“Her position on quarantining of welfare payments promises to create ongoing debate.”

What “ongoing” debate? The Howard Government was reviled for introducing this initiative, but there has not been so much as a squeak from the revilers since the Labor Minister has carried on with it.

As for a Joe Ross calling for the Minister to meet aboriginal ‘leaders’ and find out what they want…well these so-called leaders have not done much of job looking after their communities and protecting their children with their ‘leadership’

To read some of the ongoing debate go to 'Rations on the Cards' at http://www.newmatilda.com/2008/02/29/rations-cards#comment-916
There have also been problems in Katherine about its implementation: 'Macklin defends welfare arrangements'
http://www.newmatilda.com/2008/02/29/rations-cards#comment-916

Kevin Rennie

Kevin Rennie says "There seems to be a clear plan to involve communities in housing design, construction and related training. A breath of fresh air from the negativity of all levels of government about why local Indigenous people, who need real work and training, can’t get it in their own community."

Unfortunately it's not quite so simple.

ATSIC had an excellent program thoughout most of the Howard years for enabling apprenticeships to occur within the program for provision of community housing in the NT and some other regions.

The reality is that this program failed on the whole because of two factors: the state of the apprentices, who largely succumbed to the lure of the dominant stoned welfare-poverty addicted lifetsyle; and the scarcity of competent trades-trainers who were willing to endure the conditions, relatively low pay and the unrewarding task of continually having to haul stoned or under-motivated apprentices to work, or to cope with their absences and failure to make excuses.

Even the best & brightest of the trainers found it all pretty difficult.

Maybe now with firm application of the NT Intervention-style reforms to reduce the quantities of substances sloshing through the veins of the target group, and less parties to keep them up til dawn, a new scheme might have a better chance.

Another problem is the very high price of constructing a dwelling (usually at least $300,000) in the remote areas is considerably increased by including training in the process, with some houses costing more than $600,000 in very remote places when apprenticeships are factored in.

This might be tolerable for policy makers if the demand for housing weren't so urgent & the houses required weren't so great in number. We are talking many billions of dollars here.

Jenny hasn't got an easy job sorting that one out.

Kevin can lecture us about "The disconnect between job vacancies, young Indigenous people seeking employment and a host of government agencies empowered to organise training, [being] a continuing disgrace" until the cows come home, but - although he is largely right - this won't make Macklin's conundrum easier, or mean that she will probably do much more than scratch the surface of this problem, given the necessary constraints on government spending that currently confront us all.

It's not young people seeking or gaining work that is the major problem: the problem is keeping them there and getting them to develop the self-discipline needed, & endure the occasional tedium and the other minor and major irritants to be expected in almost any apprenticeship or new job.

As for Rennie's observation that "[Tom Calma] ... suggest[ed] that Aboriginal entities should also be able to control the head leases, not just the Federal government", we need to remember that one of the main causal factors behind the NT Inervention was the paralysis of problem solving, and limited productivity & accountability, endemic in much of the network of Aboriginal organisations.

The NGOs' (and the local governing organisations') repeated failures over many years to figure out how to govern Indigenous housing associations effectively, how to distribute mining royalties equitably or responsibly, and how to develop and apply notions of the "common good" in social structures which are based on the autonomy of the individual, the primacy of the family and loyalty to the tribe and its hierarchies have helped produce a social and economic disaster.

The sad fact is that giving many remote Aboriginal entities such powers in the present circumstances of low educational and managerial attainments is often a formula for further institutionalising discrimination, unfairness and dysfunction in many communities .

Ms Macklin’s housing plan, announced today, will deliver more flexibility in the current 99-year lease scheme over communal indigenous land, offering 20- or 40-year leases. New leases in land rights overhaul (The Australian, February 27, 2008).

Reducing length of leases is questionable improvement, more an admission the absence of leases in communities IS a problem in achieving development similar to other communities where leases upon land is available.

For until we start receiving leases for our ALR(NT) "Traditional Homelands" homes most discussion on this topic will remain just a sick joke.

Land Trusts, councils and fellow travellers campaign against giving us all leases for our homes, leases such as normal public and private housing tenants obtain, for one simple reason, such leases give us rights as well as responsibilities.

Many A* communities around Australian need their land trusts forced to issue such leases... for reasons other than leases are wrong because tenants may be able to sell them....

Is demands of control over everything and everyone that stifles development, improvement in the communities.

Only through setting fair, reasonable and equitable terms and conditions for issuing of leases, then allowing and encouraging people to take such leases as they each try to improve things their own way is where progress will be found.

Current problems we experience as people trying to move between Port Hedland, Punmu, Kintore and Alice Springs will diminish when the roads become public roads open without restriction to all travellers, or the rail line is constructed.

Then we can travel or freight regularly with ease, even poorer community members ;-)

.

Dan Fitzpatrick:
As for Rennie's observation that "[Tom Calma] ... suggest[ed] that Aboriginal entities should also be able to control the head leases, not just the Federal government", we need to remember that one of the main causal factors behind the NT Inervention was the paralysis of problem solving, and limited productivity & accountability, endemic in much of the network of Aboriginal organisations.

Is NOT clear enough how so many of these communities are where the land upon which these communities are constructed IS owned by Aboriginal Corporations.

These corporations are failing, perhaps criminally, to provide level of service expected as normal from other private landowners.

