I see that my favourite verbal sparring partner Janet Brown …

Comment on Indigenous adults must ‘grow up’ so that Indigenous children can depend on them, says Alison Anderson by Bob K. Durnan.

I see that my favourite verbal sparring partner Janet Brown (Posted November 14, 2012 at 9:43 pm) is still determined to insist that there are separate laws applying to Aboriginal people who receive welfare payments such as Newstart allowances and family payments. She seems to think they are not required by law to report all their other personal income (such as royalty payments) to Centrelink, every time they lodge an income statement.
Janet also appears to believe that Aboriginal people who don’t claim welfare entitlements but do receive royalties are not required by law to declare these royalties as income when they lodge their tax returns.
Janet, not unusually, is completely wrong in her assumptions.
On the available evidence, Janet possibly also believes that up is down, black is white, day is night, the earth is flat, and space is finite, but unless she is able to show me reasons why these things are true I wouldn’t be inclined to agree with her just because she says so.
However, I am quite confident that Janet and I both will be able to find legislation supporting my contentions if we want to spend the time looking up the relevant acts (I have spoken today to an expert in the field who assures me that I am on solid ground in saying this).
Thank goodness that nobody is relying on her for advice about how to conduct their personal business.
Once again, I say to Janet: If you know of anybody who has broken the law, you are duty bound to report them to the authorities. If you don’t know traditional owners who have broken the law, and are making allegations against a group of people based on hearsay, simple suspicion or pure prejudice, then you need to apologise to them and stop making defamatory assertions.
There are no separate laws applying to Aboriginal people on the matter of needing to declare royalties (or anything else) as income.

Bob K. Durnan Also Commented

Indigenous adults must ‘grow up’ so that Indigenous children can depend on them, says Alison Anderson
Janet (Posted November 12, 2012 at 5:05 pm). Stop playing these snide games with peoples’ reputations and self respect. Of course there are many people who declare royalty payments as income. If you know of anybody who has broken the law, you are duty bound to report them to the authorities. If you don’t know traditional owners who have broken these rules, and are making allegations against a group of people based on hearsay, simple suspicion or pure prejudice, then you need to apologise to them and stop making defamatory assertions. There are no separate laws applying to Aboriginal people on the matter of needing to declare royalties as income.


Indigenous adults must ‘grow up’ so that Indigenous children can depend on them, says Alison Anderson
Thanks for the advice Janet (Posted November 5, 2012 at 5:53 pm), but you are full of humbug. I’ll have a go at figuring out how your cranky statements relate to the arguments I put in my comment. And, by the way, not all traditional owners ‘live in squalor’ or fail to support their communities.
Another thing that will be even more amazing to you: many people on welfare do not ‘live in squalor’, and nor are they ‘welfare cheats’. Please stop inferring that ‘royalty recipients’ equals ‘welfare cheats’. Many do declare their income to Centrelink.


Indigenous adults must ‘grow up’ so that Indigenous children can depend on them, says Alison Anderson
Thanks William, I’ll have a read. If anybody else wants to do likewise, go to http://www.anao.gov.au/uploads/documents/Performance_Audit_of_Centrecorp_Aboriginal_Investment_Corporation_Pty_Ltd.pdf


Recent Comments by Bob K. Durnan

The millions and the misery
Jones (Posted June 10, 2018 at 12:46 pm), you display an unreasonably negative and incorrigibly antagonistic attitude towards the Central Australian Aboriginal Congress and its considerable achievements in the health field.
You may have heard the old adage that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing? This certainly applies to you. You continually use your ignorance as a cloak for confidently, and very unfairly, maligning Congress.
For your information:
1. The primary causes of most renal disease are very long term, and are mainly associated with poverty. The impacts of the chronic stresses from living in poverty begin in utero, then early childhood, with kidney stones and infections much more common. The stress burdens and infections contribute to weaknesses in organs such as the kidneys. These experiences are all imprinted on a person in ways that may lead to renal disease in later life, irrespective of what health service a person attends. As already discussed, a great deal of the global obesity / diabetes epidemic is socially determined, and health services can only do so much on their own.
2. The rate of end stage renal failure requiring dialysis amongst Congress’s own long term resident clients is vastly less than the rate in the rest of remote central Australian Aboriginal communities. The rate in remote areas is generally more than eight times greater than the town. If you are going to use data, you should use it correctly.
3. There is no basis for your statement that “the [overall] incidence of this terminal disease [i.e. renal failure] is a good measure of the success or failure of diabetes programs for which Congress has responsibility”. The situation is much more complex, as explained above, and health services can only do so much.
4. In light of the above facts, there is no validity in your statement that “the incidence of end stage [renal] disease is out of control despite the tens of millions of funding provided to Congress.” Rather, it would appear that Congress’s funded programmes have contributed to the rate of end stage renal disease being much lower in the long term Alice Springs Aboriginal population than it would have been without those programmes.
Jonesy, it is now incumbent upon you to relinquish your pathological denial of Congress’s achievements, and “agree that Congress has long been a leader and good practitioner in prevention and early intervention strategies and practices.”


The millions and the misery
Yes Evelyne Roullet, I have heard of HTLV-1. It would be hard to not have, given the recent publicity.
But no, I don’t know how much Congress, or anybody else, contributes for research and cure of it.


