Remote Community Land Grab

Karl FitzgeraldMultimedia1 Comment

Renegade Economists Show 398

As broadcast on the 3CR airwaves 5.30 – 6pm Wednesdays.
Subscribe to the free weekly podcast.

Show Notes
Curtis Taylor (Bungol lands) and Suri Bin Saad, a proud Nyikina man from Derby (Kimberley region), discuss the proposed forced closure of remote aboriginal communities. What does it mean to the oldest known culture on the planet? What does it say about the priorities for stewardship of this dear earth? This despite billions made in mining and trillions in the ‘land game’.

Remote Community Land Grab by Renegade Economists on Mixcloud

Related Links
ABC on WA Draft Internal document on Forced Closures

The 75 category five communities were non-permanently occupied and assessed as high risk. There would be no further investment; only private investment would be possible. They could also include Goodalargin and Yallet. Dr Hames told Parliament people who chose to stay in country would do so without government support. The discussion paper said people who opted to relocate should be supported through long-term and flexible programs, and possibly new housing.

*** Workings: 3500 people need relocation = @ 2 people per house x $500K per house = $875m -> approximately $500 – $900m in set up costs plus relocation fees, psychological etc -> $1bn

Redman on royalties to fund remote communities, then slapped down

Redman said in December the $1bn “Royalties for Regions” fund, which is drawn from 25% of the forecast mining royalties paid to the state, could be used to support 274 remote communities threatened with closure after the federal government withdrew funding for essential services in November.

Assimilation and remote closures via Solidarity

Premier Colin Barnett was shown speaking in parliament about 38 reported cases of the STI gonorrea in minors, disingenuously ignoring the fact, pointed out by remote health workers, that most such cases result from the consensual sexual activity of young teens.

The NT Intervention poured hundreds of millions of dollars into the NT to build new bureaucracies of control. But the money available to Aboriginal people trying to live on their lands evaporated, almost overnight. The national Community Development Employment Program (CDEP)—which employed 7500 people across NT Aboriginal communities in a multitude of services from essential municipal works to schools, was shut down. Most of these people were simply put on the dole and subjected to “income management”.

The NT Government was simultaneously implementing reforms which saw around 50 local Aboriginal Community Government Councils disbanded in favour of a handful of “mega-Shires”. Many of the productive assets that communities relied on that were attached to the CDEP or the local council were simply confiscated, including earth-moving equipment, road graders, community buses and vehicles—essential equipment required for community life in remote areas.

While the Intervention was the main pretext for introducing this policy, it hit hard Australia wide. Almost 40,000 Aboriginal people had been employed on CDEP before its closure. Rene Adams, head of the Toomelah Aboriginal Co-op in North West NSW told Tracker magazine in 2012, “all people who were on CDEP are basically unemployed now… Mental health issues and suicides have increased. There’s more drugs, more violence, more alcohol. It’s heart breaking.”

Further cutbacks, despite millions in ‘inquiries’ to reduce deaths in custody

The federal government is poised to abolish the Custody Notification Service in New South Wales through a funding cut on July 1 – for the sake of saving A$526,000 a year. For that modest amount, the service provides NSW with one of the most effective strategies in curbing Indigenous deaths in police custody.

The service is a telephone hotline that provides Indigenous prisoners in police custody with personal and legal advice.

a “transparency measure” that “increases the professionalism of police”. It provides Indigenous people with assistance that is often:

… as simple as getting a person essential medication that can save a life.

——
In NSW, rates of Indigenous imprisonment are currently 24%. However, Indigenous people make up less than 2.9% of the population. This is a higher per capita rate than in the Northern Territory, where 86% of inmates are Indigenous. Indigenous people comprise 29.8% of the population.

It costs around $652 a day to lock up a young person in detention. It costs a lot less to educate and if required, rehabilitate a young person.

Interesting campaign – Just Reinvest

Good examples include:

– night patrols, such as the Redfern Streetbeat, the Bourke Community Assistance Patrol, the Grafton Streetcruize, the Dubbo Community Patrol

– mentoring programs, such as Tribal Warrior and the Australian Indigenous Mentoring Experience

– cultural centres, such as Tirkandi Inaburra and the National Centre of Indigenous Excellence.

Tough on Crime is Creating a lost Generation of Indigenous Youth

About half (52%) of young people in juvenile detention centres are Indigenous. The rate of imprisonment among Indigenous youth is 348 per 100,000, compared with 14 non-Indigenous youth per 100,000, aged 10 to 17 years, in juvenile detention facilities across Australia.

In practical terms, this means that Indigenous young people are 25 times more likely to be detained than non-Indigenous young people. This is an increase from 24 times more likely in 2011.

Image – Rob Hutton, Gwon Gwon Rock and Cave Art, Kimberley

Share with your friends, or if you could, provide an itunes review for the show. Thankyou!

One Comment on “Remote Community Land Grab”

  1. ecosystems Global Resource Bank – http://www.GRB.net
    Every person owns one share in the GRB. GRB shareholders’ value the earth’s wealth of natural resources at six quadrillion GRB ecocredits (e). The GRB converts US$ assets to GRBe. The GRB ecocredit reserve account supplies shareholder accounts with e40/day for 20 years. Seven hundred trillion ecocredits are invested in ecosystems and 500 trillion in the GRB network. The GRB income account receives ecocredit from an ecosystem impact charge on shareholder and commercial accounts and exchanges ecocredit with the GRB reserve to maintain equilibrium. Two percent of GRB income sustains the GRB network and e40/day goes to fully funded shareholder accounts. GRB shareholders invest 5% of their GRB income in ecosystems. The earth’s ecocredit wealth of natural resources and GRB income distribution rates adjust to the shareholders’ feedback. After one year of inactivity GRB accounts revert to the reserve. The GRB manager is chosen by the majority.

    Q & A

    Is national debt-money obsolete? Yes.

    Must a global medium of exchange value a common asset? Yes.

    Are Earth’s natural resources everyone’s asset? Yes.

    Why value our natural resources at e6q with the buying power of US$? Six quadrillion ecocredits secures the lives of more than 7b people.

    Why e6q? Seven billion x e40/day x 20 years’ = e2.1q, 700t is invested in ecosystems and 500t in the GRB network leaving e2.7q in reserve.

    How do we grow natural resources? Natural light, energy, water, soil, food, shelter, climate, land, atmosphere and biodiversity grow with our investments in ecosystems, communications, science, technology, art, education, transportation, information, restoration, conservation, health, innovation, disarmament, recycling, recreation, peace, love, i.e., life.

    How do the landless get land? GRB settles national debt for state assets.

    Does GRB nullify states, government, debt, taxes, politics, corruption, greed, crime, poverty, pollution, scarcity, inequality and war? Yes.

    Does the GRB network replace the internet? Yes.

    Does everyone enjoy economic security and free telecom for life? Yes.

    How are the GRB ecosystem impact charges set? The shareholders’ account charge is set by the average impact and commercial account charges are set by their products impact.

    Are commercial accounts transparent? Yes.

    How do we access our accounts? Biometrically.

    Does everyone trade for ecocredit in free global markets? Yes.

    Does everyone enjoy a copious natural economy without borders? Yes.

    Is GRB a direct democratic network of people who value life? Yes.

    Can we begin GRB NOW? Yes! Network GRB.

    Arthur Shaw

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *