"Successful solutions won't be found if the government response flies in the face of Aboriginal culture."

Perhaps a better approach would be entitled
"Successful solutions won't be found if Aboriginal culture flies in the face of the government response.

David

I am an aboriginal woman from Central Australia who is so sick and tired of all this. Stop looking at our communities as if it is all one. Each community is different and has it's own issues within. This is what we have been talking about in these so called money wasting Consultations that have been happening throughout our communities. Enough is enough spend the money where it is needed. Too much money has been spent wrongly through this intervention and the people of Australia needs to know that not a lot of money has been spent on these communities but a lot has been spent with these so called consultations paying for travel allowances, vehicles and wages. Nothing has been done to protect the Sacred little kids.

Amanda. You do not agree with the 'intervention' for the mirriad reasons you document in your article. Fine. However, I find your unrelenting 'racist' diatribe to be way too simplistic for an issues /problem of such 'eye watering' complexity. Perhaps some concrete cost effective suggestions for a solution would help us "move on from here"? Establishment of an ATSIC mark 2 perhaps?

The reason why total anarchy in aboriginal settlemants has been allowed to "fester for thirty years", Amanda Midlam, is because thirty years ago, people such as yourself were screaming that the Australian government should leave aboriginal people alone.

I love the way that the Amanda Midlam's of this world think. They create a problem with their insistence that something must be done their particular way, they scream contempt at those who differ, and when very problems predicted by their opponents inevitably arises, they condemn their opponents for agreeing to do what they wanted in the first place.

Aboriginal self deturmination has been a self evident failure. Instead of Amanda saying "oops we got it wrong", here she is still claiming that should be a success, and condemning the Federal government for finally realising that this quixotic experiment in aboriginal self governance was a mistake all along.

She reminds me of the old Russian commissars who faithfuly predicted that just "one more five year plan" would see Socialism trumphant.

working towards a degree in Indigenous Stories

I wonder who the qualified person will be to deem Amanda Midlam's writings as accurate enough to hand her a degree. More likely than not some ignorant academic or a self-interest white aboriginal.
Why does writing about indigenous stories require a white degree ? I think it's dreadfully wrong. Just write the story & be done with it, no amount of degrees will make it more authentic than simply not writing bull$hit.

Dear individual, I look forward to the day when this forum requires people to reveal their real identity. This would mean that you’d have to come out from behind the facade and cowardice you that allows you to post your childish insults and bile.

exalting tribal culture adds greatly to the problem rather than solving it. No wonder those in the know treat the 'experts' with contempt. Do an honest study of cultural practices and you will no longer idolise it.

All the do gooders forget one thing, it's our money that was being pissed away by these people.

Enough is enough!

Personally, I would like to see all welfare quarantined as its intended purpose is to help people get by, not provide a replacement to income.

After all, what do the indigenous leaders expect.

They say we stole their land some 200 years ago, so, that was 200 years ago.

We didn't have electricity, motorized transport or running water and sewage.

What do you think they would have achieved in the 200 years had we not come along.

And remember, these every day things that make our lives comfortable are also being provided FREE OF CHARGE to many of these people. They just choose not to move with the times.

Their problem, not ours.

I say again, it's time for them to decide who wants to be Australian and who doesn't!

insults and bile.
Good old Rainier back on the beat.
just tell us what is so insulting in my last post ? In fact, tell us what other untruths I have posted. Unlike yourself I'm not abject to being proven wrong. I'm big & ugly enough t accept it. Are you up to point out my moral wrongs ? Please don't let us wait. Or is it that you find the truth insulting, in that case no-one can help you sort things out.
As I said earlier, the ball's in your court.

Don't worry about it, Individual, ad hominem attacks are a sure sign of how p1ss-weak somebody's argument is. I wonder what Rainer's real name is, behind 'Rainer', by the way, or where she is from ?

You have a point, that the content of much Aboriginal Studies, and single Aboriginal Culture units, is very problematic. I've been to a compulsory session on 'cultural awareness' and was appalled by the rubbish that was put across by a couple of young lecturers (one of whom I had nursed as a baby), neither of whom had majored in Aboriginal Studies herself - in fact, I'm not sure if either one had actually done any Aboriginal Studies at all. But that didn't matter because 'they were both Indigenous' (at least their mothers were), and 'as we know, knowledge is in one's blood; one is born with culture.'

No. No-one is born modern. No-one is born Old Stone Age either. Environment shapes how we think from birth.

But in its defence, I would respectfully suggest that Old Stone Age Studies can be valuable and fascinating, just as New Stone Age Studies would be most valuable for anthropologists, agricultural historians and economists and students of religion.

But these fields of study most certainly should be taught only by people who are qualified to do so. Far too many lecturers in Aboriginal Culture and Indigenous Studies generally do not have qualifications in Indigenous Studies themselves. At one campus that I am aware of, out of about a dozen Indigenous lecturers, only one has a degree in Aboriginal Studies, and only a handful of the rest have a single unit in the field. So unsurprisingly, lecturers lecture in quite a dogmatic way, frowning on any independent thought or analysis, or criticism. Whether it is true that studfents have been failed for merely disagreeing with the lecturers is not for me to say.

But it is no wonder that so many students compelled to enrol in such units come away very dissatisfied.

Joe Lane
Adelaide

rehctub:

.#...I say again, it's time for them to decide who wants to be Australian and who doesn't…#.!

...Well, methinks that is precisely the point of the article! Un-included as Government policy! All Aboriginal communities are not cloned on each other, (LEEMAA above); and when Government intervention policies include all communities and individuals in the basket as though they were cloned, as the article points out, is at best unhelpful and at worst, exacerbates social cohesion by forcing people to disconnect from established locations, in order to participate in Government benefits (such as housing) !

To explain the differing principals under which white communities exist; if , as Abbott intends in his next term, all (sic) unemployed under 35yo, will be forced to relocate to areas of employment,or risk losing the dole, like it or not. would you like that situation to confront you; imagine you have lived in your home town since birth. You, no doubt, would consider the mandate confronting! Now, paint your skin black, and you are currently an Aboriginal, sharing similar stark choices!

DD, nobody has to live anywhere othe than where they choose.

Many people choose for different reasons, work commitments being just one.

The whole point is, if one chooses to live where there are no job prospects, then either move, or, stay put, but don't expect the tax payer to support your choice.

It is simply time to stop the wasted welfare, regardless of the color of ones skin, or, their cultural heritage.

Another issue is where parents choose to bring up their families.

You see have a family comes with certain responsibilities and, being able to provide for them, edcate them and guide them towards finacial independence is just part of it.

This is where the baby bonus has been such a bad policy, because, not only do these parents get paid to have kids, but they are allowed to raise them in dead areas.

The fact that many parents choose to have their families in places without these prospects, that again s a personal choice.

Unfortunately, welfare dependancy often filters down from generation to generation, in fact, welfare is often seen as a right, rather than a privilege, and this is the mindset that must change.

The days of free lunches must end.

What really saddens me so much is that in this enlightened day & age we still have people who are so against integrity. Rainier for example has not once offered a thought in which he/she/it has made a suggestion of what could be done in his/her/its view to better the situation. It's a woeful & incessant bleating of blame the whites for everything. Tell us what is being done wrong ? Don't just whine. He/she/it constantly accuses me of being a redneck etc. For your information Rainier I live & work in remote communities & I DO NOT make up stories. I speak from daily experience with no colouring in, just simple, plain true fact.
I denounce anyone who I know is doing wrong. That includes white & black bureaucrats, white & black people in general. I know that what I write is fact not fiction. Just because you don't like those facts being publicised does not mean I should refrain from telling. How on earth else can we make our society better if we don't face the unpleasant side. You are not reflecting the views of most indigenous people I deal with daily. Many of whom are decent people with integrity.
By constantly denouncing my truth makes you a person whose degree of integrity is highly questionable.

rehctub:

.#...The whole point is, if one chooses to live where there are no job prospects, then either move, or, stay put, but don't expect the tax payer to support your choice…#.

...I can see where you are struggling with this. One cannot compare peanuts with pumpkins. Living conditions between Native communities vary broadly in the necessities of survival. (again, LEEMAA above: (And we must assume LEEMAA’s is a genuine post and not a “plant”)).And Aboriginal lifestyles are incomparable to Europeans for historical reasons.

