# Special treatment for Aboriginal people



## BradK (13 March 2010)

On another thread, there was a comment about dealing with special treatment for Aboriginal people in the formation of a new political party. 



Boognish said:


> no special treatment for minorities, including Aboriginies




What is this special treatment for indigenous Australians? 

Lets have a look from the 2006 Census:

Income: Av. only 62% of whites 
Life expectancy: 59.4 males, 64.8 years females - similar to those in developing countries 
Health: Hep A. 11 times more than non-indigenous population. 
Mental Health - 3 times more likely to self-harm than other Australians. 5 times more likely to be hospitalised because of substance abuse. 
Education: only 23% go onto Year 12 
Housing... Criminality... etc. etc. 

You can cherry pick the figures for yourself here: http://www.hreoc.gov.au/social_justice/statistics/index.html#Heading331

Not to mention the ongoing psychological effects of forced removal from parents. 

I am not being vicious when I ask exactly what this special treatment is? Could someone point it out for me? 

Brad


----------



## nulla nulla (13 March 2010)

From the look of it, "special treatment" would not mean being treated equaly with or better than non-indigenous Australains but would mean being treated worse.


----------



## gooner (13 March 2010)

BradK said:


> On another thread, there was a comment about dealing with special treatment for Aboriginal people in the formation of a new political party.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




I think it is reasonable to say that any special treatment is not working.  Obviously, there is some differential treatment - the NT intervention, alcohol bans etc. I am a director of my child's preschool and we offer reduced fee places to indigenous children, although we do not have any attending - reality is that there are not many indigenous children in my part of Sydney. I know of one indigenous family in the area, but the mother is a high profile magistrate so able to pay full fees.  You can argue this type of treatment is "special" in that all indigenous families receive the subsidy not just those that need extra help.  So this type of subsidy can be argued to be too broad and not targeted enough. However, IMO, given most indigenous families are disadvantaged, this type of broad brush approach is appropriate.


----------



## Trembling Hand (13 March 2010)

gooner said:


> However, IMO, given most indigenous families are disadvantaged, this type of broad brush approach is appropriate.




Especially when it helps create or show that there are other paths and options to life other than sitting it out on home lands drinkin green bottle and beating the wife.

One of the biggest problems to helping any group of disadvantaged is showing that it is possible to make choices and reach outcomes like the rest of the 'outside community'.

Shame though that most solutions are based on the disadvantaged groups rather than the disadvantaged individual.


----------



## chops_a_must (13 March 2010)

BradK said:


> I am not being vicious when I ask exactly what this special treatment is? Could someone point it out for me?
> 
> Brad




In some cases it can mean new halls, libraries, buildings built on the footy oval in community schools.

Which really does wonders for attendance. 

It's another equality v equity debate. You can't have equal access to education if there aren't any teachers able to or have the skills to teach in certain communities. You can't have a teacher who doesn't speak the local tongue as English is a second language in a lot of the most disadvantaged places.

So in this little microanalysis for instance, a lot more money needs to be spent on skilling before you can have a case for equality, rather than equity.


----------



## nioka (13 March 2010)

BradK said:


> What is this special treatment for indigenous Australians?
> 
> Brad




1. A sign at a hospital "On arrival please tell us if you are aboriginal." Why? 
2. On seeing a fisherman fishing in a closed area I told him it was a prohibited area for fishing. I was told "It's OK I'm aboriginal. I can fish". I was also told that they have no bag limits or size limits.
3. The local ranger was told he was not allowed on "aboriginal land" when he was attempting to catch a dog that had bitten a visitor on a beach.
4. Free bus transport to sporting events and funerals.


----------



## drsmith (13 March 2010)

nioka said:


> 1. A sign at a hospital "On arrival please tell us if you are aboriginal."



While we continue to treat any minority group differently in either direction the underlying problems will never be solved.


----------



## BradK (13 March 2010)

nioka said:


> 1. A sign at a hospital "On arrival please tell us if you are aboriginal." Why?
> 2. On seeing a fisherman fishing in a closed area I told him it was a prohibited area for fishing. I was told "It's OK I'm aboriginal. I can fish". I was also told that they have no bag limits or size limits.
> 3. The local ranger was told he was not allowed on "aboriginal land" when he was attempting to catch a dog that had bitten a visitor on a beach.
> 4. Free bus transport to sporting events and funerals.




