Comments on: Playing politics with Aboriginal Children

By: StephenL

StephenL — Thu, 28 Jun 2007 13:47:32 +0000

Graham,
If there’s any evidence that permits have been used to keep out people who might resolve the paedophelia then lets hear it. So far none seems to have been produced. On the other hand, while the permits have obviously not kept out all external abusers tourists have been kept out and this presumably includes at least some sex tourists. Getting rid of them may not make the problem much worse, but it will certainly make it somewhat worse.
The point of the abolishing the permit system is to say very clearly to local land owners “This is not your land”. Howard has never supported the concept of aboriginal ownership of land, or even native title, and has opposed it at every opportunity. Here is a chance to deny aborigines the most basic right of all land owners – the right to say who can come onto their land and who cannot.
As a homeowner I quite rightly can’t refuse police with a valid search warrant from coming into my backyard, but I can prevent someone who feels like snooping. This right has now been denied to aborigines. Its a very big deal and will make the problem worse. It’s hard to take the rest of the package seriously in this context.

By: Graham Young

Graham Young — Wed, 27 Jun 2007 10:57:36 +0000

Stephen, I was at first puzzled by the changes to the permit system and the plan to take 5 year leases over some aboriginal land.
I don’t think the changes to the permit system are a big deal. The system doesn’t appear to have been very successful at keeping white paedophiles out, but it could be used to keep out people who might change the situation. If you’ve got a community controlled by criminals, then what sort of person are they going to give permits to and what sort are they going to withhold them from?
The change on land tenure appears to be to allow the government to grant some private property rights to people wanting to set-up businesses etc. Noel Pearson is right – the problems in these communities stem significantly from the fact that they don’t have a “real” economy. Land tenure is a necessary prerequisite for a real economy, and is therefore part of the long-term solution.

By: Ninja

Ninja — Wed, 27 Jun 2007 09:42:57 +0000

Graham,
You need to ditch the ‘rose coloured’ glasses you are viewing Howard’s policies through.
Nobody disagrees that our Aboriginal brothers and sisters live in the most inhumane conditions imaginable. But one does not treat the symptoms and ignore the cause.
John Howard is a cunning polititian who knows how to create an environment which gives him an advantage electorally. Tampa and the ensuing climate of fear politics is as good an example as any.
How can you ever trust a man who said ‘No GST ever’ or that other famous one liner ‘it is not a core promise’?
Here is another thought – how would you react if Howard applies the same policies to the rest of Australian society? After all paedophilia, pornography, and drug dependance is not restricted to modern Aboriginal communities only!

By: Stephen L

Stephen L — Wed, 27 Jun 2007 00:05:18 +0000

Graham, can you explain how putting out the welcome mat for every white abuser in the country to walk into these communities helps deal with the problem. Yet that is the effect of the plan to abolish the permit system.
Brough’s so called concern about the problem doesn’t stop him implementing a long held agenda to undermine land rights, even though this aspect of the plan will obviously lead to more abuse, not less. (It may be overwhelmed by the positive aspects of the government’s actions, but still clearly demonstrates that protecting children is not the only thing on Howard and Brough’s minds).

By: barney

barney — Tue, 26 Jun 2007 09:22:35 +0000

Graham,
This sums up my position much more eloquently than i could ever hope to.
http://www.smh.com.au/cartoons/index.html
BTW where are you up to with your survey of voting intentions?

By: Anne

Anne — Mon, 25 Jun 2007 13:09:58 +0000

It is interesting that after 11 long years as PM, Howard has suddenly found a passion for solving the problem of child abuse in Aboriginal communities in the Northern Territory, but without having the resources to do what he says wants to do:
For eg, there are not enough Dr’s in our public hospital system as it is – where are they going to find the Dr’s to go to outback areas to treat people with major cultural differences from our own? What are they going to do with the people they catch drinking or owning pornography? The jails are already overcrowded and there’s not much point fining people who have so little in the first place without making it worse for their families. The plan is only a few days old and already these problems are apparent
But what I do know is that Howard says he wants to control their land for the next 5 years or so while he does this – they obviously have a plan for the land if not for the people, apart of course from getting all of us arguing the rights and wrongs of the matter – he no doubt hoped it would cause the ALP trouble – as he knows many lefties would automatically hate this idea – what a great divisive issue just before the election.
However, Howard is very interested in putting a radioactive dump in the Northern Territory. Of course normally he’d have to negotiate with the traditional owners as well as other stakeholders … but if he controls the leases, the local indigenous people will be much less say over what their land is used for.
I sincerely hope I’m wrong, but it will be interesting who gets the most out of this policy – Aboriginal kids or the nuclear industry. I know which one Howard is 100% passionate about.

By: Graham Young

Graham Young — Sun, 24 Jun 2007 20:56:30 +0000

Barney, I think you would find that if a church run school had endemic paedophilia which the church was unwilling or unable to stop, the school would be closed down. No-one would seize the assets, but no-one’s seizing the assets here.
As to why Howard didn’t act 10 years ago, you might as well ask why Paul Keating didn’t act 13 years ago. The reason in both cases is probably because it wasn’t politically possible then.
It is politically possible now, and that is partly due to the work of Noel Pearson, and partly due to the fact that attitudes towards aborigines, and Howard, have changed significantly. 10 years ago Aborigines were literally turning their backs on Howard, now they’re much more inclined to work with him.
Another factor is that Howard has a minister in Brough who is prepared to give it a go. Brough took this portfolio over about one year ago and has been working for change ever since.
The last factor is that Clare Martin’s negligence gave Howard the opportunity to trump the Northern Territory government. If she’d acted promptly and decisively we probably wouldn’t be seeing this action either.

By: GCM63

GCM63 — Sun, 24 Jun 2007 19:07:22 +0000

Barmey,
At least a plan of action has been announced. Of course it will take time to organise the doctors, health workers, police and all the supporting community services from housing to water to implement the PM’s initiative.
Did you expect the PM to stand idly by once he received the report of systematic sexual abuse of the children, like Clare Martin did for weeks?
He has decided to act now, and we should all be supporting the government’s initiatives to ensure this issue is going to be addressed once and for all.
If anyone has constructive criticism regarding the PM’s plans, they would be more than welcome to send them to the PM’s of Mal Brough’s office.
As for the governemnt’s alleged neglect of the Aboriginal community, as Noel Pearson has said, just throwing money at the problem in the form of passive welfare has failed and a new approach has to be implemented.
At least the PM is trying something else. What if there is a political face to this initiative? All government policies are devised with this in mnd, whether by the Coalition now or by the ALP governemnts in the past.

By: Brendan

Brendan — Sun, 24 Jun 2007 18:50:14 +0000

Again, Howard only deals with the effect and not the cause. He has had eleven years and done nothing. While it is good that he is taking action, one can not help but be skeptical of his motives.

By: barney

barney — Fri, 22 Jun 2007 15:37:58 +0000

Graham,
I think the concern is not that the government has acted, but in the way it has acted. To use your church analogy, would the government assume control of ALL church property for a period of 5 years, and if it did would there not be an outcry?
This has all the hallmarks of yet another kneejerk reaction which has not been thought through. Where are the extra trained police going to come from? Doctors? teachers? housing? Why, if this was such a problem apparent to everyone and deserving of the status of EMERGENCY, was Aboriginal health/children’s wellbeing not a central plank of the May budget handed down just 6 WEEKS AGO? And why has it taken 11 years to suddenly become concerned? Could there be an election later this year?