thanx, great article as usual. brandrudd is just howardism with a windswept and interesting haircut. australia remains a basket case with no leadership, unchecked racism and a culture of self hatred.

I have to say, this is a poorly written article. It offers a tired overview of the supposed 'In(ter)vasion'; briefly critiques the hollow Apology; provides an authoritative '5 sub-themes' of dispossession (based on what research?); and concludes by comparing an economic program in a completely different country, different scenario and different people and suggests it could hold the solution for Aboriginal people in Australia.

The author here seems very critical about the lack of 'empirical' evidence from Jenny Macklin, yet falls back on quoting his own online opinion pieces and refers to himself in 3rd person as a 'critic'. He seemingly has read a book about Namibia in which he proposes he has found some kind of solution, without really explaining how that would work in the context of the Northern territory. He is critical of Noel Pearson’s evidence, yet seems to take the Namibian evidence as gospel.

I'm not suggesting the Namibian experiment has not worked; nor am I supportive of many of the Intervention's policies; but flimsy articles such as this do not really serve any purpose or provide much in the way of offering new directions or solutions. Sounds like just more middle-to-upperclass ‘scholarly’ waffle to me.

Tomlinson is just an apologist buffoon.

For whatever reason, he see the British Colonisation of Australia and the extension of the Westminster system of government an offense to nomadic aboriginies and as something which must be extinguished from Australia, regardless of what other (white) Australians might think.

Just like Andrew Bolte said – name me ten victims of the supposed “stolen generation” and I will start to believe in it
And, of course, no one could name them.

The exercise of a beefed up police force and healthcare workers into the charnel house of the Northern Territory Aboriginal settlements was an act of human compassion and not the thing which Tomlinson would have us believe.

Then I suppose that is the problem with the delude – they promote their delusions.

My old mate Tommo up to his usual self-congratulatory tricks and smug superiority again. How could a mere politician like Macklin possibly compare in thinking power to his towering intellect (or ego)?
As a previous comment on his article observes, the differences between Aurukun or Lajamanu and a Namibian farm village in settings & other relevant factors is very large.
Farm workers with presumably no previous access to welfare are a different kettle of cohorts to the intergenerational welfare addicted hunter-gatherer extended families we see in most remote communities and fringe camps.

After the first year “food poverty” in the Namibian community still remains at 37 per cent, and under weight kids at 17 per cent. Sounds like a good case for the introduction of a bit of Income Management to me!
90 per cent of children have paid their school fees, but no indication of what school attendance rate was or is.
Average household debt has fallen from N$1215 to N$ 772 and crime rates fell by 42 per cent, but no indication from Tommo about what other factors have come into play to assist with these changes other than the BIG. For example, have the Lutherans offered any adult education or couselling to accompany the BIG and help the unemployed to adjust?

Then Tommo presumes to speak for "the leading social scientists conducting this evidence-based research in Namibia" about the Australian situation.
I would prefer to hear them speaking for themselves. I suspect that they would be a good deal more circumspect in their claims and judgements than Tommo, if they are indeed as good as he claims.

How about we look at the intervention from a different perspective? What say we put the childrens' rights first, eg their right to sleep safely at night; their right to sufficient food, clothing and shelter; their right to an education and an employment future? Never mind all the rights the academics ascribe to the adults and the culture, and never mind how much worse all the trendy-left academics have made life at the coalface over the decades, let's just put childrens' and families concrete rights first for a change.

And how about we consider the comments and reactions of the people on the ground at the communities under intervention? Like the women who can for the first time use their family income for their family?

As one who has worked closely for many years with indigenous families suffering the catastrophic effects of alcohol, inhalants, other drugs, sexual and spousal violence, child abuse and neglect, and "bastard culture", (all directly linked to sit-down money) I'm just a teensy bit over the opinions of academics and theorists.

Thanks for a good article John, You quickly received a couple of negative criticisms but your detractors didn't explain the failure of the Brough / Macklin policies to provide respite for remote Aboriginal Communities after more than two years but in fact set them back a decade,disrupting Community Council development, abolishing CDEP which had become a working program and putting people back on the dole !! creating a migration to centres such as ALice Springs and Katherine where further problems were exacerbated with people having to hire taxi's to get into town to purchase their groceries.

They are still applying one-solution-fits-all to every Community ignoring the facts that not every Aboriginal Community have the same needs. Instead Jenny Macklin is resorting to bullying instead of negotiations with Alice Springs town camps. and in the case of the One Mile Dam Community, completely ignoring their needs.

The N.T. Government is in the process of commissioning more Jails to cope with an increasing aboriginal incarceration rate. I don't imagine Jenny Macklin notes a connection ......

Dear Maracas1
Don't fall for all the anti-Intervention hype.

By no means have all the Brough / Macklin policies failed to "provide respite for remote Aboriginal Communities after more than two years": there are many benefits accruing from it - better stores that are better managed, far less failure to thrive amongst small children, far better management of household budgets leading to less debt and stress, family life functioning much better in most cases, greatly improved health services, improvements to education and policing.

You seem to be ignorant of the fact that the changes to "Community Council development" have come about not because of the Intervention, but rather as a result of the NT Government's changes to the Local Government Act, with its creation of Shires that took over the functions and property of the old Community Councils. Whether this is good or not, it is not of Brough and Macklin's doing.

CDEPs were generally not "working programs" to any great extent, but most of them are still operating anyway, albeit under different management.
Not many people have gone "back on the dole", some have transferred to waged work, but most are still on CDEP. Nor do Centrelink figures support your contention that "there been a major migration to centres such as Alice Springs and Katherine."

The urban myth about the Intervention causing "people having to hire taxi's to get into town to purchase their groceries" ignores the fact that this pertains to only a very small number of people, and was the case for just about all these people before the Intervention. For the great majority of people there is now far more choice and value for money available in most community stores since the Intervention measures were implemented, as well as a much improved ability to retain money for shopping in the bigger centres. You see many more people from remote communities shopping in Woolies, Coles and K-Mart in the major centres these days, but less in the bottleshops. Just open your eyes and your mind a bit, and have a bit of a gander at reality.

Good piece JT,

Col, give your right/ left hand a rest and read this: http://slackbastard.anarchobase.com/?p=279

Yeah - let's do away with all this racial discrimination and just deal with all Australians on an equal footing - under law and Centrelink. No special payments, no 'cultural' allowances, just the same old for everyone.
That would make sense. Those who are born here can just get on with life and those who have come here and expect to live by a different set of rules can go back to where they came from.

Problem solved!

Thanks for the article John, it is good to see somebody actually provide references. I would agree the the current Labor government has not exactly lived up to expectations on Aboriginal affairs, but what exactly is the end game that will end what is clearly a huge divide between indigenous and non-indigenous society? The reference to the Namibian experiment would suggest that self determination is the solution, but in light of the outcomes of Whitlam era policies and ATSIC, this does not appear to be true.

What troubles me about trying to formulate effective policy is that even if self determination was successful and Aboriginal people were able to carry on their culture and lifestyle from pre-European settlement days, the health and life opportunity outcomes would likely be lower than that of western society. This may sound very culturally biased but I suspect that nomadic living in a country as harsh as Australia is not going to produce outcomes on par with contemporary standards. I agree that the suspension of the Racial Discrimination Act should be reversed and policy applied in a uniform and colour blind fashion, but then I could then be accused of trying to implement assimilation. What do you do?

I am keenly interested in Aboriginal affairs, but this is my first foray into contributing to the discussion. I trust that the fellow OLO contributors will treat my contribution with the usual harsh working over so that I can engage and refine my ideas.

Rex

Before you can begin a problem solving, you must first determine which people can interact into a mixed society. To say all can intergrate is not possable.
You may end up with 2 or 3 different groups with in the same cultural bounds.
There are some that want to help themselves and there are some that would be better served by living the traditional lifestyle elsewhere.
Has any one actually asked these people what they want.
This has got nothing to do with coulture.
This is about those who want to integrate, work, and live as a human being with running water and power.
A blanket job lot type of help can never work.
Coulture is not a must have lifestyle. Any one can live 2 lifestyles if you want to.
As soon as you get a crossbreeding of coultures it is a completely different story.
To refer to people with a hint of their former coulture as being their major nationality should be abolished.
This is only a tool for handouts when the opertunities arise.

I can't understand why Indigenous people aren't given self determination - they couldn't do a worse job than white people have.

Rex You sound like a man with a mission.
The only way to experience indig; colture is to see it first hand.
Don't believe what u read in books, that is only someones opinion.
Take a drive and study the indig; that live in squalor around Alice Springs. The town attracts them to stay there. Ready made food supply from supermarket dump bins. They only practise the parts of their colture that suites them. When was sniffing petrol or paint fumes a part of their colture. They need separating from the town for their longevity.
The indig that have integrated are an example to the community, only to be bought down by the wasted space of their cousins.

