by a Modest Member of Parliament [Bert Kelly],
The Australian Financial Review, October 25, 1974, p. 3.

One of the diversions of the bush these days is pouring scorn and ridicule on the Government’s Aboriginal policies. And it isn’t hard to find examples of foolish administration with the turtles for once well out in front.

The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs has honestly admitted that many of the policies have been disastrous, so it’s not hard to find plenty to criticise.

I have an uneasy feeling that many of these policies were aimed more at keeping our nose clean in the United Nations or making us feel less guilty about the misdeeds of our forefathers.

Or perhaps pandering to a radical section who claim to be Aborigines, some of whom, at least, seem to be more interested in creating problems than solving them.

But having unburdened myself with that lot, I admit I am glad that it is not my responsibility to decide what policies ought to be adopted. I will give an example from my own electorate which posed problems I wouldn’t be certain how to handle.

There used to be an Aboriginal mission right out in the bush in my electorate. This ceased to exist as a mission in August last year.

As the mission bowed out, the Government became more involved, and asked the town council, consisting of Aborigines, what they wanted. “Houses,” they replied. So the Government agreed and set aside $315,000 for 15 houses ($21,000 a house).

The next question was: “Where do you want the houses built?”

“At the old mission site,” they replied.

I’m not sure why they said this. Perhaps it was because they had some affection for the old site, or perhaps it was because there were some houses there already and a few of these were in good order and so had some value.

Or, perhaps because it was near some of their sacred areas, or they felt that they would be far away (40 miles) from the nearest pub and so hoped to diminish the corroding effects of alcohol on the settlement.

But the results of this decision have been serious and will probably be more serious when the houses are finished. The building site is on very hard rock and consequently the cost of sinking the drainage and service lines has proved devastatingly high.

As a consequence of this and other problems, such as continual wet weather cutting the roads, inflation, and to some extent, undue haste, the costs have now escalated by another $232,000 to $547,000, or $36,000 a house.

Other results of the decision about the location will be that electricity and the telephone will have to be brought from 40 miles away, and the secondary schoolchildren, at least, will have to be transported 46 miles each way each day.

But the most disturbing effect of the decision is that when the houses are built, there will be almost nothing for the people to do.

The climate is arid, water is scarce and the soil is awful, so there will be little chance of them growing market garden produce. And it will be difficult and expensive to make the new town a pleasant place to live in by growing trees and shrubs.

There may be some opportunity for employment in the surrounding stations but these are widely scattered and if this is the object it would have been better to build a house for each family on the station properties.

There is talk about resuming some of the surrounding country and running it as a sheep station but it would be some of the roughest and toughest sheep country in Australia and would tax the management of the most experienced pastoralists.

To ask Aborigines to do it successfully at this stage would be giving them too heavy a burden too early. In any case, it wouldn’t profitably employ many people.

A likely result of all this is that there will be few employment opportunities, so the Aborigines will probably end up living on social services with the usual devastating social and moral effects that this has on people who get something for nothing.

If the town had been built closer in there would have been employment opportunities in a nearby mining town for at least some of the people.

The question then is, should the Government over overruled the Aborigines’ wishes as to the location of the new town?

If it had done so it would have been branded as “paternalistic.” Would this be worse than being wrong? I’m glad I’m not the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs.