Comments on: NT intervention: Macklin ignores review board in favour of anecdotes

By: jon altman

jon altman — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

As the person who wrote the original article I want to thank all who made comment. I only want to post a comment to GJL who seems to have some problem with the fact that I am a professor. So let me assure you GJL that I have not always been a professor and that I have resided for very long periods of time in the remotest Aboriginal communities in north Australia in the most difficult circumstances and learnt a great deal. But if I had not, would that disqualify me from having a considered view? Do I have to be homeless to make informed comment about homelessness; or to be unemployed to make comment about the problem of unemployment. At once GJL you seem to be saying that ministers of the crown should and should not take advice from specialists. My main point is that policy should not be based either on anecdote or on the Minister’s interpretation of the views of a privileged few, especially when significant public money and much time and effort has been spent by an appointed Board to review these issues.

By: NT Roz

NT Roz — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

There is no doubt that income quarantining is a blunt instrument, and a mixed blessing. In some places it has made economic prisoners of remote community people, hostage to the high prices and limited availabilities of some remote community stores. The measuring stick of money being spent on “fresh food” disregards the poor practices of some agencies providing “bush orders” - which include charging for goods that are missing once the boxes arrive at the (usually small) communities, meat that is too putrid to eat on arrival at teh community, and inedible fruit and veg. These orders are delivered only once a week, to people who have no capacity to safely store food,and who have to order off a list rather than being able to see what they are buying.
Anything that reduces the amount of grog going into remote communities will reduce the appalling levels of violence against women and kids, and will make more money available for food, clothing, bedding etc. However, dare I suggest this would be best tackled by supply reduction at the outlets - selling less of the wretched stuff. This has not been mentioned as a strategy, as it is inconceivable to interfere with the rights of the liquor industry to sell as much of their product as they can. There is even some alarming discussion of “wet canteens” being placed back into remote communities in the Central Desert, despite the very strong evidence base that having a wet canteen increases the need for, and cost of providing health services, domestic violence services, kids services, and extra policing. It also guts the social life of communities, as everything revolves around the opening hours of the wet canteen. Macklin, (and NT politicians) - are you listening??? The Aboriginal women in this region DO NOT WANT INCREASED AVAILABILITY OF GROG! They’ve marched in the streets, they’ve written submissions, they’ve met with government and industry reps - and still have to keep fighting the same old battles.

By: GJL

GJL — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

Yes Professor - you obviously know all about how it is to live in the remote communities of the NT, with all the complexities and competing interests that exist in these poverty-stricken, mostly disfunctional communities. Peter Yu too - he would know well??
But Minister Macklin would only be following the lead of her boss in making decisions and announcing policy without any of the benefit that might spring from getting specialist advice from people who say they know. Rudd and Swan have set wonderful precedents for their fellow ministers in receiving (or not receiving) and following (or not following) the advices of their learned bureaucrats.
But make no mistake professor - women and children in these remote areas are generally speaking, currently far better of in terms of safety, nutrition, health and welfare since the effects of the intervention have kicked in.

By: dermot

dermot — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

claret sez " I have worked in Aboriginal health for many years and can tell you that it is much better to rely on 'anecdotes' than 'expert opinion'"

funny that whenever the intervention is mentioned another string of anecdotes is put in from someone who claims to work in 'aboriginal health' and thereby claims expertise.

Claret you work as what? an admistrator? a nuse? a doctor? you don't say.

By: Kevin Rennie

Kevin Rennie — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

Jenny Macklin referred on radio this morning to the views expressed by women in Wadeye. It seems that policy for the NT is often dictated by the situation there. It is probably one of the least functional communities in the Territory and should not be used as the yardstick for decision-making. Mal Brough always seemed to make the same mistake.

