The culture wars and petty feuds obscure the seriousness of indigenous education

In response Gary Johns wrote a piece on The Drum in which he attacked human rights (?!) and the political views of Brull and Behrendt.

Brull's piece suggested that Bess Price and her views on the Intervention are compromised because she once received an award from the Bennelong Society. Brull pointed out that both Philip Ruddock and Kevin Andrews have presented awards for the Society. Both Ruddock and Andrews have checkered records on controversial matters. Ruddock's pursuit of tough conditions for asylum seekers actually cost the Australian taxpayer quite a bit of money and also resulted in some compensation litigation. Andrews' handling of the Haneef affair and his comments on Sudanese refugees left a lot to be desired.

But it is hard to see how Bess Price's standing could be diminished by association. Her work and commentary surely extends beyond the mere receipt of an award from a public think tank.

Brull also attacked the basis for the Intervention by highlighting some of the flaws in the way in which it has been carried out.

Professor Gary Johns then responded to Brull and proceeded to attack the Racial Discrimination Act. Johns wrote that the RDA was in force at the time when the circumstances of violent crime that gave rise to the Intervention were occurring. Professor Johns seems to misunderstand the application of the RDA. The RDA can provide a complainant with an avenue of recourse where they have been subjected to racial discrimination in relation to matters of employment, housing or public services and the like or in relation to racial vilification. The RDA was never intended to be a crime-fighting tool.

Professor Johns then questioned where the race discrimination commissioners were during the events that lead to the Intervention. The current Race Discrimination Commissioner, Graham Innes, is a very remarkable and highly intelligent man and there have been several capable Commissioners in the past. But fighting crime is not within the remit of the Commissioner. A cursory glance at either the RDA or the Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986 (Cth) would make that obvious.

Brull then responded to John's article with a piece that titled 'always was, always will be Aboriginal land.' Presumably, he was referring to Australia. If so, whilst one can empathize with his sentiments it is worth pointing out that the High Court of Australia clearly held in the 1992 decision of Mabo v Queensland that the Crown had acquired both sovereignty and radical title to all the land of Australia at the time of colonization.

Brull again criticised the Intervention and cited a Report by Australian Indigenous Doctors Association as evidence that the Intervention was failing. The Report does warn that the benefits of the Intervention may be undermined by risks to psychological health associated with the policies of compulsory income management and external leadership and control. But the AIDA did concede that the Intervention would likely lead to gains in physical health within Indigenous communities. Moreover, the risks identified by the AIDA are potential risks.

Brull also quoted excerpts from a study by Paddy Gibson, researcher at Jumbunna House at UTS to criticise the Intervention. However, Gibson very clearly states that he is opposed to the Intervention. That at least casts doubt on the neutrality of the study.

Another piece written by Jeff Sparrow puts the whole matter into perspective. In essence, it has been a storm in a teacup with competing pieces from The Australian and the ABC.

At least the most recent and best piece on the whole saga, written by Noel Pearson, is both thoughtful and conciliatory.

At different turns it has been both amusing and bemusing.