Mr Tomlinson rightly asks:

"How was it, then, that the Hawke, Keating and Howard governments, with billion-dollar budgets devoted to indigenous programs, had been unable to lift a group of people [in remote communities] the size of an MCG football crowd out of the morass of poverty, addiction, disease and social dysfunction?"

A most appropriate question.

Meanwhile, in the urban areas, particularly in the south and east, more than twenty six thousand I(ndigenous people have graduated from universities - almost all since 1980 - and record numbers are enrolled. How many of those Indigenous people are from remote communities ? How many people in remote communities have seized, or have been able to seize, the opportunities that are already available, opportunities which urban and southern people have been seizing for decades ?

Yes, it's a good question: why is it that people in 'settled' areas of Australia, who have copped far more racism, colonialism etc., than anybody in remote communities, have risen up and prevailed over their history ?

How is it that, with a quarter of all NT Indigenous adults perennially enrolled in TAFE courses, there are almost no skilled people whatsoever in remote communities ?

How is it that people in urban areas have far better health and employment rates than people in remote communities ?

How is it that people, on their own land, funded by royalties from mining on their own land (was this almost the sole reason why we worked for land rights in the 1970s and 1980s ? Just so that people could pimp their land ?) can't generate a single decent enterprise to provide self-sufficiency in any meaningful sense ?

How is it that people in remote communities, at least in communities which have ample water, haven't had the gumption to lease out patches of land for a group of their own people to set up vegetable gardens and orchards and chook yards, to provide fresh food for their own people at city prices ?

Good questions, Mr Tomlinson: thank you for the opportunity to ask them. Perhaps you have the answers ?

I think you've hit the nail on the head loudmouth, this isn't a race issue, it has become a location issue. I would suggest that if anyone currently living in australia relocated to these areas lacking resources and jobs, and living off welfare, that in several generations they would be faring as bad as aborigines in remote locations. When I was a child, my family had to move many times due to lack of work where we were living. This is life. Adapt or perish.

I'm assuming that the authors many quotes (and credit for providing references) are similar to his own opinions. Such as "as time passes it becomes clear that the intervention was an exercise in social engineering to destroy Aboriginal culture and Aboriginal attachment to their traditional lands and to force Aboriginal people into suburban agglomerations and adopt a white life style "

This brings me back to adapt or perish. Do you really think that the aboriginal way of life or culture has remained static for thousands of years? Or did it adapt with environmental changes etc? If the former, then I would say their way of life is doomed, as one who cannot adapt will fail. Their culture must adapt, even if this means adopting some of the advantages aspects of the 'evil white culture' you seem to despise. History is full of different cultures clashing and competing and the ones that survive are the ones which are open to change.

My second point is that in my opinion it is inaccurate to talk of a 'white lifestyle', or even 'white' anything when talking about Australian cities. Looking around where I live in Melbourne I would have to say that 'white' (i.e. caucasian) people are only a part of a greater multicultural population. If you wish to blame others for aboriginals plight you would now have to blame all 'non-indigenous'. Unless you have another barrow to push that is.

You're right, Stezza, it's a matter of location rather than race or culture.

In fact, I thought that Mr Tomlinson was being a bit provocative by writing of people having to "adopt a white life style". Having to ? You mean the Toyotas, the money, clothes, grog, shops, 24-hour TV, publicly-funded houses on privately-owned land, the full range of welfare benefits, plus the full range of remote-area benefits, plus royalties ? What aspect of the white life-style, if you want to call it that, do people in remote areas NOT want to adopt ?

Answer: the work which most people have to do to get those things. If people don't have to look for work, precisely because they are in locations where there is guaranteed to be none, then how can we talk of equal rights ? 'Equal rights' implies, surely, the right and the obligation to work and support oneself, if at all possible. And surely this means the obligation to either exist independently of the welfare system, or to seek and find work where it may be, and therefore to gain the necessary skills for employment. Surely welfare payments are a temporary last resort ?

What on earth good is it doing to people for Centrelink not to require them to work, and therefore to train for work, like other human beings ? Are they somehow above all that, entitled to all the benefits but not liable for any of the responsibilities ? Are we suppose do be still upholding some sort of feudal system ?

Is this what so many of us put decades of effort and good intentions into ? Are the rest of society mugs for working for a living, working to pay taxes ?

Never again.

Meanwhile, in the towns and cities, to which Indigenous people are moving at 1 % p.a., people have better health, housing, employment and educational prospects. Aren't they far more likely to be genuinely self-determining, by individual and family, than the ghastly fraud in remote communities?

