I am Bess Price's husband. My wife has been in mourning for her sister-in-law, murdered on a town camp, her brother's step son who died accidently and avoidably and a 14 year old niece who suicided, during the period of this highly public bickering. We have been amazed and appalled by the public attacks on her for the simple act of expressing her opinions on the deep distress her people are suffering. They began with Prof Behrendt's comment and other obscene attacks on anti-intervention web sites and have been continued locally by the Greens and their supporters in Alice Springs. I was delighted to read your article. We agree completely with your balanced analyses of the main issues. It has all been worth it if more sane voices like yours are heard as a response to the hysteria. We also want the voices of the most marginalised, vulnerable and distressed, those drowned out in the public bickering, to be heard. We want to be done whatever can be done to effectively relieve their distress and we want a genuinely bipartisan effort by governments at all levels.

Prof Behrendt's attitude is typical of those leftist academics who are far removed from realities. Anyone working with aboriginals in remote places knows first hand the atrocities and suffererings still going on today. What Prof Behrendt shows is like many of the leftist spewing out their hatred is that they are far more interested in protecting their dogma rather than helping people.

Spot on, Runner.

I'm not so sure that Behrendt's vicious attack on Bess Price was a sign of a petty feud: I think it was very much a sign of the distance between people in remote settlements, living in desperate welfare-dependence, and the urban elites, the self-styled leaders. Pretty clearly, as far as the elites are concerned, the people in remote areas - excluded, uneducated, unskilled, unemployed - are on their own.

I must also take issue with Professor Thampapillai's assumption that " ... Indigenous Australians are poorly represented in higher education .... " Consider:

* Indigenous enrolments are at record levels, and have risen every year since 2005. In the latest year of data, 2009, they were already some 43 % higher than they were in 2000, and have probably risen by another 15 % since then;

* the equivalent of two young adult age-groups are currently enrolled in university courses, overwhelmingly in mainstream courses. The backside dropped out of enrolments in Indigenous-focussed courses, Aboriginal Studies, Aboriginal Health, etc., in 2000-2005;

* Around fourteen hundred or more Indigenous people graduate each year - that's equivalent to about 18 % of the 22-year-old age-group;

* total graduate numbers - really after only about twenty years - are now more than twenty six thousand: that's one in every nine or ten Indigenous adults;

* By 2020, thanks to a massive increase in the birth-rate after the mid-eighties, enrolments and annual graduations could easily double, and total graduate numbers could exceed fifty thousand.

[TBC]

[Cont.]

In fact, if we put these two aspects of the Indigenous condition together - that

(a) about a third of the entire population, remote, rural and urban, are encapsulated in lifelong welfare and unlikely to participate in university education [but see below], and

(b) university participation by Indigenous people has been substantial over the past twenty years, involving around eighty thousand people in total,

then the actual rate of participation is little short of amazing:

* Indigenous women's participation is at about 65 % of the non-Indigenous women's participation rate. They are currently at about the same level of partiicpation as non-Indigenous women were in 1997-1998;

* Indigenous women (aged between 20 and 600 are commencing university study at a slightly better rate (2.2 %) than non-Indigenous men (2.06 %);

* The number of Indigenous men commencing university study rose by a massive 18 % between 2008 and 2009, i.e. in one year.

If we take socio-economic class into account as well as distance, rurality, etc., then it is all the more amazing that the participation rate of urban Indigenous people is so high. It is probably a hell of a lot better than the rate for NON-Indigenous people, men especially.

[TBC]

[contd.]

The upshot of this is that Behrendt, as head of a Review of Indigenous higher education, will not be able to fall back on the common stereotypes about non-participation, in other words, "blame the victim", and effectively come up with no new ideas, no initatives, nothing to assist Indigenous people - the same old, same old that the elites are so good at.

If she knows anything at all about Indigenous student support - and more so if she cares about it, since she comes from the rival teaching/research/conference area - she should know that, while the major problems of recruiting urban students have been dealt with, the tertiary education sector in general and Indigenous student support in particular, have a massive and historic task in front of them:

* to assist the people from remote areas, and from the welfare-oriented population generally, to enable them to work their way from their current desperate state, gradually and with enormous effort and courage, to university study.

