Outback access will 'improve scrutiny'

Submitted: Wednesday, Oct 04, 2006 at 18:12
ThreadID: 38265 Views:3177 Replies:6 FollowUps:17
This Thread has been Archived
Sweeeeeet............

---------------------
Outback access will 'improve scrutiny'
October 4, 2006 - 5:02PM

The Aborigines are set to lose the legal right to stop people entering their outback lands, which cover an area almost the size of Mongolia, sparking protests their homes will become an "Aboriginal Disneyland".

Indigenous affairs minister Mal Brough called on Wednesday for submissions on why a 30-year-old access permit system, which he said closed off black communities from the world, should remain.

"My concern is that the permit system has created closed communities which are restricting the ability of individuals to interact with the wider community and furthermore to participate in the real economy," said Brough.

Brough said that opening Aboriginal land to outsiders would improve scrutiny and could help lower high rates of violence and sexual abuse in black communities.

"The permit system has not acted to protect vulnerable citizens, including women and children, and in fact makes scrutiny over dysfunctional communities more difficult," he said.

Under the access permit system controlled by Aboriginal leaders anyone trespassing on their land faces prosecution.

Australia's 460,000 Aborigines, who account for around 2.3 percent of the 20 million population, own or control 20 percent of Australian land, or 1.53 million sq km.

Many live in remote outback communities with poor access to jobs, good housing, health services and education. Aborigines suffer high rates of domestic violence and alcohol abuse.

George Newhouse, a lawyer representing the Mutitjulu Aboriginal community next to tourist magnet Ayers Rock, or Uluru, said scrapping permits would turn Australia's last outposts of indigenous culture into an "Aboriginal Disneyland".

"If it was a white farmer who had a couple of houses on his property for stockmen, he could stop anyone coming on his land, so why does the minister want to strip Aboriginals of their right to some privacy?" Newhouse told Reuters.

Newhouse said Australia's conservative government had a "white superintendent" approach and wanted to roll back hard-won rights giving Aborigines some control over their lands. "Now it's time for the black fellas to feel their boot," he said.

Aboriginal leaders have tried to calm fears that the ruling could see people lose their homes or backyards by repeating that it would not affect freehold land. Freehold land accounts for only a small amount of Aboriginal-controlled land.

Prime Minister John Howard's government has often clashed with Aboriginal leaders, favouring practical measures such as better access to health and education to improve the lives of Aborigines, rather than more symbolic racial reconciliation issues such as land rights or an apology for past injustices.

REUTERS
Back Expand Un-Read 0 Moderator

Reply By: chips59 - Wednesday, Oct 04, 2006 at 18:33

Wednesday, Oct 04, 2006 at 18:33
It cant happen quick enough for me, I am a strong believer of one set of rules for everyone. Why should i have to get a permit to see mine and other Australians places.I was born here and it my home as much as anyone else born here. my father was involved i the late 50 and early 60s with having to lock up native Australians at night in camps and I always remember him saying how this country would be far better off as a one set of rules for everyone. but he also said that then there would be a lot of public servants out of jobs. bring it on.
AnswerID: 197833

Follow Up By: Des Lexic - Thursday, Oct 05, 2006 at 10:21

Thursday, Oct 05, 2006 at 10:21
Chips, perhaps you could post your adress here and we can all come and camp on your land when we are passing through.
I've let a number of people camp at my place in the past but always by invitation though but I wouldn't want every man and his dog come and camp there.
The point I'm making is that it is there land and we can't just go and walk over all over it just because we want too.
In saying that, I'm not happy about paying for a permit but people are frequently happy to pay $50 or so to go and do a ridgetop tour like Willow Springs in the Flinders Ranges.
I can't see the difference really.
I do object to certain communities having a blanket ban on all tourists transversing there lands.
0
FollowupID: 456486

Follow Up By: Hairy - Thursday, Oct 05, 2006 at 23:55

Thursday, Oct 05, 2006 at 23:55
Des Lexic,
Some one needs to define "community" and "their land"
Compare it to a cattle station say(freehold), Its their land! their rules! They look after themselves and provide everything they need out of their own pocket. If they dont suceed they go broke and loose everything.
A community however is a township with services including power , fuel , food , education , access to medical services , police & welfare.
If people want to and are lucky enough to live in a place where they can be self sufficient and have access to land thats fine. But as long as tax payers are paying for it I think we should at least be allowed to drive through it without asking permission.
I dont know your background mate but if you could see the wasted money sitting around on the communities here......., Im sure it would shock the crap out of a lot of pepole.
Communities have become a dumping ground for tonnes of wasted assets used by the directors and families of lots of organisations and dont want the tax paying Australian to see it.

Good move I Reckon!!!!
0
FollowupID: 456604

Follow Up By: Richard Kovac - Friday, Oct 06, 2006 at 01:17

Friday, Oct 06, 2006 at 01:17
Hairy

Divide your tax you pay now in to all the services that the government has to pay out.

YOU would not be able to drive out your front DOOR, for the amount that goes into the welfare of the communities that you fear.

The driving through it is only a want (as in you can't now)

Kick Me I like it

Richard
0
FollowupID: 456618

Follow Up By: Off-track - Friday, Oct 06, 2006 at 09:32

Friday, Oct 06, 2006 at 09:32
And the way they treat what they are given they should be given a lot less.
0
FollowupID: 456649

Follow Up By: Hairy - Friday, Oct 06, 2006 at 12:47

Friday, Oct 06, 2006 at 12:47
Richard,
Can I have that again in english!
Are you saying there isnt enough tax money to go around?
If so How about more people started paying taxes instead of living off them.
Hairy.
0
FollowupID: 456676

Follow Up By: Richard Kovac - Friday, Oct 06, 2006 at 20:50

Friday, Oct 06, 2006 at 20:50
Hairy

No I'm trying to say the as ONE, we don't pay enough tax in a life time to buy a house. Me $213710.00 tax in 29 years l'm only a low paid worker.

Not much is it?

Thats what I mean (I think)

Lowest uneployment ever (just ask the libs)

Richard
0
FollowupID: 456766

Follow Up By: Hairy - Friday, Oct 06, 2006 at 22:21

Friday, Oct 06, 2006 at 22:21
Well bleep t,
It must be me, because if that was english Imust be speaking another language!
0
FollowupID: 456796

Follow Up By: disco driver - Friday, Oct 06, 2006 at 22:59

Friday, Oct 06, 2006 at 22:59
Hi All,
Just a question for Richard in regard to the tax he has paid in 29 years.

Have you factored in all the fuel taxes, stamp duties on cheque books, insurance surcharges, vehicle licence fees, duties on fags and beer, GST on just about everything else, etc, etc, etc and so forth,

I read an article somewhere where an accountant calculated that every worker in Australia actualy paid something in the order of 65-70% of his gross pay in tax of one form or another.

Scary ain't it!!

Disco
0
FollowupID: 456801

Follow Up By: Richard Kovac - Friday, Oct 06, 2006 at 23:43

Friday, Oct 06, 2006 at 23:43
Disco

No just payrole tax.

Have ernt $874244.00 gross less tax thats $660534.00 nett.
now at an aug off lets say 20% thats an extra $132106.80 tax still JS

Hairy

But I don't under stand what the hell your on about

Richard
0
FollowupID: 456802

Follow Up By: Hairy - Saturday, Oct 07, 2006 at 07:15

Saturday, Oct 07, 2006 at 07:15
Yeh I can see that !!!
IN.. MY ..OPINION.. HAVING.. ACCESS.. THROUGH.. COMMUNITIES.. IS.. A.. GOOD.. THING..!!!!
Not all this craapp about your financial position.
Go away
Bye
0
FollowupID: 456823

Follow Up By: silkwood - Saturday, Oct 07, 2006 at 07:45

Saturday, Oct 07, 2006 at 07:45
Gee Hairy, Richard is just putting a point of view across. He made a point and then elaborated upon it, at YOUR request because you didn't understand.

The diversion may not have been completely necessary but you did ask.

Now you've put YOUR...OPINION loud and clear, but without ANY..EXPLANATION..OR..SUPPORTING ..STATEMENTS! Just abuse. Why not expound upon your reasoning instead, and impress us all?

Cheers,

Mark
0
FollowupID: 456826

Reply By: SunWizard - Wednesday, Oct 04, 2006 at 20:23

Wednesday, Oct 04, 2006 at 20:23
about time long overdue
AnswerID: 197850

Reply By: Rick (S.A.) - Wednesday, Oct 04, 2006 at 21:59

Wednesday, Oct 04, 2006 at 21:59
Regarding the Access Permit System that closes off some Australian communities:

There is an issue here about the right of all Australians to have access to their country. We do allow access for all to many parts of Australia, but unfortunately, not every part. The aboriginal lands that have entry prohibited and regulated by an access permit system should not be in any way different to other parts of crown held land in Australia. But they certainly currently appear to be different.

The issue of currently closed access, or permit controlled access, is baffling to many of us. We can’t deny access to the road, say between Adelaide and Broken Hill, yet the aboriginal community seems to be able to deny us road access from say, Marla to Kaltukatjara. (a.k.a. Docker River). Why should there be one rule of access for one group, and one rule for another? Surely such rules & attitudes are a major contributor to the ‘them & us’ way of thinking that delivers benefits to no-one. It is unjust and unreasonable to have two policies for one nation of residents. The current access permit system perpetuates a ‘one rule for us and one for them' mentality’. It should be abolished.

