i Paul,

Yes, indeed, " .... but then how do you achieve that when people are dysfunctional in the way they are. Got to cure the dysfunctionality in the first place to be able to move to the level of family and parental responsibility so desired."

I typed up transcripts of almost-annual national conferences of government officials in Indigenous Affairs during the sixties, about two thousand pages: www.firstsources.info, Royal Commissions and Conference Page, colour-coded. Much of it dealt with remote communities, and how to make them viable, how to generate employment, etc. The discussions would usually move rapidly onto other issues.

They had few answers then to a core problem, i.e. employment of the able-bodied, so necessarily occupied themselves with issues of welfare. The issue of equal pay was canvassed - long before the Gurindji case, by the way - but was already the rule (imagine my surprise) before the Referendum. So why was there suddenly greater unemployment around 1968-1970 ? Access to welfare payments.

People made choices: employment or welfare. Most chose welfare. Hence the problems of 2016.

You're right: enough of futile analyses. What to do ? Compulsory parenting classes ? What, for years ? For both mothers and fathers ? If they say no, bugger off, that's racist, then what ?

The spectre of a genuine 'temporarily removed generation' looms.

Joe

Paul,

This dysfunction is typical of small and remote communities, for example the Pitcairn islands. These remote communities may be close to the land, but is far from decent services, education, healthcare and employment. Boredom and poverty are the result which is potent recipe for drug and alcohol abuse, and resultant violence and child abuse.

Perhaps saving the children involves closing the unsustainable remotest communities.

I don't often agree with Shadow, but in this case he has hit the nail on the head.

" These remote communities may be close to the land, but is far from decent services, education, healthcare and employment. Boredom and poverty are the result which is potent recipe for drug and alcohol abuse, and resultant violence and child abuse."

A dysfunctional life. which relies on welfare to survive, with its associated drug and alcohol dependency, poverty, people who are unemployable, broken relationships, health problems, poor levels of education, lacking life skills leading to terrible life choices, violence is common. Often coming with a family history of welfare dependency.
These people are not just in remote communities, but in towns and cities as well. In a way those in remote communities could be seen as having an excuse, for the reasons Shadow outlined. Given the advantages those in a urban environment, both black and white, would have little excuse.

The idea of forced relocation from a remote environment to one of a more urban nature, may do nothing more than transport the problems. I don't agree with forced relocation.

"So why was there suddenly greater unemployment around 1968-1970 ? Access to welfare payments."

Joe, no doubt, although well intended we did create a welfare dependency trap for many Aboriginal people around that time, as we did for a lot of white people as well. Once a welfare cycle has been established, it is difficult to break.

Hi SM & Paul,

The bogey-man of 'closing communities' is a red herring: nobody is, or can be, forcibly moved - but services can be more focussed on larger 'communities', rather than the piddly ones of ten and twenty people.

In the 170 'communities' scheduled for a wind-down in services in WA, the population affected is around 1300 - about eight per 'community'. Bloody ridiculous. Nobody has to move, but they can't expect any services if they are too small, or conveniently near towns. So the huff-and-puff demos in blissfully ignorant eastern cities were way off the mark.

So 'forced relocation' is something that John Bilger might flog, but it has no basis in fact.

I certainly don't think that children should be removed from parental control unless it is grievously lacking, and that the child is actually in danger of severe abuse or death. I would love to know (no, not really) the death rates of remote-'community' children between the ages of one and five ? i.e. once they are beyond the age at which kids usually get hospitalised. My bet is that it is vastly higher per 1,000 Indigenous children than anywhere in the cities.

But if parents blatantly pose a threat to their own children, then temporary removal to caring homes may be one remedy. If parents have serially abused and neglected all of their children, then perhaps adoption should be considered as soon as possible.

I remember a mother sitting with us at Lake Bonney in SA's Riverland, eating a chicken by herself; her boys tried to grab a bit and she told one, "F.... off, you little black ape." Not really an indulgent parenting style, one would think. Of course, that's forty years ago. I wonder if the boy is still alive. Yeah, I remember now, one Easter she was flogging her kid up and down the street: "You little c...., you pinched my Easter Egg.' On and on about her Easter Egg. Etc., etc.

Joe

This RC is a farce before it starts, thanks to the appointment of a professional (paid by us) aboriginal activist, and a woman judge involved in the Mabo scam, with the added reputation of being a soft touch in her judgements on youths.

Joe, I know that woman from Lake Bonney, she moved to Sydney, seen her recently. her kid got no older, still in a wet dirty nappy, mum was whinging about having no money, just been to the local 7/11 for a $20 odd pack of fags. What can you do?

A quip from a Maori family member about someones kids; "When they (the children) left school the girls went to uni, and the boys went to jail". Three girls with good jobs, 2 married with great little kids, the two boys, one in jail (2 years for car stealing), one, well not in jail, but has been.

Education, leading to good careers is obviously the answer.