Literatura científica selecionada sobre o tema "Aboriginal Australians. Health and hygiene Australia Northern Territory"

Objectives: To examine the accessibility and quality of care received in emergency departments by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people compared with other Australians. Methods: We examined 2004?05 data from the National Non-admitted Patient Emergency Department Care database from the Northern Territory and Western Australia, the only jurisdictions where Indigenous identification in the database was considered acceptable. Results: In the NT, Indigenous people were 1.7 times as likely to present to an emergency department as non-Indigenous people. Indigenous patients in the NT and WA do not appear to use EDs for ?primary care? problems more than non- Indigenous patients. More NT Indigenous patients walked out before being seen or before their treatment was completed. However, Indigenous patients generally waited a similar time, and often slightly shorter, to be seen as similar non-Indigenous patients in WA and the NT. Conclusions: We recommend the regular monitoring of equity in the accessibility and quality of ED care for Indigenous people compared with other Australians. Indigenous identification in the database needs to improve so monitoring of ED performance can extend beyond WA and the NT.

Objectives. To identify the factors that contribute to the under-resourcing of Aboriginal health and to explore the impact that funding arrangements have on the implementation of Aboriginal health policy. Design, settings and participants. Qualitative study based on 35 in-depth interviews with a purposive sample of frontline health professionals involved in health policy and service provision in the Northern Territory. Results. Participants described three factors that contributed to the under-resourcing of Aboriginal health: inefficient funding arrangements, mainstream programs being inappropriate for Aboriginal Australians, and competing interests determining the allocation of resources. Insufficient capacity within the healthcare system undermines the multilevel implementation process whereby organisations need to have the capacity to recognise new policy ideas, assess their relevance to their existing work and strategic plan and to be able to incorporate the relevant new ideas into day-to-day practice. Conclusion. Insufficient resources for Aboriginal health were found to be a barrier to implementing Aboriginal health policy. Inadequate resources result from the cumbersome allocation of funding rather than simply the amount of funding provided to Aboriginal healthcare. Monitoring government performance and ensuring the efficient allocation of funds would allow us to develop the delivery system for Aboriginal healthcare and therefore provide greater opportunities to capitalise on current interventions and future efforts. What is known about the topic? The extent to which Aboriginal health interventions are funded is variable, and the funding of the Aboriginal healthcare system is an important and topical issue. What does this paper add? The argument surrounding funding for Aboriginal health can be understood in several ways. Firstly, there is insufficient money being invested to address the need. By need we are referring to addressing community illness and injury as well as the need for a quality and accessible primary healthcare system. Secondly, there may be enough money being invested, but because of complicated and inflexible funding arrangements it is not being spent efficiently. Thirdly, there may be enough money invested, but not in effective interventions, and not in building the healthcare system, for example the local workforce. Finally, there may be enough money invested, but decisions about its distribution at the community level are not sufficiently in the control of communities. What are the implications for practitioners? To implement Aboriginal health policy, an effective delivery system is needed. Funding alone can be of limited value in achieving this aim over the long term unless it is used to build the capacity of a sustained delivery system for Aboriginal health care. Monitoring and facilitating government performance on how funds are invested, as well as the amount spent, is an important step towards the more effective implementation of Aboriginal health policy.

AbstractObjective:A growing body of qualitative literature globally describes post-hospital experiences during early recovery from a traumatic brain injury. For Indigenous Australians, however, little published information is available. This study aimed to understand the lived experiences of Indigenous Australians during the 6 months post-discharge, identify the help and supports accessed during transition and understand the gaps in service provision or difficulties experienced.Methods and Procedure:Semi-structured interviews were conducted at 6 months after hospital discharge to gain an understanding of the needs and lived experiences of 11 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians who had suffered traumatic brain injury in Queensland and Northern Territory, Australia. Data were analysed using thematic analysis.Results:Five major themes were identified within the data. These were labelled ‘hospital experiences’, ‘engaging with medical and community-based supports’, ‘health and wellbeing impacts from the injury’, ‘everyday living’ and ‘family adjustments post-injury’.Conclusions:While some of the transition experiences for Indigenous Australians were similar to those found in other populations, the transition period for Indigenous Australians is influenced by additional factors in hospital and during their recovery process. Lack of meaningful interaction with treating clinicians in hospital, challenges managing direct contact with multiple service providers and the injury-related psychological impacts are some of the factors that could prevent Indigenous Australians from receiving the supports they require to achieve their best possible health outcomes in the long term. A holistic approach to care, with an individualised, coordinated transition support, may reduce the risks for re-admission with further head injuries.

Indigenous peoples represent up to 5% of the world's population (almost 400 million people), representing thousands of individual cultures and language groups. The health status of older Indigenous peoples has been little researched, partly related to lower life expectancy and the consideration that Indigenous peoples do not live long enough to experience the common “geriatric syndromes” such as dementia, frailty, and falls. Statistics from Australia and Canada now report that Indigenous populations are undergoing rapid aging, with many examples of survivorship to old age (Arkleset al., 2010; Jacklinet al., 2012). The systematic review by Warrenet al. (2015) is a timely one, in that it reminds clinicians interested in old age that this “fourth” World population deserves further attention. Researchers that have worked with these groups to produce population estimates are relatively few. In their systematic review, Warrenet al.(2015) demonstrate wide variation in prevalence rates of dementia. They conclude that a major cause of this heterogeneity in prevalence is due to basic methodological differences. In particular, those studies that have utilized already acquired routine data may be biased. The type and direction of this bias can be complex. For example, Cotteret al.(2012) using routinely collected data, concluded that the prevalence of dementia in Aboriginal Australians in the Northern Territory was not higher than non-Aboriginal prevalence. Using similar methodologies some years later the conclusion was that the Aboriginal population had markedly higher rates (Liet al., 2014). In the intervening period, a dementia awareness campaign coupled with the development of a culturally appropriate screening tool probably resulted in greater detection in routine care.

IntroductionOur study aimed to identify factors that influence access to eye care and eye health outcomes for remote Indigenous Australians living with diabetes.MethodsIn collaboration with Indigenous Community-Based Researchers (CBR) and Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Services (ACCHS), a qualitative, participatory action research approach was taken, drawing on Indigenist and decolonising methodologies. The study was undertaken in four remote communities, in the Katherine region, Northern Territory and north-western New South Wales, Australia. Interviews and focus groups were undertaken with Indigenous adults aged ≥40 years living with diabetes (n=110), and primary care clinicians working in ACCHSs (n=37). A series of interviews with CBRs (n=13) were undertaken before and after data collection to add cultural insights and validation to participant accounts. Data were analysed inductively using grounded theory, in-depth discussion and NVivo V.11.ResultsMore than one-third of all patients had little to no knowledge of how diabetes affects eye health. Limited access to health information and interpreters, language barriers, distrust of health providers and services, and limited cultural responsivity among non-Indigenous clinicians, were identified as determining factors in eye health and care.DiscussionWe outline a need to address gaps in trust and communication, through increased access to and resourcing of Indigenous language interpreters and cultural brokers, understandable and culturally sensitive diabetic eye health information and cultural responsivity training for non-Indigenous clinicians. Centring Indigenous cultures in healthcare practice will enable a shared understanding between clinicians and Indigenous patients, and subsequently more equitable eye health outcomes.

