Comments on: Rudd turns his back on closing the gap

By: Jenny McFarland

Jenny McFarland — Thu, 21 May 2009 07:54:36 +0000

Take a look at some of the larger communities where Aboriginal groups from different countries and language groups have been forced to co-locate. Port Keats (Wadeye) - riven by intractable and often violent conflicts - conflict reduced by allowing/supporting people tomove back to their homelands. Have a look at the history of Papunya - groups brought in from country further west during a savage drought in the 60’s got out of Papunya (designed originally as a service hub for the region) as soon as they could and set up Watiyawanu, Walungurru and Kiwirrkurra. Life then became more peaceful for everyone. A time-honoured Aboriginal strategy for dealing with inter-group conflict was to do a geographical and go back to their own country, where they belonged. The evidence indicates that Aboriginal people are healthier and happier when living on their own country - this ill-advised policy is contrary to the evidence, and will only serve to increase the rates of conflict, arrests, incarceration, ill health, and social dysfunction. Personally, I would be far happier for my taxes to go to supporting Aboriginal people living peaceful and healthy lives on their homelands than bailing out banks and supporting the war in Afghanistan.

By: Herod

Herod — Thu, 21 May 2009 06:46:58 +0000

As a long time inner city resident now receiving a public sector pension I am of course willing to support tax rises applicable to those richer than me and also poorer so that govenment can make the world a better place with the extra money. Unfortunately I find that many of my peers, even inner city neighbours, put the maintenance of permanent subsidy and welfare to people choosing to live in remote places (including not a few surfing beach bums), as lower in priority than additional assistance to carers, drug rehabilitation, subsidy for child care for taxpaying parents, general mental health services especially those well designed to get people back to gainful work, better conditions for the families of armed service personnel….. indeed the list of higher priority expenditures is almost endless as these curmudgeon who would hate to be called single-issue zealots insist on seeing it. What can we do to make them believe that at least government good intentions towards non-urban Aborigines will get over the threshold of minimum competence in dealing with the issues when they so glibly point to a history of unredeemed failure for decades (at least)?

By: jchercelf

jchercelf — Thu, 21 May 2009 06:13:29 +0000

I wonder whether the provision of towns for the previously described ‘remote’ communities means the provision of white fella food which is the basis of most of the ill-health of Aboriginals?

By: stephen martin

stephen martin — Thu, 21 May 2009 05:42:10 +0000

”” that a study by the Menzies School in Darwin had shown that “Indigenous Australians living and working on their traditional homelands are significantly less likely to develop diabetes and chronic kidney and heart disease”. Less likely to develop etc. or possibly those who are chronically ill would stay near to a clinic, which would distort the picture.
But at all events there is more to the policy than just shifting people into the new towns that will be developed. For starters there will be more access to education for the children. there will also over time be meaningful work opportunities in a growing community for people trained to operate to a more self sufficient life style, as with any white community, mechanics, plumbers, carpenters etc.
In any case as far as I am aware people are being offered a carrot to move to the new centers, there is no compulsion; it’s just that there will be a town for a full service oriented life style.