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!