Au contraire! As you say the money earned from painting was …

Comment on The Aboriginal art world, an insider’s view by Ken.

Au contraire!
As you say the money earned from painting was transacted locally but much of it ended up in the hands of liquor outlets. How did this lower welfare costs?
Even if this is true in a small number of cases (some artists couldn’t be bothered applying for welfare) the increase in health costs far outweighed the benefits.
Institutionalised obstacles did not keep artists from being able to enter the residential market.
They had no interest in private housing.
They were maintained in painting houses in town run by art dealers while retaining their community housing.
After the boom they were not removed from the overcrowded house / unit that they’d been able to rent.
The art dealers simply made a commercial decision that most were not worth their keep, only the top artists are maintained in town now.
The art boom supplemented government welfare with that of private enterprise, it did not replace it.

Recent Comments by Ken

‘Bring back school based constables’
@ Phil Walcott: What a joke restorative justice programs have been in the Territory. They actually undid the good work of school cops.
At Alice Springs Highschool there was a spate of racist behaviour allegedly perpetrated by white kids on Aboriginal students.
Oddly the Aboriginal students were often a lot bigger, tougher and ganged up.
At the restorative meetings the white kids would readily confess their offence and apologise profusely.
They would accept any consequence for their poor behaviour without any complaint.
In reality, the racist accusation was a weapon expertly used against targeted white students who often attended the school in fear of assault.
In any restorative situation where the participants rather than the school decide who is in the wrong the power relationship will prevail.
That relationship invariable favoured the Aboriginal students.
One outcome was Aboriginal youth who thought they could always manipulate the system.
Many ended up in jail.
The other outcome was successive generations of racist white adults, they never forgot.

New shield laws protect news sources, but is there a flip side?
Hi Erwin, I wouldn’t bother asking this of many journalists because I doubt they would, but would you go to jail to protect a source?
[Yes. To protect the source’s identity.]

Offenders bailed to ‘country’: An option, says police
David, it’s not just Lhere Artepe selling grog but other major Aboriginal groups in town have also tried to make money out of selling grog.
The Memo Club was funded by CentreCorp and behind that was the Central Land Council and Congress.
Yes Congress, recipient of $40m a year from taxpayers to improve Aboriginal health was on the CentreCorp Board that supported grog sales, mostly to Aboriginal people.

Congress call: Put full-time police back at bottle-shops
Local 1: I wouldn’t use the criterion of Aboriginal or non Aboriginal ownership in deciding which outlets should be closed down.
That seems irrelevant.
I would look at the proximity of outlets to tourists and their ability to cater to increased numbers of drinkers once the total number of outlets is reduced.
The NT Police would have an important say in the decision.
Basically, we need fewer outlets and ones that lend themselves to intensive ongoing policing.
The savings to the NT Government in the long term from having fewer outlets to police would be considerable.

Congress call: Put full-time police back at bottle-shops
What will it cost to police each alcohol outlet for a decade? $4m?
They must be policed so what we need to do is to reduce the number of outlets.
The NT Government should buy out a couple of the current licences.
Yes, expensive, but $8m saved in a decade with other benefits as well.
Outlets that contribute to the most social disruption and damage to the Territory’s reputation with tourists should be the ones to go.

Be Sociable, Share!