The Right to Know

I guess I am easily bemused but what precisely is wrong with people knowing what the price of petrol is in their general area, how retailers of groceries in the area compare on price or how the local schools are performing against some agreed criteria?

Sure, it is not the government fixing things. The government wont be fixing the price of petrol at a more reasonable level - let's say at less than $1.00 a litre. Nor will it be going through all of the items on the supermarket shelf fixing prices.

I am becoming very tired of people telling me that I shouldn't have the chance to compare prices across Coles and Woolies - they are our only options here - or to compare unit prices on articles - without a using a calculator or TWOMDs brilliant mental arithmetic (her way of warding off Alzheimers). I am not suggesting that we are desperately poor, but the habits of a lifetime of trying to get the best value for money are still strong and unit pricing will make that much, much easier.

For us fuel is an important purchase. I know it says something about our carbon footprint but we use a lot of things with motors - ute, tractor, quad bike, ride-on mower, generator, chain saw and various pumps - and they all need to be fed. Our fuel bill is significant. Add to that the fact that the most competitive retailers are over 100 kms away and you should appreciate that it would be very useful for us to know where the best price is on a particular day. Infuriating to check prices on the trip in to find that they have changed on the way out.

I was prepared to ignore the various scoffings and sundry other criticisms of some on the fuel and grocery schemes but the education issue has brought a wider range of paternalistic comment into the open.

I appreciate that it is critical to the success of any scheme to measure the performance of schools that the measurement system properly take account of a wide range of factors and that appropriate balances be achieved. This is a matter for the governments and system adminstrators. My issue is to do with the principle.

As a parent I went to considerable effort to avoid any involvement in the School Councils of the schools that my children attended. My strong preference was to trust the system to deliver a quality education to my children letting me know how the kids were going from time to time. I am embarrassed to admit that I was successful in this avoidance while they were at primary school.

Things changed in high school. Against my better judgement I was convinced to go to a meeting to be involved in an action planning exercise. We received a lot of information, had a strong debate and came to some pretty reasonable conclusions. Then the representative of the Department thanked us for our time and, basically, said that while our approach was interesting it was not what was going to happen. The experts had a different idea of where the school would go over the next 5 to 10 years. Along with others from that meeting, I spent the next 7 years on the School Council.

Once our community had information and the opportunity to discuss it, we were able to make decisions about the direction that our school should take. We were also in a position to make the rest of the community aware and to use that grunt to take on the Department of Education. We succeeded, but not without the promise of bringing 200 4WDs complete with pig dogs to town for a chat.

It would have been an option, of course, for some parents to simply send their children to another school. Perhaps not so comfortable for the children who would have had to travel some distance or to board but it was an option that was taken up by some parents in the area.

The point of this little yarn, in case it is not clear, is that without information we would have had no chance. No chance to move to change the school and no chance to make a decision to send our kids elsewhere.

The experts may also have been right. The though never crossed my mind at the time but it is possible. But they could not convince the parents. They could not provide information or analysis that was compelling for a reasonably competent community.

Of course, even the provision of full and accurate information about the outcomes that schools achieve will be of limited value. It will provide us with 'league tables' and might inspire some to get stuck into their local school and try to improve their outcomes. If the money was to go to those on the top of the table then the poorer schools will slowly become worse and worse. And if you are in a place where there are very limited options and your local school is on the poor end of the table then you are in deep trouble.

The trick is to use the 'league tables' to focus on the bottom schools with money and other resources so that they don't stay at the bottom of the pile while providing enough incentive to the 'top' schools to do their best to stay there.

Julia Gillard seems to be singing that song strongly at the moment. If she is serious then she has a winner and perhaps there will be an education revolution.

And about time!

Bogabilla Economy

It would take a hard or a sick heart to fail to be saddened by the story on Lateline last night about Aboriginal girls at Bogabilla who are prostituting themselves to truckdrivers. A sad, sad story that makes people angry and frustrated. All over the media this morning we have people saying that something should be done about it.

Something should certainly be done about it - but what?

Do you target the truck drivers? Possibly.

You might be able to convince them that they shouldn't pick up girls for sex at Bogabilla or anywhere else. You might be able to have the police or transport inspectors harrass them so much that they are scared to pick up girls. You might even be able to convince them that they should remain at all times faithfull to their partners - if they have one. All things are possible and they could be one target but do you hold out much hope? I don't.

Do you target the girls? Probably.

Maybe you can convince them that they don't need money or the things that it can buy. Alternatively, you will need to convince them that there are other ways to get some money. Perhaps there are jobs for them? Perhaps they need some education and skills so that they can get jobs? Perhaps they will need to move from Bogabilla to the city so that they can get a job, leaving their family and friends behind and taking their chances?

You might even try to convince some of them that they shouldn't prostitute themselves because it is the 'wrong' thing to do, that it is dangerous to their health or that it could lead to pregnancy - although I suspect that they know that one well.

Should the parents and community be the target? Definitely.

Practices such as those described on the Lateline program are not new. The same story could have been told about mining camps and towns, construction camps, station work camps. In fact, almost anywhere that there are reasonable numbers of young men, mostly single with access to plenty of money and some young women who don't have access to money to buy the things they want.

Before we start to rush about targeting people and trying to fix the problem it makes a lot of sense to work out what it is that we are actually trying to fix. Do we want to stop all prostitution at truck stops, mining camps etc? Do we want to stop prostitution involving young or underage girls? Or do we really want to give all of these young girls other options for raising the money they want and need along with the chance for a better quality of life in the long term?

I find it hard to believe that anyone would prefer to climb into a truck in the middle of the night and be screwed silly rather than work in a job that provides some reasonable satisfaction and a good wage. If I am right for at least some of the girls then a primary target has to be the development of a culture in the community that values work and the education, training and attitudes that you need to be able to get and hold a job. To do this you wont just be talking to the girls. You will be talking to old men, old women, middle aged and the kids. You will be engaging with everyone and working with those who respond to develop strategies that they see as sensible to achieve the outcomes they want.

Over time, you will be trying to change the culture of every Bogabilla so that the people have options for participation in the mainstream economy in addition to ducking down to the truck stop to raise a quick $50 off some randy trucker.

It will, of course, take time to make the changes required and there will continue to be failures along the way. It wont meet the need of the media or even the hand wringers. It will need politicians and bureacrats that are able to both communicate and to hold the line in the face of tabloid criticism. There will still be the chance that some girls will take the truck stop option but, with a sustained, practical and sensitive approach positive change is a chance.

With a rush about, shock horror, reactive approach there will be no change and the truck stop will remain the only realistic option for young girls for a long time.

Public Servants Beware

The apology to the Stolen Generation has been discussed by so many that almost every point that could be made has been. There is one area that hasn't had much coverage though and I think it is worth putting down a few words.

First though, I am very pleased that the apology has finally been made by the Australian Parliament. It will draw a line under a history that we can not be proud of and let us start to deal with the outcomes in a serious and respectful way - with any luck.

But, just for the moment let me put the people who were taken to one side and focus on the takers.

I had the task some years ago of preparing a submission to the inquiry that generated the Bringing Them Home report. It was a formal document and had to be accurate. I had access to a range of material including a lot from the Australian Archives. A lot of what I found has been talked about, some of it is available to the public but I don't think that is the case with it all. I guess, if I felt that I could speak frankly, I could put the lie to a lot of the rubbish that I have seen in the commentary. The habits of 37 years are hard to break though. And people wouldn't believe me anyway.

It was interesting as a sidelight in this work to consider the position of the public servants involved. These people were mainly police and welfare workers although a few nurses were also involved on occasion. I was able to talk directly to some of the people that had been involved during the 50's and into the 60's and even to one bloke who had been involved before WWII.

The law that was in place at the time and the policy on which it was based required that children of mixed race marriages be taken and placed in care. Public servants were required to do the job and, pursuant to the same requirements that exist today, they carried out their duties.

I came across a file that dealt in some part with policy issues. On it I found a document that had been prepared by a group of patrol officers working for the (then) Native Welfare Branch in the early 50's. These men were arguing that the policy was wrong and should be changed. If I recall the argument properly, and I have no copy - that would be illegal - the men put forcefully that the basis of the policy was completely wrong, that race was not and should not be an issue but that if children, any children, were in danger then they should be taken. The submission included examples of mixed race families who cared well for their children.

The submission did not get much of a run in the large Commonwealth Department. However, these blokes were obviously fired up so they eventually sent it direct to the Minister. There ends the story on the file.

I did get a chance to talk to one of the men who was still alive and prepared to talk.

They were not all sacked or disciplined but, in those days, and possibly in these, this type of behaviour is at least 'courageous', particularly when carried out by officers who are a long way down the pecking order. They were, after all, operational people far removed from the seat of power in the Commonwealth. They were not 'expert' and nor could they be expected to know all of the nuances of academic thinking that supported the policy position that they were required to enforce.

Not all of their colleagues supported the stand taken. Most of their colleagues in the system did what they were told. It is interesting though that, increasingly, purely race based seizures began to stop. Children were still removed but the cases for those removals were based on the needs of the child and the lack of care it was receiving in its home rather than on the race of the child. This had the effect of seeing a greater proportion of 'full blood' Aboriginal children taken whereas previously it was primarily mixed race children taken.

It wasn't until 1984, shortly following self-government for the NT, that the old Commonwealth Ordinance was overtaken by legislation that required that any Aboriginal child taken by welfare officers by fostered or adopted by Aboriginal families wherever possible.

The issues in this area are a minefield for those who make the laws but, I respectfully suggest, are much more so for those who must administer them. We now have welfare officers that are so worried about being labeled 'child stealers' that they leave kids in what can turn out to be dangerous situations. Where they do take kids they have great difficulty finding places for them where they will receive necessary care. Seventy percent of the population in the NT should not be fostering or adopting Aboriginal kids. Maintaining families is a priority.

If you are a public servant in the system working in the community at close to the bottom of the pecking order and you believe the system is wrong today then what are your options? Put your views up through the system, go public in the media, write to a politician or simply walk away. Not too different to the options 5o years ago.

I was a public servant for a long time. Over that time I was often in a position where I objected to or disagreed with a decision made although, as time went on, I had more opportunity to put my views and have them given a hearing. My job was still on the line on occasion and I can empathise to a degree with the position that those patrol officers were in back in the '50s.

The way to fix the system of course is to have legislators make better policy. That, in turn, requires that the community be better informed about issues and consequences.

Better get on with it.

Feet of Clay??

I knew Bob Collins.

I had to brief him once when he was Opposition Leader in the NT on a new piece of legislation. Over 500 sections and relatively complex stuff. There was a hole in it but it had been pretty well disguised. Handed the Bill to Bob and he started flicking through it while I started the spiel. He was respectful, waited till I drew breath and then hit me with the question. Nailed me to the wall. Luckily, he agreed that we were trying to do the right thing and never raised the question again. No one else ever spotted the problem.

Driving down the highway one morning saw a Landcruiser pull up on the side of the road. Bob jumped out and headed into the bush. I thought he must have been caught short but not this time. He had spotted a bloke laying there. Turned out to be a drunk who had been trying to walk home. Bob loaded him into his vehicle. A lot of other people had passed the spot before Bob arrived.

I know some of those who accused Bob.

I wouldn't feed them bad meat.

Bob may have had feet of clay. I do know that he often developed a yearning for pizzas and champagne often late at night. His self control where food was concerned was not always evident. Did he also succumb to a yearning for young boys. I don't know and now we will never know.

He was a good man who did a lot of good. A lot of good people have feet of clay. Doesn't mean that they weren't good.

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.

Australians All

I took the chance to read the booklet that has been issued by the Commonwealth Government on being an Australian last night. I have to say that, in my opinion, it is reasonably well written and will provide some people with a statement that will allow them to feel that, yes, they are right.