...The extent of social problems, and the types of social needs therefore, as a consequence, also varies between communities. But, I believe you lack an historical context of Aboriginals, and where and why they live today where they do. Nobody who has the slightest understanding of their history, suggests they lack the right to live freely on their own land rehctub. For your own good, you need to dismiss the thought that the small number of Aboriginals remaining in Australia, pose any threat to your way of life. They don’t!

...It represents a pretty mean spirit to harbour expectations that Aboriginals living in remote areas of Australia, on their reclaimed lands, be expected to conform to centrelink work ethics. Get on-board son!

Diver Dan,

I'm wondering under what conditions farmers "on their ... land ..., [can] be expected to conform to centrelink work ethics ... " in order to get any regular payments at all. My understanding is that if a person owns more than one hectare, they are not eligible for unemployment benefits. Some 'southern' Aboriginal communities control amounts of good land which work out at a hundred hectares per person.

And surely you are not suggesting that there are still Aboriginal people living by hunting and gathering ? Individual and Daphrys and other OLO contributors who live in Indigenous communities may correct me, but I wouldn't be surprised if 99 % of Indigenous people in communities have got all of their food supplies over the past week from the local store, or free from a canteen. In some cases, three hot meals a day. And in between-times, sit outside under a tree. Good luck to them, but let's not saturate our hankies just yet.

Meanwhile, the majority of Indigenous people are making their way, working and/or studying, in the towns and cities. So who has missed the train ? Who is going to prevail ?

Joe

DD I don't have a problem with them wanting to, or even living, on what you refer to as their land.

Go right ahead, no issues from me, however, as I have said, don't expect to also enjoy the privialages of welfare. It's just not on.

Live how and where you like, just don't expect others to support you in your lifestyle choice.

We provide schools for their kids to attend, but many choose not to.

Where are the parents of these kids, or mor so, why do they allow this to happen.

Most people know why, it's just that you get called a racisit if you dare say anything.

Well, the time has come, enough is enough. Either put up, or shut up.

Now as for this effecting me, it sure does.

Money can only be spent once and, if it is not spent wisely, then by the time I retire there will be nothing left.

So yes, it does effect me, plus every other Australian, present and future.

...I fail to fathom the relevance of saying “Sorry”, when we fail to recognise the voice of Aboriginals calling for recognition of that voice, in directing policy and Government spending in any meaningful way. Blind Freddy and his Dog can see the inconsistency in the continuously failed and insensitive backwards progress of successive Governments, culminating in the Interventionist policies; beginning with Howard, and continued with Gillard.

...I vote to “Give” all welfare with no strings attached: And for that sovereignty to be applied across all aspects of welfare, including unemployment benefits. Welfare should be offered as a gift to assist in their survival, not as a tool of further persecution. If Aboriginals are unlikely to gain employment for example, as they currently are, lets simply acknowledge the fact that a good part of the reason for high rates of Aboriginal unemployment in Australia, is as a direct result of entrenched and historical resistance towards Aboriginals, to be included into the mainstream European culture.

...How many examples of failure to assimilate the two cultures do we need?
The “hurt” is too deep to repair. Aboriginals are a destroyed culture simply because we Europeans destroyed it. It is we Australians who have the need to acknowledge the fact! (Sorry is but the start). We simply need to cease further destruction and damage and, at the least, listen to their voice. We need genuine reforms, such as land rights, to be respected by Governments. Instead of respect and recognition, we behave like greedy real estate agents, offering bribes and plain rip-off to claw back the “good bits”!

...When ATSIC was closed down by Howard, cry of foul and rort were levelled at it as the reason: (The whole country runs on rort and backhanders) Why the surprise when ATSIC mimics the big boys? But not stopping there, Howard continued the pogrom into CDEP. CDEP’s possessed a sovereignty, and were a contributing social benefit, but failed the European test of the bean counters, so were shut down. The list continues on and on with pathetic example!

DD, you have to be kidding, free for all welfare.

You're the prime example of why we have to stop paying welfare as cash, so it can't be pissed away at will.

I invite you to go to almost any shopping centre in the land and take a look at the trolley collectors.

Very few are Australian and very few are not colored.

Why don't Aboriginies do these jobs.

I will tell you why, because they are to lazy and to well provided for.

The fact that they live in squalar, is their choice.

We provide the funding, they waste it.

You simply need to remove your blinkers and see what the rest of the country sees.

on and on with pathetic example!
diver dan,
yep, too many people still think two wrongs make a right. Very stupid indeed !

Diver Dan says

'We simply need to cease further destruction and damage and, at the least, listen to their voice.

Which voice is that? The professional aboriginal industry that contin ues to extract millions to promote propaganda or

the self loving, white hating element that are a law to themselves or

the communities racked by child abuse, drug abuse and chronic lack of motivation or

Sensible aboriginals such as Noel Pearson who is despised by all who refuse to accept any responsibility for action.

We have been listening for 50 years. Unfortunately the voices of the academics that feed the victim mentality, the lack of responsibility and the bad whitey dogma have only added greatly to the problem.

Individual,

I can't quite figure you out. You say you live and work in remote communities and have some direct knowledge of and iterrraction with indigenous people, yet you make no suggestion as to what the problems are and how these might best be resolved. Also, Diver Dan made some quite detailed suggestions, to which you barely made a response (6.15am today, 2 Feb). Puzzling.

I think Diver's comments deserve consideration. (Though I have a problem with the 'sovereignty' issue.)

LEEMAA also offered some valuable insights, and I would be greatly interested in her views on the failures of the Intervention, and alternative suggestions. (We are so much in the dark, having to rely on material in the media - hence our 'outside' assumptions are likely to be unsound.)

My personal view is that indigenous culture is being lost, and serious attempts need to be made to save and salvage this from total loss. To me this represents one of the most pressing objectives of reconciliation. I believe we have a responsibility to make means available for indigenous culture to be a living culture, co-existing with Western culture where appropriate, but not being overwhelmed by demands for westernisation. Integration or assimilation for remote communities and individuals should be by choice alone - and should also not be 'pressured' one way or the other by 'urban' populations.

Hence, my proposition would be that as far as possible services in rural communities be developed as community activities/businesses - food, petrol, health, education, housing construction, farming, market gardening, and other enterprise suitable to the particular 'local' environment. This will take time, money and assistance. I say, if the community wants it they should have it, and it can be a means to generate employment and to eventually dispense with unemployment benefits.

Though I believe English must be the primary language in schools, a way should be found to foster the retention of culture, including language, in the curriculum. Outside school it will have to be up to the Elders to pass on the broader culture to the young. (None of whiteys business.)

Saltpetre,
I have put forward my ideas of making things better in that many posts I've lost count.
Same goes for the problems which are the wide-eyed-open mouthed do-gooders in the cities. People who don't live in the communities, have no intention of spending time in communities & have no interest in communities. They only use communities as stepping stones for their careers in a mainly incompetent public service. Their only real concern is their superannuation.
Just look up the history of users.

I am sorry to say that Those in denial have to come to the realization, that' in most cases, it's a lost cause.

I think these indigenous people have to be given a choice, to either become Australians, or go back to hunting and gathering.

We simply can not continue to throw good money after bad, as our 'good money fund' is running on empty.

Hi Saltpetre,

Individual's right, he's been working in Indigenous communities for years, and been writing about them and their issues for a long time. No offence but your last posting could have been written forty years ago, when so many of us had that rosy, romantic approach, full of hope and high expectations. Experience has been a hard but valuable teacher.

In a letter in today's paper, Patrick McAuley suggests that land in Indigenous communities should be leasable (to Indigenous people, of course) for housing and enterprises, and that if enterprises can be initiated, then young Indigenous people can be offered apprenticeships with them and gain trade skills in order to get off lifelong welfare.

But the key problem is that, in order to stay on welfare, one must be totally skill-less - as soon as you have some sort of skills, there is the danger that you might be expected to work.

Community councils know this and go into bat for the lifelong unemployed, in order to keep them in the condition to which they have happily become accustomed. So community councils know that people running viable enterprises are a threat to their power-base (byt exercising their expertise), and that enterprises may quite possibly provide employment if Centrelink recognised it as such, and demanded that young people seek work in them. So the last thing some councils, and many people, in communities want is enterprises, and therefore leases over community lands.

