quote:

---

Brough said the government was prepared to bypass anti-discrimination legislation "in the interest of saving children."

He also defended the proposed removal of traditional land owners' power to refuse outsiders permission to enter Aboriginal land and for the government to take control over Aboriginal communities through compulsorily acquired five-year leases.

---

I'm extremely uncomfortable about a government coopting native land for any reason...
 

---

Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
 
>_<

Ah, yes. Because so far Australian government intervention in Aboriginal life has been incredibly successful!
 

---

Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
 
Oi vey.
 

---

Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
 
I don't know how making them even more poor and victimized is going to resolve things. Life is pretty hard in American reservations too. I don't know what the answer is.
 

---

Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
 
For The Greater Good
 

---

Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
 
Well, assuming they have to detect a problem in order to act on it, why don't they put the offenders in prison? Is it an issue where aborigines have special protection from being put in prison/children moved to foster care? Why is the seizing of land needed?
 

---

Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
 
This is...

Complicated.

It's been going on here for a while (the plans - the abuse has been going on much longer).

I'm not sure I'm comfortable with the plan, but I'm darn sure I'm not comfortable with doing nothing.

A link the full report that started the ball rolling is here .

Just to be clear - this isn't just sexual abuse on a "normal" scale. This is widespread sexual abuse that targets the most vulnerable. Babies, toddlers, small children are too commonly raped. Alcohol abuse is a huge problem. Most aboriginal communities are petrol free (to prevent petrol sniffing) but most are not dry - making them dry is part of the new proposed laws.

It's a lot, lot more complicated (and tragic) than a simple "you shouldn't interfere" could ever encompass.

Pooka, where offenders can be caught and charged they are. Part of the problem is these communities are so remote they are chronically under policed (and lack necessary medical care). Part of the problem is cultural values means some indigenous people will not report the abuse. But there is no special protection for indigenous people either from arrest or from child services (and some would argue the inverse applies!).

I think, from an outside of Australia perspective, it is hard to appreciate how remote rural, indigenous Australia is. From an inside Australia perspective it is too! Much to mainstream Australia's shame, there are entire remote communities that have been abandoned. I'm not sure such measures now are appropriate but - I don't know what to do.


**

It's also worth noting that Australia doesn't have the same sharp Federal/State divide that the US does, and as the NT is a territory not a state the Federal government can intervene. So in terms of federal government interference, it's not such an issue here.
 

---

Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
 
Of interest - John Howard's speech introducing the law.

I very often disagree with Howard, and I'm not sure I agree with him here, but I think he sets out some the background and reasoning in more detail.
 

---

Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
 
Also to note - unlike the US, we do not have rights of equality enshrined in our constitution (not to say that's a good thing, but that's how it is). Nor do we have any bill of rights type situation.

So bypassing anti-discrimination legislation is no big deal - nothing more than the government exercising it's legislative power to amend the effect of previous legislation.
 

---

Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
 
And lastly - to address Scott's first point (I do go on... )

Native title here is much, much weaker than it is in any other common law system. In many cases it is only a shared right - pastoral leases and mining leases impact.

Further, not only does the government have the right and power to extinguish it, they will do so, have done so, and they don't have to pay compensation. I think it sucks, but that treatment of native title land is not unique to this situation.
 

---

Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
 
One more link and then I'm done

Here is another summary.

The point I drew from this is the whole access/permit issue - the reason that is given for that being revoked is that system made it easier for abuse to go unreported.
 

---

Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
 
imogen:

I don't see how taking the natives' land away solves the problem-- it seems to violate principles 4 & 5 of the Rules of Engagement (Section 3 of part 1 of the report).
 

---

Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
 
Scott, I'm not sure it does either. I will check the Rules of Engagement, but note that's for a NT report, not binding on the federal government.

The permit issue is not taking land away though. The compulsory leases - much more iffy.
 

---