Background Facebook is widely used by Australia’s First Nations people and has significant potential to promote health. However, evidence-based guidelines for its use in health promotion are lacking. Smoking prevalence among Australia’s First Nations people is nearly 3 times higher than other Australians. Locally designed programs in Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Services (ACCHOs) to reduce smoking often use Facebook. Objective This study reports on an analysis of the reach and engagement of Facebook posts with smoking prevention and cessation messages posted by ACCHOs in the Northern Territory, Australia. Methods Each service posted tobacco control content at least weekly for approximately 6 months. Posts were coded for the following variables: service posted, tailored First Nations Australian content, local or nonlocally produced content, video or nonvideo, communication technique, and emotional appeal. The overall reach, shares, and reactions were calculated. Results Compared with posts developed by the health services, posts with content created by other sources had greater reach (adjusted incident rate ratio [IRR] 1.92, 95% CI 1.03-3.59). Similarly, reactions to posts (IRR 1.89, 95% CI 1.40-2.56) and shared posts (IRR 2.17, 95% CI 1.31-3.61) with content created by other sources also had more reactions, after controlling for reach, as did posts with local First Nations content compared with posts with no First Nations content (IRR 1.71, 95% CI 1.21-2.34). Conclusions Facebook posts with nonlocally produced content can be an important component of a social media campaign run by local health organizations. With the exception of nonlocally produced content, we did not find a definitive set of characteristics that were clearly associated with reach, shares, and reactions. Beyond reach, shares, and likes, further research is needed to understand the extent that social media content can influence health behavior.

Abstract Background Associations between kidney disease and periodontal disease are not well documented among Aboriginal people of Australia. The purpose of this investigation was to report and compare demographic, oral health, anthropometric and systemic health status of Aboriginal Australians with kidney disease and to compare against relevant Aboriginal Australians and Australian population estimates. This provides much needed evidence to inform dental health service provision policies for Aboriginal Australians with kidney disease. Methods Sample frequencies and means were assessed in adults represented in six datasets including: (1) 102 Aboriginal Australians with kidney disease residing in Central Australia who participated in a detailed oral health assessment; (2) 312 Aboriginal participants of the Northern Territory’s PerioCardio study; (3) weighted estimates from 4775 participants from Australia’s National Survey of Adult Oral Health (NSAOH); (4) Australian 2016 Census (all Australians); (5) National Health Survey 2017–2018 (all Australians) and; (6) Australian Health Survey: Biomedical Results for Chronic Diseases, 2011–2012 (all Australians). Oral health status was described by periodontal disease and experience of dental caries (tooth decay). Statistically significant differences were determined via non-overlapping 95% confidence intervals. Results Aboriginal Australians with kidney disease were significantly older, less likely to have a tertiary qualification or be employed compared with both PerioCardio study counterparts and NSAOH participants. Severe periodontitis was found in 54.3% of Aboriginal Australians with kidney disease, almost 20 times the 2.8% reported in NSAOH. A higher proportion of Aboriginal Australians with kidney disease had teeth with untreated caries and fewer dental restorations when compared to NSAOH participants. The extent of periodontal attachment loss and periodontal pocketing among Aboriginal Australians with kidney disease (51.0%, 21.4% respectively) was several magnitudes greater than PerioCardio study (22.0%, 12.3% respectively) and NSAOH (5.4%, 1.3% respectively) estimates. Conclusions Aboriginal Australians with kidney disease exhibited more indicators of poorer oral health than both the general Australian population and a general Aboriginal population from Australia’s Northern Territory. It is imperative that management of oral health among Aboriginal Australians with kidney disease be included as part of their ongoing medical care.

