to ALL parents, not just Aboriginal parents.

I don't care about the abusive adults 'rights'

Dear suzeonline I agree with the need to protect children from abuse but you are proceeding on the belief that the NTER has actually improved children's well-being. There have been no child sex abuse prosecutions arising from the NTER. There have been no measurable gains in children's health indicators. As Nicholson notes the justification for the NTER was reducing child abuse but it hasn't. That's the problem. One of the main contributors to child abuse is crowded housing - nothing has changed. The point is the government did not need to suspend race discrimination and land rights to get better food and health and education and policing services to children. They just needed to deliver the services. They still have not done that. They have just taken away from people that's the problem.

Mog,

' .... deficit beliefs about Aboriginal people ... ' ? I hardly trhink so. What Suze and I are proposing is that surely Aboriginal people, especially children, are entitled to much better lives. They shouldn't have to put up with abuse and violence any more than any other Australians do.

Figures released yesterday showed that twenty per cent of all women murdered in Australia in 2007-2009 were Indigenous, ten times more than their 'share' of the population. Is that tolerable ?

Hospitalisation rates for Aboriginal women from remote communities are vastly higher than for other Australian women. Should they have to tolerate that sort of treatment, even in the name of 'culture' ?

Aboriginal children are vastly more likely to be put into care for neglect and abuse than other Australian kids. Is that tolerable ?

Anybody who knows much about any Indigenous community knows that the suicide rate OUTSIDE OF CUSTODY is at least ten times higher for Aboriginal youth than it is for other Australian youth. Is that tolerable ?

Overwhelmingly, these stats are dealing with people who are unemployed, living in remote communities, marginalised from Australian society, and crippled from being able to easily participate in it. Is that any way to live ?

Meanwhile, the equivalent of 40 % of the 20-year-old age-group are first-time enrolments in university courses, every year. Of course, they are mostly young people in the towns and cities who have this opportunity: they are literate, speak English as a first language, and often have pushy parents, massive advantages that are not available - thanks to 'defenders' like Mr Nicholson - to people in remote communities.

So who is pandering to the 'deficit', Mog ? Who is protecting the 'deficit', keeping it going, trying to shield it from criticism ?

Mog, I see where you are coming from. This problem is huge and has no immediate answers. However, throwing money and houses at the communities has not worked before and is not the answer.

I was working in a community where the Government employed a building company to train and hire the local men to build about 50 new houses in order to stop the overcrowding, and associated problems, of Aboriginal dwellings already there.

The houses were eventually built to much fanfare.
By 12 months, more than 40 of the houses were trashed. The glass on the solar hot water systems were smashed, and any wooden parts of the houses were ripped off and used as firewood- even though the community was surrounded by bush. All windows were smashed and gardens died.

Many of the patients I visited would not leave their houses unattended because all the contents would be gone when they returned.
All this perpetrated by their own people.
As each new house became uninhabitable, they all crowded into other relatives houses, and so the cycle went on.

So where to now for these communities Mog?

In my opinion, the only way to treat this problem is to limit access to alcohol, and to limit access to money other than for essential groceries for some of these dysfunctional families.
If we don't, then another generation of these people will be lost

well if I ruled the world I would do the following:
Ask communities about their priorities and map a plan of action around those priorities
Lift the quality and accessibility to health services inlcuding mental health and drug and alcolhol rehabilitation services and cultural healing and recovery services
Provide safe houses for children and protective parents
Embed literacy and numeracy programs in culturally significant activities rather than insist on the western style industrial era of schooling
Develop career pathways for young people in communities and resource them
Require local government and state governments and federal governments to provide entry level jobs and skills development for young people from remote communities
and so on....enabling empowering

Hi Mog,

The problem is that that jumble of proposals has been substantially in place for the last forty years. Which of them hasn't ?

And can't you see the contradictions in your wish-list:

'Embed literacy and numeracy programs in culturally significant activities rather than insist on the western style industrial era of schooling
'Develop career pathways for young people in communities and resource them
'Require local government and state governments and federal governments to provide entry level jobs and skills development for young people from remote communities ....'

What skills do communities need ? Pretty much the same range of skills as any town, and given the small scale of communities, if anything people need to be MULTI-skilled. Don't communities need teachers, nurses, access to doctors and dentists, mechanics, electricians, etc. etc., just like other towns ? How do people, any people, train for those skills ? Either at university or TAFE colleges.

So entry-level employment is hardly the way to go, unless the community is forever going to be dependent on outsiders, usually non-Indigenous, for their higher skill needs. Is that what you want to perpetuate ?