If John Tomlinson wishes to help disadvantaged aborigines, in my opinion, his article has entirely failed, starting with his attempted humor in describing the Northern Territory Intervention as In(ter)vasion. His criticism of the intervention and the ideas of Noel Pearson are entirely counter-productive, as is his reference to the "stolen generation".

On a recent tour of remote areas of Northern Australia, I visited the beautiful area of Middle Lagoon where I met the delightful aboriginal developer of the camping area and his equally delightful niece. His part-aboriginal mother was still living at the age of 104 and it was her opinion that being removed from the family as part of the so-called "stolen generation" provided her and her subsequent family opportunities which they would never have had otherwise.

Both of these individuals had received an excellent education and strongly expressed the opinion that the outcomes of the people removed from their families were far better than the outcomes of those who were not removed. They supported the remarkable old lady in her belief that she had been done a great favor by being removed.

Noel Pearson's idea of encouraging aboriginal children in remote areas being sent away to boarding school will undoubtedly break the cycle of lack of parental direction, little or no education, unemployment and a future devoid of any realistic opportunities for achievement. If he were not himself an aboriginal, we would be hearing cries of yet another "stolen generation" exposing total ignorance of the underlying problem.

Dick Crane

There's something that I find strange: Apparently providing medical facilities and practitioners to more remote Indigenous communities was too hard or too expensive- but NOT if it involved establishing a police and military lockdown on that community.

If you ask me, our present relationship with Aborigines is nothing short of shameful and grossly neglected. The money supposedly going to aid ending up in the bureaucrats' pockets instead went largely unnoticed. And it's amazing how many Australians are apathetic or outright hostile to any suggestion to ease up on Aboriginal issues or rights- it's like some kind of black-armband defensive mechanism kicks in and tries to oppose anything helpful to the Indigenous community that doesn't involve police scrutiny.

It showed when the issue of climbing Uluru came up- apparently it was SUCH A BIG DEAL to climb the rock.

The very LEAST we could do treat Aborigines a LITTLE more equally (grog laws for ALL, treat criminal acts under our jurisdiction no differently from anyone else (eg don't send the ARMY in), and maybe a bit more autonomy in areas with native claim (as many Aboriginal Protesters have repeatedly asked for- which I consider fair enough)

Signed,

A guy who does NOT feel guilty about the past- but bloody well demands a fair go and some understanding of what Indigenous people are going through

Hazza

What is lost on so many people is that Traditional Aboriginals are living in their ancestral lands and are in a transitional stage attempting to access benefits for their children from mainstream society whilst holding onto their cultural beliefs which ties them to their land. Decades of successive Governmental neglect in aiding the transition has led to the current overcrowding, indifference to education by the young because it contained no obvious relevence in leading to a better life and substance abuse induced by a sense of hopelessness.

Then there are urban Aborigines, the product of the stolen generation, Many such as Noel Pearson who have accessed tertiary education, enriched their lives outside traditional society, clinging to what they identify as their heritage and attempting to influence a generation who have been living on welfare whilst successive Governments failed to follow through with Community Development.

Given encouragement,Traditional Aborigines possess artistic skills in music and visual arts, Tourism, Conservation, bush craft and survival knowledge .
What's missing is a lack of understanding by governments that they are dealing with separate Communities who all need to participate in solutions in the spirit of mutual respect, consultation and involvement

Why do we put an Indigenous person in a jail cell? I am not an expert in Indigenous culture but my 5 seconds of education on their culture seems they never lived in caves, feared them or some sort of superstition. So many different cultures within Indigenous appear to share this trait. So makes sense that putting them in a jail cell is a cruel and torturous crime on our behalf. Why not an open air facility. If we need royal commission into Aboriginal Death in Custody when so obvious what the problem maybe then perhaps we just give them self government. There is plenty of diversity among the people so would require many representatives but then we are over governed so then so should they be. We are clueless methinks, time to admit that.

Just look at writer photo! He stupid, know nothing. Aboriginal women with kid who get raped each day know more!

She smart! He stupid! She know that whitey can protect. He too dumb to see this.

She smart.

DOROTHY...one word for you dear, ATSIC.

Couldn't do a worse job than whitey? Are you joking. Name me 5 nations around the world that would be good places to live that whitey doesn't run?

What, Japan? Try being a South Korean there. Unlike the crap Aboriginals come up with about racism against them here (the Racial Disc. Act 1975 which says one can't disc. on basis of race was actually suspended when dealing with Aboriginies - to give them preferential treatment over whites! Talk about racism!)

No, actually, name me even 1 country.

White ways = European enlightenment, better.

Aboriginies who don't want to integrate should be deported to their homeland....SRI LANKA!!

