A NYT editorial has slammed Goldman Sachs for its role in the financial crisis, Ten must work out what to do with Australian Idol in 2010, how the media downturn will affect higher education, newsreaders get emo, and more.
Macklin’s right, the permit system needs to be reintroduced
|
Nicholas Rothwell is certainly a gifted writer. In a front page lead rant in The Australian today, he rails against yesterday’s announcement by Indigenous affairs minister Jenny Macklin that the NT intervention’s erosion of the Aboriginal land permit system will be wound back. It’s all very colourful stuff from Rothwell. Apparently, Macklin didn’t just decide to unveil the new policy, she did it with “leaden resolve”. And she didn’t just seek the views of Aboriginal people prior to making her announcement. She held “dewy consultations”. Macklin even got belted for adding during her press conference that she was “not interested in ideology, I’m interested in what works.” Rothwell fires back: “But the permit system is ideology crystallised to perfection, and it doesn’t work.” I certainly felt that after almost finishing the article, my command of the English language was in better shape. But sadly, I also felt like I wasn’t actually armed with any new facts. And that’s probably because the story didn’t really contain many. Rothwell: “The primary effect of permits has long been to cut off remote Aboriginal societies from the outside world: to hinder economic activity, to kill tourist curiosity, to protect the incompetent administrators and local leaders presiding over their dysfunctional little kingdoms.” There’s some evidence-based research for you. I thought remote Aboriginal communities like Wadeye were “cut off” from the outside world because the main road which services the fifth largest community in the Territory is inaccessible five months of the year during the wet, and complete cr-p for the rest of the year. And then this: “Permits acted as a coded signal to outsiders, saying: ‘Leave your usual assumptions behind on entry, because things are different in remote Aboriginal Australia, educational standards are lower, social capital is lower, housing is worse, food is poorer - but that’s all OK, because it’s another kind of society.’” Here’s a shock for you, Nicholas. Things are different in remote Australia. They have trachoma there. And life expectancies are less than 50 years. You’re correct in saying that education is poor, housing is worse, social capital is lower, and the food is cr-p. But that has nothing to do with the permit system. It’s because of decades of official government neglect, preceded by decades of the very same failed policies you’re advocating today (such as the compulsory management of a blackfella’s finances a pearler of an idea created in the 1940s. It didn’t work then. It won’t work today). The problem with the argument against the permit system is that its proponents can’t actually point to a single moment in the history of the Land Rights Act where the permit system has actually contributed to death, destruction, doom and gloom. They can’t even point to a single occasion when its prevented a story being written. Their argument instead comes from The Castle school of reasoned debate, as in: “It’s the vibe.” The Northern Territory government, the federal government, Aboriginal leaders and experts on the ground both black and white, support the NT permit system. Heck, even the Northern Territory police strongly opposed the Howard government’s unpicking of the permit system because it can (and was) used in the battle against carpetbaggers, grog runners, drug peddlers and child abusers. It also happens to afford Aboriginal people the same legal status that all other Australians enjoy the right to determine who comes onto their “country” and the circumstances under which they come. Still not convinced? Even the Media, Entertainment and Arts Alliance - an organisation sworn to protect the freedoms of Australian journalists opposed the abolition or weakening of the permit system in any form (even for media access) in a submission to the Howard government last year. The facts are overwhelming in support of the permit system. Which leads me to a rather nasty conclusion. I don’t believe this dummy spit is about ‘practical solutions’, the Indigenous affairs mantra embraced by The Australian. I believe it’s about the defence of a failed ideology, and the protection of media egos and influence. It’s ultimately about putting a minister and a party — who have refused to ‘fall into line’ — on notice. To attack Macklin as Rothwell did for having the temerity to sit down with Aboriginal people and discuss their future speaks volumes. Macklin and the ALP have determined to do the right thing on this issue to follow calm, reasoned, sensible, evidence-based research. That’s a most welcome development. |
|
|
23 Comments
An NT journalist arguing against permit system because it prevented him from reporting 3 croc attacks. Surprise, surprise. Imagine how angry you’d get if it stopped you from reporting on the footy! Methinks you’ve missed the point Tim.