Of course, there are bits of the booklet that jar and bits that I believe are sure to draw criticism from significant parts of the community. At one point there is a comment made about those who pioneered the land, white people that is, or rather white men. Women were recognised though. They were the ones who stepped in when the men died or needed some help.

In another area the writers mention the '8 hour day' campaign. They speak approvingly of the principle of '8 hours work, 8 hours leisure, 8 hours sleep'. Strange that there is no mention, not even a hint, of the battle fought by the union movement with the employers and the government of the day to achieve the acceptance of this principle.

Indigenous people get a number or mentions, although I suspect that they will find it hard to accept that the analysis provided is as complete as they might reasonably believe it should be. There is, for instance, no suggestion that the policy of removal of mixed race babies from their mothers - which operated for over 30 years - was done in pursuance of a rascist policy even though there is mention made of the rascist nature of the White Australia Policy when discussing early Chinese migration - without mentioning the name of that policy.

For me, the point is not that this is a poor document - it isn't too bad - but that it tries to achieve something that is both unnecessary and impossible.

I am an Australian. Born here and so was my father and grandfather. In fact I can go back almost 200 years to when the first of my forebears arrived here. It wasn't his choice. He was expelled for life from his homeland. My mum wasn't born here. She was proudly a 'British citizen' and the holder of a Canadian passport - and, an Australian one as well. Nor was TWOMD born here but she holds an Australian passport.

I don't think I would have any difficulty explaining to a new arrival what it means to be an Australian from my perspective. I suspect that there would be similarities to the way my mother or wife would discuss the same subject but I am equally convinced that it wouldn't be the same explanation.

My neighbour on one side is a proud Greek - spray painted his fence blue and white when Greece won the European Cup. He is no less an Australian though - and seen as no less an Australian - than the Aboriginal bloke who is my neighbour on the other side, or me for that matter.

What good comes from trying to set out in one set of words from one perspective what it means to be an Australian when we are a mixed bunch and when we owe most of our shared values to the fact that we are a mixed bunch and that we have developed ways of generally getting on together.

There are a couple of reasons for the production of this booklet. It may be that some are worried that they are no longer really seen as Australian, or perhaps they don't like being called 'skips' by the newer arrivals. Perhaps some are trying to create a barrier that all must pass through and, by doing so, are somehow turned into true blue Australians who forget where they came from. Maybe some just need some statement that gives them some security.

It worries me though that this exercise is about an attempt to engender a greater sense of nationalism and this is a much more serious issue. Nationalism is a step too far along the road to fascism for me.

I am as proudly patriotic as anyone. I will cheer Australian teams and individuals when they take on the world. I am proud of the achievements of Australians and have been proud to identify as an Australian overseas (normally).

Nationalism is a term that, at its heart, is a concept that aims for the identification of a group, normally an ethnic group, and the exclusion from the group of those who are not seen to belong. Australia is a state that is a 'nation' that is not comprised of one ethnic group and one which has, for many years, aimed to be inclusive of people of other nations rather than exclusive. Exercises that seek to place some artificial set of values or ethnic requirements on being an 'Australian' take us a step closer to place where many of 'us' would be very uncomfortable.

It worries me that John Howard is talking more and more of national identity and now of 'aspirational nationalism'. He likes the idea of nationalism - or he doesn't understand it. Either way he is a worry.

It is Not Just About Power

John Howard has done something that current ALP Premiers and Chief Ministers, and possibly a new Labor Prime Minister, should reflect on and then replicate. He has had an agenda and he has pursued it.

Our current PM has changed the society in a way we wouldn't have imagined possible 10 years ago. He has turned us from a society that was proud of its place as a safe haven for refugees to one that regards them with suspicion, from a society where tolerance and respect for difference were lauded as desirable goals to one where the views of Alan Jones are favored and from one where unions played a diminishing but still important role to one where they are being painted as pariahs, apparently successfully.

Mr Howard has done this and more by never taking his eye off his real agenda, even while he allowed the opinion polls to make most of his day to day decisions.