The millions and the misery
You are being perverse, Jones (Posted June 8, 2018 at 7:18 pm), and you are not nearly as well informed as you seem to think that you are.
Being a provocateur perhaps, just for the sake of it?
I pointed out that Congress (Central Australian Aboriginal Congress, or CAAC) has helped to greatly increase the average length of Aboriginal life expectancy in our region.
CAAC has played a leading role in achieving this increase in average life expectancy, not just by medical interventions, but also by fostering social and behavioural changes, such as by helping to ensure that when children are quite sick that they are brought to Congress by their parents, and are referred to hospital when needed.
You are possibly unaware that before Congress started providing health services in 1973, many sick Aboriginal babies were not being treated in the hospital, for a range of reasons.
Most important was the fact that the hospital was only desegregated in 1969.
Added to that was the fact that the hospital had also formerly played a key role in informing the Native Welfare Branch about the presence of mixed race children in the hospital, or where they were living, and this often lead to their removal.
Thus there were some powerful legacy issues.
In this context, many parents had been very reluctant to take their children to the hospital.
Although you agreed with me about CAAC helping to greatly extend the average rate of Aboriginal life expectancy in our region, you then went on to condemn CAAC for not preventing diabetes, and for allegedly not taking effective steps to intervene in its progress.
These are clearly unreasonable accusations on your part, based on a simplistic understanding of the complexity of the relevant issues, and the history of the situation with diabetes.
Much of what you say about this matter is factually untrue.
It is clear that you have not looked at the CAAC annual reports carefully, otherwise you would know the proportion of Congress diabetic patients who have their blood sugar tested regularly each year is quite high. Further data shows that a high proportion of patients have excellent sugar control.
These figures and many other key performance indicators (KPIs) are published every year in Congress’s annual reports.
This is in stark contrast to most other general practices, which rarely publish such data in their annual reports.
Please have another, more careful look at the CAAC annual reports, which are available on line.
You will find a wealth of information which you and other interested members of the community can use to judge the success of Congress.
As for prevention of diabetes, it has a very long development period.
Most of the CAAC diabetes prevention programmes are also long term by their very nature, and begin with trying to ensure healthy pregnancies, healthy births, and good early childhood health and emotional wellbeing programmes.
CAAC is now providing these services to many of its clients.
However, some of these programmes have only been funded in the last 10 years, some of them only starting quite recently. Several of them are not yet funded in many remote Aboriginal communities.
As you may be aware, the diabetes epidemic is a massive global health crisis that has been caused by what is known as our “obesogenic” social environment, which is rich in high fat, high sugar, high salt, high carb ultra-processed foods, and increasingly sedentary, inactive lifestyles.
Congress alone cannot be expected to change this.
There is much that is still needed to be done in public health terms.
For example, Congress has been advocating for a sugar glucose tax of 20% for more than a decade.
Congress has long advocated that funds raised by such a tax should be hypothecated, or reserved, to be spent solely on a subsidy to ensure fresh fruit and vegies are affordable in all remote communities.
This key position and advocacy has been Congress policy well before the AMA and other peak medical groups around the world adopted it.
Congress removed soft drink machines back in the late nineties, something that most of Australia’s public hospitals and major medical centres are only starting to do now, 20 years later.
Another key endeavour, where CAAC has had some success in recent years, is in the area of reform of the NT Government’s regulation of alcohol consumption and sales, in order to reduce the average level of consumption amongst problem drinkers and those at risk of becoming problem drinkers.
This is widely acknowledged to be a necessary pre-requisite before many further advances in the preventative programmes area can be expected to take place.
You can’t have it both ways, Jones.
You should admit that Congress has long been a leader and good practitioner in prevention and early intervention strategies and practices.


Fewer pokies, help for gambling addicts
Bev Emmott, I don’t understand some of your comments, but I get the drift. “Where are the drunks in Sadadeen,” indeed?
Maybe you could try some of these activities?
Swimming, athletics, archery, shooting, motorbike riding, keeping bees, knitting, embroidery, playing pool, darts, training dogs, raising birds, keeping cats,
following non-Aboriginal art at Araluen, the Art Shed and elsewhere, doing painting, visiting the prisoners, assisting the disabled, helping young single mums, volunteer work, making sculpture, writing, cooking, helping Maureen York, soothing Matthew Langdan’s feelings, dining out, dining in with friends, cycling, walking, running, netball … etc etc etc.
There are not enough hours in the day, or days in the week, or weeks in the year!


The millions and the misery
Re Michael Dean’s mean minded aspersion against the Central Australian Aboriginal Congress (CAAC) staff (Posted June 5, 2018 at 11:37 am: “Amazing … $32m budget and $28m in salaries. They know who to look after, don’t they.”)
Michael, you need to stop and think a bit before you make statements like that.
Consider that the 333 full-time equivalent (FTE) positions on the Congress payroll include about 20 FTE doctor positions, covering seven town clinics (at Gap Rd, Sadadeen Shops, the Diarama Village shopping centre, the Alukura Women’s Clinic on Percy Court, the male health Ingkintja, the youth mental health service at headspace, the after-hours service for the whole community at the hospital), plus a clinic at Amoonguna and four remote clinics (at Mutitjulu, Utju, Ntaria and Ltyentye Apurte).
Most of the rest of the staff are nurses and other health and allied health practitioners, working over these same twelve sites, as well as doing outreach into other services and agencies.
If you deduct the salary packages and on-costs of the doctors from the total, you will see that the average annual wage packages, including on-costs, of the 313 FTE non-doctor staff is around $75,000 per annum.
This is not excessive, considering their skills, the difficult jobs that many of them perform, and the remote locations in which many of them work.
In the last 20 years this workforce has contributed greatly to improving the life expectancy of local Aboriginal people and reducing the gap with other Centralian residents.
Considering the continuing shorter average life expectancies of Aboriginal people, and the gap between their health and the average health levels of other Australians, do you really think that this expenditure is not warranted, Mr. Dean?


Be Sociable, Share!