It's a disgrace that the Labor government is perpetuating the political grandstanding of the former Liberal government that decided to demonise aborigines to try to win the election.
There has been a lot of money thrown at the intervention and many whites from southern Australia are getting tax payer funded junkets to Northern Territory to inspect conditions or earning amazing money on contract to provide these services.

There is no suggestion that the money has filtered down to the aborigines
- aboriginal businesses have been compulsorily acquired and sold off cheaply to whites
- aborigines have lost their CDEP jobs yet no full time jobs have been forth coming
- there is no thought of aboriginal communities being sustainable, being trained and able to build and maintain their town buildings, water supply or grow their own meat and veggies
- the intervention is yet another Howard policy that punishes the victims

Billie, it is a disgrace, but not an unexpected one. "The modern Labor party," to quote SA Treasurer Kevin Foley, "has learned from its past mistakes", and these apparently include any commitment to public over private, safety nets over competition and incentive, and landrights over the interests of miners and developers.

The origin of the so-called "intervention" was not the Little Children Are Sacred report, but a Discussion Paper that pre-dated the report by six months and titled "Access to Aboriginal Land Under the Northern Territory Land Rights Acts - Time for Change?". The former was a pretext for achieving the aims of the latter (see my blog http://mike-servethepeople.blogspot.com/2007/07/mining-companies-behind-howards.html )

As you suggest, there is a diversity of views on aspects of the "intervention" around the various Aboriginal communities of the NT, yet we still get horribly misleading reports in the mainstream press like the ones recently that suggested the women of Yuendumu were united in support for it. They are not. See http://mike-servethepeople.blogspot.com/2008/10/capitalist-press-lies-about-opposition.html ) I repeat the final paragrapph of that post: "The 'Intervention' must be repealed, the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 restored, and the recommendations of the Little Children Are Sacred report, shamefully ignored by both the Howard and Rudd governments, fully implemented!"

I've spent many months this year in the NT doing medical work in various extremely isolated communities. The women there tell me, time and time again, they now feel a lot safer and worry a lot less about the immediate welfare of their children. They are now being protected.

I'd much rather listen to the aboriginal women at the coalface, than outsiders passing political judgments.

Too right rw, one mans "fact" is another's bull sh4t.

You'd best be carefull there. Its dangerous to get between an
abogirinal industry activist, & a pot of money, you're likely to be
crushed in the rush.

That's pretty much the norm with our politicians, they set up a review and then ignore the reccomendations of people they appoint if they don't report pre-conceived expectations.

Not surprising,Jenny Macklin has some supporters for her actions,Post by rw523252 reports they were told the women feel safer / protected
This could possibly be as a result of the stationing of a Police Officer at the Community which should be established without "the intervention"

There is no valid reason why quarantining of benefits should be arbitrarily imposed on everyone without the option to decline.
The 'humbugging' argument is not sufficient grounds....Does white Australia have to accept quarantining in case the man of the house wants money for grog from the housekeeping ?

It seems a petition to the United Nations will be the avenue whereby the Rudd Government and Minister Macklin will be reminded of their obligations under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights

I have lived in Australia for over 30 years, but still don't understand why there is a 'permit' system with regard to Australian Aboriginal settlements.

I understand that all Australian Aborigines are able to travel to and enter any Australian township or city, so why cannot any non-Aboriginal Australian enter any Aboriginal settlement? It would probably be on the way to somewhere else in most cases - as, I read in the papers, there are few hotels or motels in these settlements catering for visitors.

Just curious....

The Permit System:

Prior to the referendum,the Permit system was used by the Aboriginal Welfare agency in lock step with Mining Companies to screen persons considered 'undesireable' from making contact with Aboriginal people.
An undesireable could be anyone from a left wing activist to a Trade Union Official or sacked worker on a mine site.

I recall in 1972, Socialist Anthropologist Fred Rose was refused a permit for entry to Groote Eylandt by the Welfare Department when he wanted to check his major thesis and follow up on his kinship data done in the 30's & 40's .

Revoking a sacked workers permit was an effective means of ensuring he left a mine site before he could protest an unfair dismissal.

Following Land Rights claims investing Native Title Rights upon Aborigines and recognising their unique attachment to their land,Aboriginal People were able to control access to their land in the same way you or I can control access to our property.

In many cases Aboriginal people wish to protect their 'sacred sites' from vandalism . Sacred sites are not generally sign posted for these reasons, but generally it is a matter of courtesy. If you want to enter Aboriginal Land, ask permission, in most cases it is not denied.

Nice piece Ringy

Funny how those anti-intervention advocates never seem to mention the improved situation for women and kids. Just about their RIGHT to spend their welfare money how they please.

Bit like the situation with pub drinkers in Sydney. They say it is their RIGHT to get booze 24/7 But if the violence and glassing occurs then shut the pubs down. Bring back 10pm closing for all pubs.

In the NT situation, the welfare of the kids and women must overide all else and all the states should follow suit.

Once that situation is remedied then worry about what is next.