So, how do you ' ...Develop career pathways for young people in communities ... ' unless the young people voluntarily move away to study and train - but for this there are prerequisites:

1) the kids can understand English,

2) the kids can read and write, and are familiar with the specific knowledge up to the entry-level for their particular course of study.

[TBC]

[cont.]

Part of the problem for small communities is that, even if everyone was skilled in some specific field, there still may not be enough people to provide all of the skills required. That's if EVERYONE got skilled. As well, there may not be enough work to fully occupy ANY skilled person, except perhaps a teacher or nurse. So if anything, either people need more than one range of expertise to utilise in a particular community, or they have to make their living, moving around, serving more than one community.

In other words, communities can be too small to be viable, in terms of the skills they need to function.

Mog, there has been a wealth of experience over the past forty years, across a thousand communities: please do not think that you are the first to invent the wheel. Thousands of very dedicated people have tried, and have spent probably millions of sleepless nights trying to figure out what can be done. It can take a lifetime to realise the awful truth about the real potential of remote communities.

Meanwhile, in the cities, one in six Indigenous adults is a university graduate. So what is working ? What isn't, in spite of all our romantic dreams and wishes ?

No, it's not all beer and skittles in the cities either, it's a two- or three-generation struggle, but people certainly have far more options there: certainly, that third-generation does, they are the people going straight on to university, not as an elite but as a large fraction of each age-group.

The poor buggers in remote communities haven't even begun that struggle yet, and nowadays don't even have the basic means to start it, thanks to muddle-headed dreamers like Coombs and Nicholson.

Joe

I think the good judge should go and spend a year in a community and then form an opinion. Until then he can resume sipping lattes and reading the SMH.

My wife and I's last job - 3 years ago - before retirement was caring for indigenous children removed from remote communities where violence and abuse was the 'norm.' This ex-judge prattles on about Rights but nowhere does he talk about Responsibilities, in fact, he make false claims about indigenous 'culture'.

In every tribal group we had dealings with (Wik, Burrenji, Karra, etc) the culture 'rule' is "you make the child, you responsible for the child' - the opposite of what Nicholson claims in this article.

His article is little more than Liberal bashing as he'd had run-ins with the Howard government and is a well known ALP functionary along with his mate former Federal Court judge, Marcus Einfeld with whom Nicholson often worked and socialized.

Oh, that's right, not friends with Marcus anymore because Marcus is a guest of Her Majesty, doing time for corruption, perverting the course of justice, forgery, etc. You can tell what a person's like by the friends they keep.

Still on-topic :)

There's a brilliant little book just published by Doubleday: 'Disintegration: the Splintering of Black America', by Pulitzer Prize-winner Eugene Robinson, in which he details the fracturing of the US Black population by class and aspirations since the civil rights struggles of the fifties and sixties.

Of course, there are differences between the two situations, but a similar process - of some seizing opportunities and leaping ahead, while others seem to be oblivious to them - seems to be occurring.

On reflection, a similar shake-out is happening in New Zealand too, rural vs urban, under-class vs middle-class vs elite class.

In all three countries, a large section of the population is being left behind, not getting much of an education, dependent on welfare, characterised by all of the usual negative statistics. Meanwhile, another section of the population, perhaps a majority, struggles to stay in work and get their kids a good education: their ethic is radically different, even though they may come from the same families as welfare-dependent people. For some, effort should (and hopefully will) equal reward; for many others, effort is pointless.

Different outlooks, different outcomes.

So, for a large Indigenous population, yes, their kids are going to go to university, they are going to get good jobs, they are going to own their own homes.

For another population, urban as well as rural, they will do what their relations have always done, scrabbled, depended on each other, sought better deals from Centrelink and housing authorities, tried vainly to stay out of trouble, tried to keep their kids off the streets.

Like it or not, the Indigenous population is differentiating along class lines. That process is likely to accelerate in the next ten and twenty years. The train has left the station, and it doesn't come back. Who gets on and who doesn't - that's one question. How to help everybody that wants to onto the train - that's a bigger one :)

Joe

Loudmouth and Suzieonline You both seem to be speaking a lot of common sense.

The welfare of the kids has to come first and their health and education. The best way of achieving that is the question and we have to make the intervention work to that end. The past has not worked.

Frankly, it was a sad day for aboriginals when Mal Brough lost his seat as i think he was set on achieving a better outcome for the kids.

The reality is now he is gone and we still have to work for the kids future.

The current culture in remote communities has to change.

suzeonline, Loudmouth and co,
the wellbeing of the children should always be paramount but for decades the Fed and Territiory governments have not ensured their wellbeing. Fresh clean water, access to nutritious food and safe housing are basic human needs that have not been met my numerous govts and thier workers. The NT intervention has not delivered better nutrition as the latest report showed that there has been an increase in hospitalisations for malnutrition SINCE the start of the intervention.

