Re: Hilary @ November 16, 2011 at 11:07 pm. Yes Hil, …

Comment on Carrots for jobs, sticks for education and grog by Bob Durnan.

re: Hilary @ November 16, 2011 at 11:07 pm.
Yes Hil, lots of exclamation marks: denoting lots of ironically-expressed frustration with unperceptive self-satisfied dills who pontificate in superior fashion, misinforming and patronising Aboriginal people and using national platforms to mislead and confuse the general public, whilst disguising their ideological judgements as value-free evidence-based advice to all the uneducated plebs. Well, this is one pleb who is mad as hell about this continuing campaign of disinformation and white-anting of Aboriginal capacity, responsibility, and agency by the IRAG/STICS/Concerned Australians/Green Left/Socialist Alliance/Solidarity brigades and their fellow travellers. Like Gregory Finch, I’m not going to take it anymore, so you may as well get used to the exclamation marks and contain your condescending sniffiness to your private moments.
The point is, when a Pintupi acquaintance says “the government has to recognise that we need to grow our children up with tjukurrpa”, a true and trustworthy friend would reply by pointing out that the government is not interfering in any way with the right of parents to grow children up to follow their parents’ religious and cultural beliefs.
In fact, by insisting on Aboriginal children, like all other children, acquiring adequate contemporary educational foundations, the government is not only honouring its strong internationally-required obligation to its young citizens; it is also honouring another international obligation, to assist in the creation of a strong functional base from which Aboriginal people can ensure a future for their cultures, languages and descendants. The logic of this, in case you miss it, is because, as educated people, remote Aboriginal families will be able to make informed, autonomous decisions about the crucial issues of how to survive with dignity and respect as Aboriginal people, without having to rely on massive special government supports. They will be able to thrive and grow strong enough to take control of their own destinies and adapt their own societies and cultures to cope with changes in their world.
At the same time, a real and ethical friend would also point out that the government is now at last willing to supply huge amounts of resources in remote communities, where the tjukurrpa is flourishing, for education, child care, municipal, youth, health, housing, welfare, policing, safety, art support and many other services; and the government, in return, is requiring that Aboriginal people, like everybody else, send their kids to school and obey the laws about child welfare, wellbeing, violence, safety, and individual rights.
And Hilary, thanks awfully for the insights about Chris Sarra and his work: once again, who would have guessed! It’s commonly known that he is a talented and committed educator, with some valuable insights, like hundreds of other Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal teachers who slave their guts out to deliver good education in difficult circumstances in remote Australia, but who are implicitly disparaged by you and your mates continuously stating that the reason many kids are not attending school regularly is simply because the schools are no good, are not welcoming/inclusive/respectful/culturally appropriate, when in fact most of the teachers are turning themselves inside out to achieve these very demands. The real problem is they also have to try to get many parents to comply with their end of the bargain. It is in the interests of both the teachers and all the pupils that there is at least one minor stick in the many-carrotted armoury available to the schools, as Chris Sarra in recent interviews has agreed with. He is no fool and understands that sticks are necessarily an important, indeed crucial, part of the deal.

Bob Durnan Also Commented

Carrots for jobs, sticks for education and grog
Hilary
Re your reply Posted @November 22, 2011 at 8:37 pm:
I do not “think that a human rights perspective is irrelevant,” but I think a truly beneficial and just “human rights perspective” needs to be based on a balanced, intelligent and integrated model of human rights.
The tendency of some advocates to privilege the instrumental rights of some adults over the substantive rights of their neglected children and other vulnerable people seems to me to be neither balanced nor intelligent.
For example, the freedom of some adults to neglect their children’s welfare, and ignore their need for close supervision by too often allowing them to do whatever they want, including not going to school on two or more days out of five, is sometimes justified in the name of “culture,” tradition, autonomy and “self-determination” rights. Such “rights” seem to be given greater weight by these advocates than the rights of children to receive adequate care, supervision and education.
Governments are ethically and legally bound to act on behalf of children in such situations. When government actions fail to produce more acceptable behaviour, they have to increase the pressure for change, or remove the children from the situations that are almost certainly causing them irreparable harm that will endure for the rest of their lives.
I do not believe however that the enactments of the School Enrolment and Attendance Measure (SEAM) and Income Management constitute breaches of human rights, as they are pre-eminently special affirmative action measures, or positive discrimination, designed specifically for the benefit of groups of people who were demonstrably experiencing extreme harm as a result of the previous inappropriate provision of welfare payments without reasonable requirements or responsibilities – children.
The nature of the “evidence base to the positive effects of human rights” is also more complex and contentious than your reference indicates that you appreciate. Your understanding of the realities and problems of contemporary social, cultural and economic problems in town camps and remote communities seems quite limited, otherwise you would probably not keep lecturing us so patronisingly with your simple mantras and nostrums.
Whilst it is true that the “compulsory income management,” “federal government policy shutting down CDEP,” “legislation relating to customary law,” and “NT government policies dismantling community councils” have been disempowering for some, for many others these have been empowering; for the great majority they have at least provided the opportunity of a more realistic and neutral terrain on which to begin building better and more egalitarian lives.
Long-term compulsory land acquisition has not occurred, although I believe that it (along with fair compensation to the original owners) would have been well justified; people living in towns need to have a land tenure system that is based on the “common good” of residents and their needs rather than on an hereditary system of land ownership and control by a local elite.
The ultimate autonomy of the great majority of individual residents has probably been increased more than it has been diminished by these changes. They are certainly not changes that you hear more than a few people on communities complaining about; and most of the previous arrangements also had their coercive aspects, by virtue of the semi-feudal rights that they conferred on the few over the many.
I strongly suspect that, to the extent that the SEAM process proves to be worthwhile in terms of achieving its goal in remote Aboriginal communities, you will probably find reasons to deny it, as it appears that you may be psychologically allergic to the idea that Aboriginal people could ever be really responsible for any of their own behaviours.


Carrots for jobs, sticks for education and grog
Hilary
Further re your post @ November 14, 2011 at 3:11 pm:
I agree with you that “housing needs remain dire. These are what communities which have been terribly under-resourced for decades are calling out for – more housing, more services, more activities for young people – the services that Australians everywhere else take for granted.”
However, I would point out that these things are exactly what the governments have been attending to, on a massive scale, over the last three or four years: they have been pouring huge amounts of resources into the very communities which are coming under the SEAM experiment.
The schools where SEAM already exists, or is about to, are in the communities which have most benefited from the billions of dollars being expended under the NTER Intervention programs.
The reason why SEAM is being introduced to these communities is that the governments’ largesse has, in many cases, not been translated “to more children at school”, although it has usually led to more teachers, more school buildings, more teacher housing, more education support workers, as well as to more night patrol people, welfare workers, youth workers, pre-school workers, child welfare workers, counsellors, police, health workers, nurses, recreation workers, training, community houses, better stores, less alcohol-related disturbances, and many other benefits.
Under these circumstances, no reasonable person could criticize the government for wanting to give recalcitrant parents a little nudge.


Carrots for jobs, sticks for education and grog
Hilary
Re your earlier post @November 16, 2011 at 11:07 pm:
Many concerned Aboriginal leaders told Macklin and Snowdon that they think they should withhold some welfare from carers who neglect those in their charge, e.g. with-hold a part of welfare from people who don’t ensure that their children attend school often enough, amongst other things. These responsible leaders think this will assist in sorting out the non-attendance problem. Why do you doubt Macklin’s word on this and also the judgement of the responsible Aboriginal elders in the places she visited?
You are right about the USA studies that looked at welfare sanctions linked to school attendance. They did find that it was the intensive case management that made the biggest difference. But the case management was supported by sanctions and non-negotiable guidelines and penalties i.e. little “sticks”, or potential punishments, which also contributed to the success of the case management and the improved outcomes by providing a strong underpinning to the other measures.
Macklin’s new SEAM proposal is based on intensive case management, with sanctions as the absolute last resort, just like in the US experiments. If this system made the difference there, why shouldn’t it do so here? Why are you in denial about the truth of this?
Re the Halls Creek school attendance experiment: this was a very flawed design, and predictably failed. It is not comparable with the more sophisticated and integrated approach being mooted by Macklin for NT communities. Much more relevant are the other experiments with Income Management and child welfare that have been occurring more recently in various parts of WA. These have been having more success in producing behavioral changes in irresponsible carers.
The early SEAM trials, which only occurred in about half a dozen NT sites, were carried out using an under-developed model, although they too have had some varied success, according to people involved with the education bureaucracy. These trials were very slow to get started, as protocols took far too long to sort out, maybe due to some bureaucratic resistance or inertia. It will be interesting to see their evaluation results.