As I am white, what would I know?
But in my town the indigenous people know who they are, already setting themselves apart with their own flag, sense of national identity and services. I would also reduce special funding over a set time e.g. five or ten years, so all Australians receive the same funding and benefits as everyone else. There are enough Aborigines with excellent leadership skills who could make self determination work. What I see white people doing is giving more money, enabling a community to fail themselves and their children, making the situation worse. Integration should be a matter of personal choice.
I know white people 'caused' the problem in the first place, but nobody was forced to become alcoholic. We all have to make personal and often hard choices in life, and take the consequences.

Maracas,

It's probably late in the day but I have to comment on your throwaway line: "Then there are urban Aborigines, the product of the stolen generation ... " In fifty years, I have heard some rubbish but your totally pig-ignorant comment made me inhale sharply: why on earth do you think that is the case ? Do you realise how insulting that is to most urban Indigenous people, who overwhelmingly were NOT stolen ?

Ah, I get it: 'assimilation' means 'stolen generation' means taking children to be raised as white people (hardly ever, in my experience - not never, but hardly ever) which means taking them to the cities and - hey presto ! the urban population must have been stolen ! Briliant ! Get out and actually talk to some Indigenous people, or, if you can't do that during school time, ask your teacher to find you some relevant information on the subject. It must be difficult in those middle-class areas to meet any Indigenous people, but do make the effort, I'm sure you will find it rewarding.

Joe Lane

Loudmouth
Well Joe Lane, I don’t know what part of the country you come from but in my area of Australia, it has become difficult to accurately refer to a particular section of the population who claim Aboriginal ancestry.

In the top end of the N.T you could be Yolngu from west Arnhem Land or a Warramirri man from Galiwinku with a specific clan or language group. You would be referred to as a Traditional man if you are still living a traditional life style

In the centre, don’t call me Yolngu, I am referred to as Aboriginal Man of a language group, Gurindji or Wailpri or one of many more.

If you are a person of mixed race, a product of the stolen generation, had the benefits of regular schooling and urban living ,regular employment and public housing in an urban centre who would have previously been referred to as half-caste but now wishes to be called ‘indigenous’ but not Aboriginal…Reference as Urban Aborigines, product of the stolen generation is a more accurate reference.

This is not intended to offend you but it is a historical reality which refers to a group of people who at this time in their lives are searching for their Aboriginal Heritage Many have returned from where they were taken to find their mothers deceased but reconnect with relatives.

If you are an urban aboriginal who was not stolen, thank your lucky stars and get over it, the reference does not refer to you

Maracas,

The vast majority of urban Indigenous people were not stolen. Period. The vast majority of urban Indigenous people are the second or third or fourth generation of people who left the missions in the forties and fifties and sixties looking for work, usually first to country towns, then to the cities where work and services were more plentiful, and where their children would have more opportunities.

Since the sixties, there has been a very high degree of inter-marriage, up to 90 %, as Indigenous people (at 1 or 2 % of a city's population) mix more freely with the other 98 or 99 %. Thus, very high birth rate: in some very young Australia-wide age-groups, close to 5 % are now Indigenous. As each generation passes, that will go up by about 60 % each generation. So, in a hundred years or so, it is possible that a much higher proportion of our descendants will have Indigenous ancestry - as well as Vietnamese, Sudanese, Afghan and many other ancestries.

People have moved to the cities since the war. Their children and grandchildren have been born there and married there. There is no need to hypothesise a 'stolen generation' to explain an urban population.

Loudmouth,
I’m curious to know when ,as time passes and more of the population with some ever diminishing percentage of Aboriginal, Yolngu or Indigenous ancestry (whether stolen or not) should consider dropping the tag ‘indigenous’ and simply refer to themselves as ‘Australian’ as the rest of us with mixed ancestry.
I certainly hope it is a matter of pride in their Indigenous, Yolngu or Aboriginal heritage and not exemption from payment of hecs debt

Hi Maracas,

I'm sure that that would be up to them :)

Joe

Maracas,

"Exemption from payment of HECS debt" ?? I don't think this is the case for Indigenous students, any more than it is for anybody else !

The majority of Indigenous people are exempt from a HECs debt simply by the fact that they will never complete or access higher education study.

Hi Rainier,

1. Anybody enrolling in a university course, Black or White, incurs a HECS debt, regardless of whether or not they complete it. Enrolment, not completion.

2. Indigenous people are accessing university study at about 80 % of the rate of other Australians. If they enrol, they incur HECS debts like anybody else. Check it out: go to an Indigenous student centre on any campus and ask around.