Indigenous dynamism is in the urban areas, not in remote communities.

Joe Lane

I probably would be in agreement with the authors of the comments to Mr.Tomlinson's post had I been born in this land or had I been fed with the values prevailing in the Australia of early settlers. But I arrived here, in Melbourne, from Europe just after WW2.

However the euphoria of finding myself in a beautifully spacious city (as it was) come to an end when I observed the abject state of the few aborigine left in that city.

Since I searched for the causes of their misery and for fifty five years I have not been able to comprehend how those kind, polite, gentle European people around me had let those unfortunate falls so low.

Now I am dying with a deep regret for not having been able to help much in restituting to their children a bit of that dignity and pride they must have had when they were in charge of their unfenced land.

Hi Skeptic,

One in every nine Indigenous adults is a university graduate, almost all since 1980. While the rate of home-ownership is half of the Australian average, this also has been achieved substantially since 1980. More than 70 % of all Indigenous people live in urban areas, and are employed there. In fact, on almost every index, Indigenous people in urban areas are better off, usually far better off, than Indigenous people in remote areas. Except of course for royalties.

From an Indigenous point of view, all of Australia is Indigenous, not just the remote bits of desert and swamp. All of it, including the areas around cities. People with traditional links to urban areas have little difficulty perceiving themselves as having a right to live and work in urban areas.

In remote communities, there is little meaningful work for people, and in any case people have lost many work-skills that they might have had. With no need to look for work, there is little need for education, so lo and behold, the kids often don't get any schooling beyond Grade I. But the people there receive welfare payments (subject to quarantining) like any other Australians, remote-area allowances like any other Australians, and mining royalties.

Most of these payments are not available to Indigenous people in southern urban areas, yet they are the ones who finish secondary school, who go on to university, who seek out employment, and who strive to buy their own homes.

In the urban areas, people have got on with the business of living, while in the remote communities, it seems as if people have entered into a devil's bargain, and traded human opportunities for utter dependence and financial security, but with all manner of dreadful social consequences. In that sense, they have taken themselves out of the 'game', the 'game' that they live off.

Joe Lane

The responses to John Tomlinson's article are pretty much what I would expect from people who still have that underlying prejudice against the Government expenditure on Aboriginals.
Since the sixties and early seventies, when a form of political correctness developed in Australia that insisted that all people of Aboriginal descent be referred to as 'Indigenous' and descriptive terms such as Half caste, part coloured, quadroon and octoroon no longer be used,residents of remote communities, mostly traditional people still practicing their cultural rituals and speaking english as a second language are deemed to be at the same level of development as urban 'Indigenes'
Successive Governments of both political parties have continued to employ policies that continue to fail.
The Intervention is just the latest ill conceived policy that continues to deny that although the people concerned are mature adults, they must be treated as children who should not participate in the decision making process that affects their lives.

The Rights of these people have been usurped by Government.
They are forced to accept the ill conceived policies without redress or access to appeal.

Meanwhile, the benefits of advancement are enjoyed by detribalised 'Indigenes'.
People of remote southern communities do not refer to themselves as indigenes or Yolngu but by their clan names or "Aboriginal'.

They will continue to suffer the consequences of the Intervention whilst ever the decisions affecting their lives are endorsed by the "Indigenous Bourgeoise"; that new class of people with Aboriginal Heritage who are reaping the benefits and advising Government Ministers.

Instead of fly in- fly out visits ,Governments should spend more time in consultation, listening to the people whose lives are being affected.

A well considered article John right on the money.

There are big questions that Dr Tomlinson raises that need to be answered. I won't hold my breath waiting for politicians to answer them. They are obviously part of the problem, not the solution.

And it’s because of this vacuum of silence that so much comment and public debate is to be found in academic journals, newspapers and online opinion.
The only available government or legal response that would distil these opinions and research would be for a Royal Commission to be established.

The powers of such a Commission would have to be adequately sufficient so that Aboriginal people affected would have confidence in its impartiality and fiduciary obligations to them and to the broader principles that are foundational to Australian citizenship.

In my opinion, what Tomlinson outlines in terms of the political culture of compliance and agreement between the major political parties about the intervention speaks directly to an inability of Australian liberal democracy to recognise and engage productively with 2 percent of the total population of Australia. For some this may seem to be a small percentage of risk management.

For others it represents a total failure of a first world nation's obligations to uphold and maintain its own integrity as a humanitarian player on the world stage.

