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.