If indigenous communities wish to live a "traditional" lifestyle, what is wrong with their traditional shelters? Most of us know that white fella housing does not last long. Traditional culture sees a 'shelter' as a temporary structure to be abandoned/destroyed as the group moves to fresh hunting and gathering sites.

I can readily see that neither Federal nor State/Territory Governments want to keep throwing money at housing. If these Aborigines want to keep the culture and simple life of their forebears - give them the freedom to live it without the whitey trappings.

“The policy of undermining outstations is a threat to Indigenous wellbeing and is against evidence-based research.”

Really? Aborigines are having such a wonderful life on ‘outstations’ (read camps) are they? The claimed “evidence-based research” doesn’t stack up very well against the real evidence to the plight of aborigines living in remote locations.

“Evidence shows that Indigenous wellbeing declines in townships.”

Poppycock! This is true only of towns with large indigenous populations that have drifted into to town for an easy life on the sauce without any organised assistance from responsible organisations. I have lived in town where aborigines have lived just like everybody else: with jobs and self-respect.

Assimilation is the only way to improve the lives of Australian aborigines. This woman relies too much on ideological opinion and so-called scientific reports to have any credibility.

The “…dangerous political prejudices” are all hers.

Hmm… I keep hearing how aboriginal life expectancy is so much lower than White Australian life expectancy and how poor old aboriginals are so hard done by.

Like Leigh says “Assimilation is the only way to improve the lives of Australian aborigines.”

And “assimilation” will always be the better option to “separate development” (which always has been a politically correct euphemism for “racially biased development”)

Strangely, on another post today, I did comment to the matter of separate cultural and racial development and how “successfully” (or otherwise) it had been employed in Germany in 1930’s, South Africa 1950’s-1970’s and the Balkan’s in 1990’s.

Yet here we have some law lecturer spouting on about how essential separate development is in Australia.

I agree, Leigh is correct “This woman relies too much on ideological opinion…”

I have to agree with Leigh here.
Remaining hunter-gatherers is not an option, reversing the western invasion is not an option. Like most indigenous cultures invaded by Europeans they will just have to do the best they can in the modern world.
Moving into farming seems sensible as they have a great affinity with the land, however modern farming is a sophisticated business and it is hard to do it profitably without capital, skills and business knowledge. Even the farming option involves assimilation.
How to help without spoiling? No idea. I spent a year in Darwin and it left me more confused than optimistic.

OK the author is saying it's bad to try to assimilate people, (like the Borg I'm guessing but that's just frivolous)

So we leave these people alone, in the wilderness to roam and stay as hunter gatherers? Do we put a fence around them so no one can go near them and possibly temp them with the fruits of assimilation, like packaged food, TVs, internet, music etc?

How do we know if and when any of them decides they'd like to know more about civilized society, (as we know it), and approaches a settlement, how they should be handled?

Do we hand them over to a special contact group, (of lawyers perhaps?) to ascertain if it is "true contact", that they have not been coerced, that they will get fair treatment.

What if they are escaping some feud or a bad marriage or other trauma, then surely if our society gives assistance, then that might be seen attempted assimilation, by freely giving benefits and thus corrupting these pure and noble hunter gatherers?

how do we share the benefits of society, or is it so bad and their society so good that never the twain should meet?

I very interested in the authors views on what should be done, because this article is just about what should not be done with none of the implications thought through.

Ironically, I find myself agreeing with Sol Trujillo: Australians are a bunch of Racists if the first 5 posts are representative of our demographics.

Obviously these experts have never been anywhere near an 'outstation'
and glean their information from the daily sensational disclosures on anti-social behaviour from the various sausage wrappers that report on the Indigenous people WHO HAVE BEEN FORCED TO LEAVE THEIR OUTSTATIONS AS A DIRECT CONSEQUENCE OF INTERVENTION and find themselves in the regional towns.