The next two generations of Australians should not be left this mess of political and ideological deal making, policy corruption to clean up. To not intervene in this intervention purposefully and diligently now is akin to letting a tumour become more malignant than it already is.

Surely there is someone pre-eminent enough in Australian public life to recognise this sickness for what it is.

* The crux Tomlinson's piece not only highlights the injustice of the poorly conceived intervention on Aboriginal people and communities in the northern Territory – it speaks directly to the need to reclaim the voice of ordinary citizens to participate and engage in Australia’s civil society. No matter what your own opinion about the justifications and details of the intervention itself, this deterioration of citizenship rights sits at the centre of this whole malaise.

Congratulations John T. on another well-researched, perceptive article.

This is a very good article John. Thank you for putting the time into producing it.

I would wholeheartedly agree that the reason for the failures in the government’s approach to Aborigines is that there is a lack of understanding, not just of the conditions, hopes, aspirations, fears, and inhibitions that exist in communities, but also of the fact that the policy-makers themselves are ill-equipped to place themselves in a position where they could ever develop such an understanding. However I would caution against leaping to the conclusion that this is an indication of some sort of conspiracy, or political objective amongst those in power to dilute or destroy Aboriginal culture.

I have spent considerable time working, not on Aboriginal policy, but in foreign aid – which in essence is a very similar pursuit. Through this I have met a lot of competent, passionate, and ethical people in government, who work hard to improve the lot of people born into situations less fortunate than our own. However I have subsequently left the field, as I found that, at least amongst the more senior or mainstream figures in government, multilaterals and NGOs, there is an unwillingness to engage with populations in developing countries - I suppose you would say, on the level of the anthropologist – to the extent that is necessary to develop an understanding of, and more critically an emotional understanding and empathy for, the real problems facing these populations. Result: aid often does more harm than good, and in the process we discourage valuable cultural knowledge which under different circumstances might have helped people to find their own way out of their predicaments. I think the reason this happens is because of a complex set of influences from bureaucrats’ own cultural backgrounds – the need for quick action and results, the aversion to career-destroying risk, a lack of stomach for living in grass huts with no running water, the pull of temptation for excessive consumption, and the projection of same. (continued next comment)

(part 2) Believe it or not, policy-makers are people too. They are prone to stress and frustration, and to being horrified by distasteful information, such as that contained in Little Children are Sacred. And I think that, as socially conscious people who make decisions based partly on (what these days is called) “emotional intelligence”, it is important that we consider the possibility that the NT legislation was written and passed by people who out of desperation felt they had to do something, anything, to the extent that they didn’t self-examine enough to realise they were being duped. (Though the people who do apparently hold to the view that the meaning of life is to have a job and spend money – such as our friend Loudmouth – are somewhat more dangerous, as in this country even pawns get to vote… which is why we need to keep on at their masters).

What can be done about it? Keep advocating for more resources to be devoted to research, perhaps through the aid of NGOs setting an example that can be used as a basis for “evidence-based policy”, so that governments can tackle the “problems” in their own way. For the government to put this responsibility in the hands of experts is unfortunately too-unacceptable a devolution of trust and power (we saw what happened with ATSIC). However I must say that I do hold grave fears that Aboriginal people’s cultural knowledge is now so depleted that we are set to witness the slow dying out of their ability to claim to live on their traditional land by choice, and that anyone who stays does so simply because they are stuck there. Is this impetus enough?

Sam Jandwich,
I agree with most of your post, well done for a positive contribution.
Regarding the loss of culture and the inevitable nature of this;
I believe there is developing a strong movement amongst the descendant families of mixed race, to recapture the culture.In some cases almost in desperation to discover an identity and sense worth and self esteem.

In my own experience as a veteran (white) activist in Aboriginal Rights
I am regularly approached by younger generations, seeking information and photographs of their parents and grandparents whom they had been encouraged to alienate themselves from during the days of the Assimilation policies.

There is also a development in preserving as many languages as possible before they become redundant through lack of speakers.

One important policy which must prevail is the retention of Indigenous language as a teaching aid in developing proficiency in English as a second language

Thanks for the serve, Sam:

" ... the people who do apparently hold to the view that the meaning of life is to have a job and spend money – such as our friend Loudmouth ... "

No, I'm simply reporting what appears to be happening. I studied and planned for thirty-something years to contribute to the policy of self-determination in the best way I could think of, before I came to the very belated conclusion that it was all a fraud, and that what people in remote communities seem to want, what they have persuaded themselves to want perhaps, is maximum financial dependence (and no risk of economic activity of any meaningful sort) along with maximum political autonomy. Not the same thing, really.

