Thank you Jennifer Clarke - this is a clear, reasonable and competent account of the problems surrounding the limk between the land title issue and Indigneous children's safety.

I am at a loss to understand why the Government (and with the support of New Labor) is moving in this way. It seems opportunistic and cynical. All media requests for an explanation have seen Government spokesmen from Howard down obfuscate and unltimately duck the question.

Can anyone else out there provide an explanation?

Thank you Jennifer Clarke - this is a clear, reasonable and competent account of the problems surrounding the limk between the land title issue and Indigeneous children's safety.

I am at a loss to understand why the Government (and with the support of New Labor) is moving in this way. It seems opportunistic and cynical. All media requests for an explanation have seen Government spokesmen from Howard down obfuscate and unltimately duck the question.

Can anyone else out there provide an explanation?

We cannot really blame most Aboriginal Elders drowning their sorrows in booze after gaining voting and drinking rights back in the late 1960s, when they are still only represented in Parliament by a Whitey, whom they call the white man.

Furthermore, the more they become educated enough to understand our politics, the more they most likely wonder that if they are allowed full white-man’s priveleges, why they as the original occupiers of the Southland should not be allowed their own representative or even a small body of representatives in Parliament, as in New Zealand.

It is well to remember that they are the original people, and taking note of the Sermon on the Mount in which we are told by Jesus the Nazarene to put ourselves in the other’s shoes for a time, might give us a much better sense of fair play as our so-called sport-lovers brag so much about.

It is so interesting that so many Aussie veterans are beginning to agree with the above, so different from our youngsters, including the baby-boomers, who seem to have accepted the return of the 19th century corporate colonial culture far more than those who remember the political changes during the Great Depression, and sort of a New Enlightenment felt after victory in WW2.

Certainly part of the New Enlightenment should have been not only giving our Aboriginals the vote, but as well as saying sorry for the harsh superiority of us Whiteys, to give them their own deputational representation in Parliament they deserve.

Best Regards - BB - WA

Since 2005 leaked cabinet documents have brought out the Howard governments intentions to initiate on the aboriginal people a test case for a sweeping assault on the welfare system. This is Howards initial incursion of the so called work choices involving intensive scrutiny and control of the unemployed setting them up for very low paid cheap labour in the mining industries and cattle stations. A clear picture has indicated a precedent for general use against the entire population. Hardly the first time that indigenous people or immigrants have been used to lay the groundwork for previously unthinkable social measures. Two centuries of dispossession, violence and forced family separation, Aboriginal people already suffer some of the worst death rates and levels of ill-health, poor nutrition, substandard housing, illiteracy and imprisonment in the world. Moreover, the large mining companies (who Howard dances to) want unhindered access to the land for exploration and exploitation. Two hundred years of genocide on the aboriginal population are bound up with driving the aboriginals off the land and any future claims. And it is not "whitey" that is the cause but the profit system that turns all relations into profits including labour, land, water and all resources.

Mr Howard has woken up or always known that no work, welfare, alcohol, pornography and drugs adds up to early death and health problems and sexual abuse of women and children. It is a great shame that the author and fellow posters can't see this!

So give em jobs (don't dump those on work programmes onto welfare), restrict access to porn and alcohol, and provide services.

What the hell does land have to do with any of the above?

Wow,
this is the best article I have read in here on any subject. Keep writing Jeniffer!
and the comments echo my sentiments as well as inform me more than I knew before. Brilliant you people. Now how to we get these truths so popular that the govt will crawl off it's host like a salted leech?
and bring back The National Times... Brian Toohey and the gang.. I'm Impressed

Geez James.. Land has EVERYTHING to do with the social problems with indigenous communities... like this mate " IT'S THEIR LAND' ok? but we have it... us le blancs gubba's white honkeys... whatever you brand yourself, we took it.. see, ring ring....
I get the familiar feeling that I'm wasting my time but mate.. read A few books by Prof. Henry Reynolds... please. our basic education history subject has a lot missing still apparently.
Cheers Neil

Umm nope, we gave it back to them. Remember Mabo?

They have title over the land, taking it back off them is not going to fix the problems. Providing services, police and work will.

In the overall agenda it is not only a land grab, it is also a water grab. The Minister for the Environment, the republican and anti Royalist meglamaniac: Malcolm Turnbull, wants to centralize control of all rivers and waterways in Canberra. They want it all controlled by one body.

This Government is not a "small Government" business, it is a "Large Government" Polit-buro type Stalincocracy.

They are far too right wing to be pro farmer and pro small business, they are ONLY for pro power for the powerful and that is all.

