tip off

NT Intervention: the divide between opinion and evidence

Opposition leader Tony Abbott appeared on The 7.30 Report, interviewed by Chris Uhlmann against the backdrop of the NT:

CHRIS UHLMANN: I spoke with Opposition Leader Tony Abbott earlier today and asked if the intervention had achieved its primary aim, protecting children.

TONY ABBOTT, OPPOSITION LEADER: I think the intervention has made a difference. It hasn’t been perfect. Nothing is perfect, but it has made a difference and I think the challenge now is to build on that to try to see if we can extend the intervention to Alice Springs and the other major centres of the Territory, so that we ensure that everywhere in the Territory the kids go to school, the adults go to work and the ordinary law of the land is observed.

There is relatively little evidence of the benefits and/or harm of aspects of the Northern Territory Emergency Response (NTER) so we do not know how its components affected the targeted 73 communities and whether it met any of the vague aims set. There are some scattered but useful studies and serious doubts about the value of others. These questions of  evidence create considerable tensions between supporters of the intervention and those who doubt its value.

The over-publicised tweet by Larissa Behrendt needs to be seen as part of this debate and her expression of disgust and disagreement with Bess Price’s statements about the benefits of the intervention, not about her person.

It also highlights the discrepancy between the coverage an issue like the tweet story is given compared to the exposure that both Abbott and the media have given to opponents of the intervention — people like Barbara Shaw and the Intervention Rollback Action Group.

I was watching Q&A and I worried that the Price statements would be taken more seriously than the measured judgment of the Human Rights Commissioner Graeme Innes, who contradicted some of her assumptions. Evidence is very limited and often seriously flawed but should be debated. But as I show below, the government has failed to take seriously the evidence on offer and is making policy on its prejudices and some expressed opinions.

The income management part of the program is now extended to the whole NT, with the rest of Australia on the government’s agenda. I acknowledge my political views are anti much of the intervention (and I drink lattes) but I offer the evidence collected below, based on my strong professional ethos in research and evaluation. Despite many claims of success stated by the government, there is no statistical evidence that income management has in itself improved the health, child safety or family well-being in any of the designated areas.

I acknowledge that such data are hard to come by, as there was no baseline data that could be used to show change. Causality is always difficult to prove but where there are big and expensive program changes, there is a need to set up measures that can test the statistical differences of pre-, during and post-program behaviour. In this case there is no official baseline data or later measures, and there will be none in the big current evaluation of the NT wide program. In fact, although the extended new non- racial, but 94% indigenous, income management program, started last August, the evaluation is only now designed and not yet allocated by tender.

The government depends therefore on statements and opinions that support what it wants to do. This tendency showed up in the so-called redesign process, which took no advice from various consultations, submissions and reports. These offered repeated recommendations to replace population compulsory income management with a voluntary scheme except where people were proven to have problems. This advice came first in the Yu report that Jenny Macklin commissioned, and later in many submissions including from the Central Land Council and many Aboriginal groups. The Aboriginal Medical Service of the NT was quite clear in its submission:

AMSANT continues to oppose any form of compulsory income management for the reasons that follow…..

22. There is no compelling evidence that compulsory blanket income management is an effective tool for helping to improve the living conditions for children and families in Indigenous communities, or to support disengaged youth and vulnerable individuals in the broader community. In fact, the jury is still out on questions of its efficacy. The claims that quarantining welfare income under the NTER has significantly improved health and reduced alcohol consumption cannot be sustained on the evidence presented.

The careful Health Impact Assessment of the Northern Territory Emergency Response  from Australian Indigenous Doctors Association  (AIDA) recognised some immediate positives but also negatives that could have long-term effects stated in its income management section:

Rather than enabling Aboriginal families to better manage their money the process of compulsory quarantining was seen as reinforcing beliefs that Aboriginal people were not able to manage their lives. This loss of autonomy about where to shop and what to buy was seen as degrading and shameful. Importantly it did not focus on whether people received enough money to be able to budget appropriately or provide skills in budget management.

They conclude:

The positive and negative health impacts of compulsory income support are likely to cancel each other out.”

The carefully constructed store survey by the Menzies Health researchers found no statistical evidence of changes in purchasing that could be attributed specifically to income management. Better stores, nutrition programs and budget assistance were major factors in changing purchasing in many areas.

In the Senate report, this lack of evidence is described and summed up:

3.45 Many submitters and witnesses were critical of the evidence base used to support the extension of income management across the Northern Territory and Australia. Some of these criticisms were summarised by Professor Jon Altman, who stated: Unfortunately and sadly, no empirical evidence with any integrity has emerged to unequivocally support income management measures. That collected by the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare has been highly qualified and equivocal. That collected by the Australian government or its agents has been in-house, unreviewed and, frankly, a little amateurish. At best, it has been deeply conflicted by moral hazard. Agents of the state are asked by state employees or their paid consultants whether state measures are effective.

3.46 Several witnesses, including Anglicare Australia, the Australian Council of Social Services (ACOSS) and the St Vincent de Paul Society noted the small sample size used in studies such as the AIHW evaluation report and were of the opinion that the evidence base was not strong enough to support the expansion of income management.

Worryingly, the evidence might change over time. For example, there is forthcoming research from the Menzies School of Health Research, currently under peer review, that outcomes from income management might, at best, be ineffective and, and at worst, perverse.

Despite these views, the recommendation from the ALP majority was that the Bills should be passed without changes.

Since the Senate report was tabled, other evidence has emerged that the intervention hasn’t worked, including in child protection, its primary area of interest. The NT, in late 2009. commissioned a report on child protection Growing them strong, together to cover the past three years. This reported that child safety had deteriorated and, interestingly, failed to mention the NTER, either in its review of what had happened or income management as part of its future planning.

There are two other income management trials that are claimed to be showing good results. These are basically voluntary schemes with compulsion being used to punish/control non-compliers. Therefore, they are not comparable with the NT model but even then, the data does not show clear gains.  There is much more evidence  I could list, and it will come out as an issue of the Journal of Indigenous Policy.

The only clear support for maintaining the compulsory income management came from the NPY women’s group. Interestingly, they are the only group that the government quoted as a reason for continuing the program. It is this nexus of influence that shows the power of individual voices that agree with what the government proposes.  The Price comments, made on Q&A, can be seen as adding to the misinformation that has been used to justify this program.

There are many groups who are angry and puzzled that the mass of counter evidence is ignored. Opinions running counter to government views are also ignored even if they come from respected long-term residents. There are wide differences between the Bess Price and the NPY views and other elders from their own communities.  A few weeks ago at a forum in Melbourne, included the Reverend Djiniyini Gondarra, Rosalie Kunoth-Monks OAM, Miriam-Rose Ungunmerr-Baumann, Harry Jakamarra Nelson and George Gaymarani Pascoe, all of whom opposed much of what Bess supported.

Government ministers therefore seem equally able to discount opinions of locals and evidence from experts which do not support the views they hold. While evidence-based policy seems to have lost out in political debates, there is still the question of public opinion. The attack of Behrendt by News publications, which undermined the legitimacy of her professional judgment (and even Crikey’s) was obviously aimed at confusing uncommitted views of the voters. By playing the race in conflict cards and implying this was rural urban splits, The Australian made sure that the conservative views of its tame commentators would be unchallenged.

