Throwing money at welfare and land rights and self determination hasnt worked to change the old tribal ways coupled with selective picking of the rights and opportunities in the “other” life style which end up leading to degradation in the main.

So how on earth do we change if the Aborigines themselves wont or their leaders wont drive such change?

Any blueprint will be need to be a generational plan wont it?

The whole thing is run in such an ad hoc way. Firstly there’s the Federal/State/Local divide, and then there’s the divides within indigenous communities, so it’s really pot luck what sort of response you get, and whether anyone keeps a successful measure going. Very frustrating.

LE

Of course I worry that this plan is just a load of hot air – lots of noise, and no real action. Brough seems like a guy who actually cares (having seen him on Lateline last year when this whole thing broke). But I don’t have confidence in some of the other Federal pollies. I hope that whoever is in government next follows through properly.

As regards to Pearson, I think he is just desperate for something to be done, and hopes against hope that this will work. I read his recent description of Hope Vale, and it was heartbreaking. I suspect he may be reacting to responses which he perceived as non-constructive: people criticising the plan without offering anything better (or at least, anything different to the status quo). I doubt he’d have a problem with Lowitja O’Donohue’s constructive criticisms of the Howard plan, for example.

As you can see above, I certainly don’t think that Howard’s plan is above criticism, but nor do I think it is without merit. Hence the pros and cons approach. In fact, it is important to criticise the plan, as long as it is constructive. For example, I suspect that the outcry from indigenous groups about the proposal to compulsorily test all children for disease has led to an amendment of the plan.

It’s not a simple problem, and the answer isn’t going to be simple either. I think you are right – we all agree that something should be done, and it should be done now. And we agree that radical measures should be taken. None of us want children to be abused or women to be bashed.

The devil is, as always, in the detail.

LE

1. What specifically must be done?
2. Why has public discourse degenerated to the point whereby disagreements about tactics are interpreted as ‘blind hatred’ of Howard, or an endorsement of child abuse?

As far as the first question goes, there will be many people with many responses. Ultimately, I think some previous commenters are correct – these problems cannot be solved with an army of social workers, still less with police. Child protection is a community responsibility, and the difficult and tricky part of it is to get the community onside with educators, police, drug and alcohol services, and health services.
It is extremely difficult to force individuals into drug and alcohol rehab – I think any D&A counsellor would say much the same thing. Likewise, it is virtually impossible to actually force a wayward adolescent to go to school, even in non-Aboriginal communities. Perpetrators of violence must be ‘outed’ by the community, but this is complicated when we look at the fear and power that these people often have. I mean, sexually abused children in Melbourne will often, for a variety of reasons, refuse to name perpetrators. In terrorised and insular communities, the problem is probably worsened, the more so since police often have an antagonistic relationship with the said communities. Simply adding more police (which I agree is necessary) cannot solve the problem.

As to the second point – I think we all have good reason to be suspicious of the manner in which debate on this issue has been shut down by Howard, the News Ltd Press, and Pearson himself. If the proposal is so good, why is it beyond scrutiny? Why are alternative suggestions, or quite legitimate questions about land rights, shouted down as ‘willing failure’? Surely this is not a helpful reaction, when every bit of support from the broader community is necessary to make any intervention work.
The impetus, funding, energy and emotional resources required to bring about change have apparently arrived at last – it is vital that we use these things to the best possible advantage, as it may be some time before a similar opportunity presents itself. Unfortunately, the proposal seems big on rhetoric and showmanship, but light on substance. The Government’s interpretation of the report’s recommendations is ham-fisted at best, as well as being simplistic, and antagonistic. Add to this the shutting down of debate, and the dubious presence of native title issues, and I think we have every right to question this intervention, and propose viable alternatives. Not that these will be listened to…

Of course, people are lazy. Working is unnatural, which is why most people have to “force” themselves to do it.

Countless examples can be shown of the weaning off of aid leading to empowerment.

I am not talking about just stopping all aid. But it has to be supportive aid, not replacement aid. IE aid to support them like training, loans to set up businesses, etc – not aid to sit on their arse. If the young ones don’t have anything to do, then what do you expect them to do?

1. make sure they have proper health service.
2. make sure they have REAL security of life (this is part 1 of the /Howard plan – secure the children / women / families, then move ot part 2 – there is NO use trying to set up support programs when women and children are being raped, bashed and murdered. Make it clear this stops as best you can, then quickly move forward to the programs to get these people active for their own betterment.)
3. make sure they have opportunities – to train / work / educate / enjoy (no playground equipment for example in most pictures shown of their communities).
4. stop with the hand wringing crap – we have had 30 years of consultations – ENOUGH! Time for action – and I mean WITH aboriginal people at the forefront of these projects – leading them, being involved but ensuring our community standards of law and order, of child protection, of reporting, are followed.

Don’t judge the Howard plan just on step 1. You don’t get to plan / consult on a future for these kids if they are being raped and killed. And they are!