Clearly, in the name of democracy and ordinary people, they have to go.

This shameless land grab and destruction of civil rights for aboriginal communities illustrates yet again just how wicked and shameless our political leaders are.

actually billie, it demonstrates how spineless and ignorant the oz electorate is. if you support polly rule, this is what you get.

james, land rights are fundamental. allowing brown people to control their tribal lands is the 1st step to self determination. without it they are clients of the government, perpetual beggars.

Thankyou for the article Jennifer. I was interested to read Pat O'Shane's comments in the Sydney Morning Herald some weeks ago in which she suggested a link between land acquistion under the Brough legislation and uranium mining. Do you or does anyone else know if exploratory mining surveys will be permitted under this legislation? Perhaps the legislation is a trojan horse for purposes other than those stated by the government. Am I being too cynical in thinking this? To date I have heard no convincing argument that the legislation will benefit the control of alcohol or aid in the protection of indigenous children from abuse. What then, is it's ultimate purpose?

Nearly all Posts on the right track. Hope Howard and Co take notice. But we are only just a few people, few left wing loonies among us too. So-called silly old me being one, for my love of learning in my old life. Got a shock when one of our group told me that most history is just old Pap.

Guess modern electronics is now producing learners with little depth of reasoning - thought processes only just behind the eyes and ears.

Might be as well for us to re-remember the phrase that From Deserts the Prophets Come.

Cheers - BB - WA

BK writes "acquistion under the Brough legislation and uranium mining. Do you or does anyone else know if exploratory mining surveys will be permitted under this legislation?" What then, is it's ultimate purpose?"
Probably exploratory mining surveys have already been done. But now, Howard, the mining companies and the customer (or customers) India or China are talking about mining and after treatment and use dumping the nuclear waste on aboriginal lands. That is the deal that is being brokered albeit with the usual denials. The aboriginals will be used as a source of very cheap casual and expendable labour in the mines. That aspect figures prominently in Howards new industrial relations.
Try and see the bigger picture world OIL deposits in time will become further depleted and will command a far heftier price. That is what Iraq is all about - colonial plunder - stealing the oil from the second largest oil deposits. More over, uranium as an energy source will partly replace some oil requirements. As well, Bush and Howard have indicated ongoing wars, "one war following another." China and India as well as requiring energy sources want to upgrade their weapons capability.
BIG MONEY has done their sums and counted the profits, that is the ultimate purpose and in their reckoning the aboriginals are expendable.
We should never forget the Maralinga trials whereby servicemen and aboriginals were used as guinea pigs in the Maralinga nuclear explosions. Those trials left almost 24 kilos of plutonium, with a half-life of 24,000 years, scattered around a huge area.

When land is vested collectively in a clan or tribe or community, the understanding is that this will be utilised for the common good. However when the effective powerplayers (the elders; the leaders; the council) become tyrants, or rapists or child molesters and implement a reign of depraved terror on the other community members, they have to be disempowered. To do this they have to have the source of their power removed. That is; control of the land. Got it now?

In any normal town, the victims would be removed for their safety, and the perpetrators of the crimes investigated, charged, tried and possibly imprisoned. However in these remote communities such a course would destroy and depopulate the entire "town"; bringing raucous accusations of "rascism, genocide,child stealing" etc etc, from all the usual suspects. The question of how to then repopulate the former hell-hole would be rather complex. The Govt is avoiding this by leaving the landowners in place.

Sorry Bushbred, but I'll have to disagree with your summary that most bloggers on this thread are on the right track. Most of them are not in the slightest bit interested in stopping the violence or paedophilia. Hardly a one has even mentioned it. What they desire are further gabfests and enquiries while the mayhem continues. If you are truly "from the bush" then you would realise that it is prevaricators and whingers like these who would stand by criticising even as the Summer Bushfire engulfed whole towns. They just don't care nor get it, at all. Cheers.

punter57

Two weak ‘arguments’ and one attempted character assassination.

Whether it’s child abuse or domestic violence – all Australians are and should be subject to the law, no matter what their power base may be. What does ownership or non-ownership of land have to do with how a crime against women and children is treated? Would we treat a non-landowner differently to a land-owner is they are both guilty of rape? Or are you saying collective ownership of land is different to private ownership of land insofar as it affects crime?

Secondly, of what relevance is the quantum of crime in each locality? You seem to be arguing that if the police find too many perpetrators in one community, they would only prosecute a few because (a) too many prosecutions would destroy the “town” and (b) there would be an outcry from anti-racists. (By the way, apart from your difficulties with logic, do you have you any evidence for these claims?)