It has to happen sooner or later, after all: remote communities need vast numbers of skilled people, and people there deserve a similar range of opportunities that the Behrendts of the world take for granted.

Is Behrendt the person for the job ? We'll see: one thing is for sure and that is that she will not get a free ride - there will be people looking over her shoulder from now on.

Joe

Correction: above I lazily wrote that ' ... the equivalent of two young adult age-groups are currently enrolled in university courses."

On recent rates of growth, it is possible that there are about 11, 500 Indigenous students enrolled at universities this year (perhaps as high as 12,000). Their median age would be around 25-26. In each of those age-groups, according to the last Census, there were about 7,000 people.

So there are the equivalent of about ONE AND A HALF median age-groups of Indigenous people currently enrolled at universities across Australia.

Sorry :)

Just by the way, Indigenous commencements this year are probably around 5,500, of whom about 4,500 would be first-timers: the others would be mainly post-graduate students. Indigenous participation at universities is not some fly-by-night, one-off, inconsequential bagatelle, not with the equivalent of more than half of the 20-year-old age-group enrolling, every year, year after year. Get the picture ?

Joe

daprhys,

I think Bess is a courageous women. Please tell her there are many people who support her and hope she is not intimidated by political Aboriginies in the cities.

Dilan,

I think you wrote a sane artical in what can be an ideologically driven area. I have one big disagreement though. You wrote:

"That said, Aboriginality is a complex topic and there is little to be gained by looking backwards and casting aspersions on others"

This couldn't be further from the truth. I recently heard Jenny Macklin talk in remote Australia. She quoted Einstein (I think) saying that the definition of stupidity is to keep doing the same thing and expect a different outcome. My first thought was 'like 40 years of indigenous policy'!

The last 40 years of indigenous policy had brought nothing but suffering for remote indigenous Australians. Yet urban elites still pursue their failed rights agenda. How much longer do remote Australians have to suffer for their pride?

Bess Price mentioned the missionaries on 7:30 tonight. I have spoken with many older aboriginies who were taught by the missionaries. Many of them said the missionaries were hard but as least we learnt. People had self respect and self discipline. When they left many communities had working cattle stations, viable small aircraft companies and farming enterprises. But all is gone now. How much longer do remote indigenous people have to suffer before we recognise the agenda of the past 40 years has failed? How much longer do they suffer for the vanity of the Left?

Loudmouth,

The people you mention are urban political Aboriginies. They have very little in common with remote Aboriginies.

Andrew Bolt has been taken to court because he criticied these blond haired blue eyed aboriginies for taking scholarships and other benefits meant for disadvanted aborigines.

Aboriginality needs to return to a culural and ethnic basis rather than a political one. Currently all you need to do to claim aboriginality is to claim acceptance by other aboriginals. In the cities this often means being accepted by other hangers-on with no cultural and virtually no ethnic connection to aboriginal heritage.

Bolt's point was that these people are abusing the system and taking away a much needed step up for the people who need it most. Urban hangers-on are the people who have the most to lose from a move away from the rights agenda. That is why they attack critics like Bess Price with such vitriol and why they try to shut down public debate with court actions. It is always those who have the most to lose who fight the hardest.

Dane

YOu mention the 7.30 report tonight where the dignified Bess said
'Bess Price mentioned the missionaries on 7:30 tonight. I have spoken with many older aboriginies who were taught by the missionaries. Many of them said the missionaries were hard but as least we learnt. '

I have spoken to a number of elders who confirm Bess opinion and also missionaries who spent up to 50 years working in communities for little to no pay. Most of the Government workers today only go out to the communities because they are on huge salaries or can't get work anywhere else. I am not blaming the workers for this but the fact is they do it for pay unlike many of the missionaries (not all) who did it because they cared for the people.

Your statement/question says it all

'How much longer do they suffer for the vanity of the Left? '

are encapsulated in lifelong welfare.
Loudmouth,
Ever thought about who is doing this encapsulating ?