OK. But, it is hardly white victimhood in comparison is it? Let's get things in perspective.


----------



## gooner (13 March 2010)

nioka said:


> 1. A sign at a hospital "On arrival please tell us if you are aboriginal." Why?
> 2. On seeing a fisherman fishing in a closed area I told him it was a prohibited area for fishing. I was told "It's OK I'm aboriginal. I can fish". I was also told that they have no bag limits or size limits.
> 3. The local ranger was told he was not allowed on "aboriginal land" when he was attempting to catch a dog that had bitten a visitor on a beach.
> 4. Free bus transport to sporting events and funerals.




How about all non-indigenous people give all the stolen land back to indigenous people and they can rent it all back to us. Then they might not need any special help, financially.

Many of the indigenous problems are due to being treated as second class citizens, having their children stolen etc. IMHO, about time, everyone else tried to help them to redress past injustices.  I have three kids - can't imagine anything worse than having the government come and take them away just because of my race.


----------



## Surly (13 March 2010)

gooner said:


> How about all non-indigenous people give all the stolen land back to indigenous people and they can rent it all back to us. Then they might not need any special help, financially.




This is one of the most insane arguments continually put forward. 

Are the British government in a position to offer this Gooner?

Or will the picts and others indigenous to Britain need to take this up with the Romans, Jutes, Angles, Saxons, Moors, etc first? To the victor go the spoils as it was at the time.

I did not displace a single living indigenous person. I feel no remorse for the actions of people born over a hundred years before me and from another country.

Zimbabwe is a fantastic example of the possible outcomes of returning a country to its original owners. 



gooner said:


> I have three kids - can't imagine anything worse than having the government come and take them away just because of my race.




Even if they were being mistreated or raped by other members of your "community"? Authorities are slammed if they do anything and slammed if they do nothing so which is it?

cheers
Surly


----------



## BradK (13 March 2010)

Surly said:


> This is one of the most insane arguments continually put forward.
> 
> Or will the picts and others indigenous to Britain need to take this up with the Romans, Jutes, Angles, Saxons, Moors, etc first? To the victor go the spoils as it was at the time.
> Surly




You can't really compare the Scramble and the period of British colonialism with the Saxons, Moors, etc. That is like comparing apples with oranges. British colonialism has explicit links with capitalism, using science and religion as so-called 'civilising' forces. The Aboriginal body is the most legislated in the world - see opening scenes of Rabbit Proof Fence where Neville is explaining the idea of 1/16th Aboriginality. Pretty offensive stuff when you realise that rape perpetrated by white Australians was responsible for many of the 'half-castes' . As Ian Anderson says, the two core dictums were 'Breed 'em right, or f*$* 'em white.' 

Hmmmmm... special treatment.


----------



## gooner (13 March 2010)

Surly said:


> This is one of the most insane arguments continually put forward.
> 
> Are the British government in a position to offer this Gooner?
> 
> ...




All of us benefitted from the theft of Aboriginal land. You may feel that this is irrelevant and you may enjoy being the victor. The reality is that indigenous people were the victims. Do not you not feel any moral obligation to assist?



Surly said:


> Even if they were being mistreated or raped by other members of your "community"? Authorities are slammed if they do anything and slammed if they do nothing so which is it?




You might want to read up on the stolen generation. Children were stolen as a matter of course to "Australianise them", not because they were being ill treated.  And it was not long ago that this was stopped - this is not an ancient crime. It is a recent one.


----------



## Surly (13 March 2010)

BradK said:


> You can't really compare the Scramble and the period of British colonialism with the Saxons, Moors, etc. That is like comparing apples with oranges. British colonialism has explicit links with capitalism, using science and religion as so-called 'civilising' forces. The Aboriginal body is the most legislated in the world - see opening scenes of Rabbit Proof Fence where Neville is explaining the idea of 1/16th Aboriginality. Pretty offensive stuff when you realise that rape perpetrated by white Australians was responsible for many of the 'half-castes' . As Ian Anderson says, the two core dictums were 'Breed 'em right, or f*$* 'em white.'
> 
> Hmmmmm... special treatment.




Exactly right Brad just as you can't apply the morals and values of now with those of the 1700's or 1800's or even the early 1900's. At what point does yesteryears problem cease to be todays obligation? 