Your first two ‘arguments’ seem contradictory anyway. In the first, you justify confiscation of land; but in the second you assert that it’s not going to happen. Just what is your position? And the Government’s?

Finally, on your attempted character assassination. This blogger (and I know many others) have vigorously voiced their consternation at crimes against women and children. Failing to mention it again on this occasion is no indication that we are not alarmed and concerned. This is not the first article on the topic. Have a look at comments on other threads.

And your extensions: (a) ‘What they desire are further gabfests and enquiries while the mayhem continues’ and (b) they ‘would stand by criticising even as the Summer Bushfire engulfed whole towns’ are as illogical as they are wacky.

How about I say that I didn’t see you comment on AWB bribes nor did I hear a peep out of you on al-Qaida when you last wrote about Dr Haneef? Do you support bribes and al-Qaida? Wacky argument, isn’t it?

FrankGol. You asked in the First Posting for an explanation of why the Fed Govt is acting in this way. I have given you the answer. You are correct that The Territory Govt has not applied the laws of the NT as it should have. Only 12% of NT Communities have Resident Police. You may wonder why this is so. Block-votes delivered to the ALP is the answer.
Consequently the situation within the communities has deteriorated dramatically, while requests from the Feds to act have been ignored by the NT Govt. Meanwhile a state of fear and intimidation has developed. Many local community authority figures are "believed" to be involved in paedophilia/rapes/violence etc, or to have turned a blind eye to these activities. Any Community using the CDEP system effectively puts the money of the whole community into the hands of the CDEP co-ordinator who then controls it's distribution. This is very different to any "normal" town. This means that the power-group run the place AND hold the pursestrings.
The "quantum" is why the Feds have acted as they have, Frank.
I am arguing EXACTLY the opposite to how you interpret my explanation. I am saying that so many people will be/should be charged/arrested/removed from positions of authority that there may be nothing left. The Feds have been obliged to replace the existing authorities of the communities before hauling them away. Got it yet? Hope so.

As for character assasination. Hmmm. Support the Feds or allow the previous state of affairs to go on. Support the NT Govt and Aboriginal Leaders have done nothing to stop the violence or support the Govt who STOPPED it already. Your choice Frank. Cheers.

Punter57: 'Support the Feds or allow the previous state of affairs to go on.' Howard's way and no other? Agree with Howard or support child abuse, eh?

This advice addressed to the PM fell off a truck.

1. Don't intervene until the eleventh year of your reign - preferably on the way to your fifth election.

2. Describe the situation as a ‘national emergency’ and on TV let the man of steel be seen to have a heart of gold - crocodile tears for the wasted childhood of Indigenous children.

3. Select one report only after many other reports saying the same thing have been filed away. Call it confirmation of what you've known for a long time. Get your man to say it's part of their culture.

4. Praise that report effusively; say it has credibility because of wide consultation with Indigenous people; but don't tolerate any further consultation.

5. Endorse the report as the basis of your intervention but ignore its authors and, above all, ignore all of its recommendations. That way, you confirm that you are a man of action with no need of other people's ideas.

6. Insist that your intervention can only proceed if the Racial Discrimination Act is set aside because otherwise that intervention will be unlawful, and it's important that your unlawful acts be lawful.

7. Tackle child abuse by abolishing Aboriginal employment programs and then quarantine chunks of their Centrelink payments. Let it be understood that Aboriginal people are not capable of making good decisions - not like us.

8. Change the laws to allow the Commonwealth to take over Indigenous township leases and scrap the Aboriginal land permit system. Vigorously deny all claims that it’s collateral opportunity for big white business, but don’t explain why you need the land.

9. Offer Aboriginal people only "a reasonable amount" of compensation in return for losing control of their land, but under no circumstances offer compensation on "just terms" as required by the constitution.

10. Try to maintain enthusiasm until the election...after that, wait and see if anyone is still interested.

Get it yet, Punter?
 
 
 
 

FrankGol. This will be my last post on this issue.

The govt has been intervening in aboriginal affairs since Day 1. In March 1996 it ordered an immediate halt to all CDEP programmes in the NT pending an audit of the Communities. Following this, the govt began moving toward (among other things) abolishing ABTIC and encouraging greater self-reliance through "practical reconciliation". It also rejected the "Bringing Them Home" Report in a major effort to prevent the mentality of victimhood making further inroads into the Aboriginal Psyche. You may recall that Noel Pearson called the Fed Govt "rascist scum" due to these (then) unwelcome initiatives. These are the iniatives you believe only started in Howard's Eleventh Year, Frank.

