loquasagacious
NCAP Mooderator
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2004
- Messages
- 3,636
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- HSC
- 2004
I personally* think the intervention is a good policy. Whilst I agree with the point which Freedom raises around Government coercion it is not politically realistic to do nothing - so we work within the confines of the system we have. The situation before the intervention was atrocious and the polices in place had clearly failed, this demanded a new approach. Was it the right approach? It is certainly better than what we were doing before.
Long-term I personally* think that we need to reevaluate how we deal with remote populations:
For decades now we have been paying a variety of welfare into remote communities, while we have begun to move away from the 'sit-down-money' of CDEP even if we apply mutual obligation and jobsearch requirements to welfare there are simply no jobs there.
Welfare is having a massive adverse effect on these communities as we are seeing and to what benefit? It assuages our middle-class guilt by giving the perception that we are supporting their traditional way of life, yay for cultural relativism. Their traditional way of life however is irreconcilable with modern health, education and other outcomes. Look at the history of civilisation, culture has changed and evolved in step with progress. Even more importantly populations have migrated from where the conditions were unfavourable to where they were favourable.
By continuing to pay welfare to these communities we are essentially stifling progress by removing any impetus for change. I think we need to present remote communities with a choice: stay and live a traditional life - without welfare, or move to our towns and cities - which we will assist you with. Basically remove the encouragement to stay and reduce the barriers to leaving.
The ones who stay we leave to their own devices. But in towns and cities we could dramatically lift health, education and employment outcomes within a gerneration - simply because they would now be close to hospitals, schools and jobs.
This isn't a choice which could be delivered overnight but would have to occur over time, welfare could be progressively reduced and programs which supported moving to towns and cities introduced. Pleasingly the latter has already begun.
*I have had professional involvement with the intervention and emphasise that my views do not necessarily reflect those of the Government, the Departments involved or other public servants.
Long-term I personally* think that we need to reevaluate how we deal with remote populations:
- As kt said we can never have the same level of medical care available in remote Australia as we do in cities. Therefore the health outcomes will never be as good. Incidentally this applies equally to Indigenous populations and farmers.
- A similar situation to the above applies to education.
- Remote communities do not have an economy to speak of. We send welfare money in which flows straight out again to pay for food and other goods which can not be produced locally.
- Unless a mine opens there will never be real jobs in remote communities.
For decades now we have been paying a variety of welfare into remote communities, while we have begun to move away from the 'sit-down-money' of CDEP even if we apply mutual obligation and jobsearch requirements to welfare there are simply no jobs there.
Welfare is having a massive adverse effect on these communities as we are seeing and to what benefit? It assuages our middle-class guilt by giving the perception that we are supporting their traditional way of life, yay for cultural relativism. Their traditional way of life however is irreconcilable with modern health, education and other outcomes. Look at the history of civilisation, culture has changed and evolved in step with progress. Even more importantly populations have migrated from where the conditions were unfavourable to where they were favourable.
By continuing to pay welfare to these communities we are essentially stifling progress by removing any impetus for change. I think we need to present remote communities with a choice: stay and live a traditional life - without welfare, or move to our towns and cities - which we will assist you with. Basically remove the encouragement to stay and reduce the barriers to leaving.
The ones who stay we leave to their own devices. But in towns and cities we could dramatically lift health, education and employment outcomes within a gerneration - simply because they would now be close to hospitals, schools and jobs.
This isn't a choice which could be delivered overnight but would have to occur over time, welfare could be progressively reduced and programs which supported moving to towns and cities introduced. Pleasingly the latter has already begun.
*I have had professional involvement with the intervention and emphasise that my views do not necessarily reflect those of the Government, the Departments involved or other public servants.
