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