Housing shortages will not be remedies while the govt housing services charge a per head rent. This means that if there are 2 adults living in a house the rent is lower than if there are 5 or 10. Indigenous housing does not seem to recieve the same level of tennancy rights as other rental properties. Toilets can be broken (particularly if there are 10 adults and 5 children living in a 3 bedroom house - remember the rent deal) and not repaired. Stoves, wiring, etc all left unrepaired in a way that would not be tolerated in mainstream society.

A few years back there was a review of the new houses built in remote Aboriginal communities and it was found that the norm was for southern/city contractors has plumbing going nowhere, electrical outlets attached to walls with no wiring attached at all. Toilets with no water inlet and no waste outlet connected.

I am tired of seeing the same old guff being trotted out when it comes to discussion on Indigenous issues - it is always blame the blackfella. Perhaps if the people who are so interested in the topic were to step away from their same old line they might be able to come up with constructive comments like Mog.

Welcome back, Aka !

Rent per head ? What, about $ 20 per head per week ? If it was up to me, I would increase the rent per head for each additional person, to discourage over-crowding, and - faint hope - to encourage people to look after the houses they already have.

So: $ 20 for one person, an extra $ 30 for another person, $ 40 for another person, $ 50 for the next person, and so on.

Pretty clearly, Aka, a flat rent would hardly discourage over-crowding, will it ?

As for repairs, do the renters pay for them ? Or is it all free ?

You know, it's strange: traditional life, out in the bush, living under the stars, is supposed to be superior to western life (ptuh ! ptuh !). Yet people, including the lovely Aka, demand a western style of life. Fair enough, as long as it comes with a western style of responsibilities.

As well, Indigenous people own their land. It is privately-owned land. Public housing authorities build homes on it, and Aka, you demand that they keep doing so. Fair enough, as long as people understand the enormous cost of building in remote areas, in very small-scale groupings of houses, providing standard infrastructure, maintenance, etc., at great distances.

Yes, builders who do not do a proper job should be charged and jailed, shot if that is allowed, but people surely have to understand that houses don't come cheaply: no matter where they are built, on whose land, or whatever, they cost a hell of a lot: in cities, people spend all their working lives paying the things off.

People in remote communities have to understand that nobody 'out there' gets houses free, or cars free, and most people have to actually work for a living, not sit around and call themselves 'liaison' or 'engagement' or 'community development' officers. They actually work from minute to minute, hour to hour, day by day, with some psychotic alpha-boss breathing down their necks.

[TBC]

Gee, where do you get the figure of $20 per person per week Loudmouth?

That is certainly not the rate being charged to anyone I know of. Although I did hear of one tin shed in the NT, with a dirt floor housing something like 10-18 adults where each was charged at $25 per person per week. They did not have a functioning toilet - and I believe that some of the residents had built the shed themselves on Aboriginal land. The state agency charging rent was making a very tidy profit and without having to invest in further buildings or maintainence.

As for any tennant, the landlord is responisble for repairs. That is if the plumbing is broken etc the landlord pays or does repairs. In public housing supplied to non-Indigenous people in Qld, that is mainstream, every few years the houses get a refurbishment. This does not happen for Indigenous Australians.

I think it is timely to remind you that you know nothing about my lifestyle but I will tell you that I do not live in an urban area and my husband and I own our very humble dwelling and the freehold land it is situated on.

Loudmouth people in remote communities do know that "nobody 'out there' gets houses free, or cars free, and most people have to actually work for a living". Believe me they know that they have to pay through the nose for the most basic of goods. If you are as well versed in Indigenous issues as you claim you would know that it is a complete myth about getting cars for nothing. As for working, you would also be aware of the ripoff working conditions imposed on CDEP workers.

Some constructive ideas would be more productive.

I totally agree with Aka, you have to be versed in Indigenous issues to have a clear understanding of what you are talking about.

Aboriginal people living in remote and isolated communities do it hard. The cost of living in these communities are more expensive than regional/urban communities, 1. they have to pay freight costs, on top of GST and of course there is no competition from other retailers to drive costs down.

Now, in regards to trade people, lets be honest trades people charge a fortune and they don't always do a great job, some people in the field have been known to cut corners to save costs and this doesn't always work out cost effective in the long run, because the corners they cut will need attention later on.

As for child abuse in Aboriginal communities, let's not racialize child abuse, it happens in every community, that's the sad reality. But in remote and isolated communities; where are the police and services? These communities don't have police and like any community without police, sex offenders run riot, you only have to look at any community or country with nil, little or corrupt policing.