If my great great great grandfather did something to yours or shot at him in a war or vice versa or whatever else it would be of interest but would not change how I feel about you or create any perceived obligation towards you.

cheers
Surly


----------



## Surly (13 March 2010)

gooner said:


> All of us benefitted from the theft of Aboriginal land. You may feel that this is irrelevant and you may enjoy being the victor. The reality is that indigenous people were the victims. Do not you not feel any moral obligation to assist?




Absolutely none gooner!

I believe they deserve the same rights as any other person born to this fine country. Not more and not less. I am not sure how I "benefitted from the theft of Aboriginal land." personally or what I owe for this crime?

cheers
Surly


----------



## Julia (13 March 2010)

gooner said:


> You might want to read up on the stolen generation. Children were stolen as a matter of course to "Australianise them", not because they were being ill treated.  And it was not long ago that this was stopped - this is not an ancient crime. It is a recent one.



And it's one of the reasons aboriginal children are presently being left in abusive situations, i.e. because child protection agencies are afraid of being accused of "stealing children".

If you read some of the philosophy of Noel Pearson, you might understand more of how continuing to treat aboriginal people as victims is increasing their disadvantage.

I know you feel you're in some way redressing some of the past wrongs by being sorry for indigenous people, wanting them to receive more services than whites etc., but until they are allowed to feel that they have the same potential as white people, and are prepared to cast off the mantle of victimhood, nothing will change.

Just consider if someone consistently says to you:  "my goodness, it's just terrible that you lack the potential to succeed, just look at all the disadvantage you have to overcome:  really, it's hopeless, and the government should be doing much more for you because it's just unreasonable to expect you to take any responsibility yourself for getting an education, taking basic hygiene and health measures, etc".  Particularly if you lack even a basic education and you hear this over and over again, you're simply going to have this as your basic belief about yourself.

But if someone says to you:  "I can see you have immense potential to do the necessary work to get an education, and that you understand how taking basic care of yourself and your property will increase your sense of self esteem" and other positive messages, aren't you going to be more likely to see yourself as pretty damn OK instead of a victim?

We have all at some stage in our lives had to take responsibility for our own outcomes.  Indigenous people should not be treated as though they lack the same capacity.


----------



## drsmith (13 March 2010)

Surly said:


> Authorities are slammed if they do anything and slammed if they do nothing so which is it?



Authorities are only interested in applying dollars as this is the simplest solution that offers the appearance of doing something.


----------



## BradK (13 March 2010)

Surly said:


> Exactly right Brad just as you can't apply the morals and values of now with those of the 1700's or 1800's or even the early 1900's. At what point does yesteryears problem cease to be todays obligation?
> 
> If my great great great grandfather did something to yours or shot at him in a war or vice versa or whatever else it would be of interest but would not change how I feel about you or create any perceived obligation towards you.
> 
> ...




Exactly - I am not trying to judge yesteryears morals by todays standards. But, can you identify the point when the poor relations between indigenous and non-indigenous Australians stopped? 

Is there a full stop to this past? Death of Truggernanner? 1967? 1992? Aboriginal Deaths in Custody Royal Commission... the failure of Reconciliation? 

I argue that there is NO BREAK in colonialism and that relations are still very much colonial. 

Anyone care to guess at a break in colonial relations? 


Also, on another point. We were NOT responsible for dispossession, but we have very much benefited from it. Whether there is a case for compensation is another point altogether. 

Brad


----------



## BradK (13 March 2010)

Julia said:


> We have all at some stage in our lives had to take responsibility for our own outcomes.  Indigenous people should not be treated as though they lack the same capacity.




Precisely.


----------



## IFocus (13 March 2010)

BradK said:


> Exactly - I am not trying to judge yesteryears morals by todays standards. But, can you identify the point when the poor relations between indigenous and non-indigenous Australians stopped?
> 
> Is there a full stop to this past? Death of Truggernanner? 1967? 1992? Aboriginal Deaths in Custody Royal Commission... the failure of Reconciliation?
> 
> ...




The current issues with indigenous Australians is pretty much unsolvable IMHO
Work with and lived in Aboriginal towns in the NW of WA in the 80's and the complexity is beyond most white Australians thinking particularly those that have never met the various groups of which there are many.

I don't think today the colonial bit can be applied across the whole spectrum of groups and their issues.