It would appear that isolation of aboriginal communities has done no good at all. Let’s share problems & issues, and open the regions to visitors. The people living in the aboriginal lands are not separate Australians; they are merely one sector of our diverse residential population. Why do we continue to perpetuate such divisions? By abolishing controlled permit access in aboriginal lands, we could begin to breakdown some of the destructive attitudes that exist.

While I recognise that many living in currently permit controlled access communities have issues such as health, poverty and abuse, I don’t really comprehend those issues. And I’m unlikely to develop any comprehension while those fellow Australians are in isolation, caused in large part by the current access permit system.

It is very likely that enabling more visitors to be exposed to these areas and issues may facilitate visitors willing to help in some way. Unfortunately, access prohibition currently prevents the rest of us from putting a shoulder to the wheels of help, respect and assistance. The interior of Australia has many visitors and people on a journey. Not all of these people are ‘grey nomads’. I’m not. Let’s enable visitors to bring more income and more support to these remote areas. Let us abolish the current controlled access permit system, immediately.

The current arrangement of closed access also prohibits my family and me from enjoying the land, the scenery, the topographical features, the flora and fauna, and the environmental aspects that relate to an appreciation and understanding of any region. If able, I would gladly visit remoter aboriginal lands, and be prepared spend time and energy and money to develop a sense of understanding of a particular region. I can’t see how preventing my access benefits those local residents. Current public concerns about abuse, violence, poverty and health in aboriginal lands underline the disadvantages of permit controlled access.

One of the ‘rights’ as a local citizen I wish to utilise is the ability to travel where I choose on our road systems. I’m not talking about desire to trespass onto freehold land. I don’t want or need access to freehold areas belonging to others. But I would like to appreciate not only the people and their issues, but also the local environment, all of which is denied by the currently permit access system operating in aboriginal lands.

One solution may be to follow the South Australian example of enabling access in remote regions. There, Public Access Routes have been created to provide transport corridors. Let’s do the same in the Aboriginal lands.

Legislation and regulation should enable all of us to appreciate all of Australia – there is demonstrably no good that comes from the current restrictive permit access policy. It is time for a change.
AnswerID: 197870

Reply By: Member - Jeff H (QLD) - Thursday, Oct 05, 2006 at 00:27

Thursday, Oct 05, 2006 at 00:27
Dunno about this one .In1967, 4 of us strayed onto a nearby 'reserve', and were promptly hunted off; fair enough. Back in the same area (Qld SEish) last year, and the road sides are littered with dead billycans.

Drive S. into Halls Creek, and glance right.
. Enjoy what you see?

Stray into Haasts Bluff, and tell me how YOU can sort it out.

Try driving straight E. from MT. Surprise to Kennedy, and write up your diary as to why 'whiteys' denied travel across their land.
Please people, tread gently: just because you and I are the Perfect Guests......JH.
AnswerID: 197888

Reply By: NicI - Thursday, Oct 05, 2006 at 15:38

Thursday, Oct 05, 2006 at 15:38
One rule for all sounds like a reasonable idea until you start looking at the details and history, which, being the root cause, cannot be brushed aside by saying “I was born here’. When a Stone Age group of tribes is forcibly invaded by Steam Age colonisers with guns, poison, murder, rape, and a convenient ‘superior’ religion on their side – guess who suffers and is suffering still ? And what are we still doing ? Selling grog to a culture who obviously can’t handle it; supplying work on stations (good), then taking it away and replacing it with nothing (very very bad); refusing equal health dollars and access (try a life expectancy of about 50 and infant mortality at 10 times white – how’d you like that ?); little or no education, no jobs or prospects. But we supply TV and grog money, then castigate them for not immediately living like the (white) people they see there.

It was their country – we killed them for it, stole it, call it our own, make money from it and haven’t even begun to pay for any of it yet. It probably would have been kinder to finish the job and kill them all, instead of only about 2/3 of them.

If access to these lands is opened the likely results are that we’ll supply them with more grog, more petrol to sniff (totally avoidable with Opal), and further destruction of the pitiful remains of their way of life. The tourist jobs and money which would ensue would be taken by whiteys, and the current land owners would become even visible as a national/international embarrassment and shame than they undeniably already are. Let’s play at being explorers in places where we’ve eradicated them, and at least leave the others to their land, land we only decide now that we want.

