How about doing something along the following lines.

Put the money that it has been decided to spend into a fund. Give all the people in Australia who are interested in it being spent wisely an equal share in the control of the funds. Require the communities on which the money is to be spent to come up with proposals – both on their own or with consultants and advisers that they hire. Now let the people with the money (that is the people who are interested enough in the problem to decide they wish to help by evaluating the different schemes) allocate the funds to projects. There are different ways of doing it but a Hare Clark voting scheme where the votes are money would be one way.

The advantage of this scheme is that we have created a market in projects with all the benefits that markets bring in allowing projects to fail and allowing good projects to succeed and with the money being spent on things that the recipients think will be of most benefit to them.

It might be argued that this is complicated and expensive. In the world of the Internet this is not complicated and it is not expensive and is a lot cheaper than the current schemes for spending money where most of it seems to go on salaries for outsiders and schemes in certain people’s electorates far removed from the problems.

There is a fresh post from Jane and previous posts from her and David, with a long discussion, can be found in the side-bars.
Cheers,

Bob

I can only hope that through this fog of bad policy and faith that some good outcomes will result.

Ken might think about working his piece up for a longer monograph, say for The Quarterly? Broken up into discrete chapters/subjects with more quotes and graphics woven in and an expansion of the economic analysis would work in that format, not as Nabakov pointed out, on the screen in front of a crowd. Further to Ken & Nabakov’s comments about dot points, if you are as familiar with the paper & issues as seems obvious, just use the dot points as a guide and free-style it – look better to a crowd if you’ve got more eye contact and aren’t tied to a script. CAEPR and Jon Altman at the ANU have had some valuable things to say previously and of late about these matters.

I agree with most of the comments made but think the details of how well the respective governments plan, resource, implement and follow-through on the intervention warrant close and ongoing attention.

I already see a comprehensive lack of planning and resources even in this initial phase. It has been wrongheaded from the start – poorly thought-out policy and unilateral actions implemented in blind ignorance and without local engagement or coordination on any level, a chronic lack of staffing and resources in the local ICCs & govt agencies supposed to deliver on the intervention, inept communication with affected people and communities (lots of glossy & glib feed and opportunities for the media chooks though), and the creation of uneccessary uncertainty and mistrust rather than confidence and acceptance.

I note the following that will be of interest to me over the next few months -

How will the Commonwealth’s Business Managers (CBMs) operate, how far into the operations of communities and organisations will they stick there noses? Speaking to staff at local CGC’s & service organisations over the last 4 weeks or so revealed that they know nothing about the CBM that will be parachuted in (the first? will drop in here on Monday 23rd) from south with a fat salary, bonuses and incentives who will be doing what, exactly? Their jobs?

There appear to be no protocols, MoUs or similar arrangements at Fed-NTG level and nothing between the Feds and local government about who will and can do what, where and when, what will be coming and what is going to happen to what is already here. There has been next to nothing from the Feds about how many and where the CBMs will be dropped in, nor where, other than the map at the OIPC site (for an anlaysis of these sites and the related issue of the recent CDEP changes – see the excellent posts by linguists and long-time NT workers Jane Simpson & David Nash at: (also useful re the tenure issues below)

Re the compulsory acquisition of townships and CLAs I note that the NLC has long had a policy to develop Land Use Agreements (LUAs) over Township areas/CGC scheme boundaries on Aboriginal land on a number of communities in order to give the traditional owners, residents and local councils greater certainty over their respective rights and interests. At the time I’m aware of, neither the then CLP NT Govt, nor their DLG or LGANT had much interest in the proposal. The Commonwealth wasn’t even on the same page. The leases issue could still work out ok, but not if Brough et al want to use it as a trojan horse for their contentious permit and home ownership proposals. The NLC would still have the draft leases on file and are most likely using them in their negotiations at Galiwinku & Wadeye.

Further on the CA issue – they may pass the legislation but accurately surveying each of the 73 community areas will be a complex, costly and time-consuming matter for little long-term benefit – as far as I’m aware this data is contained in neither the Serviced Land Availability Plans (SLAP plans) prepared by the NTG nor the Community Government Council (CGC) schemes. In this latter regard I note that there is substantial variation in the jurisdictional areas in these schemes – some CGCs having jurisdiction and responsibility for vast tracts of land that they have no capacity to manage, while others have smaller areas centered on township areas. This was one of the issues behind the NLCs approach to land use agreements – to regularise (because the legal caoacity of CGC’s & other Council’s to occupy and use the land on which they have been placed remains, in my mind, unresolved.

