It is a Sin

Graham Richardson used to say that you do 'whatever it takes' to win an election. It looks a lot like John Howard and Kevin Rudd agree.

Howard has shown he will give 'non-core' commitments. Rudd has perfected the 'me too' art, winking at Labor policy which might not always fit precisely.

I am not averse to the view that you do what you have to in order to win. I have run and worked in campaigns where we have done things that have gone pretty close to the bone. Vote early, vote often was useful once - very useful. 'Bin teams' did a top job in another. Dirt Committees are a feature of most campaign teams, even if no one normally admits it.

But there are rules, places you don't go. For me the most important has been that you don't use people unless they know about it and agree.

I know that it is dangerous to require that everyone else follow your principles but I make an exception for this one. It really gets up my nose when I see political campaigns using people without their consent.

A lot of people suspected that Howard and Brough were not serious about saving the Indigenous children from sexual abuse in the NT, but many have been prepared to go along because it was clear to everyone that something needed to be done.

We are now starting to see the results. Brough says that $500million will be spent. In briefings to senior people in organisations it is now becoming clear that the majority of this is 're-badged' money. In fact, there doesn't seem to be much 'new' money at all. The money seems to be flowing from programs that funded services back into administration - high priced administrators who are often new and inexperienced.

New money is coming in but a lot of it seems to be coming from the Aboriginal Benefits Account. This is the money that is the royalty equivalent for mining on Aboriginal Land. The committee that does the distribution is being asked to deliver the funds to the Federal agenda rather than projects that the committee might see as useful.

I am told that over 1,300 children have had the medical checks so far and that 73 communities have been surveyed. No case of sexual abuse or suspected sexual abuse has been located yet. Four kids have been referred to Family and Children's Services for follow up.

Brough talked about new houses as a major component of the effort to be made. New houses were promised for people who went along with the Federal agenda. Now they are being told that the houses wont actually be 'new'. They will actually be current houses that are refurbished and repainted. The Fed officers are telling organisations that, when people have demonstrated that they can live properly in these houses, then they might get new ones.

The estimated cost of each refurb and repaint will be $20-30,000. They obviously have a really good manager because when I was running Indigenous Housing we normally worked on about $40,000 for a similar job. The saving is apparently going to come from the squads of volunteers coming up from down South to help.

CDEP is being dismantled. The 8,300 people who were 'employed' on CDEP and achieved some dignity as a result - for being paid a little over what they would have received on Newstart - will all lose their jobs. At this stage it looks as if less than 1,000 will find 'proper jobs.

Brough and his off siders are blaming the Territory, Indigenous organisations and the non-government organisations for failing to put in the effort.

It is increasingly clear that it is all a con job and that has every sign of turning into a massive stuff up but a lot of people still want to hope that good will come. After all it has been possible to get some good out of other similar, if less dramatic, exercises.

Howard and Brough have committed a sin. They are using people for their own electoral ends and causing pain to people who have limited avenue for complaint. They deserve what the polls are telling us is on the way for them.

Headed in the Right Direction?

The mantra for Government Ministers and many of the commentariat for some time has been the line that 'The country is headed in the right direction and eventually the voters will realise this and come back to the government".

Alexander Downer made the comment again last night on Lateline and Tony Abbot repeated it today in interviews about the latest poll results.

It is highly unlikely that anyone from the LNP campaign team will read this blog but an old mate of mine, Peter Conran, is a key Howard advisor and I used to work in the same small building as Mark Textor - before he became a super hero - so I feel just a tiny bit of an obligation to let them know that they have it wrong.

I like being proud to be Australian. I don't like it when my government makes me ashamed. I am ashamed of our laws about immigration and refugees and have been ashamed for a long time.

I believe that everyone should be treated with dignity and respect, notwithstanding their race, religion or beliefs. We are not headed in the right direction when we treat Indigenous Territorians as pawns in a ham fisted attempt at wedge politics.

I felt good about our respect for other cultures and out embrace of multi culturalism. It is not right for our government on our behalf to use dog whistle messages to sanction abuse of Muslims or any other group.

A sensible economic strategy for individuals, businesses and governments in good times is to both address outstanding requirements and set yourself up for the future. This means that priority should have been being given to issues, say, like public housing for Indigenous people (the $2billion necessary would scarcely cause a blip in the surplus), up-grading transport infrastructure, making child care an affordable right for everyone and ensuring greater access for all to the whole education system. Instead, we have some money put away and the rest put into an election war chest.