Note that there are also plenty of poor bugger whites around – no job or prospects, poor education, sad deprived and abused background, alcohol and other drug problems, violence, and dysfunctional families. Not much gets done for then either, easier to blame them for their failings.

Empathy, empathy, empathy.

AnswerID: 197964

Follow Up By: Truckster (Vic) - Thursday, Oct 05, 2006 at 15:47

Thursday, Oct 05, 2006 at 15:47
>>It was their country –
It was the dinosaurs land million + yrs before them... I represent the Crocodile - a true livin' Dinosaur.. Under your Holed theory, the Crocs have more rights to the land than anybody..

Stupid arguement aint it...
0
FollowupID: 456522

Follow Up By: NicI - Thursday, Oct 05, 2006 at 16:07

Thursday, Oct 05, 2006 at 16:07
Except that crocs ain't people, (although we do love shooting them too, so maybe they are). It's not so much whose it was, but what and how we took it, and how it is shared and used today - had we asked politely and been interested in their way of life and not just our tiny view of the world, perhaps we'd have a better outcome now. The 'restrictions' some see today are a direct result of terrible treatment in the past - we haven't even started to pay yet. Had they been more warlike and 'modern' like the Maori and killed a few thousand whiteys they'd have forced a treaty like the Maori did, and be better off today. But then we wouldn't like that would we ?
0
FollowupID: 456527

Follow Up By: Truckster (Vic) - Thursday, Oct 05, 2006 at 16:18

Thursday, Oct 05, 2006 at 16:18
Does it matter if they are people? No, its "Traditional owners" is the arguement...

See how stupid that arguement is?
0
FollowupID: 456528

Follow Up By: Rick (S.A.) - Thursday, Oct 05, 2006 at 19:34

Thursday, Oct 05, 2006 at 19:34
NicI ,

I do support your empathy, empathy, empathy notion. As I have lived in the same communities, worked along side, and been active members of the same organisations and clubs as indigenous peoples, I speak from some experience. And I admit I can't clearly see the way through the maze. I do hope that they can determine outcomes suitable for all of us. It should not be 'our' decision alone that becomes regulation.

Unfortunately, it is very hard to factor in the past, the agreed 'terrible treatment; I can't tug my forelock in deference forever to some past events created by people not known to me, I but I guess I can't see how isolation works for them or us, either. Damn, I really was trying to avoid the them & us terminology.

On my post I was not attempting to infiltrate aboriginal environments any more than I would a pastoral lease holder's environment. I currently travel widely in pastoral lands in other regions, & have never needed a permit access system to pass through those regions. Why oh why two rules?

Cheers
0
FollowupID: 456553

Follow Up By: NicI - Friday, Oct 06, 2006 at 08:55

Friday, Oct 06, 2006 at 08:55
Rick (S.A.), it's very refreshing to see that you and some others travel AND think AND listen. I too have travelled widely and worked alongside the indigenous in their homelands, and my overwhelming feeling is that our two cultures are so far apart and so radically different that perhaps we should now leave well alone what hasn't been totally destroyed. Perhaps, on our past record, we simply cannot be trusted not to do even more damage than we've done already.

I agree, it is hard to factor in the past, but I feel it must be done. If it's hard for us, put yourself in their place - the indigenous people left alive here are still reeling from the impact of our presence; they have been told (not asked) to move their ways and culture 20,000 years into our future in a mere couple of hundred years.

The past is very much the present: Last century a large chunk of Palestine was made into Israel and given back to the Hebrews who were displaced from there over 2000 years ago, and that on the evidence in a couple of highly disputed writings. Similarly, a few years ago a fifth of Mexico was given back to its indigenes after it was taken from them by another tribe only 300 years ago. The Acenese are desperately trying to do the same after their islands were firstly taken by the Dutch, then given to the Javanese, and the West Papuans recently find themselves somehow part of Indonesia as well, with no objections from us.

Sometimes, on reflection of these examples, I think about a third of Australia should be given to the indigenous as their own country, to do with as they wish. Impractical and unlikely, but possibly a fair thing, then at least they could make some decisions of their own.

Meanwhile, I'm with you - it's not easy, it's a maze, but I'm glad there are some decent folk like you who listen, learn, and have empathy with these clearly second-class citizens, whether they be black or white.

0
FollowupID: 456647

Reply By: V8Diesel - Thursday, Oct 05, 2006 at 17:13

Thursday, Oct 05, 2006 at 17:13
Well the current system is hardly what I'd call a roaring success.

AnswerID: 197970

Follow Up By: Member - Bware (Tweed Valley) - Thursday, Oct 05, 2006 at 18:05

Thursday, Oct 05, 2006 at 18:05
Yep, who can deny that?
0
FollowupID: 456544

Sponsored Links

Popular Products (9)