I query that just came to mind was, in relation to the compensation issue is whether there there may any Native Title issues/implications – I haven’t thought this through but someone else might have a view?

Ken correctly raises the issues of lack of consultation with Aboriginal people – this is particularly relevant in relation to the proposed permit changes that have been sitting in the bottom drawer since, well, at least the Reeves report of the late ’90s and dragging them, and the compulsory acquisition proposals, out now and tying them into child abuse issues has rightly been seen as nothing more than a cynical exercise. I would hope that these proposals will get delayed by their sheer complexity and, perhaps, there will be enough gumption somewhere sufficient to send the proposals off to a Senate committee for examination – where no doubt they will look at the submissions (not publicly released as yet)to Brough’s permits discussion paper (http://www.oipc.gov.au/permit_system/docs/Permits_Discussion_Paper.pdf) released in October 2006 and also at the thorough HORSCATIA (http://www.aph.gov.au/house/committee/atsia/reeves/inquiryinf.htm) examination of the Reeves Review, to which the government has, after 7 years, failed to respond and which contains valuable evidence from Aboriginal people in the NT about their views about the permit system (great transcripts!). I haven’t been able to find an electronic or copy (left one behind as a doorstop in Darwin years ago), though at 600+ pages it’ll be some big pdf. file …

Further to the communication issue – the NTG & Cth both have websites with varying amounts of information. The NTG’s is the most evenhanded and useful – the Cth information seems scattered acros a number of Ministerial, Departmental and agency websites. While these websites might look good on the screen, they are not effective as media for communication to people on remote communities, few of whom have the luxury I do of broadband in my house (thanks Telstra!).
The best forms of communication out here (public meetings [though there was one here a week and a half ago], local radio & TV and newsletters – even a two page spread as the NTG used last week for its LG Reform would be useful) are not being used. It is a bit rich for Sue Gordon to be complaining about misinformation from ‘outsiders’ and aboriginal people if her Task Force is creating an information vacuum. I for one cannot see any efective communication on the ground – nothing at the local Stores, or the Council, the Land Council and only bits and pices on the local radio and TV broad. The local TV broadcasts have been lost because of the National Indigenous Broadcaster that recently took over their channel.

That the Feds have only chosen to act in central australia so far without satisfactorily explaining the how, who, when and where of progess with their plan (what plan?), both here and in the rest of the NT beggars belief.

I agree with David’s comments about not losing this rare opportunity for positive change though it will be a very hard row to hoe. Employment and housing are key issues but I do not have any confidence in the Feds approach as seen to date providing any comfort in those areas. I cannot agree with the adoption of some softer version of the Pearson strategy – his approach is not so much ‘tough love’ but more ‘tough luck’ – no doubt why the Feds are so attracted to it.

For Robert & others there are a number of successful culturally-based cooperative businesses and groups operating on Aboriginal land – these include the resource agencies and associated programmes and agencies (see for example Bawinanga Aboriginal Corporation & Maningrida Arts & Crafts) and for Arts centres (Warlukurlangu Artists from Yuendumu). For land management (a matter of supreme importance and a good potential source for on-country employment but lost in this current debate) see for example the Caring for Country programmes at the NLC & CLC and the complex multi-agency and Aboriginal land-holding groups working in Arnhem land & the Gulf (Dhimmurru etc)and the raft of Aboriginal land management groups scattered across the country.

Further to Jacques comments re medical screenings etc – for the past several years a number of communities in central Australia (and elsewhere – see the work of the Fred Hollows foundation) have been working with ad-hoc groups of, mainly Canberra-based doctors on providing basic eye, and more recently, ENT assessments and procedures to dozens of adults and children. None of this has, as far as I know, involved a cent of Govt money and has been funded by the medicos own money and the hard work people in communities. There may be a lot to learn from long-term coopoerative and economical approaches like this that appear to largely slip under the radar of broad attention.

Finally, in response to Fred’s points – LGANT has a media release on their website with some interesting statistics and figures about Grant Commission distribution formulae and how they affect local communities. The Productivity Commission repport is useful and would provide a lot of support for a more reasoned and sustained approach than the Feds have taken to date. There is also a good report (at the OIPC website I think?), on the reduction of red-tape in Aboriginal communities – related the the illuminating reports on the conduct of the COAG trials and now available at the OIPC site. I think the Feds have blown any opportunity (mainly through their bludering approach and sheer bad faith) to effectively respond to the biuld of recommendations in the Wild/Anderson report.