And also on economic management we are not headed in the right direction if the level of government with the money is not effectively shifting that money in reasonable amounts to the places where it is needed for services. I know the GST con worked on most of the States and I could accept you having a bit of a giggle at their expense but there comes the time when you need to address the financial imbalance issue. Your job that one and it has not been done well.

Climate change is, and has been an issue known to governments for many years. For crying out loud I attended national meetings on greenhouse in the early 90's. We knew well how serious it was then. (You remember Peter. You sent me.) Our government is not headed in the right direction if it ignores issues of importance because there are some who wont like the solutions.

The list could go on but I don't really have the time.

You need to know that this is just me. Others will have different views. Unfortunately for you there could be a lot of views but at least if you address mine you will make a start.

On second thoughts don't bother. You have left it too late.

Brough vs the Yolgnu

Poor Mal Brough. He has run into a problem in Arnhem Land and it seems to be upsetting him.

Brough's survey team were quietly asked to leave Yirrkala last week and didn't get much of a run at Raminginning a day earlier.

Ronnie Baramala, the spokesperson for Rammo, told the survey team that he had no problem with them. They were just public servants doing their job. He told them that they should come back with the two 'troublemakers', Howard and Brough and that they should be prepared to answer questions about the linkages between the takeover of land, removal of the rights of landowners to control access to their freehold land and child sexual abuse.

The survey team then went to Yirrkala where they were told that, if they were unable to answer questions then, they might as well leave. The team was told that they should get Minister Brough to come to the community and answer the questions. Their questions were similar to those of Rammo but they were also worried about the prohibition of kava.

All of this was pretty calmly done. Not too much in the way of histrionics. Everyone was being pretty respectful, although they were clearly not happy.

Then Mal had a good idea. He would talk to Noel Pearson and Galarrwuy Yunupingu. It is not clear what he talked to them about but he did it in NE Arnhem Land on the weekend so there are many who assume that it had something to do with recent events at Rammo and Yirrkala.

The perception is, and was always going to be, that Mal came to talk to Galarrwuy as the bull goose of the Yolgnu. But, while Galarrwuy is a powerful man and has played a significant role, in NE Arnhem Land he is simply one of the senior men of one of the eighteen clans in the general area. He has no right to speak on behalf of others and there have been, at times, deep distrust between his clan and others.

Inevitably, there was criticism of the meeting. Mal responded by saying that the people complaining, and who threw his survey team out, were really just doped up kava drinkers who
were upset about the prohibition on kava couldn't care less about children.

Let the games begin!

Mal sees himself as a pretty tough guy. The Yolgnu clan leaders are not shrinking violets. Djawulpi Marika is the Town Clerk of Yirrkala. He was a CLP candidate at the last Territory election. The Rev Dr Djinyniyi Godarra is ex-Moderator of the Uniting Church in the Territory. He is a leader of one of the more significant clans. Wali Wunungmurra was the Principal of the Yirrkala School. Raymatja Marika is an internationally regarded artist and a woman who serves on a number of authorities. There are many other men and women of real standing and considerable capacity who would have no fear of a public stoush.

These are people who have never 'lost' their lands. Ownership has never passed to anyone else. The Land Rights Act formally recognises their ownership, but the people didn't need the Act to tell them they owned the land. They have known that, except in extreme circumstances (such as the Gove Mine), they are in control - until now.

It is relatively easy to deal successfully with the Yolgnu people. You show respect and an appreciation of their interests and concerns. If you are going to try to divide and conquer then be sure to get it right. Make sure that the group you divide off has some real numbers and will be able to hold sway against opposition. Oh, and be prepared to fail completely with the people you have divided off.

This dispute gives all indications of getting more messy. It probably wont worry Brough too much. He is playing to an audience who believes that something, anything, needs to be done to 'sort out' the Aboriginal affairs mess. He doesn't really need to care what anyone in the NT thinks, let alone five thousand or so Yolgnu.

But these people will not give up easily and they have long, long memories. I wish them well.

Time to Reel Them In

Howard and Brough are now pretty well on the hook. They are committed to making 'something' happen and are starting to talk about this being a 'well planned' approach that will operate over the 'long term' - not that it was or is.