Recent Comments by Bob Durnan

Booze report: What the government is likely to do.
In response to R Henry on Oct 20th, on who gets the extra markup money?
There is very little brand loyalty to the cheap brands of Chardonnay amongst our dedicated alcohol-drinking punters: They are after the cheapest hit of alcohol for their buck, regardless of its host liquid, not for their next taste of the rank Calabrian / Bortoli products.
Since the vast majority of shoppers generally shift their choice to better value for money when confronted with higher prices (and this happened when Clare Martin knocked the cheapest wines and sherries off the shelves in October 2006: there was a massive shift to beer), there is unlikely to be very much windfall profits via extra markup.
To the extent that there are any windfalls, they are unlikely to be anywhere near commensurate with the decrease in profits that are likely to occur because of the overall impacts of a number of the proposed reforms.
To see if I am correct, keep your ears open for the sounds of the interstate alcohol industry cartels – manufacturers, wholesalers, retailers and their paid public relations reps squealing about the alleged injustice, unfairness and unworkability of these visionary evidence-based reforms.
It is going to be an interesting war, and the outcome will decide whether the NT has any future worth speaking about.


Elferink and Gooda clash over underage marriage
Peter, Posted June 30, 2017 at 2:30 pm: some young girls may resist promised marriage more strongly these days, but I doubt whether some are in a position to do so.
It has been authoritatively reported by youth workers in Alice Springs and Tennant Creek in the last few years that rape of young women is rife in these towns.


I’m not kungka, I’m arelhe
Does anybody know if the hours when the Arrernte words teaching program is held at the Apmere angkentye-kenhe are available somewhere on the net, or anywhere else?
I thought I had seen it advertised for every Wednesday night at 6pm, but this doesn’t appear to be the case?
I have gone there at this time, found it closed, and no notice or info on the door.
Anybody wanna clarify here?


Judge Borchers’ position should be assessed: CAALAS
Alex, of course one part-time worker with CAALAS is not able to, in your words, “work closely with EVERY SINGLE young person going throughout Central Australian court system, their family, community, lawyer, school and other service-providers to provide the young person with the support they need to get back on track and stay out of trouble”.
That is exactly my point, and why it is wrong for you to lay the blame on that worker, as you did when you wrote “if your PART-TIME advocacy programme co-ordinator did her job after this child’s court appearance in March, then he wouldn’t have appeared in court again in May.”
As I said earlier: That advocacy programme co-ordinator performed her job with great diligence and dedication, and cannot be held to blame for any alleged failure of duty of care, as the case load of such cases far exceeds the ability of one worker to cover even a small proportion of them. She was doing her job very well, covering as many of the cases as she could, but she wasn’t a magician. So your cheap jibe at her reputation is wrongly placed, and you should withdraw it.


Judge Borchers’ position should be assessed: CAALAS
Evelyne Roullet, Posted June 22, 2017 at 1:42 pm: Ralph was not talking about where or how the kid should be housed. He was referring to the bigger issue of the huge trauma in his life, caused by the alleged killing of his mother by his father. Kids who experience this level of trauma need intensive help and support, and we need to make sure that they get it, from wherever it may be best available.


Be Sociable, Share!