Dilan,

I doubt that any opponent of the Intervention would argue that the problems identified in the report, 'Little Children are Sacred' did not require urgent action. The point of contention is over the form of the action that was ultimately taken. Many Indigenous people (not only 'elites') were concerned by coercive measures that had little to do with child abuse, such as the compulsory acquisition of Indigenous lands.

You seem to think that it is irrelevent that the recommendations in 'Little Children are Sacred' were ignored by the Howard and Gilliard Governments alike. Furthermore, you cannot refer to anywhere else in the world where this kind of Intervention has been implemented, let alone proven to succeed. How does the Intervention sit with internationally recognised models of best practice? Or is such research only relevant to the puny vanities of the 'Indigenous elite'?

It sounds so enticing when you distinguish between implementation of a policy and the policy itself, so that unintended consequences of the former do not undermine the latter. The problem is that you can't point to a single piece of research that indicates that the Intervention is succeeding in reducing child abuse. Once again, Dilan, are you seriously suggesting that credible research in this area is irrelevant?

Hi Individual,

I'd defer to your knowledge and experience any day, so when you ask " .... Ever thought about who is doing this encapsulating ?" I'd be happy to take my guidance from you.

Still, not to duck the question, I would say that whoever takes away the sense of agency, of responsibility, from the people, whoever does things for them that they can, or should be able to, do for themselves - government agencies, Aboriginal organisations, the ivory-tower academics - has been, perhaps unwittingly, trapping people in remote and rural settlements, and in outer suburbs of most big cities, in lifelong and utter dependence.

But even at the cost of being accused of 'blaming the victim', and from a comfortable distance here in Adelaide, I would have to say that to a large extent, the people themselves, especially the men, have at least encouraged that dependence, and that response from government agencies and Aboriginal organisations. What do you reckon :)

Turn the question around: who wants that entrapment, that dependence, to continue ? not just agencies and organisations and academics and bodies like CAEPR - their self-interest in perpetuating dependence is pretty obvious. But do many of the people, especially the men want, desperately want, to gain skills, even for low-level and menial work - like most migrants have to do when they first come out to Australia (or country people moving to the cities, for that matter) - in order to give their kids a better future ?

[TBC]

Joe

[cont.]

Bess Price has said that she wants for her children what the Larissa Behrendts (and most of the other 26,000 Indigenous university graduates) of the world might have for theirs, and she is right. Who stands in the way of that ? Who defends the system which perpetuates and deepens that entrapment ? Each of those four agents - government agencies, Aboriginal organisations, academics, many Aboriginal men at settlements - has their own particular set of reasons, mostly predicated on keeping the money rolling in and boosting careers.

If I've got it wrong, please set me straight. What we all have to be doing in this crisis is showing a willingness to learn, to understand the situation as it is, warts and all, no romanticised culling of what is inconvenient, no rose-coloured glasses - but always, with the conviction that the most difficult problems may have solutions, no matter how complex and tortuous.

For those who think that some problems are too hard, I would have to ask: do you want to abandon people, perhaps your own people, to short and desperate lives ? Would you deny them the same rights, responsibilities, opportunities and choices that you take for granted ? Are they entitled to live good lives like you might be living, with the comforts that you assume are your right, or not ?

And if you think they aren't, for whatever mealy-mouthed reason, then who are the racists ?

Thanks again for your question, Individual. All the best.

Joe Lane

Bess Price has said that she wants for her children what the Larissa Behrendts (and most of the other 26,000 Indigenous university graduates) of the world might have for theirs, and she is right. Who stands in the way of that ? Who defends the system which perpetuates and deepens that entrapment ?
Each of those four agents - “government agencies, Aboriginal organisations, academics”
Dead Right there Joe !!
But, many Aboriginal men at settlements ?
You've probably never had much to do with settlements !?
Also, haven't read all your stuff, don't get paid to, and you do get a bit long-winded sometimes !!
Arthur Bell

Hi Arthur,

You were asking, " ... But, many Aboriginal men at settlements ?
You've probably never had much to do with settlements !?"

Four years on one community back in the seventies, a few months at another in 2003, working as a laborer: I mowed lawns, collected garbage, picked grapes and citrus and cleaned out the sheep yards on one, planted trees and worked in the dairy at the other.

I'm not sure what you meant by the first part of the question: I shouldn't have said anything about men at all ? Or are you suggesting that "many' is an understatement ?

Individual,

I think of you as an authority on northern communities/settlements, so can I please ask you a few questions ?

Is there really poverty in communities, or is it that families actually are in receipt of plent yof funds - standard welfare payments and royalties (as is their right), remote area education allowances, CDEP payments, and so on ? [i.e., carrots]

Are children in your community going to school, and are they getting a full education from properly-trained and dedicated teachers ?

If kids are not going to school, what are schools doing about it ? Are parents being penalised for not sending their kids to school, even though they are getting remote area education allowances ? [i.e. sticks]

Are kids literate after two or three years of schooling ? And numerate as well ?

Are kids actually getting through the full primary school curriculum by the time they are twelve or thirteen, or are they still illiterate ? Who does that benefit ? What are teachers doing about that ?

If the schooling system is genuinely bilingual, do the kids get much English in their schooling, the common language of TV, newspapers, universities, the economy, the society generally ? Are they literate in English at twelve and thirteen ? If not, why not, in your view ?

Or do kids think, thanks to their parents, that they too will be able to live all their [short] lives on welfare ?

[TBC]

[contd.]

Do you envisage kids being able to go on to genuine secondary education, and from there, to trades training or university ? After all, do communities need skilled people and people with professional skills, like other towns and villages of comparable size ?

Are CDEP, or work-for-the-dole, recipients working on vegetable gardens and orchards and chook yards in communities where there is plenty of water ?

Is it too late for communities ? Are they doomed, and the people who live there as well ? Surely not.

Can we contemplate that, or are people able to access a reasonably comfortable future in a democratic society, where all are supposed to have equal opportunity ? Yes, this might be a very difficult process, but is it impossible ?

Can mechanisms be devised to enable people to access a future with comfort and security and long lives, free of violence and insecurity, like other Australians take for granted, more or less ?

Just asking :)

Joe

Loudmouth,
Using my personal experiences as a benchmark I'd say you're absolutely spot-on with your assessment. As to your questions if there is poverty I'd have to say yes but, A BIG BUT, those impoverished are the families of drunkards & violent morons (like in non-indig society) who always get away unpunished. Children are going to school but they can only learn what 25 year old career teachers can repeat. I don't see much general knowledge. One community is presently getting a new school $33 mill (120 kids) with the focus on the footy oval that is incorporated in the design. No-one seems to know what's wrong with the old school.
many will live on welfare but not due to their parents but due to Qld Govt forced amalgamation the opportunity of community-building is drastically handicapped. Secondary education apparently is at a lower level as mainstream. I think it shouldn't be mainstream anyway but it shouldn't be lower either. CEA (CDEP now) are engage in hobby-type activities.
Communities are on the way to doom unless we have a drastic change of policies & we engage competent people unlike the career mongers we have presently. One mechanism to help for a better future would be to curb the non-sensical Environmental agencies to a practical level & force those who stiffle economic development in communities from the comfort in the city, to live in the community until they're satisfied with the standard from their own policies.

God almighty, what sort of school can you build for $33 million ?

Maybe what communities need are competent people with dedication, respect and love for the people there, but also the courage to try to get people to take back responsibility, and their sense of agency, control and obligation. Noel Pearson has a great article today on the proper schooling for kids in Indigenous communities:

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/commentary/education-guru-teaching-to-the-converted/story-e6frgd0x-1226047199220

and Nicolas Rothwell, probably the best journalist in Australia these days, has a searing article about how bad things can get, in this case in the Kimberley:

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/living-hard-dying-young-in-the-kimberley/story-fn59niix-1226046773687

If that doesn't have you in tears of rage, nothing will.