There is a long way to go and there will be snags along the way that could give them the opportunity to spit the hook but a gradual increase in the pressure should keep them there and set the scene nicely for a new government. John Altman's statement today that it could cost $5 billion to fund the Australian Government's intervention is the sort of thing that is useful. Now we need the police, doctors and others to find that the health of kids is worse than we thought and that it is connected to poor housing, lack of family support and, most importantly, lack of education and lack of meaningful occupation.

Don't get me wrong, this is still an abhorrent approach that fails in a most basic way to recognise that the people who are the target deserve dignity and respect. As I was just reminded, Paul Keating in the Redfern Speech put the question "Ask yourselves. What if this was done to you?"

But it still gives me some satisfaction that Howard and Brough have opened this can of worms. They wont want to shut it and neither will they be able to. Imagine if Rudd had tried to spend up big in Indigenous affairs in government early next year. The right would have had a conniption and I am not sure that Rudd would have had the necessary to carry through. Now, though, he will simply be operating in a bipartisan manner - in fact, if it is played right, the ALP will have no option but to introduce real programs backed by real dollars.

So let's keep the line moving in, building the pressure until they are all well and truly in the boat and can not wriggle out of doing what needs to be done to give Indigenous kids a chance.

The Howard/Brough Plan

The response by the Australian Government to the report on the sexual abuse of Indigenous children in the Northern Territory has been getting a lot of coverage in the news and current affairs programs and, of course, on other blogs. I have started a contribution many times but each time my anger and frustration has generate far too much obscenity. So I have stopped. Because simply railing against such moves is not going to make anything happen.

Sexual abuse, any abuse, of children is beyond the pale. There are few actions that I would not support if they stopped abuse happening. I would even support John Howard and Mal Brough and, for me, that would be a major step.

For me the point is that the action must stop abuse happening.

Does the Howard/Brough plan meet that test?

I watched Insiders on the ABC this morning. It struck me yet again that there seems to be a serious confusion in play. There is no doubt that there are paedophiles operating in Aboriginal communities in the Territory. I suspect that it will be found that there are both black and white ones that are there, and that have been there. I suspect also that there are kids who have been abused and that are being abused by these people.

But is this it? Are there really so many paedophiles operating in remote NT communities that they are causing the sorts of effects that are noted by the report of Pat Anderson and Rex Wild? Or is the real situation different?

The average age of first birth of girls at Wadeye during the last couple of years is 12. I have listened to young men - young being less than 20 - arguing about who had fathered the most children. There was no suggestion that they were paedophiles and no suggestion in the community that the girls were other than willing participants. They enjoyed the money that comes with children. Quite lucrative is the having of children. Even without the baby bonus, family support payments are useful and they come every week. You don't have to do anything. Just have babies.

Before TV hit remote communities there were people who were worried about what some programs would do to society on Aboriginal communities. People were concerned that young impressionable people would be given a strange view of the world by programs such as Baywatch. They shouldn't have worried. Many young impressionable people on remote communities moved quickly from TV to DVDs. These days there are stories of wide scale use of hard core porn DVDs being used in many communities. There is increasing evidence that some are getting some education about what is acceptable form these DVDs.

The system of promised wives had broken down in some places but it remains strong in others. There are prohibitions on men taking up with their promised wives too early but 'too early' is a definitional question. The 'too early' for some may not always be the 'too early' for others.

Australian law requires monogamy. It is quite possible, however, for a traditional Aboriginal man to have more than one wife, and at times quite a few. The practice is possibly gradually being abandoned but it is still a factor in many communities.

Add alcohol, petrol or ganga to this mix and you have a recipe for what may be the abuse of children.

I could go on.

The point of all of this is that the problem that the Howard/Brough plan is attacking is not as simple as chasing paedophiles and protecting kids from them. There are a range of both old and new cultural mores and practices that are in play here as well, of course, as the probable paedophiles. The Wild/Anderson report recognised the complexity, as does anyone who has any knowledge of Aboriginal communities in the Northern Territory.

This is all a long way of talking about why I have been infuriated by the Howard/Brough plan. We have police and the army being sent in to 'stabilise' the situation. Stabilise what exactly? Rampant paedophiles stalking the streets of townships? Isn't it the nature of these people that they are normally good at hiding what they do and thus take considerable, careful detective work to find?

