“Then there’s the fact that all this is basically assimilation – and compulsory assimilation – in a very real way.”

All Forest wants to do is bring indigenous folk into the paid workforce. Bringing people into the paid workforce has nothing to do with assimilation. In multicultural Australia it isn’t unusual for example to have an Indian Sikh, a third-generation Jew and a white overtly homosexual male all working side-by-side and very definitely unassimilated.

Your graceless attitude to what is an entirely positive development is utterly baffling.

(a) I’ve pointed out that the current “debate” over Indigenous policy is as stereotyped, ideological and falsely polarised as the previous one;

(b) I don’t accept those dichotomies.

I think that you’re unwilling to read what I’m actually saying (which is by no means a wholly negative reaction) so you need – for some reason which actually has little to do with me – to position me within the terms of a “debate” I’m actually trying to transcend.

“”I welcome this bold initiative and the willingness of the Australian government to join with employers to prepare Aboriginal people for employment and to create real jobs for our people,” he said.

Mr Wunungmurra said the NLC wanted to join the steering committee, chaired by Mr Forrest, to prepare a blueprint for the plan.

“The Prime Minister has talked about the need for a strong and close partnership with Indigenous people in order for this plan to have any chance of success,” he said.

“I wholeheartedly agree with this.”

http://www.nit.com.au/breakingnews/story.aspx?id=15694

It is apparent that Mr Wunungmurra rejects Mark Bahnisch’s welfarist and segregationist vision. Is he now going to be demonised as per Noel Pearson?

Yes, he did say that. But what we’ve seen – unless I haven’t been keeping up with it – is a limited trial of welfare quarantining in a Perth suburb. Which Macklin said would only be extended if it works.

Yes, they’re using small groups to test social engineering techniques for the wider community. There are ethical questions about this approach especially when its race based. I think its better than just rolling out large changes to everyone at once, but does need to be thought out carefully.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but I vaguely remember Noel Pearson saying that he thought these sort of schemes should be available for the wider population as well eventually. Kind of like what is happening with welfare quarantining in non indigenous areas now.

Yes, he did say that. But what we’ve seen – unless I haven’t been keeping up with it – is a limited trial of welfare quarantining in a Perth suburb. Which Macklin said would only be extended if it works.

Are you sure indigenous people are going to be drafted into this programme and have their welfare cut if they refuse to comply?

Also you misinterpret my motives. I favour a “tough love” approach because I think it will help these young blokes in the long run. When I was 18, living with my parents and unemployed I was given the choice by the old man- get a job now or get out. So I left. It felt cruel at the time but I’m thankful for it now. Paternalism isn’t always a bad thing.

Well, perhaps he does, Chris, but you know, evidence based policy and all that!

Oh but that was just an election mantra, not a policy

I’ve long since given up expecting most of the so-called “libertarians” and “liberals” to make points like these, but talk about social engineering!

I agree its a bit odd to see things like this get such quick agreement from the Labor party. But it is consistent with the Kevin Rudd that was elected.

Which is surely why – since we’re going further down the track of policy that has differential application dependent on the race of its targets – we should be very very careful indeed in attending to compulsion. Which I will continue to oppose on a variety of grounds.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but I vaguely remember Noel Pearson saying that he thought these sort of schemes should be available for the wider population as well eventually. Kind of like what is happening with welfare quarantining in non indigenous areas now.

In terms of assimilation, I think it very much depends on exactly what you mean by assimilation? If changes in in life expectancy rates are going to change, then I’d expect at least some assimilation would be happen. But this doesn’t mean that you would lose all of the culture – anymore than an immigrant does when they move to Australia.

Then there’s the fact that all this is basically assimilation – and compulsory assimilation – in a very real way. Which is surely why – since we’re going further down the track of policy that has differential application dependent on the race of its targets – we should be very very careful indeed in attending to compulsion. Which I will continue to oppose on a variety of grounds.

The strong impression I had from what Pearson was saying on Lateline the other night (link in the post) was that this initiative was targeted at males in remote areas. Why? Levels of literacy and numeracy are probably higher in urban and regional areas. Is it just males in remote communities who can “benefit” by being treated as labour units to be moved to where the supply is? Why?

Perhaps because he sees the high unemployment rate of males in the remote communities as being the cause of much of the dysfunction in those communities? You’re probably right in that it would be easier and cheaper to recruit people from urban and regional areas, but that would do nothing to help the remote communities.

Personally, I don’t regard obeisance to the almighty dictates of the “job market” as compulsory or even laudable, but that’s my choice. But I can see that the situation is a lot more complex than some risible dichotomy about “job snobs”. I can also see a case for the facilitation of Indigenous engagement with the labour market, but I don’t see that case is furthered by kneejerk support for proposals which appear to be at best sketchy.

I do think that compulsion is not just philosophically wrong, but also often highly counter-productive in achieving the goals set out for it, and indeed unnecessary for a genuine attempt to achieve those same goals – which in this instance are at least supposed to be about providing opportunity rather than the way you appear to be characterising them – freeing you from having to pay for others’ “choices”. It’s actually not about you, I don’t think.

You have a peculiar obsession with this whitefella versus blackfella thing. You are also being simplistic. Remember how the very whitebread Paxton kids were exposed in the media as lazy “job snobs” and “dole bludgers” a decade or so ago? That was front page news and intensely personal. We aren’t seeing anything like this in relation to the indigenous people who choose to absent themselves from the job market.

“I’m more than entitled as an Australian citizen and a tax payer to raise questions.”

Me too. I’m sick of funding other people’s lifestyle choices.

As to your last point, it’s silly. I’m not speaking on anyone’s behalf. I’m more than entitled as an Australian citizen and a tax payer to raise questions. You don’t seem to feel any reticence in supporting it, and I’ve noted that a number of Indigenous leaders are also raising questions. There is naturally nothing at our end stopping any Indigenous people who want to comment on it here from doing so!

People have moved about in search of employment since Adam was a boy. I moved from rural Victoria to the big smoke and so did 90% of my peers back in the late 80s when there were virtually no jobs available.

No-one who is capable of work should expect ongoing welfare payments if they refuse to take all reasonable steps to find work, and that includes a change of location.

I also note your failure to give voice to the indigenous Australians who stand to benefit from this programme. Why do you feel entitled to speak on their behalf?

In 2007, more Indigenous people not in the labour force lived in Regional areas (57,300) than in Remote areas (43,700) and Major Cities (41,600). Females accounted for 61% of the total Indigenous population not in the labour force.

That’s probably a more relevant indicator than the unemployment rate, for the reasons the ABS gives:

In 2007, the unemployment rate for the Indigenous population was 14%. The unemployment rate for Indigenous people was 14% in Major Cities, 17% in Regional areas, and 9% in Remote areas. However, estimates of unemployment for Remote areas should be used with great care as they are subject to high sampling errors. In addition, Remote areas generally have an underdeveloped labour market and this is reflected in the low number of Indigenous people actively looking for work and therefore not classified as unemployed.

http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/mf/6287.0/

The strong impression I had from what Pearson was saying on Lateline the other night (link in the post) was that this initiative was targeted at males in remote areas. Why? Levels of literacy and numeracy are probably higher in urban and regional areas. Is it just males in remote communities who can “benefit” by being treated as labour units to be moved to where the supply is? Why?

Previous programs I’m familiar with have worked reasonably well because they seek to target local labour, not move people around the country. There would clearly be cultural impediments to all this which people like Forrest ought to be aware of. It seems to me that it’s yet another instalment in Pearson’s agenda of “orbiting” – taking selected males out of communities and establishing some sort of remittance economy. Leaving aside all the other questions I’ve raised, it appears to me that one of the continuities that exists with the Intervention is the tendency to want remote communities to disappear altogether in the interests of economic factors. That appears to be the way you would like things to go.

If I chose to lead a lifestyle marred by substance abuse society is obliged to fund me?

A completely traditional Aboriginal lifestyle cant exist with full time normal employment. BHP has been at the forefront of offering extremely flexible work conditions and training. What has to happen is a hybrid, where local “holidays” for ceremonial or clan activities can be incorporated. But would the supporters of Aboriginal rights accept lower pay if that meant less hours worked or much greater levels of support were needed?

I strongly believe many here are making the automatic assumption that miners would just like the Aboriginals gone, rather than as people they can work with. Educated and work ready they are a godsend for companies.
http://sustainability.bhpbilliton.com/2004/repository/caseStudies/socioEconomic33.asp

Heres an excerpt from that bit of company material.
The importance of education initiatives to the overall success of the program cannot be underestimated. BHP Billiton Iron Ore is now the primary sponsor of two education programs that we conduct in partnership with the Western Australian Department of Education & Training, the Commonwealth Department of Employment & Workplace Relations, the Commonwealth Department of Education, Science & Training, the local indigenous community and the Graham (Polly) Farmer Foundation. One of the programs is at Port Hedland and another recently commenced at Newman.

The Port Hedland Partnership program is now into its third year. Through mentoring, homework supervision and work experience, the program aims to assist indigenous children to achieve their full potential. Students attending school in Years 8 to12 can apply to be selected. A compact is established with the selected students, their families and the partners, which includes a commitment to work towards set educational and personal growth goals. A dedicated coordinator is jointly funded by the partners. In addition, we have provided a building that is available for student use after school. It contains computer equipment and facilities for tutoring, homework, recreation and dining. A bus is available for student pick up and drop off as well as for excursion activities.

Applying for positions in the partnership program is highly competitive; for example, in 2003 there were 32 applicants for the five vacant positions. The students selected are those who show promise, are committed to their education and have family support and encouragement. Overall, there has been a noted improvement in grades and school attendance by the participating students and they are becoming role models among their colleagues, family and the broader community.

So Forrests idea isnt new.

Hypotheticly: Should a mining company take an Aboriginal (or other local) with little education and try to make them an engineer? How should a company pick the “winner” who gets a start at a low level of skill/education, without seeing them work.

Theyd prefer a person who has at least demonstrated academic achivement as a way to “cull” people who may not be career oriented (if somebody has achived a qualification you know they must be at least partialy keen on the position). Without that its a bit more like picking names from a phone book.

Almost nobody starts off in mining in a plum machinery or management position without tertiary qualifications. My own site has a training plan where it take around 2 years of truck driving/nipper/service crew/paste plant work (around $50-$60K per year for week on/week off position) before you are eligable to move up to the bigger and better toys. The most highly paid of the “uneducated” jobs (jumbo operator, $120K+) generaly arent open to anyone with less than 10 years experience underground. Although for the last few years due to demand many people with less experience have been fast tracked, usualy at the cost of both production and safety.
In short the only realistic way open to “sexy” non machinery work is through training , all the way through to tertiary as a usual minimum.