There HAVE TO BE answers, ways of bringing people from where they are to employment (even the crummy jobs, like migrants and some of us have had to do) and further, to trades, and to university. What people may need is what Amy Wax calls (in her "Race, Wrongs and Remedies") the soft skills associated with work -

* learning how to get up in the morning,
* how to tell the time,
* work to a time schedule,
* bring your lunch so you don't go hungry in the middle of the day,
* sufficient English (the comon language in the workplace) to understand what has to be done and how to avoid dangerous practices,
* basic literacy enough to read signs,
* how to read a bus timetable,
* how to get on with work-mates,
* like it or not, how to take orders and keep your head down,
and so on.

Basically, crudely, how to get a job and keep it - not for oneself, but for the future of your kids, so that they don't have to do all of this, they can get a good enough education to get far better jobs.

[TBC]

Joe

[contd.]

Can people be assisted to give themselves a make-over ? Can they be enabled to re-assert their sense of responsibility, of agency, to engage with the outside world ? The land will always be there, there is no real threat that people might lose it, so that old excuse can't be used.

So especially for young people without children, why would it be so bad to move away for a time to where the work is ? How many of us have had to do that ? Even bureaucrats and teachers do it.

And of course, the 'leaders' like Larissa Behrendt can be guaranteed to come up with better ideas ? Yeah, right. It's not their problem really, is it ? Why should they give a sh!t ? Not when there's yet another international conference to prepare for.

I firmly believe, Individual, that one day, Aboriginal people will have many, many genuine leaders, who lead, who deal with the difficult issues, who stick their necks out like Noel Pearson and make suggestions about what to actually do, who do something instead of grandstanding and playing to a white audience. I think that day could come in the next ten years. Live in hope !

Joe

Loudmouth,
One of the causes of the dysfunction in our society is this thoughtless push for eductaion for education's sake. This results in much good school time being wasted for education which is of no practical use. What is the point of having degrees & diplomas when the benchmark is open to change ? I recall one Tafe lecturer saying that they are not allowed to fail anyone ?? What the bloody hell is the point then ? We have 16 year olds who receive a leaving certicicate but have absolutely no concept of spelling or how to hold a shifting spanner. But, they are well up to date with the latest video clips of Lady Gaga. Many can't & that includes teachers, add up on the run. Ever looked at your average school bulletin ? The spelling & priority of topics is as wonky as an old wagon wheel. We desperately need social & practical education yet we haven't trained teachers for that in 4 decades. If you have a clueless teacher than the student will be clueless also. A bright student will be dragged down to that level also. No win either way. We see the evidence everyday & everywhere.

Hi Individual,

Thanks for responding. I guess it depends what you mean by education. Of course, I'm sure that you would agree that children should get a good education, mainly for employment, so that they can make their way in the world in satisfying careers and for fulfilling lives. Yes, you're right, not just education its own sake, and not education solely in deference to long-lost ways of living.

And in the Australia of today: English-speaking and relatively highly-skilled, all children need English-language education and skills-building education. If they can get some knowledge of another language, all the better. And if they can enjoy their education and develop a lifelong passion for learning, better still.

And all kids are entitled to those opportunities, including Aboriginal kids. ALL Aboriginal kids. Like the rest of us.

And when is someone going to actually define this boogey-man term, 'assimilation' ? It seems to mean everything bad that anybody wants to criticise, even opposites: being shut out of the society and economy, having to work for lower wages - and being included in the society and economy, earning equal wages. But what does it really refer to ?

Since the War, people have fought for equal rights, the same rights, in order to devise specifically and distinctly different lives for themselves, as they pleased. Equal rights have never meant - and they can never mean - being forced to do exactly the same things and become the same sorts of people. Equal rights opens up an open world of possibilities and uncertainties - the possibility to do whatever you like within the same constraints as other people work within, and the uncertainties of how it will all turn out.

[TBC

[contd.]

But to be shut out - as people seem to be in remote communities - is to be forced to live in a tiny, sh!tty closed world, with little chance to develop any individuality, a tiny world of despair, short lives and misery.

