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.