57
  • 1
    Jon Hunt
    Posted Friday, 29 April 2011 at 2:17 pm | Permalink

    I worked as a doctor in Aboriginal health for seven years, mainly because of my concern for Aboriginal people, and partly because I wanted to know just what is going wrong.

    What I learned was that the problems I encountered were largely as a result of environmental pressures. In other words, I would try to fix their medical problems only to have this made ineffectual by the forces which caused these problems in the first place. Basically everyone came back with the same thing repetitively and nothing anyone did seemed to make a difference.

    The “forces” I describe have come about by colonisation, dispossession, disempowerment, displacement and so on. That’s where everything else stems from. I am not surprised that many have expressed their concern about the intervention, because the intervention is nothing more than more of the same. It can not possibly help, and to have anyone say it will help tells me they know nothing of the problems. I don’t think that ignorance should have place in discussions about the welfare of Aboriginal people but unfortunately as far as the government goes that seems to be all that is demonstrated. It has been more than 200 years since this all started, and I think it about time that someone treated them with the respect they are owed instead of dictating to them how to solve their problems when they know better than anyone else how to do this.

  • 2
    Jim Reiher
    Posted Friday, 29 April 2011 at 2:41 pm | Permalink

    It is such a tragedy that some of the dwindling minority of voices supporting the intervention, are getting so much press.

    How can compulsory medical checks of all children in designated regions, be child care? To give vag_nal and an_l examinations to all children in 73 regions under the guise of “protecting them from child abuse” is a contradiction in terms.

    Are readers aware that of the first 7433 compulsory checks, only 4 cases of possible abuse were detected? (source: Courier Mail, 24 May 2008). That is outrageous! There would be more cases of possible abuse found if you took any middle class white suburb anywhere else in this country! But no, our previous government decided to pretend to care about children, by physically abusing thousands of them.

    I know my language is strong. But can you imagine what we would call it if a white suburb in Melbourne was deemed to have a lot of child abuse, so EVERY CHILD IN THE SUBURB would be forcibly checked in such a way as to traumatise the children? Without parental consent??!! Taken and checked even if there was no suspicion about any abuse of that child in particular? We would never allow such an outrage. it would never be done to white families.

    And yet we allowed it to happen to our indigenous kids in the Northern Territory. What a disgrace and what abuse! I am so appauled. I can never NEVER vote for a govt that implemented such actions, nor can I vote for one that went along with it, and continues to justify it. Both our major parties are racist, gutless and utterly disgraceful.

    The intervention needs to end, and some serious repair work with the indigenous communities must be … once again… attempted. It is unbelievable what we have NOT learned in over 200 years.

  • 3
    Catching up
    Posted Friday, 29 April 2011 at 2:49 pm | Permalink

    Can someone enlighten me to what could not have been done for the Aboriginals if we did not have the intervention.

    Without the Intervention, we could still have had -:

    Increase police presence.

    Child Protection workers.

    Improved housing.

    Education motivation.

    Income management. (This does not have to be across the board, punishing those who do the right thing, as those who are wasteful. The present method is very expensive and does provide many jobs for the bureaucrats.) Income management can be done on a voluntary basis or where children are at risk, through Child Welfare agencies and the courts.

    Job training and increased employment opportunities.

    Health checks.

    Alcohol and drug counselling.

    What did the Intervention allow to happen that could not have been done without taking peoples rights away.

    How many more are going to school. Has abuse of children ceased. Are more employed. What happened to the alcoholics, as I refused to believe restricting alcohol would have solved their problems. My guess is that they have moved elsewhere.

    What has happened is the there has been more money spent. It did not need an Intervention for this to occur.

    It is my opinion that the Intervention was hasty created to assist the Howard government’s re-election. It would have been allowed to die, if Mr. Howard was successful in being re-elected.

    The Labor government should have re-assessed the situation when first elected and a more responsible programme put in place.

    Please do not insult me by insisting that money has been spent over the decades, it has not. The Aboriginals have had less per head spent on education, health and housing Etc. than that the rest of the community.

  • 4
    Jon Altman
    Posted Friday, 29 April 2011 at 3:49 pm | Permalink

    One of the most worrying aspects of these debates on whether the Intervention in the NT (we seem to have yet again moved on from the term Closing the Gap in the Northern Territory which is actually a COAG National Partnership Agreement very quickly) or the Cape York welfare reform pilots or the voluntary income management trials are making a difference is that we have more and more reports and less and less analysis. A close reading of any of a plethora of reports [unfortunately as Eva Cox notes rarely with a quantitative baseline] by government departments on a six monthly basis in the NT coordinated by FaHCSIA, or the Commonwealth Coordinator General for Remote Services Delivery or the NT Coordinator General or by consultants like KPMG on the Families Responsibilities Commission or by the FRC on a quarterly basis or by the Productivity Commission or by the Prime Minister to Parliament annually or by the Australian Bureau of Statistics or the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (I could go on and on, we even have a dedicated Clearing House that cannot keep up with them all) show that at best outcomes are ambiguous and worst that peoples’ circumstances have either not changed or gone backwards.

    There is a lot of evidence out there but a reluctance that is often politically or ideologically based to address it seriously. And it shows considerable difference with some agencies looking to genuinely assess change, others more intent to defensively cover up failings. Opinion and spin seems to count for a great deal, but what is most concerning is that neither major party has done the serious hard policyt work to consider place based alternatives. So we get simplistic mantras like ‘get a job’, ‘get an education’, ‘get your kids to school’, ‘stop drinking’, ‘apply the law’ by some of the most powerful in Australian society as if the playing field is dead level!

    Closing the Gap rhetoric is about making the Australian public feel that something is being done, not about actually delivering sustainable benefit to Indigenous communities. The cosy Canberra consensus might quibble at the margins, but normalisation and the elimination of difference is the ultimate goal, one that is clearly not shared by all Indigenous Australians.

    Murray Edelman’s famous book about political language comes to mind: Words that Succeed and Policies that Fail! Succeed for whom and fail whom leaves little need for analysis although how we as a society let it happen is a worrying issue. Thanks for a stimulating article.

  • 5
    David Hand
    Posted Friday, 29 April 2011 at 4:29 pm | Permalink

    The over-publicised tweet by Larissa Behrendt”? Gimme a break - all I’ve read in Crikey over the past two weeks are rose tinted, beatifying, sycophantic PR releases on her behalf. Anyone would think there was an issue that needed defending (hmmmmmm………).

    So we have yet more hand-wringing from the left elites who opposed the intervention on reasons of principle from the start. We’ve had a change of government but no significant change of policy. Why this is? Two governments, from right and left of centre are persuing the same policy but if you read Crikey, the “invasion”, which it opposed from the start is an abject failure due to a lack of proof, or empiracle evidence.

    Come on, make a suggestion about what should be done. Spend more money? Relax controls over the distribution of welfare because they would not be tolerated in suburban Melbourne? These are the things that will fix it?

    It is telling that all this urban left elite huffing and puffing is having little influence over policy. You can all sit round your lattes and opine loudly about how evil the intervention is because we wouldn’t put up with it in Melbourne. Maybe it has failed. I haven’t been there so I am hostage to what I see and hear. But Bess Price has been there and has a story to tell, otherwise known as misinformation to all you who made your minds up about it in 2007.

    I await a coherent policy idea from the leftie urban elite that is taken seriously enough by this left wing government to make a difference. I’m not holding my breath.

  • 6
    Jon Hunt
    Posted Friday, 29 April 2011 at 7:47 pm | Permalink

    Dear David,

    I think that I did actually mention what should be done. I’m not sure what you mean by “left elites”. The opposition to the intervention is valid on principle alone, in fact intuitively it’s a stupid thing to do. As I said many of the problems in Aboriginal communities stem from the interventions of the past 200 years, of which Howard’s one is only one of many. His contribution was designed to do nothing for Aboriginal people but was only intended to get him re-elected. It is disappointing that so few seem to recognise this for what it is. It is a pity that he used the abuse of children for this purpose.

    A policy idea from a “leftie urban elite” is obvious from the above. Support them in solving their problems, respect them, and don’t tell them what to do. It is as easy and as simple as that.

    If you don’t believe me, ask them. What a novel idea. Ask them what they would like to see done!

  • 7
    kennethrobinson2
    Posted Saturday, 30 April 2011 at 2:59 am | Permalink

    This whole thing is not about helping Aboriginal people, its just a power grab, by a totally stupid political system.
    Any one who believes that it is working, should come up here and live with it for a while, these clowns in government, and opposition, dont really care about anything but the next election, neither party is winning friends in the top-end.

  • 8
    Kerry Lovering
    Posted Saturday, 30 April 2011 at 10:31 am | Permalink

    If income maintenance can stop one murderous abuse of a woman then it is worthwhile.

    I note all the above focus on children but the plight of some aboriginal women is often appalling and appears to be ignored. Bess Price should be listened to.

  • 9
    David Hand
    Posted Saturday, 30 April 2011 at 2:00 pm | Permalink

    Hey Jon
    “Support them in solving their problems, respect them, and don’t tell them what to do. It is as easy and as simple as that.”

    Hmmmm, I know! Why don’t we establish an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders Commission?
    Self empowerment! Run by Aborigines! A group we can ask, and not tell what to do!

    Is that what you are talking about?

  • 10
    Liz45
    Posted Saturday, 30 April 2011 at 2:33 pm | Permalink

    @DAVID HAND - Well, unlike you, I listen to aboriginal people. I’ve been to rallies/gatherings/information nights, where aboriginal people from the NT have been in attendance. It’s their LIVING EXPERIENCES that I’ve listened to, together with articles written by them or via others.

    Why do you assume, that the only people who stand up for human rights are lefties? Says a lot about you and your ‘lot’? I went to rallies in Wollongong & Sydney which were addressed by elders from Muckaty Station and workers in the NT. I’ve read the National Indigenous Times articles, and have before me the submissions of many groups in the NT who were not listened to by Jenny Macklin. I’ve also been on the web site of the people who walked off in disgust over both the raw sewerage they’d been forced to live with for over a week, and what was being demanded of them re signing away their land.

    It is a FACT that even the families of people convicted of committing horrific murders have not had the threat of having their land/homes taken, nor does the Justice System in NSW enable the autorities to quarantine their incomes, so what do you find difficult to understand about aboriginal people objecting to this abuse of their rights - aren’t they supposed to be citizens of the same country? Why is it OK to treat them differently? And why are you so sarcastic and dismissive of the anger by those who agree with aboriginal people being treated differently to the rest of us. This happens while Julia Gillard gives her ‘school marm lecture’ to indigenous people that they must ‘work harder’ etc. How offensive is that?

    Why does the Right think it OK, that an aboriginal worker works for the dole(50% of which is quarantined) while the non-aboriginal person working beside him gets the award wage and conditions? Why is an aboriginal worker threatened with the sack if he won’t work with his broken arm in plaster? Would you? Can you imagine or show me one incident in your state or area where this has been a reality for a non aboriginal person?

    What books, articles, programs or web sites do you visit to educate yourself re this or other related issues? Do you have a copy of the Native Title Legislation, or the Howard Ammendments? I do! Have you read any of the Reports I referred to?Read any Henry Reynolds books? Or perhaps, ‘Demons at Dusk’? Have you bothered to read anything other than the likes of Andrew Bolt and others of his ilk?

    No, didn’t think so, and it shows! You are part of the problem! You who can only show your ignorant and closed mind, without any positive input or discussion.
    The whole reason for the Intervention was land grab - and mining leases - over 400 of them in the pipeline - less than 200 prior to the Intervention. Why did Howard wait until 13 different inquiries had stated what was already known - that aboriginal people were living in squalor, that their health needs were not met, and that the educational facilities and teachers were a disgrace?

    How many people have been convicted of committing crimes of sexual assault against children?

  • 11
    David Hand
    Posted Saturday, 30 April 2011 at 3:02 pm | Permalink

    Hey Liz45,
    I do read a bit. I read your post. You are clearly an informed person about these matters. Clearly I am misinformed as I thought Bess Price had some first hand knowledge. Maybe she knows nothing either.

    I am still seeking a positive idea from someone who holds your views that the government might seriously consider as policy that will help the dire needs of remote Aboriginal communities. I’m still not holding my breath.

  • 12
    Liz45
    Posted Saturday, 30 April 2011 at 3:47 pm | Permalink

    @DAVID HAND Yes, Bess Price does have first hand knowledge, but not necessarily representative of all views, Noel Pearson does too, but how many people are in agreeance with them is another thing. Barbara Shaw (received a huge number of votes in the last Federal Election) Patrick Dodson, Mick Dodson and others also have a view. If it’s OK for the shock jocks, Jenny Macklin etc to have a view, it should be OK for Larissa to speak out also. Have you read her book/s?

    Richard Davies has first hand knowledge of what’s happening to his people, he’s the elected spokesperson for the people who walked off their land - I’ve listened to him speak in the Illawarra on two occasions. I also attended a rally where the unanimous vote was to support the elders and others who are against the nuclear waste dump, also in the Illawarra - held at the Aboriginal Cultural Centre? It will probably require action by the relevant Unions to stop this outrage. If I could afford it and was of sound body, I’d go up there and help out!

    If someone can show me one area of the NT where indigenous people got their fair share out of mining etc, I’ll take another look! Nabalco, Gove springs to mind, as does the Uranium Mine at Kakadu (Jabiluka)which is in a dangerous situation as we speak - the tailings dam is ready to overflow due to the latest heavy rains - which will put radioactive pollution into the area lived on by indigenous people, pollute their rivers and sources of food etc. We warned them at the time! I still wear the red T-shirt where the elders spoke out against this mine? From the 70’s/80’s?Ho-hum!

    Some of the most wealthy mining outcomes have been in the NT - the results are proof of who benefited, and it’s not aboriginal people - never has been, and unless there’s real change, won’t be in future! Forrester is a billionaire, as is Hancock’s daughter! bhp billiton is so damned arrogant, it refuses to either attend meetings ANYWHERE or when their mouthpieces do turn up, they refuse to answer questions? They’re increasing their obscene wealth at aboriginal peoples’ expense! Howard, Rudd and now Gillard are performing as predicted - helping them get richer at the expense of some of the most poverty stricken people on the planet! A disgrace!

    I wonder how many times Jenny Macklin has been to remote areas of the NT, or does she just listen to those who tell her what she wants to hear? Why did many Indigenous groups put their opposing views re the Intervention in a book, of which I have a copy? There’s a lot of similarity with the Govt’s views and behaviours and that of Twiggy Forrester who took over an aboriginal meeting to put his lawyer in place as the MC and engineered his band of supporters to vote and/or take over the meeting! It’s on YouTube - go take a look! Put the NT Intervention into your search engine; or read some articles by Chris Graham who was the Editor of the NIT, now the new magazine/newsletter, TRACKER or GreenLeft - just put in NT Intervention - lots of people’s views- on the ground!