Human rights should be a basic right, my community should look like your community, it should have a swimming pool, police, health services, schools, TAFE, library, recreational area, roads, transport, hospital, etc. Go out into these communities and see if they look like your community.

I just don't understand people who think they have a clear concept and understanding of Human Rights, but, if Aboriginal people ask for basic human rights they automatically believe they are asking for "too much", "special treatment" or for more than any other Australian citizen and therefore place a huge burden on "taxpayers". Geez, I thought that was what my taxes were for, providing a decent standard of living for all Australians.

PS: The NT Intervention has done nothing for the safety and protection of children and can someone honestly please tell me how quaratining Centrelink payments stops child abuse?

Hi Quayle,

You're right that "you have to be versed in Indigenous issues to have a clear understanding of what you are talking about." I look forward to the time when your contributions are based on that premise.

Much of what you assert is sort of half-right: yes, people, women and kids, are doing it very tough in remote communities, in spite of the range of financial compensation for remoteness, relaxed Centrelink conditions and reliance decade after decade on CDEP, and the flow of royalties.

Yes, food costs are high. But many communities have running water, which suggests that, with care and the right equipment, they could be running their own vegetable gardens, chook yards and orchards, like the missionaries used to do. In fact, some remote communities have so much water that one major problem is being cut off by flood-waters for much of the year. Some communities could, in fact, produce the vegetables, eggs and fruit for neighbouring communities with little water. When you hear about communities starting up simple, basic vegetable gardens, let me know :)

Re your serve against trades-people: welcome to the world, Quayle. Isn't it strange, though, that every year, seventy thousand Indigenous people are enrolled in TAFE courses of various sorts and value, and that around a quarter of all Indigenous adults in the NT are enrolled every year in TAFE courses ? Over a ten-year period, that should mean that every single Indigenous adult in the NT is qualified in some field or other. So I'm confident that in every remote community, there are ample numbers of tradespeople of every sort to carry out all the repairs ever needed. Problem solved.

[TBC]

Quayle,

[continued]

Your take on remote-community child abuse: how do you want it, that "it happens in every community", or that in "any community without police, sex offenders run riot" ? Which is it to be ? Yes, like so many other Australians, I was amazed, when the Intervention was inaugurated, to find out that there were many communities which had never had police stationed in them, some large and notorious communities too. So yes, I am very glad that more communities now have a permanent police presence, just like non-Indigenous communities of similar requirements. That might go some way to protecting the lives and integrity of women and children.

Community needs: you mention swimming pools. I did my secondary schooling in Wagga and Darwin, each of which had populations in the tens of thousands and which had (at the time I left) one Olympic-sized swimming pool. I agree that any Indigenous community with a population of ten thousand should have a publicly-funded swimming pool. And of course, that any community, regardless of size, should be assisted to fund its own swimming pool, perhaps from royalties. Of course, this would rule out most Indigenous communities outside of the NT, since the great majority of them don't get any royalties.

Small non-Indigenous communities, towns, villages, have very few facilities, but people choose to live in them: go out into these communities and see if they look like your community. Often, any facilities that they may have access to, have been funded by local councils from rates and other income, roadworks, etc. Indigenous communities should be encouraged to fund whatever services they require like any other communities, from funds which they generate. Good luck with that.

[TBC]

Joe Lane

[continued]

In the real world, Quayle, any sort of service provision has a sort of threshold population that it needs to support it: a general store, for example, needs, say, three or four hundred people buying exclusively from it, to remain viable. A library needs many thousands of residents in its catchment area, in order for the council which usually funds it, to keep doing so. A hospital may need a thousand people within a driveable distance, to warrant being built and staying open. A basic, primary-level school may need twenty kids to stay open, and so a catchment population of a few hundred. A secondary school or TAFE college may need a catchment population in the thousands.

Indigenous people, on their own land, have every right to stay there, and to take the consequences of their choices. They don't have the right to demand facilities which non-Indigenous towns and villages of similar size and remoteness can only dream of. As it is, Indigenous people in public housing on private (i.e. their own) land are already receiving preferential treatment: check out if there is much public housing on privately-owned land in non-Indigenous towns.

Yes, you are right, a few billion dollars here or there of taxpayers' money (including Indigenous working people's money) doesn't significantly affect Australia's trillion-dollar budget. But I look forward to the day when Indigenous people in remote communities start giving back for those billions :)

Of course, that would require the mobilisation of the missing ingredient in Indigenous communities, an ingredient which other populations seem to have in abundance: effort, input, work.

Work: the magic ingredient ! The thought gladdens my Marxist heart ! It seems to have worked for the forty-odd thousand Indigenous people who are either enrolled, or have graduated from, university education. Indigenous people CAN contribute, but not by sitting forever on their freckles.

Joe Lane