By: dermot

dermot — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

claret that is better. five years for a failed exercise in policy on the run to prove itself ridiculous

By: Bev Kilsby

Bev Kilsby — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

I once lived in Mission Yirrakala , in the NT. it was 40 yrs ago, then the Methodist Church controlled the
Mission I learnt alot from the Church about Aborigines, I believe now it is under Govt care.
While i was their I saw Aboriginies, catch fish, and crabs, and go out hunting, i think now their was no grog
on the mission, at the time the Church was in controll. I could be wrong, it could have been done in secret.
Those who drink where their are families, they should be supervised by doctors or trained people. if
their is any violence. I also did Aboriginal History for year 12,VCE. and that taught me alot about Govt work, and Church influence, I loved the Videos I watched about these people around Austalia, I would advice any one to read and learn more about Aborigines, because some of them I believe are very gifted

By: Jon Hunt

Jon Hunt — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

Hello, well I can sympathise with some comments. I do have a problem with the minister ignoring some recommendations and choosing whatever she feels is right. You could then argue what’s the point of a review if you are only going to ignore it. However, I can also see that the imposition of compulsory welfare on what may be the majority of well-behaved people is something that is not insignificant. As Claret has mentioned, the problem is that it is often the case that people are bullied out of their money which is then spent on grog, dope and pokies leaving an empty wallet and an empty fridge. However, I would have thought that the review board would have given this due consideration.

By: Mirek

Mirek — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

It seems that Rudd`s Labour party is caught up in a bind: how to justify their enthusiastic support and endorsement for Howard`s July 2007 political intervention, and still appear before the punters as being somewhat different to the widely despised Liberal regime. We know how difficult it can be, but Jenny Macklin is trying her best!

By: a concerned student of this difficult situation

a concerned student of this difficult situation — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

Prof Altman levels damaging criticism at Macklin’s disregard for the independent policy procedure she herself set up, which she appears to have countered by weak appeals to limited anecdotal evidence. And he is to be commended for his long running advocacy of the subaltern, his post-colonial defence of the self-determination of those marginalised and disaffected communities that populate our remote areas. But he also makes his case by way of denials of Macklin’s claims, and some of his counter claims simply aren’t true.

‘Demand-sharing’, where the gains of individual enterprise and labour become distributed under pressures of obligation to kin, is widely acknowledged to be a major impediment to sustained engagement in work. In regrettable cases, regrettably many in some communities, this turns into ‘humbugging’, where the demands that wealth be ‘shared’ are made by intimidation and violence, especially on older people and on women. This is one collateral reason why income management or quarantining might be a good idea. Prof Altman’s proposal that it should be voluntary only also ignores problems. In many communities it is considered shameful to request income management. You have to specifically go into an office, ask for forms and so on, word gets around, and so it never happens.

The reality is different in every community. But it cannot be ignored, no matter how noble the intentions behind the advocacy. Consultation and advocacy is important but articulation and negotiation on the ground is paramount at present. The onus is precisely on those people with experience living and working intimately with those communities affected to help them understand why the policies have been put in place — even if they disagree with it. This is also important because people in these communities might think, or with open discussion come to think that, for example, mandatory income management is necessary for their community and others, even if not good for them personally.

By: Claret

Claret — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

Dermot,
I worked as a nurse in Aboriginal communities for 13 years with my wife and am now recently retired. I had to deal first hand with the bashings that happened on a daily basis and the neglected and abused kids. It has now got to the stage that kids are abusing kids because they think it’s normal behaviour. You don’t have to take my word for it - look at the health status of Aboriginal people, nothing has changed (in fact the gap has widened) in the last 20 years. If we keep on with the same old policies then it will carry on for the next 20 years too. We have to break the cycle and we should let the intervention run for 5 years at least before it is called a failure. If the intervention is wound back then what do we replace it with, the same old failed policies? Once we get the kids an education and a safe environment then we can teach them their real Indigenous culture not grog, gambling and violence.