Real advance will come when members these Aboriginal Corporations and/or their intended beneficiaries see themselves as shareholders with ongoing self interest such as dividends from their corporations running better, more profitably.

Those who complain to be an Aboriginal means you are not interested in capitalism or profits, clearly do not know where money for communities comes from, or fail to see relationship between profit and tax and welfare....

.

A ten year study in Utopia showed that the aborigines least troubled by stupid white people live 40% longer, go to school, don't drink or do drugs and are healthier.

Perhaps we should just stop treating aborigines like stupid children, they managed without our lunacy for 60,000 or so years.

99 year leases are de facto freehold titles: they should be expunged from the legislation as they constitute extinguishment of Indigenous title.

TOs should be able to get leases - but they can now under the Land Rights Act - if there is a problem it should be able to be fixed without legislative amendment.

Leases over Aboriginal townships means excision of those areas from the Land Rights Act in the sense of any meaningful on-going ownership and decision-making capacity of the traditional owners - this is in fact a rolling back of the Land Rights Act - lets be honest about what is happening here.

If major tourist developments take place (rumoured for the Tiwi Islands) who will benefit - or will the "land owners" end up as a displaced marginal group with the lowest and most menial of the jobs while affluent outsiders have another playground at their disposal. We may be moving into carpet-bagger territory with these changes unless great care is taken.

Lastly, is home ownership really such an issue or is it just the latest policy fad?

Very strong on assertions, Zelig, but not so good on supporting arguments.

99 year leases may be de facto freehold, but they also give better certainty, security and return on investment for persons buying blocks and building houses. If we want economic development in Indigenous townships, then the 99 year leases would be the best way to go.

TOs and others can theoretically get leases under the ALRA, but this usually involves unrewarding negotiations with other desperately poor &/or greedy dominant TOs, leading to unrealistic demands and no lease. The tall poppy syndrome in Aboriginal society is lethal.

Yes, 99 year leases "over Aboriginal townships means excision of those areas from the Land Rights Act in the sense of any meaningful on-going ownership and decision-making capacity" of the TOs.

But it's extravagant to define this as "a rolling back of the Land Rights Act", as it applies to only those tiny areas on which small villages and towns are built, and this for the benefit of the resident population, 80 or 90% of whom are not TOs. So indeed, let's be honest about what is happening here!

Your characterisation of the proposed Tiwi development is entirely disingenuous, even mischievous. You must be aware that the Tiwi TOs stand to gain expensive infrastructure, including housing and schools, from this proposal. The Tiwi owners and outside investors will both benefit if the scheme succeeds. However, if it doesn't, only the Tiwi TOs will benefit, as they still get payouts; if the scheme fails, they get the assetts. I don't see how "land owners" could become a displaced marginal group in this proposal. Maybe if all they were being promised was employment and access to grog, but this is clearly not the case.

Please be a tad more honest when you engage in this debate, as people have very emotional reactions to the kinds of false arguments you are running.

As for "is home ownership really such an issue or is it just the latest policy fad": the vacuous question hardly deserves the honour of a reply does it?

Daniel Fitzpatrick you also make a number of assertions and I would be interested if you could add a little detail or evidence.

1. 99 year leases - you seem to agree that they more or less add up to de facto freehold. Why not then simply resume the land in question? Is a 99 year lease signiifcantly better than a shorter one (China seems to get by on shorter lease-type arrangments).
2. You assert that leases under the ALRA fail because of "desparately poor and/or greedy TOs" - do you have any evidence and is it more than anecdotal - I am interested in why such leases have not been more widely used. I suspect there may be other problems.
3. You assert that 80 to 90% of township residents are not TOs - this is not my understanding - where do you get this from?
4.Yes I have heard the argument that only a small part of ALRA land is affected - but this is a large part of the ALRA population.
5.I would have thought that infrastructure such as schools and public housing should be provided without the requirement to trade off property rights - they are in the wider community. More info on the Tiwi situation would be interesting.
6. I am not under-estimating the importance and relevance of home ownership, at least to some people in some circumstances - but there is no doubt that policy fads come and go, and only rigorous open and honest scrutiny can avoid repeating the cycle. Do you think the current policy settings in regards to 99 year lease etc have been developed in a sufficiently considered objective and calm manner, or could there perhaps have been an element of pressure applied?

1. 99 year leases - I would prefer a 99 yr lease, as would most other investors. Buying a lot in an Aboriginal community is not a great investment opportunity. Every little bit helps.
2. Well maybe there are other reasons, but I'm yet to hear about them.
3. 80 to 90% of township residents are not TOs: I live in such a community, and have lived in others. I have dealt with these matters for many years. Pre-settlement, the size of local hunter-gatherer bands ranged from 25 to 70 people at most. They controlled large estates - many times the size of a township lease. In a town of several hundred, the vast majority are always descended from groups which held estates outside the township area - often many miles away. Only in the very smallest populations will you find a situation where most of the residents are TOs.
4.see 3 above: these new township leases only affect very small proportions of one (or very occasionally two) estate group's areas.
5.Well the Tiwis happen to want a private church school and private housing.
6. This debate has been going on for two decades. I don't blame Brough for trying to force the issue. It is very much in the interests of the vast majority of residents, who have no rights at present because they are not TOs. Too right there was pressure - the pressure applied by an avalanche of evidence that the communities are spiralling downwards towards oblivion.