The results of the 20 centres policy will deny outstation dwellers basic services that the rest of Australia takes for granted.
The policy is seriously flawed and if the Government chooses to ignore the results of properly conducted research, they should be held to account for repeating the history of the assimilation / stolen generation era

maracas1, I don't think there has been any policy on indigenous affairs that hasn't been "flawed". It doesn't matter which side of politics (or even the aboriginal people) they come from. Someone will always has a problem with it. From my experience, those who have assimilated into our society, for the most part, have done very well. It would be interesting to know the proportions of aborigines living in towns as opposed to those on outstations. It may well be time that some hands were gently forced.

maracas1 - What's your solution?

Should all the services of a township be brought to every outstation? We can't afford it, that's obvious, so this is what the government has decided is the next best solution. You can vote against them at the next election.

Why is the policy flawed? Please enlighten us?

The current government is trying to help, there will always be people unhappy, you're one of them.

Go spray at the government, we're just folks expressing opinions.

I think leaving people in the middle of nowhere with a lack of services and access to the rest of this wonderful world is bordering on criminal. Why should generations of Australians be left as virtual zoo exhibits so that a bunch of academics can sprout rubbish about how wonderful and pure their isolated lifestyles are.

If Dr Thalia Anthony really believed these outstations are a solution she should go and live in a community for 6 months. She would go from being an ideologist to having a little commonsense. I know of many whites with some fanciful ideology about aboriginal culture who go to communities and last a matter of days returning with their tail between their legs. One woman Radio national interviewed told of her being a nurse and all her experiences. She had enough trauma in 3 months and seemed proud that she was able to last that long. Even many on the gravy train can't cope despite earning a lot more money than they would in the real world.

Dr Thalia Anthony lecturer in Faculty of Law at University of Sydney her presentation scripted to current attacks against proposed changes in government policy.

Leading NT government policy change is Ms Alison Anderson MLA

Minister for Natural Resources, Environment and Heritage
Minister for Parks and Wildlife
Minister for Arts and Museums
Minister for Indigenous Policy
Department of the Chief Minister
Northern Territory Government

Alison has considerable experienced with outstations, living and servicing same, with her extended family at Papunya, surrounding communities and "outstations", as a respected "Traditional" woman in Central Australia.

Some confusion about outstations, why people live upon them, or just regularly visit them.

Government policy is NOT stopping outstations.

Federal and NT governments fostered and supported homeland communities and outstations longer than economic efficiency warranted.

Government policy is NOW about reducing wastage of public money, reducing construction and servicing where people do NOT live regularly enough, do NOT live with sufficient numbers, so not justify expenditure.

Centrelink money paid to people living where no employment options available, such as these outstations.

IF policy intended to stop outstations, force people back into big communities, need only suspend prima facie racist exemption of Centrelink job search requirements to people living where employment is NOT reasonably available.

Frustrated with many relations who's UNemployability directly linked to their exploiting this exemption so never need work, for those drained relations who do/did work so suffer seriously under-recognised impact upon them which often results in their giving up and joining the unemployed.

Dr Thalia Anthony suggests living on outstations is so people are to be self sufficient.

Spell out how you prove "self sufficient"



Stopping Centrelink unemployment monies might encourage "traditional lifestyle" of hunting and gathering.

More likely people will flock to nearest town where Centrelink will pay them.

Read complaints from Mt Isa about people coming for alcohol.

Alison and self have both spent periods of time living like this, we can assure you it is not as easy as it looks.

.

Unfortunately most of the comments posted are ignorant, presumptious, ill-informed, lacking in respect and empathy. For one thing, these communities are not 'in the middle of nowhere'. They are on the traditional lands of the pople concerned - to those people this is home, not 'the middle of nowhere'. Really, it is in the eye of the beholder what is remote and what is near. The presumption of many white people to pontificate about Aboriginal affairs, of which most know next to nothing, is always astounding.