I have a real worry about the current State Labor governments. I wonder if they think that being in power is what it is all about.

I am not in a search for ideological purity or rampant reformers. I spent the first 22 years of my life being governed by a LNP government. The line that it is better to have our principles intact and remain in opposition never cut much ice as far as I was concerned. Australians threw out Labor when I was born and it wasn't until I voted for the first time that the party made it back.

And I remember well the discussions and debates in endless party meetings and over many beers about whether and how much could/should be sold out, changed, massaged or forgotten in order to present a package the electorate would go for. But there was never a time when we actually believed that a Labor government would not advocate and implement what we considered to be progressive social and economic policy.

The Hawke government shook my faith somewhat but Keating brought a lot of it back.

What of the current Labor governments in the States and Territories? Which one is out there driving a progressive agenda, creating an environment where there is opportunity for all and providing real assistance to the people on the bottom of the heap?

I haven't spent a lot of time looking at what is happening in every State and Territory but, with the honorable exception of John Stanhope, I can see no Labor leader doing what I want to see a Labor leader doing.

Yes, you have to be in power. As Clare Martin said once 'the worst day in government is better than the best day in opposition'. But it is necessary that you do more than be in power.

Standard operating procedure seems to be focus on the economy, keep business on-side, keep a close eye on the polls and shamelessly spin every issue to maintain the desired image of a 'don't scare the horses' government, leaving any possibility of a social policy agenda to be dealt with only when the situation becomes critical.

John Howard has done well. Would that Labor leaders observe and find a way to set and achieve their agendas.

This AWA Business

There has been a hell of a lot written about AWAs and I am sure that every point and its brother have been covered many times in the debate. But there is one that I haven't heard yet.

Most of what we hear is about people on the bottom of the pile being done over by bosses or about how those workers in high demand are able to negotiate good contracts with their bosses.

My situation was not covered by either of the above situations. I was a 'permanent' public servant for many years. I reached a level where permanence was considered not appropriate by my employer and I was offered a fixed term contract. I resigned my permanent post and signed up for a contract.

Now I had a job that I loved. I had the power to make things happen that I believed were important to significant parts of the community. I was able to influence decisions of government in a pretty direct way and I was able to create teams that were often enthusiastic and highly productive. The fact is, and my bosses knew it well, I would have done the same job, with the same amount of zeal, for half the money.

My negotiation skills were considered sufficiently good for me to lead negotiations on behalf of government in major inter-governmental agreements and I believe that I had the reputation of bringing in a good product.

There is, however, no doubt whatsoever that the only reason that I received a reasonable contract from my employers was because others had set the precedent. I was simply a terrible advocate on my own behalf.

When I decided to leave it wasn't because I was not receiving enough. It was primarily because I realised that, if I was ever going to do some of things I had always wanted to do, then I had better get moving. When I left they broke my job into 2 and then added 3 more off siders.

The point is not that I felt I was done over. It is that I was not, am not, unique. There are many people in public services, non government organisations and private enterprises who are dedicated to their jobs and who feel that they are playing an important role. These people are easy meat in any contract negotiation.

In the new world of individuals I suppose there is less place for people who are not able to represent themselves. I am not convinced that this is a good thing or that the world will benefit in the long term.

Neither is the high end of town. Unions of workers may be on the nose but business continues to operate collectively bigger and better than ever before.

It all strikes me as a con job - and the surprise for me is that people don't seem to realise it.

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.

We need to talk about Kevin

Do we Australians simply feel more comfortable with duds? Maybe that is it.

We had a government once that lasted for 23 years. Without putting too fine a point on it, that government made sure that it kept things pretty much the same as they had always been. It kept the same businesses working by protecting them from competition, it kept consumers in their place by not giving them the right or capacity to a pursue a fair deal, it kept marriages intact by making it hard to get out of them and it kept people in their place by making it too expensive for those who were not well off to get an education.

