'Rebuilding from the ground up' would destroy from the top down

Demand number four goes further: it requires government to “Rescind all township leases signed since the Intervention began in 2007”. These township leases cover a tiny proportion of Aboriginal-owned land, way less than one per cent. Abolishing the leases would remove the township areas from any form of public ownership, and return the land to control by sectional interests, beyond the reach of the majority of residents, with its governance again not being subject to the principle of the “common good”. (In the process there would be a retreat from the possibility of creating some of those good jobs demanded in the previous demand).

Demand number five requests another retrograde move: “Return administration of housing stock from the NT Department of Housing to local Indigenous housing committees attached to the community councils”. Large sums of money, great responsibilities, huge expectations, major risks.  Under this model there would be little accountability or capability, and no economy of scale, for the crucial task of managing, developing and maintaining social housing stock in the remote communities.

Demand number six, concerning education, is not as silly as its precursors, and contains a number of sensible demands, but spoils the effect by finishing with a demand that the new pressure on parents to send their kids to school should be removed.

Demand number seven mandates the removal of the widely popular and very useful compulsory Income Management program. This is to occur before many people become functional and strong enough to protect themselves and their vulnerable family members from the ubiquitous grog and cannabis fuelled humbugging, bullying, abuse and violence that necessitated the introduction of Income Management in the first place.

Demand number eight is for greatly needed and easily justifiable services, such as “early childhood programs, youth services, men’s programs and women’s centres”, but advocates that they be placed under the direction of the dead hand of the departed, unlamented “local councils”.

Demand number nine outlines sensible health services, and thankfully doesn’t require that they be subject to the wishes of “local councils”.

Demand number ten effectively proposes that all questions relating to alcohol be left in the hands of “the community”, thus absolving governments of all responsibility for moderating the impact of this extremely serious problem that dominates daily life in many communities, and which destroys many people from most communities. It also includes the demand that the communities – no matter how small – have local alcohol treatment programs, regardless of the practicality, cost or need, for them.

Last but not least, demand number eleven is for the government to “Recognise customary law as an important vehicle to empower communities to take responsibility for offending and improve community safety”. It fails to mention whether this recognition would include the sanctioning of the violent or deadly punishments which are common and integral parts of “customary law”.

It may be more accurate for the Jumbunna House of Learning researchers and their supporters to consider renaming their document “Rolling Back Reality”. The proposals as they stand could never be funded. They fail to take into account individual community needs and desires. They demand full community control, but make no mention of financial realities, accountabilities and responsibilities. Most importantly, they overlook the everyday reality of very high levels of violence in many communities. Violence that is being used casually in too many inter-personal relationships. Extraordinarily excessive consumption of alcohol and cannabis use by many people in many places. Untenable levels of child neglect, and all the implications for the weak and vulnerable if there is a return to control by the most powerful in some of these remote places.

The real pity of this is that the more Jumbunna, IRAG, WGAR, STICS, GLW et al promote this “rights-driven” approach, the more confusing and debilitating it all becomes for Aboriginal people in remote communities. The modus operandi of many in these protest groups is to turn up wide-eyed at meetings or communities; take at face value whatever they are told by whatever Aboriginal people are willing to talk to them, and then regurgitate whatever parts of it fit their own utopian ideals. The result being seen as legitimate demands of the people. Seemingly, on principle, they refuse to factor in things like the possible good faith or policy logic of government programs. They also ignore such small considerations as past policy and program failures, very poor track records of some of those making the utopian demands, and the urgency of addressing issues such as endemic violence, child neglect and substance abuse, let alone the need to prioritise spending. They thus encourage Aboriginal people to make impossible demands on government, and enter into delusional assumptions about what is just, reasonable and logical. In the process, the chances of governments being able to engage in productive and realistic dialogue and negotiations with local Aboriginal populations are often greatly diminished.

 From the above it can be seen we all lose; but in particular, it is Aboriginal people who lose the most when policy development and advocacy are conducted in such a chaotic manner.