Numerous Communities are totally disfunctional as a result of NT Govt indifference and all types of "spoiling" tactics employed by various powerful lobby groups. But finally, enough is enough.

Your 4th Point is the crucial one Frank, in that you, like so many others (which you have denied) want MORE chit-chat instead of action.When you say "consultation with indigenous people" do you intend to consult with the community leaders who are suspected of being the perpetrators/enablers of most of the problems. When the cops are about to bust a drug-ring should they first ask the dealers how they would like the cops to act? When a bashed woman is asked what should be done, should the "basher" be asked his opinion too, or just allowed to stand threateningly in the corner to derail the whole process?

Last chance for you to understand CDEP programmes Frank. If, say, there are 100 people on Newstart, receiving $250 per week. This is $25,000. If the community chooses to switch to CDEPs, the CDEP co-ordinator will receive about $30,000 per week to pay the participants according to the work done (extra money for materials is forwarded). This means the co-ordinator decides who gets what. If his/her 5 mates get $5000 each and the 95 non-mates get $50 each, then that's the $30,000 spent!! Is this how you see it being better, Frank?

OK. Bye for now. Cheers

punter57 goes on the attack in response to my claim that the Howard Government has done nothing of any consequence in Indigenous Affairs until the eleventh year of its reign.

“The govt has been intervening in aboriginal affairs since Day 1,” he boldly asserts.

He then gives this exhaustive list of Government interventions:

1. In March 1996 the Government ordered an immediate halt to all CDEP programmes in the NT pending an audit of the Communities.

2. Following this, the Government began moving toward (among other things) abolishing ABTIC [sic] and encouraging greater self-reliance through "practical reconciliation".

3. It also rejected the "Bringing Them Home" Report.

Thus punter57 makes his case: “These are the iniatives [sic] you believe only started in Howard's Eleventh Year, Frank.”

So, the Howard Government has (1) halted, (2) abolished and (3) rejected. Halted, abolished and rejected. Yes but what did it DO for Indigenous people?

punter57 says: “This will be my last post on this issue.

As Shakespeare’s Francisco said: ‘For this relief much thanks.’ (Hamlet)

Compliments and commendations (again) to Frankgol for his never ending patience and generosity in attempting to educate the knuckle draggers in this forum. I would have reached for the base ball bat long ago.

To be honest, I'm less interested in the niceties of the legal and moral aspects of the federal government's changes to NT aboriginal land titles than in what Ms Clarke would like to suggest are her solutions to the terrible problems afflicting many Indigenous people in Australia.

I have to admit, however, that the government hasn't given me any confidence that it knows what long-term solutions it is proposing, even though it's started down the right track by seeking to drastically reduce the amount of alcohol consumed in these communities and the resulting physical and sexual abuses imposed on women and children by drunken men.

Well argued FrankGol.

Sorry Punter57 your arguement is full of holes. The sad truth is that many of the swinging voting minority may agree with your views on Indigenous affairs.

I think the 'intervention' is more of an interference to enact land related desires. Did you mob know that Australia is one of the few countries that tried to stop the Draft Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples at the UN. Funny that they want to help us locally but are arguing againsts our human rights internationally.

What next?

Jennifer writes about how it has become possible for compulsory acquisition of private land for private operators to deliver public services and wonders if this is a worry for non-aboriginals. It certainly is a worry! And it is also occurring to public land. For instance the Bracks Government GAVE AWAY 20 ha of public land in Royal Park - adjacent to the CBD - to Australand, which is more than 50% Singapore Government owned, PLUS $80m to encourage them to turn it into a private suburb (abutting on Melbourne Zoo) in exchange for 11 days use of the new housing to accomodate Commonwealth Games participants, and a vague promise of a very small amount of 'public housing at some future time perhaps'. To any Australian this is theft of public land, theft of our parkland and our heritage in increasingly congested and polluted circumstances - but, was it legal under these new laws? The media failed to adequately report this scandalous and frightening abrogration of a public right and one got the impression that the moral theft was so mind-boggling that few reporters, lawyers or politicians could actually take in what has happened, let alone the public. To add to the injury, the new suburb built where land was once proclaimed for our common benefit, has been largely auctioned off over the internet to overseas customers, inflating its value and contributing to a demand which Victoria is currently unable to service against a background of homelessness, debt and wage slavery.

We should all join together to safeguard Aboriginal and other land-rights in our community and not be misled into being divided and conquered on this.