But that government became increasingly mouldy and ended up as a joke. It was time for a new government. So we voted one in. Gough and his people established a legislative agenda that made our heads whirl. Family law, trade practices, Aboriginal land rights, reduction in trade barriers, free univesity education etc, etc. I worked in a place that introduced 6 new peices of legislation in 1971/72, 85 in 1973/74 with a further 150 in the next year.

Gough was great on the social stuff but not so flash on the economics. So we threw him out. Gave Mal and his mates a run. They didn't handle the economy much better but did continue some of the social stuff that Gough had started. Mal may not have been all dud, but after Gough he looked like one.

We liked the energy and enthusiasm of the Gough era and after a couple of terms of doleful Mal we turned again to the ALP led this time by the silver bodgie (my dad never called him anything else). Robert James Lee was a man who promised the world but the reality was another thing. Often wondered whether that was why he moved through so many women. There was intelligence, capacity and I think even commitment at times but there seemed to be no courage. No balls if you will pardon the expression. Looked the part and acted it but didn't make the changes we needed.

Paul snatched the job. We didn't give it to him the first time. Didn't really want him. But he wasn't a dud. He made changes. Finished off the job that Gough should have done. Sorted out the economy and created a platform for the future. Started to turn his mind to social policy and issues. The Redfern speech was a start. But he frightened us and, after too short a run, we threw him out.

John Winston has done his best to take us back to the Menzies era but with a bit more viciousness. Unlike Menzies he hasn't just tried to keep everyone in place. He has actively tried to make sure that they will never have the chance to get out of their place. If the society wont get back in line then he is going to force it with his work choices whip.

We come to Kevin.

He is trying very hard not to frighten us. He knows that we are a skittish mob and will bolt back to the relaxed and comfortable side if we hear something that makes us take fright. But I am not completely confident that he understands why we are on his side now.

From Kevin we are looking for some excitement, enthusiasm and energy. Yes we want him to be sensible with the economy and not to stuff it up, but we want more than that. We want a leader and a government that will change the things in society that need to be changed and will make decisions that make us better as a nation, not just the same as we always have been. We want someone who makes us proud of out stance in the world rather than to cringe at the treatment we dish out to refugees, indigenous people and those on the bottom of the pile. We are confident enough now to have another go at being a grown up nation.

Paul expressed his concerns the other night. He should not have done it that way but I think I understand his frustration and his concern that Kevin wont cut the mustard. More of John Winston is simply too much to contemplate. He has to go this time.

I am not trying to say that the duds don't have a place. They give us a chance to consolidate and to catch our breath and you can't go flat out all of the time - apparently. But we don't need a dud now. So come on Kevin, stop following the polls and get stuck in to telling us where Australia should stand in the world and why, what issues are important to you and what you will do about them and what you want to see Australia become and how it will be achieved.

Please can we have another goer like Gough or Paul, not to mention Curtin, Deakin and Fisher and less duds like Menzies, Hawke, Fraser, Lyons, Hughes and Bruce.

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.

What is counted, counts?

One day there is every chance that I wont be able to remember my arguments well, even on pretty boring subjects, so I need to get some of these ideas and arguments down. So this may only make sense if you put yourself in the position of two people arguing in an old people's place.

I have been working on the review of a program over the last couple of months. Nothing all that special except that it is a social program that operates primarily in remote Indigenous communities and utilises community development strategies to achieve outcomes. At one level it should be possible to measure performance against some of the outcomes. You can find some things to count. Unfortunately, the things you can find to count are not the things that are most important.

In an earlier life I made decisions about this, and many other, programs. The pressure to find and use quantifiable performance indicators was substantial and, of course, we played the game. My staff and I found things we could count and reported against them. Had to be accountable.

Increasingly, quantifiable performance indicators and their associated targets, are becoming the way many funders justify their decisions. I am becoming concerned that they actually believe that they are doing the right thing. My difficulty with this is that, in my experience, this is not the way good decisions are made. (A couple of subjective statements there BTW). Rather, they are the way that decision makers cover their backsides and justify themselves when under scrutiny.

