All children are sacred

The Intervention in the Northern Territory was of course an act of blatant racism. To send the army into indigenous communities to remove children from parents, to cut payments to aboriginals, to abandon the racial Discrimmination Act, to forego our responsibilities under International treaties on human rights, was an affront to the humanity of many Australians, black and white.

It is because of this racist reaction to the report on child abuse in Aboriginal Communities that has prevented a broader discussion of Indigenous Affairs in this country. But that discussion needs to take place.

Let us stop believing that aboriginal rights is a black and white discussion. Even amongst indigenous leaders there is a debate and a dialogue about what ought to be done, and what they seek to achieve.

At Occupy Melbourne I often heard the chant "always was, always will be, aboriginal land." In the Declaration being considered by Occupy Melbourne there are references to aboriginal sovereignty. The settlement of whites in van Diemans Land is called an invasion.

I am uncomfortable with the word "invasion." The Normans invaded England many many moons ago. Invasions are an historical event. Australia is no longer aboriginal land. It was, but it is no longer. An invasion took place. The land was taken. What is required is a recognition of the original inhabitants, but not a recognition that it is their land. Land Rights does not do that. Land Rights links to continuity of occupation of land as the measure of custodianship of the. I heard recently the Premier of WA talk about the resources of that state as "West Australians own these resources." I found this very discomfiting. No-one owns those resources. They belong to everyone, not blacks, or whites, or West Australians. The belong as much to the refugees who land on our shores as they do to people who are directly descended from Indigenous Australians or the original convicts that came to this land. Indeed they are not owned. They are simply exploited, according to the laws of the land.

I guess what I am asking is what does it mean to see that there was an invasion? What are the consequences for black-white relations? Are whites simply meant to fess up, "yeah we took your land back then." But what does that achieve? What is it meant to achieve? It happened. It is time to move forward. The term invasion is meant to incite a certain idea of things that is not necessarily productive to the discussion of indigenous affairs.

I absolutely agree that we need a treaty, and that treaty ought not to be written by white law makers. Indigenous Australia needs to produce a treaty, and put it to the people of Australia through the Government of Australia. Let's stop thinking the government is responsible for coming up with a treaty. This is a black man's treaty. We need indigenous thinkers and elders to get together and determine what they want that treaty to say and recognise. That is the way forward. Of course white Australia has to find it acceptable. That is the challenge to the indigenous community, to devise a treaty that Australia will find acceptable. We ought to be discussing these things in a realistic and non volatile way. There are very many very articulate Indigenous Australians perfectly placed to formulate a way forward on this.

At the same time we need to recognise that there are serious problems within most if not all aboriginal communities. These communities have no self-sustaining, that is, sustainable economy. This creates vast and deep social problems. These social problems affect everyone within these communities. Drug addiction, alcoholism, child abuse, a lack of a proper education, a sense of despair and futility, all undermine the ability of these communities to effectively function. And these problems are so endemic that it is difficult to conceive of a solution.

Lawlessness is a disease. It is all very well to be an anarchist, but real problems require real and lawful solutions. I consider myself an ethicist. For that reason I believe that society requires an ethic, and every society within society requires a sustaining ethic. We need this discussion. How can aboriginal communities deal with the social disease that is prevalent in these communities? The army is not the solution, but no-one has the solution. Certainly these solutions must not be devised on the basis of race.

I believe we need to address the unsustainability of these communities. We need to make them functional, and to relieve them of drug abuse, alcoholism, child disenfranchisement. We can do this, with the appropriate will. Instead of blaming government, we need to start advising them, and fessing up to the problems that need to be dealt with. We need to be truthful about this. Societies, and I mean here small societies within Society, ie aboriginal communities, but it could also mean small rural towns that are no longer productive, cannot rely on the dole. Welfare is not the solution. At least welfare in the form of a cheque that can be openly abused is not the solution. It breeds social disease. I believe in welfare. I support social security. But it has to be social SECURITY, and this might be achieved in a number of ways. Not quarantining the dole, but refashioning the dole for all Australians, providing less disposable income but more in the way of health support, clothing, food, housing, the essentials of life. I believe this is a way forward, and leaves a lot less disposable income to be used on drug addiction and alcoholism, which is the bane of these communities.

I realise that this is similar to the quarantining of welfare payments, but I see it differently, as a real target to provide the necessities of life to all Australians, black or white, so that we are less reliant on income for these necessities. If I could live without money I would be quite happy. Having less to spend on the harmful excesses of consumer society seems to be a first step. It is not only a reduction in income, it is an investment in the future. To adequately provide the social infrastructure that would be required for this the entire income structure would have to be realigned. The rich would be required to pay higher taxation. The resources of our nation ought to be effectively taxed to provide for this. The banks ought to be exposed to super taxes. Their security is vouchsafed by us, we should reap the benefit of their prosperity.

Well I know many people are going to be offended by this, thinking it another step in a paternal attitude to indigenous affairs, but i hope it is seen for what it is. it is an attempt to address the fundamental question of aboriginality, of aboriginal communities, and of black-white relations in Australia. A treaty is one step, bu it is only one. The Intervention is not the answer, but some intervention, some reevaluation of aboriginal affairs, is required. This is my new years wish.