Yes, I agree - a good piece Ringy - hope that Darwin is treating you kindly!
On Monday this week Jenny Macklin came to Yuendumu to open a swimming pool and sign an MoU relating to an employment agreement for the Tanami region. All bar $200k of the $2.6 million for the pool came from non-intervention money (local Traditional Owners chucked in $400k in mining royalty equivalents)and, rightfully, Macklin didn't draw a connection between the pool and her Intervention.
But others did. I've written about these events on Crikey this week and there are expanded versions of my three pieces at my blog, The Northern Myth(http://blogs.crikey.com.au/northern/).
While there has been much hurt and confusion about the actions of some media here this week the real story, for me at least, is that we need to have a wide discussion of how mainstream media conduct themselves when they come to remote communities like Yuendumu, particularly when language and communication issues are considered. Similar issues, particularly in light of the recently developed Code of Conduct for Ministerial Staff, apply to ministerial minders - what previously might have been seen as part of their job (selectively briefing journalists, putting a bit of spin on the content of a meeting etc) may now fall foul of the Code of Conduct - particularly where information provided is incomplete or misleading. Not that the Code has that many teeth - a bit like being chewed by a gummy old camp dog really...

It's refreshing to read a post that comments in revelence to the Article instead of the prejudiced claptrap of ignorance that take the opportunity to spew their anti Aboriginal bile.

Thanks Bob Gosford for your informed post with link to your blog.

I hope the pro-intervention posters take the time to read your response and benefit from its content.

Thanks Maracas - I think your point about relevance is...relevant - why bother writing and posting to a blog if you don't contribute to the discussion! And that is what this forum ("A place of meeting for public discussion") should surely be all about...
So, for a start, I cannot agree with Banjo's comments that "the welfare of the kids and women must overide (sic) all else and all the states should follow suit" - yes, but to use a clumsy metaphor - don't throw the baby out with the bathwater - which, as was patently clear from some of the comments made in the documentary shown on the ABC last night, The Intervention (http://www.abc.net.au/tv/documentaries/interactive/intervention/)- many of the actions taken by the then government were, as Brough has admitted, extreme, hastily constructed, wastefully expensive and more aimed at political point-scoring than protecting children - refer the comments by Conway Bush-Blanasi from the Beswick (Wugularr) community re why he and his wife, as a good parents,were subject to the same silly decisions as the bad parents...
What I did take out of that program was that over time (and it took far too long and was far too extreme at the start) the Intervention softened some of its actions and procedures...but there has been an awful lot of unnecessary pain inflicted on innocent people for no good end and it will take a long time to recover their confidence that Governments are there to act for their good - not to punish them for what-they-do-not-know.
And finally, for now, I am astounded at the absolute lack of imagination that the current government has seen fit to continue many of the worst aspects (compulsory quarantining of income, failing to restore the Racial Discrimination Act, etc etc). I could understand if it had done so in circumstances where it was business as usual - but to go against the primary recommendations of its own Review...astounding.
I'll happily turn my mind to other comments over the next few days...

Ringy & Gossy are the new cheerleaders of crude self-determination theory in Indigenous affairs.

They are so busy relentlessly showing us how "liberal" and "progressive" they are, and being nice and supportive to Aboriginal people en masse - declining to see or hear or speak about the glaringly obvious problems presented by the behaviour of a great many Aboriginal men and some women in the remote communities and town camps - they fail to connect the dots.

The bodies of the premature dead are piling up in the morgues, Ringy.

The prisons & hospitals & dialysis centres are choc-a-block with black inmates & patients dying well before their time Bob.

Aboriginal women & kids far too often can't sleep at night, even at wonderful self-determining laugh-a-minute Yuendumu.

Far far too many Aboriginal kids don't have anybody at home concerned to get their pussy ears and skin sores and rotting teeth attended to before they turn into systemic lifelong problems for them.

The kids often can't concentrate and learn, if they are lucky enough to actually get to their local primary school.

Even the police, whom Ringy & Gossy sometimes grudgingly acknowledge are needed, can't get a decent night's sleep, and so are edgy and bitter when forced to perform their thankless tasks.

Is it a central problem that Ringy & Gossy are so emotionally traumatised by these unspoken dilemmas that they become excessively guilt ridden and cannot bring themselves to speak the words "endemic child neglect"?

Bob,
I do not mind discussing issues, but it gets a bit tiresome to be immediately labeled as anti- aboriginal, by some, if they dissagree with ones viewpoint. But that goes also with being called racist if I happen to oppose high immigration. But I can live with that and take it that these people cannot argue my point of view. I note you did not express this.

Ignorant I may be, but my information comes from the 'Little Children are Sacred' report and conversing and reading what teachers,nurses and other medical people state to be the situation.

We may have to agree to dissagree because I will stick to my view that the welfare of the kids and women must over ride all else and all the other states should follow. Domestic violence and child abuse is far too high and I would not mind at all if qarantining of welfare was introduced to ALL families in Aus.