  • 13
    Liz45
    Posted Saturday, 30 April 2011 at 3:55 pm | Permalink

    This is what they said then - (on the back of my T shirt - which I wear with pride!)

    We live the environmental damage and negative social impact from the mining development. We believe that uranium mining has negative consequences for all Australians.”

    Yvonne Margarula, Senior Traditional Owner of the Mirrar Gunjehmi homelands surrounding the proposed Jabiliuka site.

    If we’re fair dinkum about turning around the horrific realities that too many aboriginal people are forced to live with, we have to change our collective attitudes to the current system - including capitalism. While ever minerals, wealth, profits etc are the main focus, those literally ‘on the ground’ will continue to be used, abused and cast aside! The Gillard govt is just propping up the same prejudices, ingrained racism of over 200 yrs ago - when about 11 boats landed here - unannounced and uninvited boat people!

  • 14
    David Hand
    Posted Saturday, 30 April 2011 at 5:07 pm | Permalink

    Right Liz45,
    Let me make sure I understand your suggestion.
    Dismantle capitalism, stop mining, return Australia in its entirety to Aborigines.
    Have I got the essence of what you are suggesting?

  • 15
    Doorango
    Posted Saturday, 30 April 2011 at 7:00 pm | Permalink

    The Intervention was cooked up in the bunker to coincide with Senator Robert Ray’s impending charges. Downer let the cat out of the bag when he said the election would be about, “who can safely look after the kids,” or words to that effect.

    In any case it was a trojan horse to take the whip out to all welfare beneficiaries. The down and outs have no sympathy from the Australian people, whom have even less for Aboriginal folk.

  • 16
    msaxton
    Posted Sunday, 1 May 2011 at 8:06 am | Permalink

    While I must admit that my knowledge of this issue is immature, I have to say - in comparison - the NZ Govt have no equivalent policy at the present time that forces Maori to do what it appears the NT Intervention has done to Aboriginals. I actually fail to understand why there needs to be a policy in the first place that restricts Indigenous to their basic Human Rights. People can hold their breath all they like (while they close their eyes) for a ‘policy’ for Aboriginal….why is the current policy and the fact that it has failed not taken as a realistic sign that perhaps - just perhaps - policy is NOT what is required?
    Thanks for the great article. I continue to learn…

  • 17
    kennethrobinson2
    Posted Sunday, 1 May 2011 at 9:44 am | Permalink

    @MSAXTON, I agree with you, the so-called training programs are all smoke and mirrors, on paper they look good, but thats just what they are paper.
    The intervention has accomplished nothing but grief and discomfort for all races in my part of the country, its collective punishment of all for the misdeeds of a small number of people who refuse to respect the law, and whine if they go to prison, if you cant do the time dont commit the crime.

  • 18
    Catching up
    Posted Sunday, 1 May 2011 at 2:51 pm | Permalink

    We hear of some Aboriginals supporting the Intervention. I am not so sure that is what they are saying. I believe the truth might be if this is the only way we can get the money and support we need, we will pay the price by tolerating the Intervention.

  • 19
    Posted Monday, 2 May 2011 at 9:13 am | Permalink

    Luke Buckmaster here, Crikey website editor.

    There is some robust debate in this thread but can I please ask people to lower the tone of the discussion to something less personal. At Crikey we endorse the technique “play the ball and not the person.” In other words, please don’t attack each others. Please keep this in mind and consult our code of conduct for more info.

  • 20
    SBH
    Posted Monday, 2 May 2011 at 2:13 pm | Permalink

    On that note Doorango you may have intended to refer to the now deceases Senator Robert Collins rather than the very alive and possibly litigious former Senator for Victoria, Robert Ray. I am unaware of any charges pending against Senator Ray.

    David Hand, I have a question about the intervention for you. If the Howard Government’s intervention was a response to child abuse in the NT, why did it ignore and repudiate the findings of the Wild/ Anderson report?

    As for ATSIC, it would be as wrong to denigrate the whole history and concept of ATSIC because of the transgressions of some of its leaders as it would be to denigrate the Australian Goverment as a concept. ATSIC was nowhere near as bad as its detractors like to portray but that aside is your sneering reference meant to suggest the concept of a representational Aboriginal body that advises government is wrong?

  • 21
    Liz45
    Posted Monday, 2 May 2011 at 6:32 pm | Permalink

    @DAVID HAND - If you’re sceptical as to how the wealthy companies use and abuse aboriginal land (and any other they want) take a look at the program on SBS last night - ‘GASLAND’ about what is happening in the US in order to set up mines for natural gas. Take particular notice of the roll played by Haliburton, before during and after Cheney was Vice President. The absolute arrogance; the changing of environmental acts and guarantees for such basics as the right to clean water is most enlightening. It doesn’t come as a surprise let alone a shock, that the whole INtervention business was a deliberate set up - from start to finish. If it was really about the plight of aboriginal people, they wouldn’t have had to do the one basic protection these people have - the Racial Discrimination Act? You don’t have to be a conspiracy theorist or a cynic, you just have to join the dots. I voted in the 1967 Referendum. I’ve had many years of watching, reading and listening. Sadly, 2007 was just more of the same, except there’s more of the NT that they want - hence the oppressive behaviours etc.

    The proof about the reason for dismantling ATSIC is plain to see? Look at the people on the new ‘body’? All in agreeance with the Govt! What does Noel Pearson do except come out and give his people a verbal bashing, just in time to set up govt policy; aided and abetted by Andrew Bolt and the msm?

    Listen to Bess on ABC’s Radio National’s Background Briefing - repeated tomorrow evening after the 7pm news, or listen on line and read transcript. I have much sympathy and understanding for what she said, except for a major contradiction that I don’t understand. She referred to aboriginal culture that condones violence, and then commented that people today don’t abide by how their elders live/ed? Isn’t this what she’s already said is the problem? I don’t understand this, maybe I heard wrong. I’ve heard other aboriginal people state most emphatically, that their culture does not condone or ‘order’ any form of violence against women and children, and certainly not sexual abuse of children. So there’s some contradictions there! In fairness, Bess did not affirm that sexual abuse of kids is condoned, but abuse of teenaged young women is, if they object to being promised to older men, or just any man that they don’t want. Girls from any culture are not commodities to be promised, sold and abused!

    I believe that subsequent governments have no qualms at sacrificing aboriginal people in order to have access to billions of riches. What they do to justify this, is make up lies or make out things are worse than they are. They then feel quite justified in adopting oppressive and racist practices in order to carry them out. I believe that this is what is happening now. Every time this is a news item, the co-operative media trot out the same images on our screens to feed the lie, that all indigenous people are drunken layabouts who can’t organise their breakfast let alone intelligent policies etc. A willing and racist audience just nod sagely and the caravan rolls on! Horrific!

  • 22
    Liz45
    Posted Monday, 2 May 2011 at 6:57 pm | Permalink

    @MSAXTON - I think you’ll find that NZ has a Treaty with the Maori people, unlike Australia! OUr indigenous people still aren’t mentioned in the Constitution except under Flora or Fauna. There are elements in the Constitution that still uphold racist laws, practices and sentiments. In short, we speak with a forked tongue. We(our so-called leaders and others) wax lyrical around the world about democracy and freedome blah blah, while at home, they allow ‘silent’ forms of genocide to flourish - in the name of taking care of women and kids. The United Nations has given embarrassing comments/reports since at least the Howard years, but our govt is so determined to sell them out to multinationals and others, that they just stick their chin out and re-state the bs!

