The Intervention is about mining

by ray jackson, president, indigenous social justice association

The Stronger Futures legislation designed to roll out the second stage of the intervention in the nt is not about improving the life of the aboriginal communities and those families who reside there. this is not about the original lie of stopping child abuse or even closing the gap. youth suicides have skyrocketed, arrest and incarceration of aborigines, mainly for alcohol abuse, has also increased dramatically. school attendance is, in fact, dropping. health remains a high priority.

the only winners in the first intervention are woolworths and coles as only they have been authorised to accept the welfare card. both these corporations already control 83% of the australian supermarket scene. other winners are the government-appointed 'mission managers', public servants installed in new houses and on a high salary. i keep asking macklin what their role is but to date, no answer has been supplied.

the first intervention was based on the theft of aboriginal land that is/was controlled by the traditional owners. as we know, the nt sits between the two mining boom states of qld and wa. the nt and federal governments have watched as both states grew fat on mining royalties and both wanted to change the fact that the nt aborigines owned some 40-odd percent of the nt lands. further it was proved that the nt was also resource rich with uranium and other minerals but too much of the resources were on lands that the traditional owners wanted no mining to occur.

the howard government plotted and schemed up the answer and it is my belief that such theft also had the full blessing of the labor party. that was evidenced when they came to power in 2007. most people do not know that howard had instructed the australian crime commission some 12 months before the intervention to investigate crimes including drugs, money laundering and organised paedophile rings in aboriginal communities in the nt. whilst the outcome of the first two investigations are not known it was proven that no paedophile rings existed, organised or otherwise. what was found was underage promised brides and sex between teens. the underage brides was a cultural response whilst the teen sex was a biological response found throughout australia.

but i digress as usual.

communities were forced into accepting the krudd/gillard edict to sign their lands and houses over to commonwealth control. the second intervention is merely to reinforce the federal government control of those lands and allow mining to occur for the alleged benefit of the owners of the lands. this is cynicism at its very best.

the required legislation passed the lower house on monday and is now awaiting ratification by the senate even though the senate enquiry continues to hear submissions. just shows julia's quoted impatience to get on with things!


"this is not about the original lie of stopping child abuse" so aboriginal kids were not at risk? did you read the "all children are sacred" report?

Whilst the "All children are sacred report" was used as the justification for the Intervention - not ONE of its recomendations was implemented by the Howard Government. A quick google search revealed this article

Noel - feel free to educate yourself at how the authors of the "Children are sacred" report have consistently rejected the intervention and complained that it did not take up any of their reccomendations.

Noel - how do you explain that the report that justified the intervention was so utterly rejected. Doesn't it suggest that other agendas such as a land grab for mining were at work?

I've already said FP that given a choice between a simple answer and a conspiracy theory I will take the simple answer every time. If I was not to do that I would believe that aliens exist and visit earth regularly and our government knows this, I would believe that no-one has landed on the moon, I would believe that we are facing an imminent ice age, or that climate science is just another conspiracy.

I try to take a common sense approach to things. I have always said and continue to maintain that the way that the intervention was conducted was misguided at best, totally over the top an d fundamentally racist at worst. I don't support the intervention, I have not said that I do, but I do support action being taken in relation to indigenous Australia, as recommended by the reporting we are referring to.

But to say that it is all a conspiracy to mine aboriginal land is a bridge too far. The mining companies already have a vast reach. They would continue to have this reach with or without the intervention.

gain I will say, I reject outright conspiracy theories. I don't read them. I don't pretend to know what is in them. But I certainly know the world is not ending on December 20 this year, as very many people want to maintain. That is simply another far fetched fabrication.

Noel - on your logic we have to take everything politicians and big bussiness do on face value. to suggest that actions have a hidden agenda in your world is equivalent to saying that Aliens exist. That is totally ridiculous. What do you think the powerful are always upfront with the reasons as to why they do things.

For example under your logic it is a "conspiracy" to say that the U.S. did not invade Iraq to look for WMD's but instead to secure their control of an oil rich part of the world.

Under your logic - it is a conspiracy to suggest that racism lay behind the Stolen Generation - why the Government said their Aboriginal parents were unfit parents.

For you to say that you never even consider that the powerful have hidden agendas. To accept this makes meaningful analysis of the world impossible.

Not at all. There are very many agendas. Most of them are capitalist agendas. I truly believe America knew there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. All evidence points to this. This is common knowledge. The United Nations were imploring America to stay their hand. So in this case, simple evidence is enough, common sense is enough.

In most situations common sense reasoning is sufficient to explain things. Such as, when a major report is released on the abuse of children in indigenous communities, and there is a response, however misguided, then we ought to accept that the claim that the response was a result of the report has some veracity.

This is why I have agreed that the Afghanistan incursion was warranted, because it was a "response" to 9/11. The Iraq war was not a response to 9/11, not to WMD.

I believe in discussing issues on their merits. This does not mean believing what right wing commentators tell us anymore than it means believing what Bolshevik newspapers tell us. Claiming otherwise is disingenuous of you.

Oh and in consideration of this, I don't presume to know everything. In the realm of ideas there is still much to be discovered. In the realm of politics things are in flux, they do not remain still. Popular sentiment, of the left or of the right, often determines our perspective. Sometimes we have to step outside of our perspective in order to gain a true perspective. But this is a philosophical point of view. There is a lot I am still learning, and I will continue that journey of understanding until I die.