It is reasonable to expect conditions if welfare payments are received. Arrange one own income if one doesn't like the conditions. If that cannot be done where one presently lives, then one had better move to where it can be done. Thousands do this every year. Someone said here on OLO, a while back, that 60000 aboriginals had received higher education in the past X years. That is good and they did not get that by siting arround at home. These made hugh effort to help themselves.

I do not see qurantining of welfare as a penalty on good families as responsible parents would spend more on the allowable items anyway.

My suggestion for aboriginal improvements has ben to take note of what has happened in the well functioning communities (there are some apparently)and try to implement the same procedures elsewhere.

Am told Utopia is one such and Windale,near Newcastle NSW, was one of the worst for child abuse and is now one of the best. Surely we can learn from their efforts.

TBC

The sole reason for the intervention in the NT was to reduce the physical and sexual abuse of children and improve their well being.

The questions I would be asking of a review team is :-

Has the abuse of the kids been reduced?

Has the health of the kids improved?

Are there more kids attending school?

Is there less domestic violence?

Has quarantining welfare payments resulted in the kids being better looked after by their parents?

Or did the review team not give answers to these questions?

In the absense of a great hue-and-cry about the intervention not working, I assume the answers to my questios is YES.
Then why not carry on for, at least, another 12 months and review agaain.

I notice one has said that Dan Fitzpatrick's assasment is wrong or queried what that medical bloke said in his post.

To this point in time the only answer that the WA Government has had is to give 12 year old girls contraceptives to stop them falling pregnant in some communities. As reported in todays West no doubt the older men exploiting these children in the name of culture will be pleased with this outcome. Well I suppose Governments will be able to boast about reducing pregnancies. Those that oppose intervention are either not that interested in saving these kids or are deliberately ignorant of what goes on in these communities. It would not be tolerated in the white community. last week in court in the Kimberelys one couple had 90 charges of abuse against children. Where are the activist? Sitting in offices talking about the evils of 20o years ago! Wake up Australia. Hopefully Ms Macklin will have the fortitude that Mr Brough had shown.

The Wild/Anderson report <http://www.nt.gov.au/dcm/inquirysaac/pdf/bipacsa_final_report.pdf>
should be a mandatory read for anyone wanting to become informed about the "Little Children Are Sacred" Inquiry recommendations and definitely before pontificating about the Intervention and it's aftermath. There were 97 recommendations but the Howard/Brough trigger was to act on one and ignore the rest.

Their reasons for implementing the Intervention were purely political and ignoring the other recommendations is pretty much what Governments do when reports from Inquiries are handed down as anyone who has participated in an Inquiry will know.

So it was with Jenny Macklin's response to Peter Yu's Report

Aboriginal Communities alone can resolve their problems. They must establish their own agendas for consultation with Jenny Macklin and the Rudd Government and put them on notice for a timetable to execute their agenda. This can only be achieved by resolute, united action through Community to Community consultation.

It is time for the Land Councils to show leadership and assist in developing a strategy for a plan of Action

Noel Pearson summed it up for most Australians when he said:

"I'm amazed that anybody would put the protection of children secondary to anything, particularly when those children are subject to imminent abuse, abuse that takes place on a regular basis that's the subject of binge drinking, week in, week out. .....(But) if you're willing the whole exercise to fail, what kind of priorities do you have in relation to the wellbeing of Indigenous children?" and

"It will depend on Indigenous people at the end of the day asking themselves and answering the question, asking themselves whether they believe the integrity and wellbeing of their children is the number one priority in the world, and if it is, if it is, let's understand that everything happens within a political context. Of course this is a political context. Of course we don't like that person and we don't, we don't like that party and we don't - we suspect that person's motives and so on, but geez, the imperative here is the protection of our children and we as Indigenous people have got to ask ourselves the hard question - do we put the protection of our children ahead of everything else?"

Maracas1 makes the same type of silly mistake as Ringy, Gossy & Co.

"Aboriginal Communities alone can resolve their problems" asserts maracas1 blythely and simplemindedly.

"They must establish their own agendas for consultation with Jenny Macklin and the Rudd Government and put them on notice for a timetable to execute their agenda. This can only be achieved by resolute, united action through Community to Community consultation."

Then the clincher: "It is time for the Land Councils to show leadership and assist in developing a strategy for a plan of Action."

maracas1 is presumably too innocent and naive to realise that there is a fundamental contradiction within this proposal.

Land councils are statutory bureaucratic entities, with their own political-economic agendas.

They are responsible to both the Parliament and to a group of big men who are the movers and shakers in their region.

Land councils have their own inner logic and necessities for survival, and these don't normally include the provision of effective community leadership and problem solving on behalf of diverse and usually contradictory groups of families who are mostly not traditional owners in the places where they live, and who often have needs which contradict some or many of the interests of the relevant TOs.

the maracas1 solution is precisely what is not about to happen, and if we were to wait for it to happen or force it to happen we would be severely disappointed and the problems would almost certainly be made worst.

We actually need the development of community leadership which is ethical, informed and committed to some notion of the common good.

These are not things that you look for in land council processes these days, as the influential participants in land council business are almost always looking mainly for personal or family material benefits.