Is it grog running they are going to stop? Given that all bar 6 or 7 communities are already 'dry' there is a lot of grog running that goes on. Extra coppers may slow them down but stop them? There is a level of dedication in the grog runners that inspires high levels of innovation. Just fly over Ali Curung and look at the dozens of tracks leading into the township. Consider the blokes who are prepared to walk across a crocodile infested river with a carton on their head night after night. 60 coppers and 60 communities. And just for 6 months. Need to be smarter than that.

Medical checks on the girls under 16. What will they find? That many of the teenagers have had sexual relations? Highly likely I would have thought.

Remove the need for permits to enter Aboriginal land. What has that got to do with sexual abuse?

Take over administration of communities from the current community councils. Could be relevant but it is not easy to see an immediate connection.

What is needed is a strategy that deals with all of the aspects of abuse of children. This is precisely what was attempted by the Wild/Anderson report and, while I don't agree with all of it, there are recommendations there that could address a truly appalling situation.

How then should we react to the Howard/Brough plan? Tell them it is a load of rubbish and they might go away. But if they do then they will probably take their money with them and the money is what is needed. The trick for Aboriginal communities in the Territory and for the Northern Territory Government is to manage this situation to ensure the money flows into a plan that actually does address the situation. To do this they will probably have to cop the silly, intrusive and racist bits of the Howard/Brough plan while they do their best to manipulate and move things to achieve some of the outcomes that are necessary.

I well understand the strategy being pursued by the Martin Government. If I worked for them I would probably have suggested something similar. Once you have a force like the Feds moving you can often gradually shift their focus. Getting them moving - or paying attention - is always the larger problem.

But I still bleed for the people who are being demeaned and dimished by the actions of people who have not learned that all people should be treated with dignity and respect.

Our Contract with Society

I have always had a strong view that with rights comes duty - or responsibility if you prefer. I have a suspicion that this principle was embedded at a very young age, forcefully, by my parents but don't recall a specific event. It may have been my father quietly explaining that riding around on the horse in the afternoon was OK but that getting the milking cows in was required. But there were certainly other occasions. 'You live in this house, you follow the rules'. My mum was always pretty specific. Anyway the principle stuck.

The necessary connection between rights and duty seems to be less well appreciated than is useful for an effective society at the moment. Take political leaders for instance. We have given them the right to govern us. We have said that we will accept the decisions they make and, if necessary, pay with money, time and some even with lives.

Implicit in the principle is that the more significant the right, the greater the duty. Thus, political leaders carry a very heavy duty. The duty to tell us the truth, to govern for us all and to treat us with dignity and respect. That sort of thing. How does this fit with some of what goes on now and what we have become used to? 'Non-core' promises, divisive legislation, 'fudging' on the advice that has been received and flat out lying about matters of major importance because it is impossible for the great unwashed to know the truth.

I am not picking just on political leaders though. The problem is more pervasive in the society. Recently in the Northern Territory we had a terrible situation to do with the McArthur River Mine. The Federal Court made a decision on a technicality that could have looked like it had given victory to people against the mine's plans. The problem was always capable of a relatively easy fix and the determination of the government and the mine for the plan to go ahead was crystal clear. Why then was there a belief on the part of the people opposing that they had won? Why were they celebrating? Because their leaders told them they could win and had won . It was useful to have them believing this to try to put pressure on the government.

It is amazing to me that the people on Palm Island believed that they would see Glen Hurley convicted. Any sensible analysis of the situation would tell you that it was highly unlikely. I am not saying that Hurley did or didn't do what was alleged, just that it was always going to be extremely difficult to prove that he was guilty of murder beyond reasonable doubt. Wasn't it the responsibility of the leadership to ensure that the people they represent were fully aware of this? Is it not almost criminal to create expectations that are not likely to be met?

I am perfectly well aware of the value of mass anger when you are trying to get a government or some other power to change their view. I am also perfectly well aware that the level of anger is closely related to the gap between expectation and reality. It is always seductive for leaders to use the anger of the people they represent to push a point. But with the power to lead comes a duty to the people you lead. That duty does not allow you to lie to them. In fact, it requires that you treat them with dignity and respect.