As far as the argument that outstations have outlived their economic efficiency or such, where is the analysis that backs this up? what criteria are being applied? what is the level of subsidy to non-Aboriginal people living in remote areas (eg the Assistance for Isolated Chidrens Scheme, or the rural projects that were tax dodges and have just gone belly up). There are over 500 communities in the NT that classed as outstations - many of these are stable healthy communities which have generated a considerable degree of income and employment. Many are communities, for example on pastoral properties, that have been there since before whites came, and have shown remarkable resilience, sometimes in close relationships with the pastoralists. Are all these people to be packed up to live in squalor on the fringes of Alice Springs or Tennant Creek? I suggest to those posting to make some real effort to understand the situation before rushing into print with uninformed opinions that are little more than raw prejuidice.

I would enjoy "physical, emotional, social and cultural health benefits", too, if I were subsidised by the government to the tune of $30,000 per year. A recent book reveals the work schedule of the white professionals who 'service' these communities:

Monday: debrief, destress, deal with paperwork and plan visit
Tuesday, all day: travel to community
Wednesday and Thursday: do some productive work
Friday: travel back to Darwin

Two days of productivity out of five; and enough travel costs to employ an extra worker. This is where the 'welfare' money is going. When people are dependent on services it makes sense to house them where the services are. The alternative is a spectacular failure.

Articles like this always reinforce my abhorrence of the inbred racism of those of little knowledge and understanding. They express so much hate towards those forced into the situation they find themselves in, with a determination to suppress and destroy indigenous culture by whatever means they can. Yet they fail to see there own culture has destroyed the country in 200 years, less than 1/50th of the time the indigenous inhabited Australia responsibly.

There is no reason why an approach can't be found which allows indigenous lifestyles and yet offers credible work, support and services, not everyone wants to live in boxes piled on top if each other like rats. A fresh approach to welfare is the first step and that should be to giving them something to work for and in a way which incorporates their natural skills, abilities and psychology. Remote communities certainly have a much better approach to life than town camps, people of fringe camps are exploited by bureaucrats, sellers of alcohol and bad food. We also need a better approach to education for our people, so they are taught how destructive European diets are to indigenous metabolism. Until that's undertaken, we will see no change as European style society continues it's subtle genocide.

It's always a pity to see the hate filled ranters on this site babbling out holier than thou attitudes, but I suppose when you are filled with ignorant confusion, you have no other option but to attack and abuse.

I can see where the article is going, I don't necessarily agree with it and have more in common with most of the posters who have given some thought to the article.

I certainly don't agree with the posters who are hostile and isult anyone who disagrees with them, I particularly dislike the veiled threat of more "stolen generations".

Maracas and zelig, you may not agree with the other posters, but to reduce it to insults does no good for your cause at all, in fact hardens people against the aboriginal industry. Zealig, the description "ignorant, presumptious, ill-informed, lacking in respect and empathy" could certainly apply to you as well in this context.

You both seem to assume none of the other posters has a clue about outstations, you might be very wrong, you don't know but you still use bullying and insuting tactics, and then wonder why people have the attitudes they do.

The outstations either have to be self sufficient, or close, there is no other option that has not been tried, and yes, I've been to outstations and they are not nice places to live, or to educate anyone about the world, they are about survival reduced to its lowest denominator.

I agree with odo's comments on the posts by by Zelig and Maracas1.

People of their ilk always resort to abuse of people they disagree with. It is a typcial left wing crank response to their sacred beliefs. These looneys think that they have some special insight into all things. The only way to deal with these ratbags, is to give it back to them, then ignore them totally after their first ridiculous posts.

They really hate to be ignored.

I would very much like the author to visit communities and compare and contrast the challenging ones with the many successful examples that exist. What prevents all from being safe, positive places for women and children?

Women and children have been living in squalor and in constant fear for their lives for many, many years. Some have died and others have been crippled. They need shelter, safety, privacy and hygienic conditions in which to raise their children.

That is the priority and thankfully some women been courageous and determined enough to come forward to talk about the oppressive culture that exists in some camps and has always knobbled improvement. True, they feel terrible shame for their circumstances but they and their children are the victims and are they are not to blame.

These women have found a powerful champion Jenny Macklin and they are beginning to recognise that they might have a future after all.

What's my solution..Where is it flawed ?