It is so much easier to answer a question by saying

'the target was x, we achieved y and it was less/more than expected because of a, b and c'

than to say

'we were aiming to increase pride and self esteem across the community so that people would have the chance to begin to deal more successfully with the issues that are destroying their lives. We don't know yet whether the program will be successful but it is our judgement, based partly on the experience of people expert in this field, that we are on the right track.'

The latter gets you chewed up - or at least that is what the parliamentary committee tried to do to me. We did have an excellent argument though where the issues received some coverage that they normally wouldn't - and I wasn't sacked.

Reducing it all to numbers has a tendency to ignore the complexity in people. You may be able to develop 'happiness indicators' and have a nice little quiz with 20 questions to help you but, if you are paid to make judgements, should you not be expected to have the capacity to do so, and to be accountable for those judgements? And isn't it better for the society that it be informed about the reasons people make decisions rather than argue about numbers? Is not this the way that we develop as a society?

But if we can't count it we will never know - or will we?

Bob Brown vs the Temperance Society

When you have a child - a small one - you can get away with saying 'Don't do that'. They listen, or at least they get scared enough at the tone of voice that they stop. Then they get older. They want to know why. So then you explain. Then they take liberties. They start to negotiate and you end up with something other than 'Don't do that'. If you are a good parent you still prevent the dangerous activity but you have, along the way, educated and you have worked out a compromise that achieves the actual purpose. Most importantly, you negotiate an agreement and they are more effective (not more efficient) than fear.

You can treat whole societies like small children. We do it all of the time. Don't murder that person, don't take that drug, don't beat your wife, don't mine that uranium, don't drink that alcohol, etc etc.

Prohibition has its place but, in my view, not as a first option. Prohibition is a very blunt instrument. There is no room in prohibition for the negotiation of arrangements that might avoid another greater harm, for the establishment of conditions that might mitigate the dangerous or anti-social effects or for allowing people to exercise their individual and community rights.

Back in the dim, dark past when I was of a certain age some people used to grow marijuana among their tomato plants. It apparently wasn't as potent as the stuff people use today but it did the job. Probably still would. But we banned it. A war on drugs was declared. The cost of prosecuting this war has been immense. The profit motive kicked in and that drug along with lots of its mates have been developed and refined and sold by those outside the law at a great profit. Massive societal damage has been caused and is continuing because, as a society we didn't negotiate, make that don't negotiate, effective arrangements that met all necessary purposes.

Just imagine if 40 years ago we had adopted a policy that the use of recreational drugs would be legal but controlled. A licensing system would have been put in place, standards set for quality and strength, taxes paid, usage monitored and controlled. Would more people have used these drugs? Possibly, but with any luck we would have been smart enough to maintain quality at a level that kept damage to a minimum. Rather than a net societal and economic cost there may even have been a net gain.

I am very well aware that prohibition is supported strongly by social policy makers because it is such a powerful tool. For instance, there are figures that suggest that, if you prohibit the use of alcohol, it is possible to achieve a 50% drop in use. These are the drinkers who drink because grog is readily available. Drinkers who have enough cash to buy ahead, enough brains to plan, those who are keen to drink, or addicted, or resent being told they can't or who don't agree that they shouldn't all continue and with gusto.

Uranium mining, now this is one that could raise a few eyebrows. I have always been ambivalent on this. The previous ALP policy on 3 mines was simply a typical Hawke developed compromise. Sort of half achieved something but really was a con job. Banning uranium mining sounds like a good idea. It is a very dangerous substance. The waste hangs around for a thousands of years bombs kill masses rather than the more usual hundreds. It is also useful and, perhaps, does less environmental damage than coal as a fuel for power stations.

But the real problem I have with a prohibition on uranium mining is that I can't get past the feeling that we want to ban it because we are scared of it, or perhaps more correctly, we are scared that we will not be able to develop sufficiently careful or enforceable controls. Or maybe it is that we are scared that the governments we elect wont control it. Terrible thing fear. Debilitating for individuals and for societies. Time, I think, to get over the fear and get on with sorting this one out.

I could go on about grades of murder but perhaps I have made enough of an argument to cause one.