    The bottom line is - consult, consult and then consult - not use might to brow beat! I don’t have the answers, but I do know that what’s been happening since ‘07 isn’t it!

  • 23
    Elan
    Posted Monday, 2 May 2011 at 11:54 pm | Permalink

    I was able to discuss my objection to Income Management with Nick Xenophon a few months ago. I had strongly and vocally objected to his support for the further rollout of IM-at a public forum where he was a speaker on general matters.

    I then met with him to ‘discuss my concerns’. He is a pleasant and easy man to talk to. However I I came away from that meeting feeling empty and disappointed.

    Not disappointed that I was unable to make Nick ‘see the light’, but hugely disappointed on what I still believe was a narrow and not fully informative grasp of all facts. It seemed to me that he had taken his decision based on listening to what he wanted to hear from those with only one focus;-the merits of Income Management such as those merits could be.

    Thank-you JON HUNT, particularly for your first post. You explain far more lucidly than I could that this move is yet more of the patronising and totally ineffective ‘solutions’ that we ‘reserve the right’ to impose on Indigenous Australians.

    That was what surprised me. Nick Z is a smart cookie, yet he readily accepted this rationale, and supported its furtherance. That still appalls and disappoints me.

    The American Indian made his firewater. We handed it to Australian Aboriginals and certainly- at first,-stood back and laughed as they demonstrated their inability to cope with alcohol. Now many just sneer at them.

    But we are responsible for it. Many store owners in the NT and Outback make hefty profit from grog. And btw;-they don’t do too badly in supplying ‘essential’ and very expensive food to those who go in and swipe their card-that is as long as the machine is working.
    ________________________

    The 21st century. And this is all we can find as a solution? It is yet more of what has gone before, and what has so demonstrably failed.

    White Australia will never seek any solution that will provide dignity and equality. White Australia will only ever seek solutions that keep Indigenous Australians ‘in their place’.
    _______________________

    (DAVID HAND-did it ever occur to you that in your zeal to categorise those of ‘the Left’, you have more than adequately demonstrate the methodology and condescension of ‘the Right’?)

  • 24
    Liz45
    Posted Tuesday, 3 May 2011 at 12:43 am | Permalink

    @ELAN - It’s clear, that Nick Xenophon has the same white supremist colonial capitalistic view that the rest of them have! I’m disappointed, but not surprised. He too is benefiting by the oppression and racism in the top end! We all are - it’s just that some of us find this reality repugnant!

    Years ago, aboriginal people who ran the stores/community grocery stores or whatever, had to sell grog to get their authorisation. If not, they didn’t get the gig. I don’t know of any black person who owned a grog shop and broke the Laws re selling grog to any person who was drunk - black or white? If you watched 4 Corners tonight, you’d have seen, that Joh Bjelke Petersen’s govt deliberately ensured that the alcohol outlets in aboriginal communities didn’t abide by the Law - that is, they sold grog to people who were already drunk?

    I think you’ll find, that the same attitude is still alive and well, not only in Qld, but in the NT as well. In fact, part of the horrific problems in NSW each and every weekend, is that these Laws are broken here as well! The pathetic excuse is, that they(those who serve the grog) don’t have the time to check who’s drunk and who’s not? Perhaps someone should tell the owners to get of their arses and survey the scene? der!

  • 25
    David Hand
    Posted Tuesday, 3 May 2011 at 12:38 pm | Permalink

    Hey SBH,
    I accept your point that the aboriginal community has a right to representation and that an ATSIC type body could be the way and should not be discounted solely due to the abject failure of its predecessor. What I am really commenting on is the contempt for all government initiatives that ooze through the original article and the comments that follow. Jon’s comment was,

    Support them in solving their problems, respect them, and don’t tell them what to do. It is as easy and as simple as that. If you don’t believe me, ask them. What a novel idea. Ask them what they would like to see done!”

    Well, it’s not novel, it’s not easy, it’s already been done and it probably won’t work again. It is this mockery of government efforts from the urban grandstand, driven by an impractical left wing ideolology with very little thought about the difficulties that I am talking about.

    You see this in the dismissal of Bess Price’s view. You also see it in Elan’s story about Nick Xenophon - “He’s a nice bloke but not intelligent enough to grasp the facts”. Gimme a break, perhaps he just doesn’t agree. Liz45 writes off Nick as having a white supremacist view. How practical it that?

    All this leftie hand wringing is laughable. You have nothing practical to contribute. All you can do is mock the efforts of people like Jenny Macklin from your inner urban grandstand.

  • 26
    Elan
    Posted Tuesday, 3 May 2011 at 1:08 pm | Permalink

    Ahhhhh HAND what a wit! (Well half anyway).

    Smarten up lad. I referred to NX as a ‘smart cookie’. He is.

    …..just a thought:- has it even crossed what I’m sure you would laughingly refer to as your mind,- that I am unwilling to discuss fully what was an informal and private conversation in a coffee shop?

    ………….no? I thought not. Too busy working on that Lefty thing eh?

  • 27
    Liz45
    Posted Tuesday, 3 May 2011 at 4:36 pm | Permalink

    @DAVID HAND - You still haven’t told us how you’ve gained the information for your views? What have you read! If Nick Xenophon is supporting the racist NT Intervention, then he’s sucking up to the mining companies and others who have a vested interest in seeing aboriginal people lose their land etc.

    Why is Muckaty Station being advocated for a nuclear waste dump? They don’t want it - it’s going to kill off pristine waters and surrounds where these people get their food? Why not position it near your house? Why not position it near a pristine area in your State, near a catchment area perhaps? Why should indigenous people have it forced on them? Because the Federal Govt has the power to walk all over them - again! That’s why? This shouldn’t be a left or right activity - it should be about justice! Like ELAN I guess you’re “Too busy working on that Lefty thing eh?”

    I did NOT dismiss Beth Price’s view. I said that it was one view only. I’ve listened to many other indigenous peoples’ view - those who are living the Intervention. Unlike you or I? I also pointed to an anomoly during her speech that was recorded by Radio National - I also said that I had sympathy for much of what she said! Go back and read what I said (May 2, 6.35 pm)then go and listen or read the transcript! Did you even bother to do that?

    I also said, that when the raw sewerage was lying all over the ground, not only did Jennie Macklin not go up there, she didn’t even send anyone. This was a serious health issue.
    Before you put people in pidgeon holes, denigrating viable and legitimate criticisms, go and do some reading yourself, instead of just shooting your mouth off! I’m 66 and been following these issues for a long time, and I’ve read much and listened to aboriginal people - on the ground!

    I’ve also read the biography of the late ‘Mum Shirl’ (among others)who gave an account of how her life was, and how she wasn’t even educated due to her epilepsy. Her treatment when pregnant etc, not being able to sit in hospital outpatient rooms, or give birth in the labour ward - just because she was black. I’ve read much of the Reports that have been mentioned here; I taped many of the stories told by members of the Stolen Generations during the week leading up to and beyond The Apology! Did you? They were on the ABC, as were stories on Message Stick? Do you ever watch these programs or read anything????

