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...