It may just be me but the sin of all sins is to sell out your own. You tell them the truth and, if you need to use them to make a point, you do it with their informed collaboration.

I used to wonder whether it was much use having rights if with them comes all of these duties. It might be easier just to bop along and not pay much attention to anything. But even if you are living in the long grass there are people who reckon you have a duty not to humbug people or cavort too much in public places. So I guess there is no escaping it.

The Kids Need Us to Pay Attention

It is impossible not to bleed when you read the report on child sexual abuse in the Northern Territory. You can't avoid feeling as the authors do that something must be done, and urgently. If we judge ourselves as a society on the state of those on the bottom of the pile then we are in deep trouble.

It is to the consiserable credit of Pat Anderson and Rex Wild that they didn't react to the appalling information they gathered by bringing down a report that recommended a massive law and order campaign. They have a few recommendations that call for greater enforcement but there are others that recognise a better way forward.

It is not the law that will sort out this mess. The changes required can't be forced. They can only occur as people themselves change.

The other day on the radio they were talking about Carter Brown novels. Most will be too young to remember these literary masterpeices but you will get some idea what they were like when I tell you that the front cover was normally of a beautiful woman, often scantily dressed and perhaps with a suggestive look on her face. There was nothing too explicit in these novels. It was all suggestion and innuendo. It was in the 1950s after all. The more you understood the more you understood, if you follow me.

The point is that, as a very young bloke and living in a relatively isolated area without any TV in those days, I gathered a lot of my information and analysis about women from Carter Brown novels. Most of it destroyed with the first actual warm breathing woman that I was with but the fantasies were nice for a while - as I dimly recall.

If you have no real education, no job and bugger all else to do all day than sit around watching DVDs and you have easy access to hard core porn, what do you think that young people are watching? Some of the time at least porn DVDs are on the box.

Increasingly, the expectations in Indigenous communities about what is acceptable in the wider society seems to be being formed by TV and DVDs. It is a mixed bag but just think about some of the messages that might come from popular TV and then consider the effect of porn.

Porn means little to most because we know that it is rubbish and that any dose of reality that is present is accidental. We know this because we have some education. We have been to school, our parents have provided and reinforced positive messages. We have a basis on which to assess the material presented. This is not always the case for Aboriginal people in many remote communities.

I am not suggesting that porn should be regulated more heavily or that porn is, in any way, the only reason for the current problem. I am suggesting, pleading actually, that every bit of emphasis that can be given goes to education and communication.

No more crap about not going to school or it being too hard. Get them in there and make sure they have the benefit of an education. And communicate. Tell people the truth and make sure that you do it in the language they know best. And listen to what they tell you, discuss it and come to a joint decision on the way forward.

It is time to act. Has been for a long time.

Mal Brough - A Testing Man

A bloke I like a lot, but whose political judgement may be suspect, told me that Mal Brough is seen by his Liberal constituents as a bright and shining star for the party. Perhaps, in some eyes, he is a good politician (but perhaps I wont move to the Sunshine Coast just yet).

A little story - just because I like to tell them.

I know another bloke and he is a mate of mine. He was the CEO of a council on an Aboriginal community. Deeply dedicated and a thinker, but not flash as a diplomat. When Mal came to visit and hectored the people, this bloke I know stood up and slowly (Queenslander - they generally talk bit slow) gave Mal a tour of the appropriate way to deal with people.

Now Mal didn't enjoy being told so he used every bit of influence he had to get rid of this mate of mine. Funny thing was that my mate was going anyway but had to stay on because he was being told to go. Just the type of bloke he is.

Meanwhile there is yet another bloke and he was in gaol. Hit a number of people, very hard. Without a doubt this bloke is one of the most charismatic and intelligent young leaders in his community. A natural. My mate looked past the criminal bit and recognised the quality. He cooked up a scheme where carefully selected people visited the gaol and had long discussions with the bloke inside. Went on for some years.

When he came out of gaol this bloke was a changed man. He still has the position and role that he has always had as the leader of a major group. Now, though, he puts it to good use and he has some ideas on how to do this. He went to the coppers and suggested he could do better if he had a uniform and some training. Sharp intakes of breath all around but thanks to good sense he has been given a role. The place is operating well. Fights are finished and the war is indefinitely suspended.