I suspect/hope however that most of the contentious issues related to the intervention will (what happened to the recall of both Houses? – apparently problems with the drafting of the Bills – oh to be a fly on the wall in the Parliamentary Counsel’s offices …) be swamped by an election within the next few months…as I’ve said elsewhere, the (d)evils in the detail…

Cheers and best and thanks for a good discussion and the opportunity to comment.

I am afraid I too share your (and many others’) deep cynicism about Howard and Brough’s motives and commitments, and believe that their approach is likely to make the situation worse, and the indigenous people more distrusting and resentful.

I would be very happy to be proved completely wrong.

My main concern now is about what happens next – after the law and order issue is resolved – and in particular whether any government (Labor or Coalition) will seek to seriously correct the underlying inequalities of opportunity that most indigenous people, especially those living in more remote places, face.

I think four points need to be hammered strongly. :

1.The current relative spending per capita on indigenous Australians is below the objectively assessed relative need. The Grants Commission does not assess need – it only uses actual standardised expenditures as benchmark. But others have done calculations. We cannot let Costello and Brough get away with the Hanson line that the Government is already spending ‘too much’ on Aborigines.

2. There are important economic spin-offs from more investment in aboriginal employment, education, health and housing. The Productivity Commission effectively says so.

3.Most of the ‘little children’ report’s recommendations have so far been ignored by the Howard Government and some of the measures it proposes to implement such as on permits are not in the report.

4. Governments cannot make progress unless they cooperate with the aboriginal people. This too is a major recommendation of the little children report.

By the way, Ken, are you watching this engrossing series on SBS called Circuit (Sunday evenings)? It deals frankly and effectively with most sides of the aborignal problem and it is very well acted too.

I think you’ve been a little kind in regards to the medical interventions. So far, they’ve been mostly pointless. Recent news celebrated the fact that in one community of the 15 kids seen, 14 were referred to an ENT specialist. There is no ENT available. High rates of anaemia were noted – a fact already well known through the NT GAA program which provides growth monitoring of 0-5 yr olds throughout the NT. They could have just read the latest GAA report to find that out.
What is also well-known is that especially in remote areas, MBS and PBS access is way below par. They are both Federally funded. Historically, the NT has missed out because remote clinics were mostly staffed by RNs and AHWs who provided GP-type services by default, but without the Federal funding linked to a GP via MBS. That was been improving over the last decade but remains a significant problem which the current Federal intervention could further address. The PBS deficit has been partially off-set by the S100 program.

The general problem of this part of the NTERT was noted by one of the participants,
“It may not be physically possible to actually get them [kids] to come to the clinic and some of them will have had quite comprehensive medical checks before.”

So, yes, long-term commitment is the key.

On economic and housing issues, I don’t see much to disagree with. There are different ideas kicking around, but yours are as reasonaable as any.

One of the more interesting occurances was that in the week that Brough and Howard were making their pitch, the Productivity commission Chairman was winging his way to the OECD World Forum to talk about these issues detailed in the Commissions’ 2007 report on Indigenous Disadvantage that spelt out the best approach,
“Analysis of the things that work, together with wide consultation with governments and Indigenous people, identified the following success factors:
-cooperative approaches between Indigenous people and government (and the private sector)
-community involvement in program design and decision-making a bottom-up rather than top-down approach
-good governance
-on-going government support (including human, financial and physical resources).”

Evidence-based policy appears to remain a distant hope.

I don’t agree that the size of the NTG can’t be slimmed down. I think it needs to be factored in that government grew a lot under both Labor and the CLP, which leaves a lot of scope for changes. I also hear the usual horror stories of stupidity and waste from the inmates of the gilded asylums.

There are quite a few offices established by the ALP over time, plus all the jaunts created by the CLP in its heyday. There was a spate of them early on – the Office for Territory Development springs to mind.

One of the unspoken reasons why this Howard intervention can be so damaging if it fails is the opportunity cost from making a massive move on Aboriginal communities. Let’s hope this intervention goes on to incredible success, which may open up opportunities which obtain support, though it doesn’t look good that way. But let’s imagine the current intervention was a deeply considered and effective one, with public cynicism annulled due to its quality, then unusual things just might happen.