[TBC]

[contd.]

Including housing leases: clearly, if community tenants could lease the land that their houses were on, say for 99 years, they could also buy them, or be required to buy them, and no longer be tenants. They could pay off their houses - and be totally responsible for them - with royalties (and they would not have to pay for the land, only for the house on it, apart from a minimal lease-fee). But again, as long as they can rent, some public housing authority is responsible for repairs and ultimately providing new houses every few years. Sweet.

Community people are not stupid: lifelong unemployment, royalties and housing provided forever by some outside body at relatively low rental - who would want to knock these back ?

But the price is - some would say, I couldn't possibly comment - the loss of a sense of humanity, of any common feeling with other Australians who work for a living, and any chance of ever being able to contribute in any way to one's own support, or to the society which feeds them.

Cheers,

Joe

Loudmouth, you are spot on.

The first step towards getting off welfare, is wanting to.

They get to hunt and gather, if they choose, knowing that the money will still be in their banks.

Thank god they don't get the chance to waste it so much now.

"Thank god they don't get the chance to waste it so much now."

I don't know so much about that. 90 percent of the people in the Alice Springs Casino seemed to be aboriginals last winter when I was there.

David

What is "Aboriginal Culture"? The answer would likely be as diverse as the "indigenous" population today.

If the culture or subculture of any particular community is a good healthy one then the people will need minimal scrutiny and less assistance. What help is afforded will likely be made good use of.

If the opposite is true, does any decent Australian believe that the innocents, the weaker and vulnerable members of those communities should be free game for the 'dingoes'?

I'm sick of the whole aboriginal thing and so are the majority of Australians. Sure they suffered as a result of white 'invasion' but what race or society hasn't suffered at the hands of another stronger group over the thousands of years? Today there are opportunities galore. About time the 'poor me' - you white fellas owe me a living' mentality was squashed. And the 'we want to make our own decisions and if that includes drinking, bashings, rapings, child neglect and abuse that's our choice' mentality that seems to have some support from the author of this article needs to be wiped - totally

D-man, in other words, it's time to move on.

Now as for my comment about less wasted, I was referring to quarantining of their welfare.

Something else some of their leaders feel is unfair and unawarrsnted.

Perhaps it's time to given them an ultimatum, toe the line, or be cut off.

Let's face it, no other race gets the freedom to miss mange and waste their way through life, at the expense of the tax payer.

Why should they!

I know many Australian Indigenous who genuinely want to do things which we see as getting on with life. Problem 1. bureaucracy, whenever they propose anything there's always something more some bureaucratic outfit demands. People just give up instead of trying to satisfy the many idiotic requirements. Licenses, permits, qualifications, the insane meet the criteria etc. Most people can do things to help themselves. The problem are the idiotic hangers-on bureaucrats who stifle every & any initiative. We need to decentralise this insanity to break it into more sensible & workable pieces. How can some highly educated idiot in Brisbane know what's good for a community on Cape York ? He can't & he doesn't yet he has the power to ruin whatever good propositions there are. You just have to look at the wild rivers legislation. Why don't they declare rivers in the south wild & see how they go.
How about declaring Mt Panorama a nature reserve ? How about stopping tourists & bureaucrats from coming up here to prevent the many flus very year ? Why do people have to pay for a permit to do things on their own land ? Get real morons !

Part 1.

This forum is a milieu for the mindless. It should be an opportunity to debate and discuss issues and ideas with people from the left and right but instead it is infested with those who don’t engage with the written article but instead see the forum as a jousting arena for the jeers and jibes of the gibbering classes.

There needs to be higher standards. There should be no personal attacks but Lego accuses me of creating a problem and says people like me “scream contempt at those who differ”. That’s not true of me and I shouldn’t have to put up with comments like that. It is Lego who screams contempt at those who differ. He’s had a number of posts deleted because they are offensive. Why not bar him?

Then there’s someone who calls himself Individual who pours scorn on my qualifications. Years of study are discounted by someone who uses the phrase “ignorant academic”. This person’s views of academia don’t interest me at all but such rudeness must surely put other people off posting. Runner takes up the anti-academia argument which hijacks the discussion stating that voices of the academics feed the victim mentality. In Loudmouth’s view “lecturers lecture in quite a dogmatic way, frowning on any independent thought or analysis, or criticism”.

This is total nonsense. The academia bashing suppresses discussion and has absolutely nothing at all to do with the article I wrote. In fact most of the posts don’t engage with the article at all. Most of them are written to jeer at aboriginal people, or at me, or at other posters

Part 2
It is galling and unacceptable to me that the forum is littered with racist stereotypes and put downs of Aboriginal people - “it's our money that was being pissed away by these people.” “They just choose not to move with the times”. And how hateful is this from rehtchub “Why don't Aboriginies do these jobs I will tell you why, because they are to lazy and to well provided for. The fact that they live in squalar, is their choice. We provide the funding, they waste it”.

That’s appalling. It’s bile. It’s racism. Why is it allowed on this forum?

It would be funny if it wasn’t so pathetic that rehctub claims it's time for Aboriginal people to decide who wants to be Australian and who doesn't. However it drags the forum down and makes it impossible to have an intelligent discussion.

Graham, please do away with pseudonyms. The standard of posts would rise if it wasn’t so easy for the ignorant and arrogant to spew their nonsense all over the forum

but such rudeness must surely put other people off posting.
Amanda J.Midlam,
I don't do it to put others off, I do it do make others see how many academics are pulling the wool over the eyes of people who have no way of finding out for themselves.
I would most certainly NOT make the statements I make but I feel compelled to. When I see communities being so blatantly used as stepping stones for career bureaucrats & academics then I feel it my moral duty to let people know of my experiences.
When you people stop treating the rest of us as ignorant yet it is us ignorant taxpayers who to a very large extent fund your experiments then whatever you write or do or effect you have is my business. Mine & many other lives have been made very difficult by ignorant bureaucrats taking your people's study results as gospel. Leave us alone & we'll leave you alone. Keep interfering in our daily lives & we'll do the same to you. Fair deal ?

do away with pseudonyms.
Amanda J. Midlam,
To you really have such low IQ that you can't foresee what effect this ignorant suggestion would have on people with integrity ?
The persecution would be so severe that no person with integrity could risk expressing their views based on experience. If you're so abject to these views then why not refrain from imposing your idealism on us ?
Do you wish to have your identity revealed if you were in a minority ? You can safely expose your identity because you're fully protected. Those of us with integrity have no such protection.

Thank you Amanda - you describe exactly what deters me from posting comments on OLO articles these days. It seems to have been 'occupied' by the overly jaundiced, who usually have few insights and persist in predictable and boorish behaviour towards authors and posters with whom they disagree. (I should note that 'Loudmouth' is often considerably more reasonable and informative than some of the others. Like him and 'individual', I have lived and worked with remote Aboriginal people for many years. I share their scepticism about some academics, but I know that others are hard-working, intelligent and well-informed about the issues on which they write). I have not always been completely free of these faults myself, but I think the range of people wanting to participate here has narrowed considerably, and I strongly suspect that you have hit on some of the main reasons for this. I say this despite my disagreeing radically with some of the arguments in your article. Briefly, my advice is that you not dismiss entirely what Macklin says, nor take at face value all that a small number of dissident activists claim. For some insights into why I say this, I suggest that you have a look at these documents, which contain some very useful data and analysis, released a couple of months ago:
Community Safety and Wellbeing Research Study: study of opinions of 1300 community members: http://www.fahcsia.gov.au/sa/indigenous/pubs/nter_reports/Pages/community_safety_wellbeing.aspx
Overview document: NT Emergency Response Evaluation Report: http://www.fahcsia.gov.au/sa/indigenous/pubs/nter_reports/Pages/nter_evaluation_rpt_2011.asp
(to be continued)

The first document (the Community Safety and Wellbeing Research Study) illustrates the great variety of Aboriginal opinion in 16 communities where the NTER Intervention was applied, and provides a picture of the complexities of the many issues contributing to and arising from the Intervention.
In your attack on the Gillard government’s new legislation “targeting Indigenous people in order to enable the government to put in place its Stronger Futures policy”, you overlook the fact that the aim is to lay the groundwork for ‘Closing the Gap’, by taking actions that are the responsibility of government in relation to the well-being of its citizens, and enable them to exist in circumstances where they can manage their own lives effectively. This is not “ideological racism, based on the belief that Indigenous people can't sort out problems for themselves and need government control”, but rather it is responsible governance based on the premise that if provided with the right policy settings and program support then people from very dysfunctional communities will be able to sort out more problems for themselves.
As for the issues of “health, housing, education and employment”, these are not covered in the legislation you refer to, but they are receiving a great deal of positive attention under other funding streams and programs. The problem is not so much what the government is doing, but whether they understand how much more investment of funds will be needed to enable the set of projects to succeed and actually meet the full extent of Aboriginal needs in remote areas.