It's flawed because we're dealing with intelligent people who have been raised outside white mainstream society who have their own culture,their own beliefs , conceptions of creation and knowledge which has enabled them to survive for millennia
They have survived, in many cases in a harsh environment where intelligent white men have perished such as our early explorers who "discovered" Australia.

It's flawed because of the lack of empathetic consultation by people not qualified to conduct consultation in an appropriate language; by people who didn't listen but pushed their pre-conceived agendas to fit the pre-conceived policies of Governments.

It's flawed because pre-conceived Government policies seek to resolve Government problems in the provision of services rather than meet the needs of the client communities

It's flawed because the collective talents,abilities & skills of the people on their outstations are often undervalued because they don't correspond with white fella employment criteria.

It's flawed because white Australia has chosen to ignore the lessons of the past. The failures which have contributed to the impoverished state of Aboriginal life in remote Australia.

And my solution ? for a start, correct the flaw

maracas - clearly you are angry, I hope you get over it and can have a good weekend regardless.

Thanks for identifying everything you believe is wrong, that is, where the flaws are, and I'm sure that list could go on and on but you are limited by space here.

You have pointed out that everything done to date is wrong and flawed, there has been consultation, payments, attempted creation of employment etc it goes on and on, and none of it works for you and none of it are you happy with.

So back to you, how do we correct the "flaw", just shouting "Fix it!, Fix it!", hasn't worked, everything every government has tried doesn't work. Screaming that everyone is stupid, hasn't worked either.

Let's attempt to find out what you believe will work, to enrich and bring harmony to the people of inland Australia.

Personally, as I've said before, I reckon if they knew what they were missing out on here in the rest of the world they would want some of it. Are we not remiss in not telling them what's going on, educating them so they can see the world through the internet, or books, film - let's face it, the internet is never going to be translated into some dead tribal language, that's asking for subsidies not even this government would do because it is just not realistic, nor timely.

maracas - the cultures of aboriginal inhabitants before white settlement differed markedly depending on location. Tribes varied in size, some had enormous territories, others lived within (sometimes uneasy) close proximity. There were nearly 200 separate languages and while spiritual beliefs revolved around a Creation Legend, these also varied.

All shared the following factors:
They lived by hunting and gathering. Trade existed between many groups as well as friendship and warfare.

No written language existed. Non-verbal communication such as painting, dance, and message cues were widely used.

There was no agricultural system - neither plant or livestock.

Permanent dwellings or settlements were non-existant. People followed a nomadic lifestyle.

In good seasons, people would be healthy. If the season was bad, or worse, several in a row, people would struggle and die.

This subsistance lifestyle and lack of cohesion undoubtedly explains why the Aboriginal population after many thousands of years was nowhere near that of the Invaders after about 100 years or why they, in contests for territory and resources, proved no competition for whitey.

The vast majority of "Aboriginals" today are genetically mixed. Most live, work, play and contribute to the diverse social makeup of this land and have good lives. Some like to uphold positive aspects of their culture, eg. hunting traditional foods, instruction of children and youth in tribal beliefs and family responsibilities. Others live "Aussie" lifestyles.

If there are people who wish to live traditionally - as nomadic hunter gatherers I wish them well. However it doesn't work that way, does it? No - they need concrete houses in permanent settlements with flushing toilets, water on tap and electricity, white fella tucker, clothes, 4WDs, rifles, knives, axes etc etc and God spare the innocents, alcohol. Well if they haven't been able to manage a fairly good existence over past decades where there has been a lot of "self-determination" what is the answer? Personally I believe assimilation is both inevitable and desirable and will evolve over the next generation or two. Otherwise we could just uphold the status quo and wait for extinction?