Meanwhile, in the cities, where Indigenous people don't have the S-D opportunities of people in remote communities, they are steaming ahead through higher education and regular employment. Like it or not, good or bad, they are settling into cities, buying their own homes, working, getting their kids through school and on to uni and/or genuine TAFE. Their health is better, there is much less domestic violence and abuse amongst employed Indigenous people in towns and cities, and they have less trouble with grog, drugs and the law. Right ? Wrong ?

Remote-community self-determination is dead. Like it or not, city- and town-based, individual, self-determination is alive and well, and is driving genuine Indigenous progress. Remote communities are on life-support, while city populations have picked themselves up and got on with life, creating a differentiated class structure in the process. You make your choices, I'll make mine: I wish the choices had been better, after forty and fifty years, more progressive if you like, but there you go, you play with the hand you're dealt.

Joe Lane

Sam,

You know, you've got me thinking:

" .... we are set to witness the slow dying out of their ability to claim to live on their traditional land by choice, and that anyone who stays does so simply because they are stuck there."

Why do you think it will be slow ? Yes, from community to ghetto, you're right. But it's a short life in remote communities - the 'Gap' might be seventeen years for all Indigenous males, urban, rural and remote, but I wouldn't mind betting that there are 'communities' in remote Australia where nobody has reached the age of fifty for years, and most guys are gone befure they reach forty. In other words, the average 'gap' is closer to thirty five or forty years than seventeen. Forty years of life un-lived - this is one of the tragedies of remote communities.

We lived for some years in a southern community, within twenty five miles of five or six towns, and only a couple of guys reached fifty there, and no mystery, they were employed.

The Gap is very real, Sam. So do we try to close it, or do we rabbit on about culture and language ? [Ideally, we do both]. What are the point of a vaguely-remembered culture, relating to a no-longer-lived lifestyle, and a similarly-disused language to people who die before they are fifty ?

Joe

Well written John. Loudmouth has no clue and obviously is lurking to attack Aboriginal rights. I hope good people get to read your article and to question the secret government policy making and oppression agenda.

Hi Ghumi,

An interesting comment: how am I attacking Aboriginal rights ? Or lurking to attack Aboriginal rights ? When I stick up for Indigenous participation in higher education, how is that attacking Aboriginal rights ? When my Indigenous wife and I were making Aboriginal flags back in the seventies, how was that attacking Aboriginal rights ? When we went up to live in a community and contribute to self-determination, how was that an attack on Aboriginal rights ?

So any criticism whatsoever, of anything Aboriginal whatsoever, is an attack on Aboriginal rights ? IF that is so, repeat IF that is so, then I hope I will go on "attacking Aboriginal rights" until I drop. If you want people to lick @rses, then go for it yourself but count me out.

Joe Lane

Loudmouth. Try writing an article yourself instead of trying to trash others. On education you need to read the UN expert paper on lessons learnt on indigenous peoples and education. Having an indigenous wife does not add to your credibility.

Hi Ghumi,

You're right, and I've written a couple of articles for OLO, and had a couple published in The Australian, on Indigenous higher education: you may be thrilled, like me, to know that currently, university commencements numbers and enrolment numbers of Indigenous students are at record levels.

Indigenous women are participating at a slightly better rate than NON-Indigenous men in Australia. There are now more than 26,000 (twenty six THOUSAND) Indigenous university graduates: they are set to change the entire policy picture. Doesn't that lift your heart ? It certainly does mine.

No, you're also right that an Indigenous partner doesn't mean all that much. It depends what you do about it. When we got hitched in the mid-sixties, we were involved in SA and Victoria and in New Zealand, then back here, in Indigenous politics as much as we could. We were unskilled labourers basically, so our means and our time were limited. I worked in a bakery, Maria worked in a paper-rolling factory. Have you ever tried those ?

Still, we used to make Aboriginal flags after work from about May or June 1972 onwards - I think we might have made the first flags, for the Aboriginal Embassy here in Adelaide, in the North Adelaide parklands. We kept making them throughout the seventies, until it became safe enough for other people to associate themselves with it. For a while, we ran a small and scurrilous journal called Black News.