To Tony & Pam, ‘suburbs’ ? try Aus Govt visitors visa’s to trample on Aus more the big picture. Birch gets it. The shaming of these people before invasion is pure ‘projection’ If ex-minister slept with 30 in a room he’d have a h-rd-on against a bum asleep
“the Australian people have contributed to death,destruction…” Wouldn’t you know with the Rudd government election the naysayers and left wing ideologues are back in town. Barry Humphries was right about “snatching failure from the jaws of success. “
I’ve seen the tiny, squalid, unplumbed sheds with dirt floors that NT pastoral Aborigines lived in before secure tenure. Not 20 years later, I’ve read Rothwell calling them ‘board’. He can’t get basic facts right, let alone understand historical causes.
Light on facts? Like Tony claiming cops can’t access black communities, perhaps? For the record, I didn’t misspell Rothwell’s name, his parents did… ok, maybe I misspelled it a tiny bit. Or as ‘Nic’ might say, an egregious solecism has been effectuated.
Chris, I can start by pointing to the last 3 fatal NT croc attacks where I was denied access to film the areas because the attacks happened on aboriginal land.
A very effective way to stop a TV story going to air… no pictures.. no story.
Like John Howard, The Australian opposes anything ideological, unless it supports their ‘values’. Why should Aboriginals have a say over who tramps over their land, they argue - wonder what their reaction would be to invasion of their privacy?
Chris Graham certainly has a penchant for sarcasm. He also reckons Rothwell is light on facts. Of all the journals in Australia, the NIT would have to be lightest on facts and heaviest on sheer assertion by a country kilometre. Let he who is without sin
Well said, Chris. Don’t give the opposition ammunition by misspelling Rothwell’s first name as Nicholas. It’s Nicolas. (See his byline.)
I lived and worked in the NT as a journalist in the 1960s and ’70s, and the permit system worked well for everyone.
More Rothwellian ‘colourful’ terminology: the intervention is a ‘revolution’ which was ‘proclaimed’. An innovative type of revolution, one imposed by the government on a minority group without consultation. Rothwell’s piece lacks credibility and honesty.
The point I was making is permits allow elders to become society’s gatekeeper, and that they regularly stop journalists reporting both aboriginal and non-aboriginal issues.
Example: Paul Toohey who was arrested for trying to cover an indigenous story.
James says I am a ‘lefty’, well your L - R detector is stuffed. James indicates his guilt and seems to agree with the causes of death. We need to heartily spew out toxic L – R cr-p and love our black brother and his land. To a scientist Barry makes sense.
Come on, Pam, think a bit. Are you able to stop people going through your suburb? No. So why should there be a wall built around Aborignal towns / communties? Stop police or others paying unexpected visits at the wrong time, like dole - drink day?
To Tim Arvier I say the Australian Govt and people have contributed to death, destruction, doom and gloom. Can he tell me which has contributed the most. One would have to look at and assess evidence to answer that question.
Rothwell is right. It’s back to the Nuggett Coombs inspired apartheid much loved by the ALP, but condemning indigenous communities to the isolation and abuse that Noel Pearson has documented so well. I think Jenny Macklin has been consulting Claire Martin
Horsepoo! Toohey was nicked for trespass after ignoring requests to stay away from Wadeye on the DAY ONLY of a funeral. He turned up at regardless, and tried to interview grieving family members. Imagine doing that to the family of a Bali bombing victim?
To Harvey Tarvydas. I am not arguing the Australian Govt and people haven’t contributed to death, destruction, doom and gloom… merely saying permits don’t help that situation.
Two wrongs don’t make a right.
Chris Graham. Thank you. Well said.
Can the good Dr tell us what good do permits do, what purpose do they serve?
It has been made perfectly clear that Aboriginal communites are effectively at the mercy of violent criminals. It is hard to see permits as anything but a protection racket for criminals to keep people inside from discovering the wonderful world outside.
The permit system has contributed to death, destruction, doom and gloom. As an NT journalist, I can point to many occasions where stories (some not even about aboriginal issues) haven’t been written because of permits.
I can’t wait until Tim, “as an NT journalist” points out the many articles he’s written (or broadcast) about “the many articles that haven’t been written because of permits”. Actually, even just pointing out one would do Tim… even a little one?
Good on ya Chris Graham.
I have yet to hear one sound reason for abolition of the permits. They are just being verballed. When the hot air detector separates that stuff from the evidence we can then move on to some intellectual new ground (up-ideologies)