By: Claret

Claret — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

I have worked in Aboriginal health for many years and can tell you that it is much better to rely on ‘anecdotes’ than ‘expert opinion’. These experts are usually either fly-in fly-out academics, with no idea of the realities of living in an Aboriginal community, or the usual ‘leaders’ who have their own agenda for keeping the status quo. The reality is that ‘voluntary’ income management would be a joke and shows the complete naivety of the board. The women who wanted income management would be subject to severe and often violent pressure not to choose such an option as it would limit the amount of grog and gambling money available. It would lead to increased domestic violence at the very least. I often had Aboriginal commmunity people ask me to send them an ‘official letter’ banning use by the community of government project funds or vehicles etc otherwise they would be humbugged into handing the resources over for grog and drug runs. The ‘hurt and anger’ over the introduction of these measures is mainly from the people who are losing their grog and gambling money. ‘Consultation’ is often with people who want the money to keep rolling in unchecked - community members, especially women, in favour of the intervention are far too scared to speak up. If we are serious about changing the situation for Aboriginal people then we have to get real about the true situation and stop living in some false cultural ideal. The only criticism I have of the intervention is that it should be universal across the country and for all races alike. Government hand outs should have strings attached and if child allowance is spent on grog whilst the kids are neglected then it has to be withdrawn and redirected to assist the kids have a better life.

By: s teve martin

s teve martin — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

Claret the fact that you dedicated 13 years of your life as a nurse at aboriginal communities must give your opinion more weight than the average writer here. But I wonder how objective you are- It is widely reported that most aboriginals do not drink alcohol,so the bashings to which you refer are by a minority. Although no doubt horrific.
No doubt a similar opinion would be expressed by staff at the Royal Darwin Hospital regarding the bashings and mayhem that appear to be a daily part of the night life in Darwin’s Mitchell Street.

By: Milangka

Milangka — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

Macklin continues to waste money on implementing flawed policy that is doomed to fail (if indeed the aim is to ‘close the gap’ and make the children safer.). How can people take or learn responsibility when their lives are managed for them? Meanwhile, they are frustrated, ashamed, disempowered and even the little children are suffering racism due to the demonising of Aboriginal people who are negatively labelled by the huge blue and white signs at community entrances, by the segregated queues for ‘basics card’ shopping and so on.
Macklin’s evidence of welfare quarantining’s success is also flawed. Her store data is based on a flimsy survey (with no baseline data) of ringing up store managers, many of them new to the community and its shopping habits. Surely if you had freedom to shop anywhere and then you’re forced to shop at one shop only, the amount of purchases at that shop will increase. Surely the increased number of bureaucrats and ad hoc services providers must lead to more purchasing at community stores?
I question Macklin’s statement that she has visited many NT communities. I question her reiteration that many women in the NT like income management. How were questions asked? What language was used?
The Intervention Rollback Action Group working from Alice Springs has conducted hundreds of surveys in Darwin, Tennant Creek and Alice Springs as well as remote communities and town camps. Overwhelmingly people dislike the blanket approach to welfare quarantining. Some people do like the banking facility that it provides, that is being able to save up for goods. This facility could be provided without the racist imposition of income management on everyone including blind and aged pensioners, single people without children and persons quite capable of managing their own affairs.
Shame on Minister Macklin for continuing this flawed policy of the previous government. Let’s revisit the “Little Children Are Sacred” report.

By: Sad Barry

Sad Barry — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

Minister Macklin exhibits a very poor (disturbingly poor) decision making process!! Will Federal Govts ever learn to listen to independant expert reports or advice? Jon Altman hits the nail on the head!! Federal Labor stoops to new low! This has Howard Govt written all over it!! Come to think of it - were Tony Blair and George Bush involved in this decision making? This is typical Govt balony!! We deserve the truth as Australian citizens & human beings!!

By: Bev Kilsby

Bev Kilsby — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

My dear friends 49 yrs ago I had the privelege to live on a Mission field called Yirrakala where now it is called the Gove, when I was their in Church men sat one side and the AboriginaL women on the other I guess they had their reasons it was controlled by the Methodist Chuch in those days and now I think it controlled by the Govt, Aborigine use to go fishing and hunting for their food and some food, I think drink was not on the mission
those days, but I believe in a family situation, where their is strife, doctors, or proffesional staff should administer counselling. I also learnt alot about Aborigines doing VCE, HISTORY,.

By: steve martin

steve martin — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

I listened to jenny Macklin speaking from Wadeye from where she said women were pleading with her retain the system of quarantining income. This may well be true at Wadeye which must be the most dysfunctional community in the NT. It doesn’t address the recommendation of her own committee. It just goes to highlight the arrogance of politicians in ignoring the advise of her expert committee. What is her expertise in aboriginal affairs I wonder.