  • 28
    Adam
    Posted Wednesday, 4 May 2011 at 5:48 am | Permalink

    Good old Jenny Macklin. This is what Labor have become in their continued move to the Right:

    http://www.alp.org.au/federal-government/news/tony-abbott-announces-copycat-policy-on-welfare-re/

    Not only has welfare quaranting clearly been such a success they intend to expand it nationwide.

  • 29
    Elan
    Posted Wednesday, 4 May 2011 at 10:44 am | Permalink

    Good link ADAM-and an accurate first line!

    Your last line? Eva Cox wrote an article last year warning that this was going to occur.
    I have shall we say, an acquaintance who is very vocal in support of IM: ‘for them’. The look on her face when she realised that she too will fall under the criteria for IM, was a bloody prize winner!!

    She changed her view in a nanosecond.

    Funny that.

  • 30
    nomnom
    Posted Wednesday, 4 May 2011 at 6:40 pm | Permalink

    I think the Intervention and IM are simply cases in point of where the politics have outweighed the evidence. In an ideal world, rational decisions would be taken systematically and be evidence-based but I think that could be the reality somewhere in the future where we will have learned how to approach complicated and highly-emotionally charged issues with equal respect and proficiency in objective, intelligent decision-making and deep humanity. Currently, our reality is quite different. For some reason, we are so committed to working against each other.

    Practical solutions? Assume that we don’t know the answer, they do.

    Other suggestions I have read from various Indigenous leaders over the years include:
    - Help to restore cultural law, order and authority by discussing with Traditional Elders how best to do this
    - Institutionalise Indigenous culture in to mainstream society by:
    - Funding the development, implementation and evaluation of Indigenous courses in to the curriculum of schools, offer versions of Indigenous and Settler history taught by Indigenous teachers
    - Create a public holiday for a landmark Indigenous event in history, for example, the day Indigenous people were first allowed to vote
    - With permission, preserve what languages and cultural practices still exist in to all forms of media (written, video)
    - Introduce obligatory Traditional Indigenous language into schools taught by Indigenous and non-Indigenous teachers
    - Encourage and develop programs that highlight Indigenous concepts of intelligence
    - Encourage and develop programs that highlight Indigenous concepts of land conservation i.e. fire control
    - Allow Traditional elders to teach hunting and art skills to children in schools as part of Indigenous cultural education
    - Facilitate and fund development of grassroots-level “culture camps”
    - Design Indigenous housing to meet and accommodate the needs of Indigenous culture, for example fit 10-12 people at a time, wide, open and outdoor sheltered spaces
    - Encourage programs that help Indigenous children to explore their passions and talents and excel at whatever they choose - not be pigeonholed in to looking up only to sports heroes.
    - Create a prestigious Indigenous Arts museum in the NT that aspires to have the reputation of something like the Guggenheim
    - Cut alcohol to communities either immediately or gradually and medically prepare communities for the impacts of withdrawal
    - Fund, and continually develop and evaluate current programs that aim to assist with parenting skills

  • 31
    David Hand
    Posted Wednesday, 4 May 2011 at 10:39 pm | Permalink

    Hey Liz 45,
    I get the information that forms my views from news and current affairs programmes, mostly the ABC, reading newspapers and subscribing to Crikey.

  • 32
    MJT
    Posted Wednesday, 4 May 2011 at 11:40 pm | Permalink

    Thank you Jon Hunt, whilst there are some very valid points made throughout this debate and some very ignorant comments, I think your first blog says it all and funnily enough it is what is forgotten. “Colonisation, dispossession, disempowerment, displacement” your right, the intervention is nothing more than more of the same. It is well known that if a person suffers traumas and abuse during their lives and they are not provided assistance in gaining/re-establishing a supported and nurturing environment to assist their experienced disadvantage, they will inevitably suffer throughout their lives including long term problems in functioning, participation and relationships. Does this not sound like the experience Aboriginal people have lived with since the landing of the first ship. They have been traumatized generation after generation, and still today they are not consulted and if they are it is not considered. There are no words other than shame that comes to mind, knowing what the numerous children/families throughout the NT have again been subjected to, because “we know best” and Jon I can’t put it better myself “I don’t think that ignorance should have place in discussions about the welfare of Aboriginal people”

  • 33
    Elan
    Posted Thursday, 5 May 2011 at 12:02 am | Permalink

    Interesting to see some solutions put up NOMNOM.

    That’s the hardest part, the ‘OK. what would you do? ‘
    All that I do know is that White Australia seems to feel it has the right to condescend to Indigenous Australia.

    If the solution is a political one, then it will inevitably be the wrong one. Politicians are notorious for seeking the easiest solution for them (which is what I said to NX). The solution that makes them look as if they are assisting.

  • 34
    Liz45
    Posted Thursday, 5 May 2011 at 11:01 am | Permalink

    @DAVID HAND - Well, that obviously is not sufficient. Watch Message Stick, Living Black; read some of Henry Reynold’s books such as ‘This Whispering in Our Hearts’, ‘Why weren’t we told’ etc. The Report on Bringing Them Home, Black Deaths in Custody; ‘Demons at Dusk’ by Peter Smith? he researched for 20 yrs before he wrote this book, about the massacre at Myall Creek. Watch ‘First Australians’ - (SBS)can download many of these, and can watch back programs of Message Stick etc. There The National Indigenous Times, or the new one, Tracker. There’s lots of biographies at your local library. There’s plenty of good reading and watching available on line. Then take a look at the Treaty with Maoris in NZ.

    We need a Treaty with aboriginal people in this country - they’re still not included in the Constitution - except in the flora and fauna sections! In fact, there’s still racist parts that have not been removed. Aboriginal people aren’t given many protections in the Constitution - I don’t think women and minority groups are either? Perhaps none! Haven’t read much I must admit!

    My local library is great. I suggest you check out yours!

  • 35
    SBH
    Posted Thursday, 5 May 2011 at 2:28 pm | Permalink

    David Hand you have no idea what I do or don’t do to practically assist Aboriginal people and you too casually link my views and motivations to those of others. I will say that one of the biggest hurdles I face is people who say “its all been tried before and it won’t work”.

    As for the inner urban bit a) is that supposed to be an insult? b) did you know that over half of Victorias Koori population lives in its cities and the largest concentration is in the inner suburbs?

    I reiterate my point (which you’ve chosen to misrepresent) that ATSIC did not fail - some of its leaders failed. Much like leaders of white-run institutions do.

    I didn’t see contempt dripping from Cox’s piece but rather a report based on a range of evidence about two particular pieces of policy, the intervention and Income Management and a call for more evidence and less supposition.

    I also didn’t see your answer to the question I asked about the report prepared by the ultra left urban elite duo of Wild and Anderson.

  • 36
    David Hand
    Posted Thursday, 5 May 2011 at 7:10 pm | Permalink

    SBH,
    You’re more widely read than me about the challenge of aboriginal disadvantage in Australia. I looked at the Wild / Anderson report summary and according to the NT government website, it was presented in April 2007 so it seems to me it wasn’t ignored by the government.

    I would also point out that you may with justification challenge the depth of my reading and research on the matter as an effort to discredit my opinion as less valid. Go ahead. I point out however, that my reading, though miniscule compared to yours and Liz45’s, is significantly greater than the millions of other Australians you need to get to if any government is going to try something else, such as re-establishing ATSIC.

    At least in preserving my ignorance, I have managed to avoid sitting through all those tawdry, Australian Film Commission funded wrist-slashing “aren’t we white people evil” films that have been similarly ignored by 99.9% of the population (your taxes at work).