Segregation was and is vastly more devastating and evil than anything called 'assimilation' could ever be. It must be a bit like standing outside the lolly shop, or ice cream parlour, with a fence between you and them, never being allowed to join the people there enjoying themselves and having fun. Let's not forget that even in the remotest community, people watch TV - sometimes it's on 24 hours a day - and they see the attractions of the world, the fast cars and glitz and beautiful lives of people in TV shows and commercials. But they cannot access what must seem to be a beautiful world, partly thanks to their lousy education.

Surely those days should be over :)

Education certainly has some positives going for it, Individual, not necessarily to give people the wherewithall to buy the rubbish they see on TV, but to be able to weigh up whether or not it IS rubbish, and to build positive and informed lives for themselves and their kids. That should be their right, but thanks to a lousy education system in those communities, they can never exercise those rights. Yet.

So, we know what to do, we can't say we don't. How to do it, how to enable people to move from A to Z - those are the tasks in front of us all.

Cheers,

Joe

Loudmouth,
As per usual this will cause me flak from those opposed to discipline but pro entitlement for everything the country has to offer.
It all starts with a 12 months non-military National Service. There'll be no excuse for people to say they haven't had exposure to how the wider community works. I am absolutely certain that once in this service many indigenous will feel the desire/need to stay longer before heading back to their communities & introducing some of their acquired skills. In all I believe we should give it a go. Make it an election issue & we'll see how little or how much support there is for it. I bet the Party which proposes this service will win.

Joe, I've tried to cover these issues on www.whitc.info . And will continue to.
Also, I live in Brisbane these days.
Arthur Bell. ( aka. Bully )

primarily, the intervention is rouse for more land grabbing under the lease deals. yes little children are sacred there is no doubt about that, what is doubtful is the governments response measures and whether they're working or not. for the most part its ability to 'work' involves the stripping of the rights of people, the fact that they're in remote communities makes it easier to justify.

the disadvantage in aboriginal commmunities, not just in the NT but all over australia is no accident. this country was founded on the wholesale removal of people from traditional lands to be plonked onto reserves and left to fend for themselves - some with missionary's and some with govt officials (neither providing perfect models of community development, no delusions here im afraid).

the intervention policy is wrong because the government failed continually and consistently to LISTEN to the people who have to live (LIVE) under their latest stupid brain-wave. yes something had to be done, that is undeniable, but what has been done does not sit RIGHT with the people who have to LIVE IT. i dont live it, neither does behrendt and for that matter neither does price or any other poster here on this site. the propaganda machine spins the hype, it's up to the individual to believe or not - DONT BELIEVE THE HYPE!

Kalalli,

And who benefits from what the government does with that land ?

Let me put it this way: who will move into the houses that the government will be building on that land ?

The local Aboriginal people. Do you have a problem with that ?

I wonder where, in the world, does a public housing authority build houses on land owned by somebody else, some other entity ? If anything, why didn't government agencies involved in housing, way back in the seventies, build houses in Aboriginal settlements/communities ONLY IF they could take out the lease on the land for the life of those houses; and of course, rent them only to local people ?

In other words, the local people get the benefit of those houses on that land, and the government is able - like any funder of housing or any landlord - to control how their property, those houses, is used, that the rent is paid, that repairs are paid for.

Let's also remember that housing rents on Aboriginal lands would be far lower than people pay in the cities, since the local community owns the land. As well, government housing authorities are paying something to local councils in lieu of rates and lease payments.

So the upshot is that people get houses built on their own land and can live in them - and the government agency has some control over their assets and how they are used. Move on.

Joe

oh the promise of a new house - woop-tee-doo! i think its pretty clear that the government has thus far failed on this as well - not surprising. of its promise only 16 of those 73 communities will get new houses (and not the 750 promised - like that was enough anyway!) and the other 50 or so will get upgrades (oh and these wont be up to public housing standards)...

those leases are a rouse, plain and simple! the SIHIP program could, should and ought to be handled by aboriginal organisations not a bunch of shipped public servants. gee, could even open some work/training opportunities for people in the communities - but noooooo, the government wants leases so it can get its grubby hands on aboriginal lands given under the NT 1976 act and they want it for mineral resources - lotta money in that red soil!