----------



## gooner (13 March 2010)

Julia said:


> And it's one of the reasons aboriginal children are presently being left in abusive situations, i.e. because child protection agencies are afraid of being accused of "stealing children".
> 
> If you read some of the philosophy of Noel Pearson, you might understand more of how continuing to treat aboriginal people as victims is increasing their disadvantage.
> 
> ...




Julia, I think your argument is about HOW we best address the disadvantage faced by indigenous people, rather than WHETHER we should address it. The Government tries to address all disadvantage, whether it is getting unemployed into jobs, rescuing abused children etc. Indigenous people are disadvantaged, so IMHO the key thing is that we work to address this.


----------



## chops_a_must (13 March 2010)

nioka said:


> 1. A sign at a hospital "On arrival please tell us if you are aboriginal." Why?
> 2. On seeing a fisherman fishing in a closed area I told him it was a prohibited area for fishing. I was told "It's OK I'm aboriginal. I can fish". I was also told that they have no bag limits or size limits.
> 3. The local ranger was told he was not allowed on "aboriginal land" when he was attempting to catch a dog that had bitten a visitor on a beach.
> 4. Free bus transport to sporting events and funerals.




1. Because there are a range of conditions and blood types that are specific to Abs. and are important for medical practitioners.

2. Not necessarily true. It's not enough to be Aboriginal to fish in a prohibited area. You have to be a part of that land holding tribal group. It also means the lands that Abs. hold are not legislated into worthlessness like they have been done in parts of Queensland. It's a measure to protect the culture of the original inhabitants. There are a huge range of positive outcomes for the local groups if they are allowed to maintain a diet reflecting the local land's produce. And obviously positive health outcomes are a huge focus point and I'm not sure why anyone would want to make a problem out of that.

3. Depending on who he or she was, they should have to gain permission or a permit just like everybody else.

4. Sport is a huge leverage point for self determination in Indigenous Groups. It can be a massive way out, especially in the Territory. Communities like Port Keats (Wadeye) rely on teams from the outer areas to form a competition and the transport to get them there. Without it we wouldn't see some of these fantastic athletes, their talent would never be seen, and the AFL and NT certainly wouldn't be blessed with a lot of the superb Tiwi Bombers players for instance.

4. Funerals are also massively important in their culture, perhaps moreso than ours. Serious consequences can befall those that don't pay their respects to important people in the community. So you just can't have someone perhaps studying in town, with no money, stranded and unable to attend.

I think all these reasons you list as complaints are fairly representative of basics in terms of helping with self determination. 



Julia said:


> And it's one of the reasons aboriginal children are presently being left in abusive situations, i.e. because child protection agencies are afraid of being accused of "stealing children".
> 
> If you read some of the philosophy of Noel Pearson, you might understand more of how continuing to treat aboriginal people as victims is increasing their disadvantage.
> 
> ...




Brilliant post Julia.

Especially the first point. In the territory, we had a terribly incompetent minister Milandiri MaCarthy or somesuch, in charge of the children's portfolio and what not. Indigenous, and very afraid to deal with bad Aboriginal parents. No doubt because of community pressures. 

But it reflects the problem. An area can be over represented by Abs. So an Aboriginal is put in charge of it. Yet they have difficulty dealing with it for obvious reasons. No good being called racist by your own people.

And usually I'm for defending political correctness, but in this area I think it is a legitimate target for PC thugs.



BradK said:


> I argue that there is NO BREAK in colonialism and that relations are still very much colonial.
> 
> Anyone care to guess at a break in colonial relations?




Pretty much. Just look at the education system. The curriculum mandates that it be taught in English, and all the national standardised tests set out all that rubbish that I'm sure you're aware of being a teacher.

Yet teach a 6 year old kid at Wadeye like that who has very rarely heard English in his life. 

Rather than teaching it in a local dialect like Murrinh-Patha, and then translating it so it makes sense, it's all **** about. We don't come half way for them and that is a huge attitudinal issue.

Also doesn't help much trying to teach them how to count when they don't have a number in their language above 5 or something. 

But then again, the national education system seems to have an over riding colonialist wankestry power emanating from NSW, so it might not be race specific.