    My reference to inner urban elites is a generalisation, drawing a distinction between the educated inner urban green leaning people and the more traditional suburban “working family” types. This demographic distinction is widely recognised in the media. There’s lots of them - doctors’ wives, backpackers, leafy suburbs, retirees, etc.

  • 37
    SBH
    Posted Thursday, 5 May 2011 at 9:00 pm | Permalink

    you may with justification challenge the depth of my reading and research on the matter as an effort to discredit my opinion as less valid.”

    sorry? I did that where?

    But since you’ve raised it, it’s not a bad measure of the validity of an opinion is it? You want to expound on a topic you don’t know much about and criticise others who may. Then you go on to make an extraordinary generalisations which don’t add to the discussion of an important issue. Why would you do that?

    By the way, is there something morally wrong about being a doctor’s wife,(or being educated) does it make you stupid or unable to comment on issues of importance? A better distinction would be to criticise ignorant people who let fly with no knowledge and a bucket load of self belief.

    And the Wild/Anderson report was written for the NT Government and comprehensively by the Howard (Commonwealth) Government. Have a read of Pat Wild’s Crikey piece. You’ll be a better person for it.

  • 38
    SBH
    Posted Thursday, 5 May 2011 at 11:44 pm | Permalink

    erratum - Pat Anderson’s piece

  • 39
    David Hand
    Posted Friday, 6 May 2011 at 12:04 am | Permalink

    Okay, SBH,
    “You” as in “you may justify……” is a generalisation. On this thread I have been referred to research -
    Wild/ Anderson report,
    Message Stick,
    Living Black,
    Some of Henry Reynold’s books such as ‘This Whispering in Our Hearts’, ‘Why weren’t we told’ etc.
    The Report on Bringing Them Home, Black Deaths in Custody;
    ‘Demons at Dusk’ by Peter Smith he researched for 20 yrs before he wrote this book, about the massacre at Myall Creek.
    First Australians - (SBS)can download
    The National Indigenous Times,
    Tracker
    Lots of biographies at my local library.
    The Treaty with Maoris in NZ.
    Pat Wild’s Crikey piece

    I have been asked where I get the information for my views and advised it is insufficient to hold a valid opinion.
    I have been told to “smarten up”
    My mind has been “laughingly referred to”
    I’ve been called a half wit.

    I find the whole conversation quite stimulating and enlightening. At the same time I think that criticising the government for its policy failure when the problem is a really hard one isn’t very forward looking and looks to me ideologically driven. This is particularly noteworthy in the way Bess Price’s comments on Q&A have been shouted down by the left elites along with the circling of the wagons around Larissa Beherendt’s foolish tweet. In fact it was Eva Cox’s sanitising critique of the “over publicising of Larissa Beherendt’s tweet” that got me on the thread in the first place. I think that Crikey’s failure to publish anything about the political divergence of views in the Aboriginal community does it no credit. Especially when the editorial bias is “Beherendt good and persecuted - Price / Pearson stupid dupes of the evil Right Wing Daily.”

    I’m not defending the intervention. I’m having a go at the ideologically driven criticism from the left elite contributors to Crikey and challenging them for some practical, forward looking ideas. And I’m saying that I don’t need to study the writings of left wing activists to have that opinion.

    The best idea this thread has come up with is to have another go at ATSIC - a view I think has merit but seems painfully inadequate as a filtration of all the noise about the intervention that has come from this thread. (Oh, and dismantle capitalism and stop mining of course)

    And by the way “doctors wives” is a demographic generalisation referring to women in wealthy homes with a bit of time on their hands who have socially progressive views. It’s not a put down or a suggestion they are not smart. It’s the sort of demographic short hand a journalist or pundit might use to interpret a trend in an opinion poll or such like. “Left elites” is a similar demographic shorthand.

  • 40
    kennethrobinson2
    Posted Friday, 6 May 2011 at 8:06 am | Permalink

    Sorry gang, but I must have another go, living in the Topend, I meet and speak with the Aboriginal people every day, one of our local leaders said that “THEY”, being government wont to listen to us, and I totally agree.
    This problem is an Aboriginal problem, and in my opinion can only be solved by the Aboriginal people themselves, now having said that, they are not a nation, but made up of lots of different Tribal groups/Clans, who all have different views and problems, so one size fits all doesn’t work.
    I am strongly against the INTERVENTION, which I find insulting to all, very large signs are placed at regular intervals, stating that Alcohol and Pornography are not permitted in this area, indicating that we must all be drunks, and engage in porn.
    The alcohol restrictions do not work, but certainly do encourage black-marketing.
    I am engaged in a writing campaign, against this, not because it affects me very much, but is collective punishment, for all, which is illegal.

  • 41
    SBH
    Posted Friday, 6 May 2011 at 10:00 am | Permalink

    David, please, don’t put words in my mouth. Those comments were from other posters. Take it up with them. And by all means read those texts, they are illuminating

    Eva Cox’s criticism is not idealogically based. In fact her piece points out that evidence of the intervention’s benefits or harm are scant. She does make the point that Government has a much higher obligation to act from a base of knowledge rather than ideology or political expediency.

    Similarly Larissa Behrendt criticism is informed by translations of consultations held with Aboriginal people subject to the intervention. Consultations the Federal Government ignored. That’s not ideological.

    My opposition is indeed ideological if you consider that a belief that people have a basic human right to self determination and to be consulted about decisions that affect them is ideological. But this is a battle of ideas and I am happy to challenge a conservative ideology with a progressive one. Bear in mind that an ideological argument is not of itself without an experiential or factual basis.

    These debates are rarely helped by the use of journalistic boilerplate designed to offend like ‘doctors wives’ or jonesisms like ‘leftist elites’. This kind of name calling is used to divide and obfuscate and is a favourite of people who deliberately, tendentiously and recklessly distort, ignore and make up facts like shock jocks. Nor do you enhance your call for a rational debate by using pergorative generalisations.

  • 42
    Liz45
    Posted Friday, 6 May 2011 at 11:42 am | Permalink

    @NOMNOM - Introduce obligatory Traditional Indigenous language into schools taught by Indigenous and non-Indigenous teachers. I understand that this takes place in SOME schools now - I read an article in the SMH, maybe a couple of years ago. The aboriginal language taught to all the kids is the one closest to their school - by aboriginal people. I wish that it would’ve been part of the curriculum when my kids were going to school. I would’ve asked to participate too.
    I agree with all the suggestions that you have raised. The only way to stop racism is via education. I’ve been amazed in the past for example, by the numbers of amazing inaccuracies introduced by some people on YouTube or other places, or in conversation with some people. The best one is the accusation, that aboriginal people get more money than the rest of us! People who insist on this have never looked up any item on the ABS website? Fancy that?

    @DAVID HAND - You seem to have a problem with people from the “left” or anywhere else for that matter, whose “ideology” is driving them to be against the Intervention. My “ideology” is simple. I’ve always had an aversion about injustice. Ever since I was a child, I’ve argued against this. eg. I stood up for my best friend after her mother died, when the Nun ridiculed her ability in the maths or ??class and raised her ability to help her “poor father, now your mother’s dead” in front of the class. I stood up and told her to leave her alone, that she was sad - she loved her mum and now she was dead? I got a thumping for my impudence! I was about 11.

    Now, I find it appalling that yet again, aboriginal people are being treated in such a manner as described above. It’s unjust and racist and should have no place in a country that boasts of its adherence to freedom and democracy and human rights. In short it’s crap! Of course there are ‘off shoots’ in different aspects of aboriginal peoples’ lives that the Federal Govt is demeaning, and all of them are proving to be negative and causing hardship. From all areas of peoples’ lives these racist and oppressive ‘rules’ are not working, and they’re causing even more misery.
    We’re a racist country, no matter how often the so-called ‘leaders’ refute it. It’s ingrained and oppressive and destroys peoples’ lives - the most obvious is the difference in life expectancy between aboriginal and non-aboriginal people. No wonder! How many years could you live with such a racist undercurrent every day of your life? Those who stand against racism are often referred to as ‘do gooders’ or have a ‘guilt complex’ or some such drivel? Like racism, people like us are also herded into compartments and treated accordingly!

    If you’re interested in observing this ingrained racism and the practice of demeaning people in order to pay them less, or steal their land and resources etc, watch the next time the Intervention etc is on the news. You’ll observe that the electronic media trot out the same footage - a park in Darwin, or the military with aboriginal kids in June ‘07, or a community where the houses are run down and ‘untidy’, dogs running around, and skinny black kids! They do it over and over and I’ve taken particular notice since the invasion of police and military in June ‘07. You rarely see positive footage!

    Now ACA and TT also adopt this same formula re sole parents (who are usually women) Centrelink recipients; women in the workforce and/or women in general. While this ingrained bs is going on, the community are ‘drip fed’ bs that causes division and resentment!
    Watch how the media deals with the alleged introduction of teenage mothers(the ones who aren’t married, of course!) losing their supporting parent benefit after their baby is 6months or one year old and don’t go back to school or out to work or something? Of course, there’ll be no discussion about the millionaires who receive some form of child support income? Or who receive a pension? Or who owe billions in unpaid taxes? No, let’s pick on those who have the least amount of resources to defend themselves, and let them be the ‘theme’ for our excuses to ‘save money’?

    In short, when you demean people, it makes it easier to commit injustices against them. That’s what the Intervention is doing, while the govt inflict a nuclear waste dump on them and take away the land that is rich in something that the mining companies can flog off and become even more wealthy? Clever isn’t it?

  • 43
    David Hand
    Posted Friday, 6 May 2011 at 11:47 am | Permalink

    SBH,
    Of course Eva Cox’s criticism is ideologically based. The whole debate on this thread has been ideologically based. Even the title, pitching (wrong, destructive right wing) opinion versus (objective righteus left wing) evidence is an ideological statement and it’s why Price and Pearson’s views are awkward. So they need to be marginalised deligitimised. It’s all ideological, mate.

    And I await a practical suggestion from this panoply of “objective, non idological, evidence based” commentary about how to fix the manifest problems in remote aboriginal communities. So far we are up to cancelling all current initiatives including income management of social welfare payments, having a go at ATSIC again, dismantling capitalism and stopping mining. Oh and doing something about those British boat people who sailed into Botany Bay 200 years ago. Have I missed anything?

  • 44
    SBH
    Posted Friday, 6 May 2011 at 1:05 pm | Permalink

    David Hand your display of ignorance, ability to read minds and make stuff up and refusal to read what’s on the page (preferreing some crypto-leftist conspiracy analysis) is just breathtaking. Knock your self out champ, I’ve got some practical solution that need implementing.

  • 45
    David Hand
    Posted Friday, 6 May 2011 at 1:16 pm | Permalink

    I will take that as a “No”

  • 46
    Elan
    Posted Friday, 6 May 2011 at 4:08 pm | Permalink

    I have been told to “smarten up”
    My mind has been “laughingly referred to”
    I’ve been called a half wit.”

    NO!!! You tell me who said that and I’ll give them a good hiding!

    (Anyway you were called a wit. That poster simply measured the quantity, that’s all).

    DH: you seem compelled to prove your view right by ‘having the last word’

    OK. Let’s see.

    I’m not defending the intervention. I’m having a go at the ideologically driven criticism from the left elite contributors to Crikey and challenging them for some practical, forward looking ideas. And I’m saying that I don’t need to study the writings of left wing activists to have that opinion.”

    Any opinion that differs from yours is as I have bolded. You are dismissive of those who have way more experience of this situation than do you by neatly categorising them as above in some (failed) attempt to dismiss anything that opposes your compulsive idealism.

    And it is compulsive isn’t it? You are not discussing; you are preaching. You are talking at. Pointless. But we can go on if you like. Repetition won’t change the opinion of those who know a lot more and better than you.
    _________________

    To that end: good post KR2. I’m more inclined to take note of those who know the situation, rather than the OC mantra of someone who attempts to dismiss all views other than his own by categorising and denigrating their authors.

  • 47
    Liz45
    Posted Friday, 6 May 2011 at 4:49 pm | Permalink

    @DAVID HAND - Fancy you just putting your own spin on something and then assuming that SBH has answered a non-existent question.

    Tell us what your experiences and/or solutions are? How many people have you spoken to or read etc? What’s the solution smart alec? You know it all! You must to be down on Eva and anyone of us who stand against racism and repressive, patriarchal, patronising behaviours that aren’t working anyway?

    If you’re so critical, it can only be due to the fact, that YOU know better! Well come on you little champion, let’s hear it!

  • 48
    David Hand
    Posted Friday, 6 May 2011 at 5:36 pm | Permalink

    Hey everyone,
    Now I’m not saying I know better.

    But I did hear someone called Bess Price, who has direct experience, say that income management has been helpful. At the same time, Jenny Macklin, with all the resources of government at her disposal, is carrying out policies designed to stop alcohol getting into the communities and provide some of the taxpayer provided social welfare benefits in a way that makes it harder for them to be squandered on drugs, alcohol and cigarettes. And trying to get aboriginal kids to go to school. And trying to protect them from sexual abuse

    It’s called the intervention and though it has not solved the problems, it is the best idea thought up by anyone so far to try and improve the situation.

    Until another better idea comes along, I support the current one.

  • 49
    SBH
    Posted Friday, 6 May 2011 at 9:47 pm | Permalink

    David, do you have a single piece of evidence about how much money gets “squandered on drugs, alcohol and cigarettes”? Do you have any evidence of the funding disparity between ‘remote ’ schools and non remote schools. Have you any experience practical of the NT? Have you some evidence about the evidence of sexual abuse of children pre and post intervention?

    Have you read “Little Children are Sacred” the report that triggered the intervention (a question you continue to avoid)or have you ignored it like the federal government?

    No, then why do feel the need to continually press you ill-informed, poorly considered man in the pub opinion on the rest of us?

  • 50
    David Hand
    Posted Saturday, 7 May 2011 at 11:22 am | Permalink

    Of course I’ve not read the “Little Children are Sacred” report. But I am open to alternative ideas about the problems in the NT if anyone actually put one forward that could seriously be entertained by government as a policy option.

    But from my seat in the lounge bar, I have all the information I need to conclude that most of the objection to the intervention is idealogically driven and not very practical. I’ve even done some research. I asked a group of widely read and motivated left elites to put forward alternative suggestions to the intervention and the outcome has been, ahem, not very inspiring. There’s certainly nothing to fire off an excited message to Ms Macklin about. The main outcome was that they got all offended for me generalising them as left elites.

    And man-in-pub opinion is very important. We might not know much but there’s an awful lot of us, we pay tax and we vote.

Womens Agenda

loading...

Smart Company

loading...

StartupSmart

loading...

Property Observer

loading...