One more point: your concern about maintaining Aboriginal culture is somewhat misplaced. Aboriginal culture has been very badly impacted by alcohol, drugs, and welfare dependency in recent years. Government has done much to support survival of culture (some good current examples are the very large amounts of funding going into support for the community-based arts and crafts centres and womens centres on many remote communities) and I believe that people like Macklin recognise that "culture would have to be an important part of a stronger future".
However it is also important not to fetishise culture, or imagine that it on its own is the key to "strong, independent lives, where communities, families and children are safe and healthy". It is a very important part of the solutions mix, but it is also part of the problem, in that some aspects are dysfunctional (e.g. some male attitudes to and beliefs about women) in the context of contemporary life. This is a realm in which it is particularly important that decisions about ways forward are formulated and implemented by the local Aboriginal people themselves, and this is happening in various ways in a lot of places, though not without problems and obviously, not without frictions between different viewpoints within the communities.

It is important that you realise that many Aboriginal institutions, such as the Aboriginal Land Councils, legal services and community-controlled health services have not been seriously weakened by the NTER (in fact, they have grown substantially in capacity under the Rudd/Gillard governments), and are working closely with communities to pick up the pieces and find new ways forward.

By the way: don't believe the Rundle hype. When "the Howard government sent the army into Indigenous communities", it largely consisted of unarmed Aboriginal volunteers from the Norforce who accompanied medical teams, transporting them, erecting tents for them to sleep and work in, and cooking their meals and transporting their patients. It was very much emergency aid, not an invasion. Please believe me, I was there in some of the communities when it happened

So ok Amanda, what do you of great wisdom and knowledge recommend we do about this ongoing problem.

Over the years they have been provided with FREE HOUSNG, and guess what, they burned anything that would burn, only to expect us to rebuild, so they can burn them again.

They have taken possession of land, land they claimed as theirs the improvements deteriated and they still made nothing of it.

The government banned grog from thei missions, and guess what, the likes of Weipa, in the far north are now renowned for lazy drunken aborigines loitering about town until their PAY has run out.

They then leave town only to return next PAY DAY as they call it.

WAKE UP MY DEAR AND SMELL THE ROSES!

Dan Fitzpatrick,

Thank you for your most important, informed and informative contribution to this discussion. My reading is that you personally could contribute very positively to finding and implementing those 'new ways forward' - and I have to hope that you, and many other capable and well-informed people continue to be involved in this process.

"Individual" mentions problems with Bureaucracy, and you, Dan, indicate some similar observations. It would seem essential that only truly well-informed people should be involved in this compex and sensitive area - with emphasis on communication from the ground up, rather than the reverse. It appears that there may be a lot of mis-information floating around - and this is one area deeply in need of accurate, comprehensive and well-informed information, particularly for our politicians, public servants, remote communities and indigenous organisations more generally.

"Amanda" takes issue with the many disparate and often negative opinions expressed on the Forum, but these perhaps should at least be viewed as a potential microcosm of views and stereotypical outlooks harboured by some or many in our Aus community at large (at least in the non-indigenous component thereof). As reconciliation is an important issue, and with a referendum in this regard somewhere in the pipeline, it is important to take note of such views, and to undertake a program to correct mis-information and mis-judgements in this regard. It is important that we all 'move forward' together.

One area in which I have deep concerns is in the influence 'urban' indigenous communities may have (through broader indigenous forums or organisations) on the establishment of the 'right way' forward for remote (and possibly rural) communities. There are indicated disparate interests and vested-interests at play here (from an outside observer view).

Another concern I have it with 'identifying' as indigenous. Is this really legitimate? Or should this categorisation be stomped on - if any such individual is not living within a 'remote' community (as distinct from urban or rural), and fully as one with that community? A puzzling 'complication'?

Saltpetre
Thanks for your positive response. Of course, there are sometimes problems associated with bureaucratic structures, processes and personnel, but the same could be said of most other aspects of this very difficult state of affairs. None of us are perfect, or should be immune from being held to be accountable for our performances. Some bureaucrats are very well-informed, capable people with good motives; others aren’t. Maybe the pendulum has swung too far towards excessive empowerment of certain bureaucrats, but this needs careful analysis and planning to overcome whatever problems exist there, rather than snap judgements about solutions.
Your point about a need for more “emphasis on communication from the ground up” is one with which I agree wholeheartedly. There is a lot of misinformation and ignorance on all sides about matters that people deserve to have clarified. This is one area I believe needs a lot of urgent work, with investment in creating many more accredited Aboriginal interpreters and translators of their own languages, and linguistic engineers capable of converting specialised language and theoretical concepts into digestible formats for the interpreters. Importantly, to make communication work there must be decent fulltime wages and good career paths for these people.
There could be more effective consultation with elders, residents and those who have lived and worked on the communities, provided there is some attempt to ensure that women and the less bold are given decent hearings, and there is some effort to ensure the process has integrity. The Aboriginal and other media could also be contracted to broadcast a lot more useful educational content to remote communities on a daily basis, using trained Aboriginal journalists and interpreters.
I don’t disagree that all views should get an airing at OLO - I just get tired of the repetitive negativity, and assertions by certain contributors about everything Aboriginal being terrible, impossible, corrupt, contemptible etc, without any qualification or provision of credible supporting evidence. Even in the most dysfunctional communities there are people trying hard to lead responsible, productive lives, caring for themselves and their families under almost impossible conditions.
(continued below

I watched the NRL game last night, a team of 20 indigenous guys played 20 others.

These 20 guys, although beaten, where a credit to their culture and living proof that there are opportunities for them to succeed.

Having said this, it was very obvious they were trying to make a statement, often posing in front of the aboriginal flag when they scored.

Now while this does not offend me at all, just imagine the reaction had the oppisit occurred, whereby if the Aussies had of posed in front of their flag.

Nobody can deny there would have been outrage.

So yes, racisum is a problem, from both sides.

Now just to clarify something I said that has upset another, that being its time for them to choose wether they wish to be Australian or not.

What I mean is for them to adopt the Australian way of life, not for them to dump their heritage.

Dan,
The opportunities have been out there for the past forty years for all those things to happen and to their credit, a lot of people have made the most of what has been offered, but there are still a lot who for one reason or another seem unwilling or unable to grasp the nettle and do something to help themselves.

There is not a lot else that the government or anyone else can do. They need to help themselves. I suspect that one of the difficulties is the white advisers who have taught them how to rort the system. People like Loudmouth and some of those others know what they are talking about from personal experience. There are some communities who are trying to do the right thing, but there are also some who are absolutely hopeless. There is still too much alcohol abuse, not helped by whites who want to exploit the dumb buggars. The children are the ones who are suffering and they are the ones that all efforts should be directed towards, even if it means separating them from their dysfunctional families while they get an education.

David

Part 1
Dan and Saltpetre, I totally agree there needs to be more communication from the ground up. This was a key recommendation of The Little Children are Sacred report which was ignored when Howard introduced NTER. These days there’s certainly a lot of resistance to Stronger Futures by those who are impacted by it – but who is listening? Dan, thanks for posting the links. The evaluation report was part of my research but I hadn’t seen the Community Safety and Wellbeing Research Study which asks which changes people found most constructive. In other words it’s aimed at finding the positive not the negative. You are right in saying it is complex. Respondents have found some benefits especially in regard to safety with night patrols and police presence but “Strong negative changes that have taken place over the last three years are perceived to be the loss of control at the community level and resulting disempowerment of local leaders, and the increase in marijuana use.” There’s also a comment that “there is a lot of feedback that the demise of the local Council governance structure has significantly weakened local leadership”.

Another concern is that “There is very consistent and solid evidence from both quantitative and qualitative data sources that gains made over the last three years are much less pronounced in communities of over 1100 people; and that challenges in these large communities are more acute.” Yet the government’s plan is to push people into Growth Towns. In my opinion this is a fatal flaw of NTER.

Part 2
It’s a good point that Aboriginal culture has been very badly impacted by alcohol, drugs, and welfare dependency in recent years and I suspect this may get worse in the Growth Towns. The survey notes that families want help to return to homelands. Why not put housing and schools on the homelands? Dan, you say a strong culture is part of the mix but removing Aboriginal people from their country is a body blow to that culture. Maybe the new way forward is part traditional, on traditional lands and part modern Australian way of life.

Saltpetre, you raise the issue of identifying as indigenous. Too complex to go into here, it’s discussion of its own. As for cleaning up the forum, different points of view are welcome in my view but no personal attacks and no racist comments. We know there are racists out there, no need to hand them a megaphone. As for personal attacks we have someone saying sarcastically that I am of great wisdom and knowledge and shouting at me WAKE UP MY DEAR AND SMELL THE ROSES and someone else saying it’s okay for me to use my real name because I am somehow protected but he can’t because he has integrity. That nonsense should stop

Aboriginal culture has been very badly impacted by alcohol, drugs, and welfare
Amanda J. Midlam,
I have no clear answer as to what it is that makes many indigenous from around the world take to Alcohol like ducks to water. Culture on the other hand has suffered immensely at the hands of the missionaries, the fore-runners of modern-day academia.
I have experienced that myself on many occasions when we just reached a point of things going well when whamm, some "expert" breezed in at 2 minutes to 12 & totally ruined it all because he had "qualifications" & therefore knew better which impressed the bureaucrats who are incapable of thinking past selection criteria.

That nonsense should stop.
Amanda J. Midlam,
Prove that this is incorrect. Show me one instance when an ordinary bloke off the street was granted acknowledgement in favour over an academic expert.

Amanda - Not many people live permanently on most outstations/homelands. More important is the stagnation occurring in the majority of communities, which are neither hubs nor outstations. Many thousands more people live mainly in these smaller remote communities, receiving some boosted services, through Federal money flowing from the NTER via the Shires or NT departments, for things like night patrols, police stations, extra teachers and youth programs, or via community health services; but they are not receiving any extra accommodation for population needs. Generally there is no permanent or temporary accommodation available for them in hub centres or regional towns either, if they did decide to move for work or other reasons. This accommodation deficit in non-hub remote towns or in NT job markets can’t simply be ignored: to do so will make things far worse for many children and vulnerable adults, and cause huge frictions in regional economic and administrative centres, which would eventually be surrounded by desperately poor refugee camps. Provision of housing on outstations would not work either, as this is both massively expensive and largely a waste of resources, because most people – for a variety of reasons - don’t wind up living permanently on the outstations even if they do have housing and schools on them. The majority of existing outstation houses and schools sit empty for most of the time. People generally get bored or lonely on outstations. It is very expensive to live on them, because of fuel costs, distances from stores and more specialised services, and the desire by many to take part in modern attractions.
Re “the loss of control at the community level and resulting disempowerment of local leaders” and “the demise of the local Council governance structure [that] has significantly weakened local leadership”: these phenomena are primarily associated with the NT government’s local government reforms, whereby community councils have been replaced with larger shire councils. This is not part of the NTER – it is a process that had been planned for several years prior to the NTER, and its implementation coincidentally occurred a year after the NTER began.

Saltpetre,
re ‘urban’ influences: I wouldn’t be too worried about that. There are capable established Aboriginal leaders of integrity like the Dodson brothers, Noel Pearson, Michael Anderson and Peter Yu, and newer ones like Jack Beetson, Mary Victor Oreeri, Joe Morrison, Joe Ross and many others, who have emerged from outback communities onto wider stages, whilst retaining respect from many in their home communities. There are others following their footsteps through education, working lives and experience in the politics of institutions like the Land Councils, NACCHO and the new National Congress. These people are capable of handling the hot heads and opportunists who might want to bulldoze the less sophisticated remote community people, many of whom are very unlikely to put up much with being ignored or pushed around anyway.
In relation to the ambiguities of identity and entitlement, I think we have to accept that there can’t be any hard and fast rules foisted on people. The sad history is that many people of mixed heritage were rejected or treated with great prejudice by many in the non-Aboriginal community for too long for there now to be a re-writing of history and forcible re-assigning of identities along genetic lines.
Of greater concern is one issue mentioned by Amanda Midlam in her essay: that of “institutional racism operating through institutions such as police, health and education services”. Much work by Aboriginal organisations and others went into overcoming prejudice over the last few decades, but the fluid circumstances of the NTER period, with sometimes chaotic circumstances and many new untrained workers entering the field, provides opportunities for new prejudices to take root and grow.
I can’t see any quick or easy progress in the near future towards a successful referendum which could really resolve the basic outstanding issue of sovereignty. Regardless of whatever differences of opinion may exist on the Aboriginal side about this, there are probably too many angry bigots and lazy opportunists, encouraged by populist commentators and cynical vested interests, to permit it in our present turbulent political culture.
There is a lot of work to be done.

Another unpublicised fact is that there are cases of indigenous traditional landowners stifling progress in the communities by not consenting to essential services going through their land. These are the landowners who do not live in the communities, they live in the southern centres & who greatly inconvenience their own relatives on the islands with their objections.

Thanks, Dan,

There is so much more to this than many of us 'outsiders' can possibly realise, let alone properly understand. This does seem more and more in need of language and cultural experts (with the right convictions, and no axe to grind), as you have said, to establish a much better dialogue, and, in due course, a much greater connection and engagement between indigenous and non-indigenous Australia. We have to get away from two sides, but it is only understanding and respect which can accomplish this, and no piece of paper, Constitution or otherwise will do it for us.

My humble perception is that the first overriding priority ought be to ensure adequate accommodation, clothing, food, health, education, mentoring and support services, particularly for remote and regional village, camp or hub communities - ie, all the basic 'security' needs - in a concerted effort to elevate all from the spectre and reality of second or third class citizen status which unfortunately seems to be all too often the case in many areas. Status can breed respect and positive motivation, both internal and external, at least I would hope so, and an absence of status can only be corrosive.

If we have a need for further fiscal stimulus, I would hope that such provisions would receive the highest possible priority.

I look forward to the day when we can all celebrate our total, unique and diverse heritage together; but as you say, there is a lot of work to be done - and more and more, time is of the essence.

It is time that indigenous affairs received the political, social and economic prominence and priority it properly deserves. I fear many opportunities have been lost or wasted already - to our continuing national dishonour.

Part 1 Amanda, are we just going to continue throwing good money down the toilet on this issue.

Part 2, the same as part one.

Dan, you obviously have a lot of knowledge and experience and have thought deeply about a variety of issues but I have a humber of concerns. The Stronger Futures In The Northern Territory policy statement doesn’t even mention the word culture. I just don't see that any government - Howard, Rudd or Gillard - has shown any respect for or understanding of Aboriginal cultures in regard to NTER.

The major remote NT communities are the legacy of the assimilation era, an exercise in social engineering that aimed to transform traditionally-oriented Aborigines into a settled community. Fahscia’s survey which aimed at identifying constructive outcomes from NTER acknowledges that benefits didn’t extend to larger communities. Yet it is these larger communities, known as hub centres or growth towns, where the money will be spent. It is assimilation all over again.

There is a strong homelands movement that goes back to the 1970s with Aboriginal people going back onto country. They wanted to leave the major settlements because there was a high level of social dysfunction and also, importantly, they wanted to protect sacred sites and maintain customary ways of living that could only continue on country.

There’s been lots of research showing these communities have lower levels of social problems and significantly better health outcomes. Amnesty International estimates these communities are home to about a third of the Aboriginal population of the Northern Territory. Studies by the Menzies School of Health in Arnhem Land and at Utopia indicate that Aboriginal people living on homelands are less likely to be involved in substance abuse, poor eating habits and violent behaviours because they maintain their traditional lifestyle away from the influence of the big towns.

What does NTER want to do? Force people to live in big towns. Criticism of NTER includes Aboriginal incarceration rates rising by almost 30 per cent; school attendance down in many places; suicide and self harm increasing; and thousands of workers put onto Centrelink as CDEP closed down.

If anyone wants to hear what the people on the ground say or support the homelands movement here's a link http://www.amnesty.org.au/indigenous-rights/homelands/

Amanda
Once again, don’t believe all the hype you hear or read, especially when it comes to Amnesty’s critique of the NTER. (Incidentally, I have been a supporter of Amnesty since 1976, and a financial contributor for 15 years, but am very disappointed with the quality of their research and analysis on this one).
Stronger Futures is primarily concerned with alcohol issues, school attendance and stores/nutrition. There are many other Government, ALP and FAHCSIA policy and program documents which talk about culture.

What you write about many of the major remote NT communities being “the legacy of the assimilation era, an exercise in social engineering that aimed to transform traditionally-oriented Aborigines into a settled community” is true. It is also true that “Fahscia’s survey which aimed at identifying constructive outcomes from NTER acknowledges that benefits didn’t extend to larger communities”. However, it is mainly the housing funding which is currently being prioritised for the hub centres. The rest of the NTER funding seems to be spread fairly evenly over the other 50 or more communities.

Re the origins of the homelands movement: you are basically correct in your summary.
However, I would say that there has been some, rather than lots, of research showing these communities have lower levels of social problems and significantly better health outcomes.
Amnesty International is deluding itself when it “estimates these communities are home to about a third of the Aboriginal population of the Northern Territory”. One third of the NT Aboriginal population lives in the major urban centres, and the large majority of the rest live in the 60 or so remote communities. Last I heard, less than 10,000 wereestimated to be outstation residents, and most were not full-time permanent.
(Continued below)

The studies by the Menzies School of Health in one part of Arnhem Land and at Utopia do indicate that Aboriginal people living on these homelands are less likely to be involved in substance abuse, poor eating habits and violent behaviours because they maintain their traditional lifestyle away from the influence of the big towns. However these outstations/homelands are not necessarily typical of the rest of the NT homelands, and in important respects are quite atypical.
I don’t believe that the NTER is trying to “force people to live in big towns”. If it was doing that it wouldn’t be building houses on outstations around the Wadeye region, and it would be building a lot more houses in the hub centres. For better or worse, it is actually trying to make the hub centres more functional for the relatively large populations that already live in them in very over-crowded conditions. Just doing this takes enormous resources. The point is, we don't need to stop the spending in the hub centres, we need to get more funding into the system overall to address the wider needs.
Re the other matters: Aboriginal incarceration rates were already rising steeply before the NTER. In absolute terms, school attendance is up; it has always gone up and down in many places; likewise suicide and self-harm. These are selective statistics, and do not amount to a definitive argument against the NTER programs. Thanks for your continued patience with my nitpicking ways, but I believe that a lot of this detail is important, as organisations like Amnesty don't appear to have the experience to analyse objectively, or understand all that they are observing or being told about all of these matters.

I'd like to add that when I criticise people I don't criticise all. I only target those who don't consider others. That group of people includes all walks of life & all races. I don't criticise for criticising's sake I do it in the hope that some catch on & do their thing to reduce corruption, incompetence & racism. We can not hope to achieve that if we're accused of racism at the slightest hint of an indigenous person having a hand at wrong-doing.
White Australians have bent over backwards to make things better, don't let a handful of leftist mouthpieces have you believe otherwise.
The NTI wasn't activated because some bright spark had a good idea. It was developed because the decent sector of the Government was at the end of their wits to find a solution. Howard's mob had the sense to ignore all the experts & let common sense have a go.
A lot of harm was avoided.

With respect Dan, I think you are the one being selective discounting Aboriginal incarceration rates and alarming suicide rates. We could argue whether or not NTER is a factor, but the fact remains that, at the very least, NTER has not had a positive effect after all these years. Why isn’t suicide prevention a priority? It’s appalling that the rates are worse.
Also it’s all very well to say that other policies address Aboriginal culture but it is the Stronger Futures policy that aims at creating major changes in people’s lives and it doesn’t mention Aboriginal culture at all. How can you close the gap if you refuse to listen to or understand one side?
This policy is assimilation. In fact it is colonialism 2012 style, with colonialism defined by the Macquarie dictionary as “the policy of a nation seeking to extend or retain its authority over other peoples or territories”. Stronger Futures gives the government enormous control over Aboriginal people and there is strong resistance to it. There are human rights issues here with NTER breaching the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. No wonder Amnesty is concerned.
In regard to culture clashes the biggest one is the conflict between the Aboriginal concept of caring for country and the mining industry. Perhaps that is why Aboriginal culture and opinion is left out.
Some people here seem to believe that having studied Indigenous Studies at university is a form of ignorance and instead those on the ground should be listened to. It’s fair enough for people to have an opinion but could they please explain where their perspective comes from. Could those who say they live and work in remote Aboriginal communities please explain something about their roles. Personal points of view vary depending if you are Aboriginal or not, an elder or an appointed Government Business Manager, a police officer, health worker, a mining exec etc.

Amanda,

Your focus on suicide prevention is most welcome and timely: in some remote communities, the youth suicide rate is more than ten times the national average. Many of us have lost many young friends and relations through suicide and have been shattered by its pointlessness and the grief and trauma that it causes.

Perhaps alienation, the perceived futility of life, easy recourse to violence and grog/drugs are partly responsible, but some genuinely courageous attention to Aboriginal suicide OUTSIDE OF CUSTODY is long overdue:

* as the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody found, with 23 % of prisoners Indigenous (at the time of the Royal Commission) and 22 % of all deaths in custody being those of Aboriginal prisoners, there really was no elevated levels of deaths, by suicide or any other means, of Aboriginal prisoners in custody over those of non-Aboriginal prisoners.

After all, if 80 % (or 1 %) of prisoners were Aboriginal, wouldn't one 'expect' 80 % (or 1 % respectively) of all deaths in custody to be Aboriginal ?

To take the argument to an extreme, if 99 % of prisoners were Aboriginal, what would you expect the custodial death-rate to be ? Somewhere around 99%, no higher.

If 0.1 % of all prisoners were Aboriginal, what would you expect the custodial death-rate to be ? No higher than 0.1 %.


* but we knew at that time that suicide outside of custody, especially of youth, were far higher for Aboriginal people than for non-Aboriginal people.

Is it too outrageous to suggest that, relatively speaking, Aboriginal people are safer in custody than outside of it ?

What does that say about community life, available social support measures to protect young people, and their perceptions of life-opportunities ? Overwhelmingly, young Aboriginal people who suicide are unskilled and unemployed (no, not all: just overwhelmingly). How have parents and schools let young people/kids get to this point ?

Joe

What does that say about community life,
Joe,
I hear comments of dismay from the older generation that our laws are utterly ineffective when it comes to discipline & way too harsh & unfair when it comes to petty stuff.
I totally agree with them.
The Police are expected to uphold law & order but the civil libertarians prevented that long ago. If there's one group to blame for this break-down then it's that lot.
I speak with both hoodlums & Police regularly & all agree. The law is the biggest hurdle in our society. Not just as in Law & Order but all other laws imposed upon us by incompetent bureaucrats.
{eople simply can't even fart anymore without having to observe some legislation. It's all too much & it makes people go off the rails. Too many just say stuff this nonsense & go & top themselves. No inquiry ever finds the real guilty party guilty-bureaucrats.

You say "This is ideological racism, based on the belief that Indigenous people can't sort out problems for themselves and need government control." Actually, it is assistance, not control, and it would seem that they can't sort out their problems for themselves.

Joe - a voice of experience and commonsense!

Amanda - I've had experience in a health care role, not in communities where population is predominately indigenous but significantly higher than average. I had colleagues who were working in aboriginal communities. If there was one thing we agreed on, THEY ARE A HARD PEOPLE TO HELP. My indigenous patients were generally not an overly intelligent mob - least not in a contempory sense. This may have been lack of education but substance abuse, including FAS and child neglect certainly contributed to what I suspect was low average IQ.

Violence, aboriginal on aboriginal - off the planet. Forget police brutality, you were (undoubtedly still are) at greatest risk of death or GBH at the hands of your 'tribesmen'. Domestic violence - particularly distressing. As one colleague put it, "If whitey gives his Mrs a flogging he'll leave her bleeding, bruised and sore for a week. If it's a blackfella and his Mrs can walk within a week, he hasn't beaten her hard enough" Children - first rape victim I saw was 2 yrs old. Her rapist 19. The mob had been 'partying'. She was stabilised and flown to Brisbane. I was 'unloading' to the Sister who ran 'Childrens Ward' who essentially advised me take a teaspoon of cement because although this one was unusually young, I'd see plenty more child rape.

Indigenous prisoners are disproportionate in number. One might also argue that many having committed serious violent crime, the levels of criminality are significantly higher in the indigenous population. Racist ...??

I'd expect suicide is often response to sexual assault, violence, social alienation, substance abuse or combinations of these factors.

In view of the greater good that seems the lot of 'Australianized' aboriginals, I'd argue assimilation is the answer. Otherwise let those who want the 'traditional' way truly live it - without whitefella houses, tucker, grog or drugs. Oh sorry - that'd mean a lot of 'experts' out of work. Not really - none of the 'feral' crop would or could do it. And the 'culture'? One word - TOXIC

Divine_Msn,

Yes, I agree, especially in the case of the suicide of young women and girls - that overwhelmingly, this has been the dreadful outcome of rape, perhaps pack-rape, by men in their own community. Life in a small community is very small-scale but intense, face-to-face, so when your own community does absolutely nothing in such cases, it must be psychologically devastating for the young women. In one community where we had lived, two lovely young women and a young girl suicided within a year of each other and I suspect that all three had been pack-raped.

As for domestic violence and murder, I support the on-going investigation into the death of Mulrunji Doomadgee at Palm Island, but since he was killed, perhaps a hundred Aboriginal women have been beaten to death by their 'beloveds' across the north. But of course you can't shove it up the white man in such cases, so the 'Left' and the 'radicals' keep quiet about those. Plus to bring anyone's attention to them requires some criticism of 'culture' and that won't do.

Violence is violence, murder is murder, no matter who carries it out, on whom. As a very good friend of mine has said many times, 'Reconciliation starts with the truth'. And that means the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. The first step to solving a problem is to admit that there is one.

Thank you, Divine_Msn.

Joe

Amanda
I think it’s unfair for you to allege I’m discounting the incarceration and suicide rates: I agree that they are serious and terrible, but my point is that there are a number of other factors affecting the escalating rates of both incarceration and suicide apart from the NTER, and this can be seen when you examine the statistical trends for both if you go back 10 or 15 years and look at patterns.

Suicide prevention is a serious problem, but preventative programs are necessarily longterm, and relate to a complex array of health and social issues, such as early childhood development, substance misuse, emotional security and other mental and social issues. Under the NTER, health services, including social and emotional health and mental health programs, have been expanded enormously (well over $300 million extra - above and beyond what was previously being expended - has been spent on Indigenous health in the NT in the first four years of the NTER; with a lot more to come by the end of June this year).

There were tough new (non-NTER) laws and increased minimum penalties for a number of relevant offences (particularly domestic, sexual and other violence) introduced by the NT government in the past few years including prior to the NTER.
The demographics of the situation (a rapidly expanding proportion of the NT Indigenous population in the 10-25 year old age group, coinciding with rapidly increasing chronic disease rates in the 35 and over groups, providing the paradox of a lot more young people needing & seeking guidance and care from their elders at the very time when there is greatly diminished availability of energetic elders).
These factors are probably influencing incarceration rates much more than the impacts of the NTER itself (regardless of whether you can tease out how the NTER programs are influencing these rates); plus the important factors of decreased tolerance of severe violence by both juries and the judiciary, and greatly increased safety measures (around 60 extra police and 200 extra night patrollers in the prescribed communities) are also having an impact.
(continued below)

If you provide policing and safety services in communities which previously often had to cope without them, then it is hardly surprising that there are going to be increased arrests in those communities, given the levels of binge alcohol and cannabis (and, in some cases, kava and volatile inhalant) consumption occurring in most of them (particularly the larger ones).
I think you are wrong about culture and the mining companies, but I have neither time nor space to explain my reasons here.
I suspect that you may have very little direct experience of remote Aboriginal society and its cultural and social realities. Anyway, it is probably sufficient to say that whatever their strengths and weaknesses, it is primarily the work of remote Aboriginal people themselves to resolve the contradictions inherent in their present situation, and I believe that if the NTER programs succeed reasonably well in attaining their goals that this in itself will assist in strengthening many Aboriginal people to carry out the very difficult work salvaging what they can and adapting it to the conditions of post-colonial modernity.
Concerning identities of those who are participating in this debate, I think you should lead by example: are you Indigenous? Did you ever do anything else before you became a fulltime writer? Have you lived or worked in an NT remote community, or even visited one? If so, in what capacity and how many times?
I am not Aboriginal, but I have Aboriginal relatives, grew up with a great deal of contact with Aboriginal people, and have worked for Aboriginal people (in four states, via community councils and other Aboriginal controlled services) in remote Aboriginal country most of my working life, but never as a government employee, let alone working for a mining company (not that I have anything against most government or mining company employees. In fact, come to think of it, some of my best Aboriginal friends work for governments, mining companies, and a few – heaven forbid - are even practising academics! Most of them support some elements of the NTER, some support major elements of it).

Part 1
Thanks for replies. No-one knows the way out, the best we can do is swap ideas and perspectives. Some places are hell holes on earth and some Aboriginal communities are amongst them. Monstrous for those there trying to help and even more monstrous for Aboriginal people living there. No, I haven’t worked in one of these communities and I’m sure if I did my perspective would change. I’d have first hand experience but my perspective would be coloured by trauma. I can’t imagine witnessing horrors and not reacting. I don’t discount the experience of others but I don’t necessarily share the conclusions made. The current culture in these communities may be toxic but that’s not how these people lived for millennia. No group can survive for long with high rates of suicide, sexual assault, violence, social alienation and substance abuse. What we are seeing, I think, is Lord of the Flies with drugs and alcohol as a result of colonisation.

The question is what to do about it now. And I’m critical of NTER. Dan, I agree that it is primarily the work of remote Aboriginal people themselves to resolve the contradictions inherent in their present situation but don’t agree that NTER will assist in strengthening many Aboriginal people to carry out the very difficult work salvaging what they can and adapting it to the conditions of post-colonial modernity. I think Aboriginal people need to be involved with the planning rather than have NTER imposed and be forced to go along with it although many are opposed. That is very disempowering. Here’s a link to Rebuilding From the Ground Up, an alternative to NTER put forward by a number of Aboriginal elders. http://stoptheintervention.org/uploads/files_to_download/Alternatives-to-NTER-leaflet.pdf

Part 2
Also I can’t see that assimilation is the answer, it was a disaster. And I can’t see that those who want the 'traditional' way can truly live it after changes in the landscape and the disruption of traditional life. As for the comment that “patients were generally not an overly intelligent mob - least not in a contemporary sense”, apart from any drug and alcohol issues the indigenous world view is so utterly, utterly different to the European view.

With my studies I tried to get my head around the Aboriginal sense of time and I couldn’t because I’m too much a product of western culture to conceive of it. Kinship systems do my head in too. If I had to live in a society where rocks were living and trees were related to human beings people would think I was as thick as a brick and I think I’d be saying pass the red wine and valium please. I seriously doubt I’d cope. What do we do? Say forget about the way you think, you now have to think in an alien way that doesn’t make sense to you. A few exceptional people are fluent in Aboriginal and white cultures, most of us aren’t at all. It’s a big ask. It’s one reason why we have to listen to Aboriginal elders, they may differ in their views but they have this fluency.

No one person has the answer. The best we can do is listen and discuss and share personal experience plus research and toss ideas around and see if the discussion can move forward

Part 3.
I totally agree that violence is violence and murder is murder, no matter who carries it out, on whom. Respondents to the survey did say the biggest benefit to NTER was increased safety. That’s one good thing it’s done. Yes, reconciliation starts with the truth. Bring out the truth on both sides. And bring out the listening skills on both sides. Maybe even some respect.

As for where I’m coming from personally, that’s a fair call. To the answer the questions as far as I know I’m white, that’s certainly the way I was brought up and my culture. A member of my family, Hubert Plunkett, took the perpetrators of the Myall Creek massacre to trial. I’m not a full time writer at present but have been in the past, I’m mostly a student and I’ve done many, many other things in my life. I haven’t lived or worked in a remote community in the NT. My perspective is therefore as an outsider and I believe both insider and outsider perspectives are valuable and I’d love LEEMAA to post again. Currently I’m working with koori kids and have Aboriginal friends and colleagues, there are lots of Aboriginal people where I live. These are saltwater people, very different to desert people

Thanks Amanda. I too spend time in your beautiful part of the world; in fact some of my partner’s family until recently lived in Eden, and I have several good friends who have retired to the Bega valley and Wallaga Lake areas. I once worked briefly for the koorie community in that area, and worked (voluntarily) with Marcia Langton and many others, including the late Ted Thomas & others from your region, in organising the first NSW land council meetings and conference in 1976 and 1977, which led later to the formation of the NSW Land Council and land rights legislation.
With respect, I would like to point out that the naively utopian ‘Rebuilding From the Ground Up, an alternative to NTER’ document was put together primarily by non-Aboriginal activists in Sydney based around the UTS/STICS/WGAR axis, and its IRAG offshoot in Alice Springs. It undoubtedly reflects the beliefs of those few Aboriginal people who are actively involved in those groups. It has been endorsed by a few others, some of whom could be easily predicted to do so, as they come from the relatively small group of NT Aboriginal leaders who consistently and publicly opposed the NTER. This does not, however, mean that they are necessarily reflective of mass grass roots opinion in the majority of affected communities. It has also been endorsed by a lot of non-Aboriginal, non-NT organisations and individuals who have no grass roots presence in the NT communities, and probably know very little about the realities of a lot of the issues involved.
Some politicians and bureaucrats may imagine assimilation is desirable and feasible, but I agree with you that it is neither. However I don’t agree that the NTER as it has developed to date is either very assimilationist or capable of becoming so. It is simply endeavouring to achieve the minimal settings required for a lot of remote NT people to have a decent chance of growing up reasonably healthy and educated. It is not attempting to dispose of or significantly modify people’s remaining elements of traditional culture and social structures.
(TBC)

The NTER has not removed Aboriginal control from large areas of land, as only a fraction of 1% of Aboriginal-owned land has been placed under the (temporary) Commonwealth 5 year leases over town areas, and Macklin has organised rent to be paid for these small patches. No sacred sites are alienated from use or control, as they remain protected by the sacred sites protection legislation under arrangements between the Commonwealth and NT Governments via the Aboriginal Areas Protection Authority. (One ceremony ground was desecrated at Numbulwar, where rogue contractors placed a pit toilet, and they were prosecuted for having done so. This behaviour was not entirely unknown before the NTER).
Just over 50% of the NT land mass remains Aboriginal inalienable freehold, with Land Councils assisting traditional owners in the stewardship of all this land and all negotiations with mining companies about resources on this land, as was the case before the NTER.
The resources and authoritarianism needed for a seriously assimilationist project would be far more than either the Australian tax payers or Aboriginal people are likely to be willing to tolerate. The ‘answer’ is probably for lots of us to continue to muddle through ways of co-existing, working together in good faith to overcome inequalities and problems by ensuring good education of the present and future generations of Aboriginal kids (including large elements of traditional knowledge and language), whilst leading fulfilling lives as possible under these difficult circumstances. If enough of us unite around achievable institutional changes such as improving the constitution, and improving government policies and programs and services, then so much the better. But we are not going to get there by being unrealistic about what is possible at the present time, or being overly romantic about Aboriginal culture and society, aggressive towards each other, misinformed about the facts or too negative about the possibility of change. Some more balance, better access to factual information and better communication at all levels would help too. Respect and truth can’t appear out of the blue by magic, but they may be aided and abetted by balanced, factual communication.

Dan, you obviously have a wealth of experience and have thought deeply about issues and believe NTER is a good thing. However I can't read what Rosalie Kunoth-Monks says and accept that so we'll have to agree to differ.

"Fast forward to 2007, we had the visit from departmental staff, the army and the police, who told us we were now under the Intervention. Suddenly there was a policy in the Northern Territory that took away our rights. It was assault. It traumatised all of us, so we looked around to see what made sense. What made sense was at all costs to hang onto the land.

As we go into 2012, we see that there are certain Aboriginal communities earmarked as growth towns. Let me assure anybody who cares for the Aboriginal people of Australia that once we are moved from our place of origin, we will not only lose our identity, we will die a traumatised, tragic end.

We cannot have identity if we are put into these reservations that are now called growth towns, we will become third-class, non-existent human beings.

This is a tragedy that is unfolding through the policies of an uncaring government. It seems sentimental and - I can't find the other word in English - about attachment to the land. It's not attachment to the land, it's survival of a cultural practice that is still alive in spite of what has been thrown at it.

We need to stop the destruction of the oldest living culture in the world."

Amanda,

Offering an emotive quote from a high profile activist who has apparently spent the bulk of her adult life in the heart of Australian urban culture is hardly an argument. No disrespect to you or to Rosalie, but 'Utopia' seems apt - in describing the dream, rather than the reality.

I'm going to get into hot water here, but the only way to truly preserve the 'oldest living culture in the world' is through total isolation from all outside influence. Obviously that formula is not possible (nor preferred by any, from all accounts, save for a few possible die-hard bushies - and even that is an illusion, if truth beknown).

We are all faced with compromise, but it would appear that some indigenous communities and people are being forced to walk a tightrope - between the attractions of westernisation and demands for adherence to a dying culture. It is no wonder young people are taking the ultimate opt-out under such pressure; what future is really being offered to them in such circumstances?

There are still some tribes living 'naturally' in the Amazon, and maybe in PNG. Is that what 'the people' want? Not on your Nelly! Everyone wants to have the cake and eat it, and therein lies the predicament. So, let's have it then - tenure of land plus teaching of culture and language, plus all modern amenities (including higher education) - and paid for by mining royalties. It could work - for those living in remote communities. As for urban (Southern and seaboard) 'communities', there's is a different path, and they should follow it. Many cultures, many languages, a host of diverse interests.

It is possible to maintain ritual, as evidenced in US, Canada and NZ, and some practices, in limited format (dugong and turtle harvesting, perhaps), but not lifestyle. (The oldest, is also the most backward - and that won't work for anyone.)

NTER seems to offer the best opportunity to solve dysfunction and inappropriate practices and attitudes. 'Tough love'.

No-one should be 'herded' anywhere against their will, but progress and change must be made, harmoniously.

As I have seen it personally, one of the problems with shifting people into larger communities is that they need to be taught the standards of cleanliness tidiness and propriety to which they should conform. It should be the individual responsibility to keep the surrounds tidy. It should not be the job of a paid employee. It shouldn't fall upon the army to come in and clean out overflowing toilets as happened in the NT a few years ago.

Hi Amanda,

Thank you for raising these crucial issues and teasing out some of their components.

I guess we all are a bit like the Seven Blind Men trying to understand what an Elephant is: we each have our experiences, which are necessarily partial, since we can't be everywhere and experience everything.

For example, my own working experience is limited to SA, to just a couple of communities within a couple of hundred kilometres of Adelaide, and to work in Indigenous student support at universities, and career workshops in schools, over about forty years. It's not much, but it has given some insight into major issues.

But the key here is surely: what can the Elephant do ? Not what - interminably - other ('partially-sighted') people can do for It, but what is it doing for itself ?

The Aboriginal people have a vast range of opportunities nowadays, and with nearly thirty thousand pioneering university graduates, (mostly in the cities of course) no-one can claim that the obstacles are insurmountable.

Yes, people in remote communities are in danger of drifting further away from genuine self-determination, from the ability to do anything for themselves - ironically, the more that outsiders do for them. But there is/are a multitude of mechanisms to bring people's skill levels along from the most basic, right up through TAFE basic study skills, trades and para-professional skills, and on to university. Yes, that can be a long journey, but it's one which people will have to take if there is ever to be any genuine self-determination in communities.

There is now a First Nations Education Advisory Group, a re-run of the old National Aboriginal Education Committee. This Group/Committee has the responsibility of devising effective Indigenous education policies. Much of its work has already been done for it, in the sense that urban people - particularly women - have grasped those opportunities for education and employment. So the bigger job now is how to reach out and recommend better mechanisms for genuine individual capacity-building in TAFE, universities andprivate education providers for remotecommunities.

Best of luck,

Joe