Divine I am sure you are a good person , but your Formula was trialled before at Wilcannia and at Elizabeth in SA . The Concrete house I thought was a good idea (at Elizabeth) but was executed badly .
The Aboriginals I have stayed with had no concept of modesty , if its as hot as hell no cloths and an open plan very big single room is all thats required . The concrete house at Elizabeth was empirically flawed both types of Aussies were repulsed by it's execution however the idea was good ; I am sure if the effort had been an Igloo about 40 foot round with a constant ceiling rise to the center terminating to a hole maybe 4 foot diameter with a conical cast concrete lid maybe 7 ft or more for aesthetics perhaps , we need to progress the Uluru look and end up with a ventilation vent permanently open ToBeContinued

Onya Maracas. Am sickened by the primitive tribalistic racialism revealed in many of these postings also.
It's largely about turning aboriginal land over to so-called "developers", after the Noel Pearson/ ALP Right/ Brough model and really is a continuation of the efforts of vested interests to role back Wik and Mabo.
And of course, the ignorance.
The fact that many indigines find themselves in such a bad state, it is forgotten, relates to the last brutal and trauma-inducing two hundred years of history and fails to even consider the need of a little tolerance and worse still tax payer compensation,to even theplaying field, if only thru adequate public services, owed "our" victims.

Onya Maracas.
Am sickened by the primitive tribalistic racialism revealed in many of these postings also.
It's largely about turning aboriginal land over to so-called "developers", after the Noel Pearson/ ALP Right/ Brough model and really is a continuation of the efforts of vested interests to role back Wik and Mabo.
And of course, the ignorance.
The fact that many indigines find themselves in such a bad state, it is forgotten, relates to the last brutal and trauma-inducing two hundred years of history and fails to even consider the need of a little tolerance and worse still tax payer compensation, to even the playing field, if only thru adequate public services, owed "our" victims.

Shazbaz - I confess to being facetious referring to 'concrete' houses. Engineers of aboriginal housing turned to concrete as a building material after millions of dollars worth of wooden construction went up in smoke. Tenants lit fires on floorboards or ripped houses apart for firewood. Agree that better ideas might be tried - perhaps large buildings designed for extended families with huge open living areas for family/community activity and lots of small rooms where particularly children could retreat for rest/refuge. Trouble with communal sleeping arrangements is that it makes too easy for the deviate factor to prey on kids.

Aah Maracas - while European settlement certainly devastated Aboriginal ways of life - which BTW were most primitive of all cultures encountered by 17th and 18th centuary explorers and 'invaders' that followed, today it is the Aboriginal himself that is his own worst enemy. No-one wants a "traditional" lifestyle without whitey comforts and I'm sure even you with your best rose-tinted specs would find some tribal practices completely unacceptable. So the answer is ..... Education, training, real opportunities for jobs and industries particularly those that incorporate existing skills and knowledge and build confidence and self-esteem. Tourism, Art, pastoral industry are areas where successes have been achieved.

Barriers to positive outcomes include community culture (not all communities are 'led' by wise benelovent old gentlemen) substance abuse, lack of self-discipline, poor infrastructure and resources, poor levels of education, sub-average intelligence (before you scream "racist" consider what decades of alcohol abuse with foetal alcohol syndrome and neglected children with little white or black education has done for the communal IQ) and location.

Fortunately most "aboriginals" (and by that I include those who may be no more than 1/16 and look completely European but claim to be indigenous) I know well are integrated into Australian society and doing well. Some still enjoy some of the best of their cultural traditions, others live 'white'. Whatever - as long as they can have good lives, rear healthy kids, move forward. That is the future. For those who can't or won't there is only eventual extinction.

Last year, I spend 12 days on a drilling rig east of Kalgoorlie. I camped near the rig but my two field assistants stayed at the nearby Aboriginal community in houses left over from the mission days. I visited the community once.
What I found were friendly welcoming people who were bored witless, lacking in motivation, grossly overweight, living in a community that seemed to me (and to the two field assistants) to have no future. Most of the men had left the community and I assume were working in the mining industry.
This community was a large outstation and it was failing. The people who remained gave the impression that they saw no future for themselves other than an early death.
Dr Anthony needs to put aside her comfortable life in Sydney and visit the outstations whose continuation she so strongly supports. She might then understand why people like Noel Pearson are the only hope for most Aborigines who live remote from services and infrastructure. Noel is a pro-development person because, after 200 years of colonisation, no other solution has been shown to have even the smallest chance of success.