One of these might be, for the sake of floating a positive idea, an occasion where the lucrative arts industry through its own volition born of inspiration from such an intervention formulated some sort of co-op or such where the returns from all Aboriginal art sold went back into Aboriginal communities (minus a reasonable admin fee, and with compensation for the dealers who rely solely on Aboriginal art as, say, a local council would compensate a stallholder or shopkeeper when changing street design). It’s just an idea, and if at all possible would have to come from a genuine public belief that finally some real changes for long suffering Aboriginals are possible – and the considerable money won’t solve the problems but it would make a difference.

The purpose of floating this idea, while it may be viewed as totally unlikely, is to show that there is a lot of money in the Aboriginal culture. Positive ideas which harness this wealth and return its reward to the communities provide not only financial return, but a reason, a purpose, a driving force for people to develop that wealth – while doing one thing so many want to do and are better suited to: to live and celebrate their traditional culture. Monies returned could be quarantined for sole use to develop this “industry”, or culture, call it whatever, to find its commercial feet. A template could be created for each community to apply, hooking them into a means for receiving returns on what they do.

This is not to take away from other more pressing needs being addressed, nor to pretend there are not extreme difficulties in it, but to walk alongside such a massive intervention. To many eyes, any attempt at Aboriginals handling money in any long term positive way is immediately rejected and even laughed at, but the key difference with what I’m broaching here is that the core use of this money is purely for the development of traditional culture in that community: what that counts for in the face of that argument I don’t know, but it does bear mention.

I have mentioned before that this traditional culture component (albeit again loosely placed here in idea) is a key ingredient missing, from the non-indigenous view, in the self-healing of the Aboriginal fate. Money is already created from this culture, and much more could be, which could be returned, and my belief is that there are good commercial (which is policy) minds which may be nudged to be brought in to examine the “traditional Aboriginal industry” if you will, as a means to self-fund it and grow it. Thinking positively, the flow-on effects into communities, where Aboriginal people can see opportunities for their own (ie unique) self expression being valued and receiving reward, may cause a shift of considerable proportions.

From the recent census, it was reported that Australians don’t find the Aboriginal culture as something sufficiently attractive to wish to visit upon, as a tourist. This is clear, anyway, in that the public is not screaming for it. However – and this is not a basis upon which to build an industry, obviously – from my experience Americans do. “I just want to see one,” they say more or less, and are intrigued if not mystified by them. Is there another market here? How can the “traditional Aboriginal culture” be packaged and sold to the US? The people I spoke to, over there, would probably never come here, and we don’t want tourists creating more problems – but can the “traditional Aboriginal culture” be sold into international markets?

So while the focus is on closing in on the Aboriginal communities, and imposing our good cultural developments on them through this intervention, there is also, I believe, and I may be a rather lone voice on this, a tremendous opportunity and inestimable value in drawing out from Aboriginality their own culture, for their own reward. (Our nation would benefit too I believe). One key ingredient for that to happen is for our advanced western commercial minds to look into this fledgling, undeveloped “industry” and find opportunity, and help develop it.

I’m hesitant to present this, not only for its looseness, but also that, should such a hugely impossible thing be firstly envisioned and then achieved, and should it thrive and return those rewards to the Aboriginal folk back into where they live, one of the very things which would drive it and make it succeed could prove its own undoing, for surely it runs the risk of greed ruining the “resource’ (the traditional culture in that community). However, optimistically, it may help protect it and continue it as well. Done well, it would be self-funding.

At a loss for anything else positive, and in the face of overwhelming problems, suffering and negatives, it’s given nevertheless.

Much clearer , and shorter, just to paraphrase their exchange (eg: “when TJ asked MB on Lateline last June, MB replied that he saw, etc, etc”)…and then pull out one key quote at the end.

I reckon since you’ve obviously put a lot of thought into this issue over the years, you should just go with riffing off dot points and distribute the full length speech afterwards with that lovely all purpose CYA mantra at the top “check against delivery”.

You rightly concede that much of the CLP angst about Martin government appointments has more to do with the perks no longer going to CLP mates than anything else. Consultancies are an efficient way of staffing one-off/non-recurrent projects and short-term advisory roles. I don’t recall seeing any spcific assertions by the CLP about consultancies that were simply unnecessary.

As for “new offices for this and bureaus of that”, the only ones I can recall that NT Labor has created are the Information Commissioner (FOI, which the CLP resisted implementing for its whole time in office), Builders Registration Board (before which we were the last great haven of the jerry builder), Environment Protection Office (even the Martin government has resisted creating an independent EPA), and the Swimming Pool Fence Authority. I have sympathy with arguments about the utility of the latter, having had a prolonged skirmish with them about our pool fence, which closely resembles the Berlin Wall at their insistence (lacking only the machinegun posts), but I doubt that many people would think that the others were outrageous or unnecessary creations. They exist in all other states and territories.

However, I think you DO have a partly reasonable argument on the more general point of public service numbers. According to the NT government’s own budget papers ( http://www.budget.nt.gov.au/papers/econ/public_sector.pdf ), NT public sector numbers have grown by 2.2. per cent per year since 1996-7. Over the same period, Commonwealth public sector numbers have shrunk by 1.7 per cent per year. I don’t know how many were “shiny bums” and how many “pointy end” workers. But even if we make generous assumptions, it doesn’t generate huge dollar amounts in savings. I would suspect that the NT government might be able to make savings of a similar order to the Commonwealth in its public sector (at least for 2 or 3 years – but don’t forget that the states and territories provide many more “pointy end” services than the Commonwealth, so it’s harder for them to slash employee numbers without cutting real services), to create some space for funding the extra police, nurses, doctors, teachers etc who are manifestly needed for indigenous communities. But 1.7 per cent is only around $13 million. That’s why I suggested in the primary post that the NT government could possibly make savings of that order. However, as I also suggested, it’s not much more than a drop in the ocean compared with the level of need we’re talking about, especially on the indigenous housing backlog.

Needs a bit of work though to turn it into a deliverable speech . You’ll find yourself pausing for breath in the middle of some sentences at the wrong time for emphasis.

Also I reckon it needs a stronger scene setting intro.

And at 4000 words, yer gonna be talking for around 40 minutes. Can the seminar format handle a speech that long?

The third last shows your convictions which are fairly narky, often directed at things not relating to aboriginal welfare and hostile. You could learn a lot by mimicking Noel Pearson who knows how to lean with the wind and extract gains. Honestly Ken who cares about dumping on this policy? You don’t hide your obvious biases by making a few chips at the other side of politics. It sounds like an attempt to convey the impression of even-handedness.

The last two sentences are spot on and I agree 100%. Concentrate on these issues -adapting current policies to extract some lasting benefit from the Commonwealth for aboriginal people. Yes, capitalise don’t be a nark!

I regret that I share your worry about a Rudd Labor government.

I would hate to see this rare moment of public attention on matters Indigenous wasted so I guess I would like to see just a couple more suggestions made about initiatives that could be trialled.

Your housing point is well made. ‘Bomb proof’ houses are built because they are easier and cheaper to renovate after the pressure on them and a lack of care in some cases requires major renos after, at times, relatively short periods. Many have put to me that they would be happy with modular houses that they construct particularly if they can be built on their own land where they have the right to control behaviour.

A key area that needs discussion is around employment. The Census tells us that there is a working age population of about 23,000 in remote areas of the Territory. About 8,000 are registered for CDEP which pays around $20 per week more than the dole. The other 14,000 are on benefits. There are, in round terms, 3,000 full time jobs in remote communities at the moment. With the best will in the world there is not likely to be more than another 3,000 jobs created. That leaves around 17,000 people without much hope of anything other than welfare – unless there is a change.

That has to come from Indigenous people in remote areas and from governments. Neither, or none, can do it on their own. Basically, there needs to be a change in the paradigm from reliance on welfare to self reliance. Welfare to work if you like. And that will mean addressing the Pearson line of people, kids particularly, moving away from the community to work. They can’t sensibly do it at the moment. No education, very little accurate understanding of the ways of work and no support when they hit the big smoke.

My kids left their home town for work and a different life. I didn’t like it much. Aboriginal families in remote areas will find it just as tough or tougher and they are unlikely to share my access to the net and the capacity to read my kid’s blogs.

I’d also be interested in more on the NTG. Obviously I’ve got partisan bias here but I think that Martin et al have overspent on all sorts of pointless things; consultants, new offices for this and bureaus of that, lots of new highly paid positions for Labor mates (over and above repossession of jobs previously belonging to CLP mates).

Perhaps there ought to be more focus on “tooth to tail” issues. The NT and everyone else screams for more coppers, nurses, doctors and teachers. What I don’t detect is people in dire need of more shinybums in shiny new buildings in Darwin’s CBD.

Also, what part can the Land Councils play? Legally this is all fait accompli and no amount of running to the High Court is going to change things. How can they try to make the whole thing work?