We went to live in an Aboriginal community in 1973, and stayed until 1978. I don't know what you were doing back then, of course. We came back down to Adelaide to study, and got involved in Indigenous university student support, where we both worked for a total of about thirty years. By the time my wife passed away a couple of years ago, she was the acting head of the state's Indigenous education consultative group.

When you have some runs on the board, Ghumi, get in touch :)

Joe Lane

I reckon you have been well and truly assimilated loudmouth along with most of the thousands of 'Indigenous' university graduates who reaped the benefits of changing government policies in the 70's Good for you.
My concerns are for the thousands of remote community Aboriginals who have been behind the door when the opportunities were being offered.

It's time to recognise we now have two 'classes'

Loudmouth. I am impressed by your claims, but I have not been able to find your claimed articles. Can you please direct me to them?

Ghumi,

Second time lucky.

Try 'The Aboriginal Child at School', 1984, and early nineties, and 'The Aboriginal and Islander Health Journal', about 1991-1993.

OLO has a couple of articles, one in 2010 and one late last year:

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=11383

The Australian: go to their web-site, and type in 'lane indigenous education', that should do it.

Maracas,

Yes ! That's what we have been trying to say for the past few years ! That there is a growing class differentiation in Indigenous society, yes ! That the people in remote settlements are rapidly being left behind, yes ! And that urgent action was needed, yes !

We tried to get a paper along these lines published in progressive and left-wing journals but no deal, so we had it published by the Bennelong Society:

http://www.bennelong.com.au/conferences/pdf/JandMLane2008.pdf

They didn't change a single word, good mob. I hope you enjoy them. I'm not Indigenous, by the way.

Joe

What concerns me Loudmouth is that it is the assimilated Indigenous Bourgeouise who have become the spokespersons for remote area people and advisors to Government. They are not telling the right story.
I have been an activist supporting Aboriginal Rights since 1961 at a time when todays 'indigenous' people threatened to fight me if I referred to them as Aboriginal. I am not Aboriginal either but I understand that remote area people do not want to relocate to urban areas but are forced to with the implementation of the Intervention policies of Government .

They need to be properly consulted and receive support to become self-supporting with sympathetic mentors,working to empower the Communities utilising the skills they already possess.

Art has already proved to be a lucrative pursuit as has cultural sharing.Working with stock is also a suitable enterprise when applied with a view to expanding into a value added enterprise such as small scale meat processing.

Hi Maracas1,

Our paths have probably crossed in those fifty years :)

In the south (east coast/urban areas etc.), people have been moving into towns and cities for sixty years, since the relaxation of segregation policies and adoption of assimilation/integration policies.

People have done that because they wanted to. The urban areas were where the opportunities were, and of course still are. That's where their kids could get a decent education and better job opportunities. They chose to do that, nobody forced them to.

I'm not saying that people in remote Australia will make the same choices, or should. But if they do want to stay in remote areas, what can they do to develop economic activities, no matter how small ? Yes, art, Toyota rangers, camping grounds and tourism, the cattle industry, culling of camels, goats and donkeys and processing of their meat and leather - and where there is enough water, vegetable gardens, chook yards, a few dairy cows and orchards.

It might even transpire that, say, olives or pecans or dates could do very well in some areas, AS LONG AS they have the water.

Speaking of water, why aren't coastal and river communities getting into fishing enterprises ?

As well, to combat global warming, surely sooner or later, governments will subsidise re-forestation, and tree-planting across parts of the north ? There's a couple of hundred years' work.

As an old lefty, I don't see how people can do nothing forever, and live off the public teat, on their own land: that's what I thought the land rights struggle was all about, get your land and do something with it: if they can develop community enterprises on their own land, then go for it, ASAP.

Then I ask myself the question: why haven't they done some of this already ? How much would it cost to put a few vegetables in ? Don't many communities have ample plant and equipment ? The communities I'm familiar with certainly did, oodles of it, mostly going unused.

Meanwhile in the cities, people are getting on with life.

Joe

Joe,
In my observations ,in communities I have contact with, the folks have had their progress set back a couple of decades,Once active Councils have lost control of their community development to be replaced by fewer councils administering multiple communities. People are despairing and feel betrayed. People who were working on CDEP programs have been placed on the dole and sit idle ! Many have moved to urban centres because of the witholding of income and helped create further problems in overcrowding.

Both Governments have done enormous damage to Aboriginal development and self reliance.

I am disgusted at the continuing failure of Jenny Macklin to acknowledge the damage she has caused.Unfortunately she will not have to pay for the damage which is tanamount to a crime against Humanity