Back to Mal and my mate the (now ex) CEO. As a man of principle with the level of honesty and integrity we allow our politicians to get away with, well Mal could only clam credit for the rehabilitation of the bloke who was in gaol couldn't he? And it wouldn't do to suggest that someone who had sat him on his arse in a public meeting could have been right all along.

My mate - he has gone fishing but he will turn up again somewhere, I hope. People like Mal, they have been around before and will be again.

Its just a test.

Stuffing Up Good Ideas - Mal's Masterclass

The media would have you believe that Ministers are the ones who think of all of the policy ideas and make all of the decisions. It's normally not the case but, in the case of the issue of leases of Aboriginal land, the Minister has done his bit.

This such a vexed and complex issue that it is trite to say so but, if you are a Minister with the ability to cut through the crap you can find a simple way through.

‘Traditional owners’ of land are those recognised under the law as having rights and responsibilities for that land. If you listen to the anthropologists and such you will find that there can be different types of responsibilities involving different obligations. A person may have obligations or rights in relation to an area of land but may not be, in some terms a ‘traditional owner’. They might still be described as a traditional owner – but that is often just to help out a dumb whitefella. Increasingly, the term is used by some to describe all Aboriginal people living in an area, particularly if they are pretty dark, but a Minister who is knowledgeable will go past all of that and simply say that a traditional owner is pretty much the same as a freehold title holder. It is a lot easier when you ignore all of the folderol.

Settlements and missions were created, often without regard to whose land was used, normally because they were ‘good’ places to establish such a place – access to water, food, fertile ground etc. The people with responsibility for that land were often ignored. Their rights were trampled and they could no longer properly exercise their responsibilities for that land.

Over time, the two lots of people - those who moved in and those who had specific rights and responsibilities - have worked out ways of getting along. As with all communities, some of the ways people have worked out have been productive for all but most have placed the interests of particular groups over others.

One difficulty now is that there are generations of people who might be called ‘guests’ or visitors. They have no legal rights or responsibilities. Of course they may have a deep attachment to the place in which they were born and raised, they may have worked hard to make it a better place but they are not 'traditional owners'. They have their 'own' land elsewhere.

The consequences of this situation can be dramatic and volatile. Houses can be maltreated and destroyed, public places can be trashed, kids will only go to school when ‘their’ clan group is there and fights over seemingly inconsequential disputes can grow out of hand – quickly.

A way of helping to sort out some of these issues is to find an area where Aboriginal law and mainstream law are in reasonable accord, that is, where the two deal with a similar issue by establishing rights and responsibilities for parties that do not offend either legal system. At the risk of over simplifying it, the two systems both deal with land and are based on the principle that you only use someone else’s land if they agree and, if you use someone’s land then you should pay an agreed consideration.

The idea of leases for houses or house blocks was originally developed to try to give ‘guests’ or very long term visitors some properly articulated rights and responsibilities. It also required that they pay an amount to the people who have recognised rights and responsibilities for that land. Thus we have a contract that can stand up under both legal systems.

It made sense to take this idea further to establish a ‘planning and development authority’ for the township. This would have a majority of people with traditional rights and responsibilities and a couple of ‘guest’ representatives on it along with, say, a couple of people with expertise in town planning or civil engineering – similar to town planning authorities everywhere but without the real estate agents.

So, we have a method of gradually sorting out long standing conflicts and of setting up a process where those people who care about a place have a way of making decisions about its future. At the very least we have an option that people might select if it makes sense to them. How has it all gone so bad?

It has been quite easy to stuff up really. First, you change the model to make it more efficient. Why have lots of these little authorities? Why not just have one or perhaps two? And you don’t really need traditional owners on there, just experts.

Then you make it all simple, straightforward and direct. All of those good things. You say ‘we will only deal with the owners because it is their decision’. You offer them lots of money so they can convince themselves that they are doing something good for the whole place. You insert tight timelines that have to do with your needs. You studiously keep out of the discussion anyone that people have usually turned to for advice. And you make sure that there is as much media attention as you can get so that everybody is on display.

To put the icing on the cake you generate enough angst so that the hand wringers and instant experts come out of the woodwork and confuse everyone.

Now we have a lose/lose situation. If Brough wins the traditional owners and others will be at each others throats. If he loses they will still be at each others throats. Good one!

And I wont start on how to bugger up a great idea for up-grading of town camps.