----------



## Julia (13 March 2010)

gooner said:


> All of us benefitted from the theft of Aboriginal land. You may feel that this is irrelevant and you may enjoy being the victor. The reality is that indigenous people were the victims. Do not you not feel any moral obligation to assist?






gooner said:


> Julia, I think your argument is about HOW we best address the disadvantage faced by indigenous people, rather than WHETHER we should address it. The Government tries to address all disadvantage, whether it is getting unemployed into jobs, rescuing abused children etc. Indigenous people are disadvantaged, so IMHO the key thing is that we work to address this.



Of course we should address the disadvantage.
But no more, imo, than we should do likewise for any disadvantaged section of our society.

(When you have a spare few minutes, gooner, do a bit of googling about the difficulties of bringing up and caring for profoundly disabled children, just as one small example.   And then perhaps also consider how we hang out to dry people with significant mental illness, because a few decades ago governments globally decided it would be smart to close down psych institutions where people severely disabled by mental illness had been cared for and where they felt secure.  Just take a stroll through a few of the most squalid caravan parks you can find and observe all the sad mentally ill people barely surviving there on their disability pensions, but devoid of other support and friendship.)

Few people care about either of these disadvantaged groups (and I could come up with more) because essentially they don't have a voice.  i.e. they lack the vocal backing of those who take up the cause of indigenous people as though they were the only group to suffer any disadvantage.

Disadvantage is everywhere.  The white child who is repeatedly raped by a member of her own family throughout her childhood, the kid who looks a bit different who is severely bullied at school, the intellectually disabled who look OK but just 'don't make sense' to other people because they process stuff slowly.  The aged who have lost the confidence to make their feelings and needs known, and who are as a result ignored and left to fester on hospital waiting lists for the most basic of surgery.

So, I hope I may be forgiven if I'm just a bit over hearing year after year about the disadvantage of aboriginal people when so few people will listen to aboriginal leaders like Noel Pearson who are trying to tell you that as long as you refer to indigenous people as being disadvantaged and unable to redress this by their own actions nothing will change.

So, gooner, what you can do to help is to stop accusing people of being lacking in empathy or sympathy, or encouraging them to go on an extended guilt trip (a favourite of the Left), and instead start thinking of ways to encourage aboriginal people to take their lives into their own hands and start making a difference for themselves.

In your post at the top you are doing what so many do, i.e. referring to aboriginal people as victims.
This was the whole point of my post in reply.  *If you treat people as victims, that is how they will perceive themselves.*


----------



## newbie trader (14 March 2010)

Julia said:


> a few decades ago governments globally decided it would be smart to close down psych institutions where people severely disabled by mental illness had been cared for and where they felt secure. [/B]




Many are now living on the streets which really just creates more problems.

N.T


----------



## Happy (14 March 2010)

Sorry, but I don't feel sorry for them.


----------



## Smurf1976 (14 March 2010)

If there are different rules for Aboriginals versus the rest of society then we will forever have a divided society, since that is what we are intentionally creating via differing rules.

Every time I see that "are you of Aboriginal origin..." question it simply rams that message into my head once more. Aboriginals aren't as able as the rest of us, therefore we have to give them special terms and conditions to compensate. That's not my own view of Aboriginal people, but it's certainly how I perceive the message being sent.

There's also an issue with Aboriginals living in these "towns" in the NT etc. In short, it seems fundamentally flawed to be attempting to bring about non-Aboriginal influence over their lives whilst they attempt to live in the traditional manner. That's never going to work - it's like trying to mix oil and water.

Either move them to "proper" towns and cities - ones with roads, properly constructed houses, shops, businesses and so on where many people are NOT Aboriginal. Existing towns and cities with a mix of people, not specially constructed "Aboriginal towns".

Or alternatively leave them to live in the traditional way and stop meddling with it. They survived perfectly well living like that for thousands of years - it's only in the past two centuries that us Europeans have messed it up through constant meddling.

It's not a subject I know a lot about I'll readily admit. But it seems that the constant interference is attempting to do something that shouldn't work in theory, to impose the government of one culture over the physical conditions of another. Hence it's no surprise to find it's not working. 

Either leave them to live as they always have. Or get them into proper conditions that non-Aboriginal Australians would find acceptable. Just don't try to do both at once - it's clearly not working.


----------



## Knobby22 (14 March 2010)

Paul Kelly said it best in his song "Special Treatment".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XDdpxgJGXvM


----------



## drsmith (14 March 2010)

Smurf1976 said:


> If there are different rules for Aboriginals versus the rest of society then we will forever have a divided society, since that is what we are intentionally creating via differing rules.
> 
> Every time I see that "are you of Aboriginal origin..." question it simply rams that message into my head once more. Aboriginals aren't as able as the rest of us, therefore we have to give them special terms and conditions to compensate. That's not my own view of Aboriginal people, but it's certainly how I perceive the message being sent.




