Good luck this time.
I read about this today in the paper and thought, "Wow, that's interesting. This won't go over very well. But it's probably a good thing."
Incidentally, I don't think you're as much of a libertarian as many other bloggers are...
No, ruthie, no he obviously isn't - read the Sir Salman post, let alone the Manhunt one!
Call me Mr Stone Heart Clay Head but I think it is the government that is being knee jerk.
The sale of X-rated movies is illegal in NSW. As a result you can buy X-rated movies almost anywhere in the city. The same will be the case in the NT but the black voyeurs will of course be punished harder.
Banning alcohol in the communities will mean more drunk aboriginies in the cities. That should be popular. It will also mean that more wacky weed will get sold.
Now instead of locking up rapists and thugs the police can have the relatively easier job of locking up drunks and voyeurs.
A great day for Aborigines indeed. They get to be told what to do by Canberra. And we all know your life gets better when Canberra runs it for you. In fact in 1967 so many were convinced by the idea that 91% voted in favour of special laws by Canberra to treat black aussies differently to white aussies. What a roaring success it has been so far.
There is some merit in reducing welfare. But it would only make sence if they also did away with the minimum wage and allowed some economic activity to blossom.
Mostly this is short term heroics designed to make the Feds look strong as we head into an election. It is symbolism and little more. That have not even showed a willingness to work with the territory government on this so we won't even get the benefits of alignment.
Not sure how one can applaud these new laws and at the same time claim to be 'libertarian' o.O
Nothing like government running your life to make 'it all better'...
Agree with Terje.
If child abuse happens you prosecute it. Where is this 'We MUST do something drastic' cry coming from?
p.s. Pommy you were AWOL at last nights meeting. 
We missed you.
A few more observations:-
1. I agree with ending the permit system.
2. I agree with more policing although unfortunately I expect they will be pre-occupied with enforcing prohibition.
Also the ownership and rental reforms (not mentioned by Pommy) are worthy initatives.
Noel Pearson did not really get what he wanted given that he wanted alcohol bans in Cape York communities and Cape York is not in the Northern Territory. The Commonwealth seems to have relied on the fact that NT has no status as a state rather than (or more than) the race powers granted to the Federal government in 1967.
Terje - I told you, im in England 
All
Sometimes the libertairan instinct of 'do nothing' can be as damaging as the left-wing instinct of 'blame whitey'.
These are emergency proposals needed for an emergency situation. Hopefully they are only temporary.
England you say. A likely story. 8-)
The libertarian instinct, properly understood, is "do nuffin stupid".
Terje
Yes, but too often translates into 'do nothing'.
Govt = bad, best that bad people do as little as possible = 'do nothing'.
Just to put this act of prohibition into some historical context:-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Abo..._opium_act_1897
Ruthie - i'm not
Patrick - what's unlibertarian about the Salman post?
Terje - i think its more than simple pre-election tokenism. I get the feeling that Mal Brough is a decent guy who is making a genuine effort to implement much needed change.
It is the 1970s policies of treating them as 'different', unconditional welfare and as Jason points out, turning a blind-eye to crime (with guilt-ridden white judges excusing rapists and child abusers on cultural grounds) that has brought about the current terrible situation.
It would indeed be better if land were to be granted to individuals rather than bureaucratic and corrupt 'collectives', it would be better if the min wage were abolished, it would be better if welfare could be abolished entirely. But the new proposals are a vast improvement on the current situation.
Terje
I dont think Pearson ever expected new laws to be possible outside the NT, for the reasons you outline.
Pommy,
Abolishing the provisions of "customary law" in sentencing (which is on Mals list) is a reform I agree with. You don't need to go back to the 1970s to find gross misjustice based on allowances for "customary law".
I am sure that Mal Brough is a decent guy. John Howard and Kevin Rudd and your good self are all decent people. I also think that those that formulated and implemented the stolen generation were decent people. Paternalism is a concept by where decent people take control of other peoples lives in an often misguided view that another persons life can be micro managed and made better. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
In any case I have not suggested that we do nothing. I have been quite vocal about what I think should be done. And I have indicated where I agree with the reforms. This should not detract from the fact that I think some of these reforms are foolish and tokenistic.
Regards,
Terje.
Just to be clear the 1967 ammendment to the race powers in the consitution would permit a federal law that said it was illegal for aboriginies to own, buy or consume alcohol. The constraints are political not constitutional.
Here is an example of customary law leading to injustice:-
http://www.theage.com.au/news/
na...7804477458.html
The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
those indeed are very wise words.
However, i feel that the situation is so dire that emergency and short-term interventionist measures are needed to get things back on track.
Then i would like to see the measures i have listed above.
Reading Noel Pearson (as i do regularly), you do get a sense of crisis amongst the rural, indigenous communities.
when i return, i will try and fix up a meeting with him.
I am no expert on this topic, but would tend to share Terje's misgivings.
From your approval here, I can only guess that there is a lot I don't know about the Northern Territory and its problems.
Certainly looking at these proposals my jaw dropped in horror...
But I presume there is a widespread problem with alcohol related child abuse.
Instinctively, I find at least two of these clause to reek of martial law.
But looking at Howard's quote, it seems there is a situation that cannot be left.
Will this help integrate First Nation Australians into wider Australian society, or divide them further from it?
I suppose that is the issue it hangs on for me.
Let me get the argument right -- the situation has now gotten so bad that we need more government intervention.
Let us hope that education, health, welfare, money stability, telecommunications, industry etc keep doing well or we'll have to nationalise them to improve them.
This sounds familiar. Government runs something badly. Gets bad result. Obvious solution: more government intervenion. Sigh.
And if you disagree with government action then you don't care about people.
Quite frankly, I would prefer to actually help people rather than run around the media waving my hands claiming that I want to help them.
How do you stop the rape of kids by drunks without intervention, John?
There's a lot of the policy I disagree with such as the liquor and porn ban etc. but there is also a need to intervene in dysfunctional situation like this.
They look very interesting! They remind me of papua new guineans
John is oversimplifying the situation. The problems here were partly caused by *insufficient* government intervention, in this case, lack of prosecution of rapists and the wrong signals sent by mitigating punishment under so-called customary law. The law and order elements of the plan and the removal of the permits system seem promising measures, the rest are more problematic. But ultimately the real problem is these aren't real communities - these are a bunch of unemployed people being herded into subsidised remote communities where there are few role models in the community of productively employed people. The best long term solution is that price signals should be introduced so that it isn't artificially cheaper to live in these places than to go out into the city to find jobs.
How about we try introducing private property rights before we rely on statist micro-management of people's lives?
It is hard for me to see this as anything other than opportunistic politics. Howardco have been in power for over 10 years. Nobody doubts the seriousness of the issues, but a solution based on consensus and something that doesn't look similar to the surge in Iraq may have a better chance of long term improvement in conditions for aborigines.
How does this address the issue of loss of hope in these communities. This is just a short term band aid, designed to address an ugly sore prior to an election. As in Iraq, it may be easy to pacify communities, but what about the long term plan.
Blimey, Howard doesn't mess about, does he? I don't see how you can have a set of laws for one community like this and not apply them to the rest of the population in a democracy?
so now indigenous Australians don't own their land?
When did this get reversed? Or are land rights only access rights?
I'm new here but what are the terms of legitimate ownership? I thought the courts agreed that the land wasn't empty when the settlers arrived.
I've spent a third of my life working in these remote communities.
Howard's actions aren't ideal. They're not perfect. They're not very palatable.
But they're sure as hell needed. Urgently.
When you've seen a 2 year-old little girl present at a medical clinic with vaginal syphilis, you get kinda weary of the arguments about state/federal power and who should have done what and when.
With reports today (SMH) that panic is spreading throughout remote aboriginal communities and people are packing up their families and heading bush, one wonders if this should be regarded as an "unintended consequence" or as an "intended consequence". Clearly the government was interested in creating an air of drama.
You'd have to be pretty paranoid or just plain uninformed to put that spin on it.
It's the Dry season and there's nothing at all unusual about families heading bush for weeks at a time in the Dry.
One wonders if a perfectly normal occurrence isn't being exaggerated. As well, rumours sweep through communities all the time and it takes just one stirrer to spread panic.
Lastly, the women and children at Port Keats (Wadeye) for example often take to the bush to escape the gang fighting within the community.
It's just not that big a deal.
On the general point my feeling is that the big divide is between clever government and stupid government not between big government and small government.
Clever government is certainly minimalist but not in all cases at all times.
i agree that the case of the aboriginals is somewhat separate from the general issues of government. Within many countries - e.g. Canada, US, Brazil the indigenous peoples are treated in a separate way legally.
Jason Soon: nobody is "herding" Aborigines into remote communities. They're free to stay there or leave as they please.
Time for a new article, PG?
kg - that spin was front page in the SMH today.
Mark - PG is offline for a week whilst he is travelling. He asked me to put up a guest article whilst he is away. So far I have not found the time, although I do have something in mind.
Right. And the SMH is such a reliable non- rotational source.
I hadnt heard bout this Pommy..great reporting!
How much sex abuse do you suppose there was among the aborigines before they were rounded up and put in camps, before they were hunted down and killed, before their children were taken away and taught to despise their heritage, before all their ways were lost and their knowledge was lost? Do you suppose that they were sexually molesting their children before they were beaten down and held in contempt by the invading Europeans? How much alcoholism was there among them before their land was taken away and the women were raped and the tribes were slaughtered? How often did they abuse and despise their children before the British came? Anybody ever do any research on that? Got any stats on how miserable these people were before they were shown the glories and wonders of civilization, bottled spirits and canned food?
Just wondering.
Rastaman
www.IslamaNazi.com
No wonder you're just wondering--your comment is full of assumptions and distortions and the question you ask is unanswerable in any case, since there is absolutely no way of knowing that.
One thing is certain, though: Aboriginal people didn't live in some blissful state free of conflict, disease and abuse before the white men came.
(the skulls of Aboriginal women unearthed by archeologists which show evidence of horrific injuries are testament to that).
The very first white arrivals in Australia documented infanticide and cannibalism.
"rounded up and put in camps"? The communities we're talking about are Aboriginal homelands and they choose to live in houses there, especially during the Wet season.
All your ranting about real and imagined historical causes won't help a single Aborigine.
kg - my point was not that that the SMH is always accurate and free from bias. My point was that I did not apply any spin but merely paraphrased what the SMH reported.
Rastaman - so what if life was perfect before Europeans arrived (which it wasn't). The point is how do we build a better future for everybody that lives here. Understanding history makes sence, wallowing in some form of collective guilt for stuff done by dead people doesn't.
Oh! sorry for the misunderstanding, T.
Thanks everybody for the comments. I will get round to replying hopefully tonight.
I have spent the last 7 days being rained on in Devon in Arctic climes. If anyone mentions Global Warming to me, i will punch them, violently.
loan mexico new quick loan mexico new quick loan mexico new quick. equity home loan needed no equity home loan needed no equity home loan needed no.
Commenting by HaloScan