:iagree:

I wonder though how many would wish to live a traditional hunter gatherer existance that existed before european settlement and to what extent it is even practical.


----------



## roland (14 March 2010)

drsmith said:


> :iagree:
> 
> I wonder though how many would wish to live a traditional hunter gatherer existance that existed before european settlement and to what extent it is even practical.




History shows that hunter, gatherers became farmers and built stable communities. They developed and started learning new skills, since less time and energy was needed for hunting and gathering.

Seems like there could be a missing step with having tried to bring the world's hunter and gatherers along the logical path of evolution.


----------



## drsmith (14 March 2010)

It took thousands of years for Eurasian civilisation to evolve from hunter gatherer to our present civilisation. People at an individual can obviously adapt quickly but entire cultures seems to be much more problematic. 

It didn't help that that the starting point from the colonial powers was largely one of conquest but that's how evolution works.

If there is extra-terrestrial life I only hope that we find them and not the other way around.


----------



## gav (28 September 2012)

An interesting article by Kerryn Pholi on the special treatment of Aboriginals:

*Why I burned my 'Proof of Aboriginality'*
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/4281772.html


----------



## Happy (28 September 2012)

gav said:


> An interesting article by Kerryn Pholi on the special treatment of Aboriginals:
> 
> *Why I burned my 'Proof of Aboriginality'*
> http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/4281772.html




One of the comments left there said:

"Kerryn,
you are a gutsy person, I wish you all best for the future."

Will be interesting if she will not be attacked for her politically incorrect article?


----------



## sptrawler (28 September 2012)

chops_a_must said:


> Pretty much. Just look at the education system. The curriculum mandates that it be taught in English, and all the national standardised tests set out all that rubbish that I'm sure you're aware of being a teacher.
> 
> Yet teach a 6 year old kid at Wadeye like that who has very rarely heard English in his life.
> 
> ...




So have you sat down and written a Merrinh-Patha to English dictionary? I doubt it, probably someone elses problem even though there is probably no written Merrinh-Patha language.
I have been through a similar problem having a deaf child. They said she wouldn't fit in mainstream and would only achieve grade 4 reading ability.
Well to cut a long story short, she completed year 12 then a diploma and is currently employed in mainstream.


----------



## burglar (29 September 2012)

David Unaipon's 140th birthday yesterday!


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Unaipon


----------



## Calliope (29 September 2012)

The only "special treatment" that could help our indigenous people would be a total prohibition on alcohol. Most of their problems stem from the misuse of alcohol - and there is no solution in a free society.



> Patterns of alcohol- related harms
> Alcohol misuse is a contributing factor to a wide range of health and social problems, including: violence; social disorder; family breakdown; child neglect; loss of income or diversion of income to purchase alcohol and other substances; and, high levels of imprisonment. In addition, Indigenous Australians experience harms associated with alcohol use, including deaths and hospitalisations, at a rate much higher than other Australians..




http://www.healthinfonet.ecu.edu.au/health-risks/alcohol/reviews/our-review


----------



## Calliope (10 June 2013)

We carry on about the rape of Indian women and the genital mutilation of Muslim women, but the degradation, bashing, sexual abuse and murder of our Indigenous women is virtually ignored. The incidence of violence against Aboriginal women is *80 time greater* than the rest of the population.



> Northern Territory MP Bess Price said the Aboriginal and white communities had long known about the violence and done nothing.
> She had been "routinely attacked", called "a liar" and "obscenely insulted on the internet" - in particular by people with left-wing political views - for raising the issue.
> She told the NT Parliament last month that two of her relatives who were "young mothers" were killed in Alice Springs this year.
> "One was injured mortally in the public, in front of several families," Ms Price said.
> ...





Read more: http://www.news.com.au/breaking-new...se/story-e6frfkp9-1226661209335#ixzz2VmnvzQqT


----------



## Julia (10 June 2013)

Good to have the issue raised, Calliope.
Most of this horrific violence is alcohol based.  In the communities where strict income management has prevented money being spent on booze, the violence has abated considerably.


----------