Abstract Background In Australia, health services are seeking innovative ways to utilize data stored in health information systems to report on, and improve, health care quality and health system performance for Aboriginal Australians. However, there is little research about the use of health information systems in the context of Aboriginal health promotion. In 2008, the Northern Territory’s publicly funded healthcare system introduced the quality improvement program planning system (QIPPS) as the centralized online system for recording information about health promotion programs. The purpose of this study was to explore the potential for utilizing data stored in QIPPS to report on quality of Aboriginal health promotion, using chronic disease prevention programs as exemplars. We identify the potential benefits and limitations of health information systems for enhancing Aboriginal health promotion. Methods A retrospective audit was undertaken on a sample of health promotion projects delivered between 2013 and 2016. A validated, paper-based audit tool was used to extract information stored in the QIPPS online system and report on Aboriginal health promotion quality. Simple frequency counts were calculated for dichotomous and categorical items. Text was extracted and thematically analyzed to describe community participation processes and strategies used in Aboriginal health promotion. Results 39 Aboriginal health promotion projects were included in the analysis. 34/39 projects recorded information pertaining to the health promotion planning phases, such as statements of project goals, ‘needs assessment’ findings, and processes for consulting Aboriginal people in the community. Evaluation findings were reported in approximately one third of projects and mostly limited to a recording of numbers of participants. For almost half of the projects analyzed, community participation strategies were not recorded. Conclusion This is the first Australian study to shed light on the feasibility of utilizing data stored in a purposefully designed health promotion information system. Data availability and quality were limiting factors for reporting on Aboriginal health promotion quality. Based on our learnings of QIPPS, strategies to improve the quality and accuracy of data entry together with the use of quality improvement approaches are needed to reap the potential benefits of future health promotion information systems.

Each community’s title deed carries the indelible blood stains of our ancestors. (Watson, "Howard’s End" 2)IntroductionAccording to the Oxford English Dictionary, the term coalition comes from the Latin coalescere or ‘coalesce’, meaning “come or bring together to form one mass or whole”. Coalesce refers to the unity affirmed as something grows: co – “together”, alesce – “to grow up”. While coalition is commonly associated with formalised alliances and political strategy in the name of self-interest and common goals, this paper will draw as well on the broader etymological understanding of coalition as “growing together” in order to discuss the Australian government’s recent changes to land rights legislation, the 2007 Emergency Intervention into the Northern Territory, and its decision to use Indigenous land in the Northern Territory as a dumping ground for nuclear waste. What unites these distinct cases is the role of the Australian nation-state in asserting its sovereign right to decide, something Giorgio Agamben notes is the primary indicator of sovereign right and power (Agamben). As Fiona McAllan has argued in relation to the Northern Territory Intervention: “Various forces that had been coalescing and captivating the moral, imaginary centre were now contributing to a spectacular enactment of a sovereign rescue mission” (par. 18). Different visions of “growing together”, and different coalitional strategies, are played out in public debate and policy formation. This paper will argue that each of these cases represents an alliance between successive, oppositional governments - and the nourishment of neoliberal imperatives - over and against the interests of some of the Indigenous communities, especially with relation to land rights. A critical stance is taken in relation to the alterations to land rights laws over the past five years and with the Northern Territory Emergency Intervention, hereinafter referred to as the Intervention, firstly by the Howard Liberal Coalition Government and later continued, in what Anthony Lambert has usefully termed a “postcoalitional” fashion, by the Rudd Labor Government. By this, Lambert refers to the manner in which dominant relations of power continue despite the apparent collapse of old political coalitions and even in the face of seemingly progressive symbolic and material change. It is not the intention of this paper to locate Indigenous people in opposition to models of economic development aligned with neoliberalism. There are examples of productive relations between Indigenous communities and mining companies, in which Indigenous people retain control over decision-making and utilise Land Council’s to negotiate effectively. Major mining company Rio Tinto, for example, initiated an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders Policy platform in the mid-1990s (Rio Tinto). Moreover, there are diverse perspectives within the Indigenous community regarding social and economic reform governed by neoliberal agendas as well as government initiatives such as the Intervention, motivated by a concern for the abuse of children, as outlined in The Little Children Are Sacred Report (Wild & Anderson; hereinafter Little Children). Indeed, there is no agreement on whether or not the Intervention had anything to do with land rights. On the one hand, Noel Pearson has strongly opposed this assertion: “I've got as much objections as anybody to the ideological prejudices of the Howard Government in relation to land, but this question is not about a 'land grab'. The Anderson Wild Report tells us about the scale of Aboriginal children's neglect and abuse" (ABC). Marcia Langton has agreed with this stating that “There's a cynical view afoot that the emergency intervention was a political ploy - a Trojan Horse - to sneak through land grabs and some gratuitous black head-kicking disguised as concern for children. These conspiracy theories abound, and they are mostly ridiculous” (Langton). Patrick Dodson on the other hand, has argued that yes, of course, the children remain the highest priority, but that this “is undermined by the Government's heavy-handed authoritarian intervention and its ideological and deceptive land reform agenda” (Dodson). WhitenessOne way to frame this issue is to look at it through the lens of critical race and whiteness theory. Is it possible that the interests of whiteness are at play in the coalitions of corporate/private enterprise and political interests in the Northern Territory, in the coupling of social conservatism and economic rationalism? Using this framework allows us to identify the partial interests at play and the implications of this for discussions in Australia around sovereignty and self-determination, as well as providing a discursive framework through which to understand how these coalitional interests represent a specific understanding of progress, growth and development. Whiteness theory takes an empirically informed stance in order to critique the operation of unequal power relations and discriminatory practices imbued in racialised structures. Whiteness and critical race theory take the twin interests of racial privileging and racial discrimination and discuss their historical and on-going relevance for law, philosophy, representation, media, politics and policy. Foregrounding contemporary analysis in whiteness studies is the central role of race in the development of the Australian nation, most evident in the dispossession and destruction of Indigenous lands, cultures and lives, which occurred initially prior to Federation, as well as following. Cheryl Harris’s landmark paper “Whiteness as Property” argues, in the context of the US, that “the origins of property rights ... are rooted in racial domination” and that the “interaction between conceptions of race and property ... played a critical role in establishing and maintaining racial and economic subordination” (Harris 1716).Reiterating the logic of racial inferiority and the assumption of a lack of rationality and civility, Indigenous people were named in the Australian Constitution as “flora and fauna” – which was not overturned until a national referendum in 1967. This, coupled with the logic of terra nullius represents the racist foundational logic of Australian statehood. As is well known, terra nullius declared that the land belonged to no-one, denying Indigenous people property rights over land. Whiteness, Moreton-Robinson contends, “is constitutive of the epistemology of the West; it is an invisible regime of power that secures hegemony through discourse and has material effects in everyday life” (Whiteness 75).In addition to analysing racial power structures, critical race theory has presented studies into the link between race, whiteness and neoliberalism. Roberts and Mahtami argue that it is not just that neoliberalism has racialised effects, rather that neoliberalism and its underlying philosophy is “fundamentally raced and produces racialized bodies” (248; also see Goldberg Threat). The effect of the free market on state sovereignty has been hotly debated too. Aihwa Ong contends that neoliberalism produces particular relationships between the state and non-state corporations, as well as determining the role of individuals within the body-politic. Ong specifies:Market-driven logic induces the co-ordination of political policies with the corporate interests, so that developmental discussions favour the fragmentation of the national space into various contiguous zones, and promote the differential regulation of the populations who can be connected to or disconnected from global circuits of capital. (Ong, Neoliberalism 77)So how is whiteness relevant to a discussion of land reform, and to the changes to land rights passed along with Intervention legislation in 2007? Irene Watson cites the former Minister for Indigenous Affairs, Mal Brough, who opposed the progressive individual with what he termed the “failed collective.” Watson asserts that in the debates around land leasing and the Intervention, “Aboriginal law and traditional roles and responsibilities for caring and belonging to country are transformed into the cause for community violence” (Sovereign Spaces 34). The effects of this, I will argue, are twofold and move beyond a moral or social agenda in the strictest sense of the terms: firstly to promote, and make more accessible, the possibility of private and government coalitions in relation to Indigenous lands, and secondly, to reinforce the sovereignty of the state, recognised in the capacity to make decisions. It is here that the explicit reiteration of what Aileen Moreton-Robinson calls “white possession” is clearly evidenced (The Possessive Logic). Sovereign Interventions In the Northern Territory 50% of land is owned by Indigenous people under the Aboriginal Land Rights Act 1976 (ALRA) (NT). This law gives Indigenous people control, mediated via land councils, over their lands. It is the contention of this paper that the rights enabled through this law have been eroded in recent times in the coalescing interests of government and private enterprise via, broadly, land rights reform measures. In August 2007 the government passed a number of laws that overturned aspects of the Racial Discrimination Act 197 5(RDA), including the Northern Territory National Emergency Response Bill 2007 and the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Amendment (Township Leasing) Bill 2007. Ostensibly these laws were a response to evidence of alarming levels of child abuse in remote Indigenous communities, which has been compiled in the special report Little Children, co-chaired by Rex Wild QC and Patricia Anderson. This report argued that urgent but culturally appropriate strategies were required in order to assist the local communities in tackling the issues. The recommendations of the report did not include military intervention, and instead prioritised the need to support and work in dialogue with local Indigenous people and organisations who were already attempting, with extremely limited resources, to challenge the problem. Specifically it stated that:The thrust of our recommendations, which are designed to advise the NT government on how it can help support communities to effectively prevent and tackle child sexual abuse, is for there to be consultation with, and ownership by the local communities, of these solutions. (Wild & Anderson 23) Instead, the Federal Coalition government, with support from the opposition Labor Party, initiated a large scale intervention, which included the deployment of the military, to install order and assist medical personnel to carry out compulsory health checks on minors. The intervention affected 73 communities with populations of over 200 Aboriginal men, women and children (Altman, Neo-Paternalism 8). The reality of high levels of domestic and sexual abuse in Indigenous communities requires urgent and diligent attention, but it is not the space of this paper to unpack the media spectacle or the politically determined response to these serious issues, or the considered and careful reports such as the one cited above. While the report specifies the need for local solutions and local control of the process and decision-making, the Federal Liberal Coalition government’s intervention, and the current Labor government’s faithfulness to these, has been centralised and external, imposed upon communities. Rebecca Stringer argues that the Trojan horse thesis indicates what is at stake in this Intervention, while also pinpointing its main weakness. That is, the counter-intuitive links its architects make between addressing child sexual abuse and re-litigating Indigenous land tenure and governance arrangements in a manner that undermines Aboriginal sovereignty and further opens Aboriginal lands to private interests among the mining, nuclear power, tourism, property development and labour brokerage industries. (par. 8)Alongside welfare quarantining for all Indigenous people, was a decision by parliament to overturn the “permit system”, a legal protocol provided by the ALRA and in place so as to enable Indigenous peoples the right to refuse and grant entry to strangers wanting to access their lands. To place this in a broader context of land rights reform, the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 2006, created the possibility of 99 year individual leases, at the expense of communal ownership. The legislation operates as a way of individualising the land arrangements in remote Indigenous communities by opening communal land up as private plots able to be bought by Aboriginal people or any other interested party. Indeed, according to Leon Terrill, land reform in Australia over the past 10 years reflects an attempt to return control of decision-making to government bureaucracy, even as governments have downplayed this aspect. Terrill argues that Township Leasing (enabled via the 2006 legislation), takes “wholesale decision-making about land use” away from Traditional Owners and instead places it in the hands of a government entity called the Executive Director of Township Leasing (3). With the passage of legislation around the Intervention, five year leases were created to enable the Commonwealth “administrative control” over the communities affected (Terrill 3). Finally, under the current changes it is unlikely that more than a small percentage of Aboriginal people will be able to access individual land leasing. Moreover, the argument has been presented that these reforms reflect a broader project aimed at replacing communal land ownership arrangements. This agenda has been justified at a rhetorical level via the demonization of communal land ownership arrangements. Helen Hughes and Jenness Warin, researchers at the rightwing think-tank, the Centre for Independent Studies (CIS), released a report entitled A New Deal for Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders in Remote Communities, in which they argue that there is a direct casual link between communal ownership and economic underdevelopment: “Communal ownership of land, royalties and other resources is the principle cause of the lack of economic development in remote areas” (in Norberry & Gardiner-Garden 8). In 2005, then Prime Minister, John Howard, publicly introduced the government’s ambition to alter the structure of Indigenous land arrangements, couching his agenda in the language of “equal opportunity”. I believe there’s a case for reviewing the whole issue of Aboriginal land title in the sense of looking more towards private recognition …, I’m talking about giving them the same opportunities as the rest of their fellow Australians. (Watson, "Howard’s End" 1)Scholars of critical race theory have argued that the language of equality, usually tied to liberalism (though not always) masks racial inequality and even results in “camouflaged racism” (Davis 61). David Theo Goldberg notes that, “the racial status-quo - racial exclusions and privileges favouring for the most part middle - and upper class whites - is maintained by formalising equality through states of legal and administrative science” (Racial State 222). While Howard and his coalition of supporters have associated communal title with disadvantage and called for the equality to be found in individual leases (Dodson), Altman has argued that there is no logical link between forms of communal land ownership and incidences of sexual abuse, and indeed, the government’s use of sexual abuse disingenuously disguises it’s imperative to alter the land ownership arrangements: “Given the proposed changes to the ALRA are in no way associated with child sexual abuse in Aboriginal communities […] there is therefore no pressing urgency to pass the amendments.” (Altman National Emergency, 3) In the case of the Intervention, land rights reforms have affected the continued dispossession of Indigenous people in the interests of “commercial development” (Altman Neo-Paternalism 8). In light of this it can be argued that what is occurring conforms to what Aileen Moreton-Robinson has highlighted as the “possessive logic of patriarchal white sovereignty” (Possessive Logic). White sovereignty, under the banner of benevolent paternalism overturns the authority it has conceded to local Indigenous communities. This is realised via township leases, five year leases, housing leases and other measures, stripping them of the right to refuse the government and private enterprise entry into their lands (effectively the right of control and decision-making), and opening them up to, as Stringer argues, a range of commercial and government interests. Future Concerns and Concluding NotesThe etymological root of coalition is coalesce, inferring the broad ambition to “grow together”. In the issues outlined above, growing together is dominated by neoliberal interests, or what Stringer has termed “assimilatory neoliberation”. The issue extends beyond a social and economic assimilationism project and into a political and legal “land grab”, because, as Ong notes, the neoliberal agenda aligns itself with the nation-state. This coalitional arrangement of neoliberal and governmental interests reiterates “white possession” (Moreton-Robinson, The Possessive Logic). This is evidenced in the position of the current Labor government decision to uphold the nomination of Muckaty as a radioactive waste repository site in Australia (Stokes). In 2007, the Northern Land Council (NLC) nominated Muckaty Station to be the site for waste disposal. This decision cannot be read outside the context of Maralinga, in the South Australian desert, a site where experiments involving nuclear technology were conducted in the 1960s. As John Keane recounts, the Australian government permitted the British government to conduct tests, dispossessing the local Aboriginal group, the Tjarutja, and employing a single patrol officer “the job of monitoring the movements of the Aborigines and quarantining them in settlements” (Keane). Situated within this historical colonial context, in 2006, under a John Howard led Liberal Coalition, the government passed the Commonwealth Radioactive Waste Management Act (CRWMA), a law which effectively overrode the rulings of the Northern Territory government in relation decisions regarding nuclear waste disposal, as well as overriding the rights of traditional Aboriginal owners and the validity of sacred sites. The Australian Labor government has sought to alter the CRWMA in order to reinstate the importance of following due process in the nomination process of land. However, it left the proposed site of Muckaty as confirmed, and the new bill, titled National Radioactive Waste Management retains many of the same characteristics of the Howard government legislation. In 2010, 57 traditional owners from Muckaty and surrounding areas signed a petition stating their opposition to the disposal site (the case is currently in the Federal Court). At a time when nuclear power has come back onto the radar as a possible solution to the energy crisis and climate change, questions concerning the investments of government and its loyalties should be asked. As Malcolm Knox has written “the nuclear industry has become evangelical about the dangers of global warming” (Knox). While nuclear is a “cleaner” energy than coal, until better methods are designed for processing its waste, larger amounts of it will be produced, requiring lands that can hold it for the desired timeframes. For Australia, this demands attention to the politics and ethics of waste disposal. Such an issue is already being played out, before nuclear has even been signed off as a solution to climate change, with the need to find a disposal site to accommodate already existing uranium exported to Europe and destined to return as waste to Australia in 2014. The decision to go ahead with Muckaty against the wishes of the voices of local Indigenous people may open the way for the co-opting of a discourse of environmentalism by political and business groups to promote the development and expansion of nuclear power as an alternative to coal and oil for energy production; dumping waste on Indigenous lands becomes part of the solution to climate change. During the 2010 Australian election, Greens Leader Bob Brown played upon the word coalition to suggest that the Liberal National Party were in COALition with the mining industry over the proposed Mining Tax – the Liberal Coalition opposed any mining tax (Brown). Here Brown highlights the alliance of political agendas and business or corporate interests quite succinctly. Like Brown’s COALition, will government (of either major party) form a coalition with the nuclear power stakeholders?This paper has attempted to bring to light what Dodson has identified as “an alliance of established conservative forces...with more recent and strident ideological thinking associated with free market economics and notions of individual responsibility” and the implications of this alliance for land rights (Dodson). It is important to ask critical questions about the vision of “growing together” being promoted via the coalition of conservative, neoliberal, private and government interests.Acknowledgements Many thanks to the reviewers of this article for their useful suggestions. ReferencesAustralian Broadcasting Authority. “Noel Pearson Discusses the Issues Faced by Indigenous Communities.” Lateline 26 June 2007. 22 Nov. 2010 ‹http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2007/s1962844.htm>. Agamben, Giorgio. Homo Sacer. Stanford, California: Stanford University Press, 1998. Altman, Jon. “The ‘National Emergency’ and Land Rights Reform: Separating Fact from Fiction.” A Briefing Paper for Oxfam Australia, 2007. 1 Aug. 2010 ‹http://www.oxfam.org.au/resources/filestore/originals/OAus-EmergencyLandRights-0807.pdf>. Altman, Jon. “The Howard Government’s Northern Territory Intervention: Are Neo-Paternalism and Indigenous Development Compatible?” Centre for Aboriginal Economic Policy Research Topical Issue 16 (2007). 1 Aug. 2010 ‹http://caepr.anu.edu.au/system/files/Publications/topical/Altman_AIATSIS.pdf>. Brown, Bob. “Senator Bob Brown National Pre-Election Press Club Address.” 2010. 18 Aug. 2010 ‹http://greens.org.au/content/senator-bob-brown-pre-election-national-press-club-address>. Davis, Angela. The Angela Davis Reader. Ed. J. James, Oxford: Blackwell, 1998. Dodson, Patrick. “An Entire Culture Is at Stake.” Opinion. The Age, 14 July 2007: 4. Goldberg, David Theo. The Racial State. Massachusetts: Blackwell, 2002.———. The Threat of Race: Reflections on Neoliberalism. Massachusetts: Blackwell, 2008. Harris, Cheryl. “Whiteness as Property.” Harvard Law Review 106.8 (1993): 1709-1795. Keane, John. “Maralinga’s Afterlife.” Feature Article. The Age, 11 May 2003. 24 Nov. 2010 ‹http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/05/11/1052280486255.html>. Knox, Malcolm. “Nuclear Dawn.” The Monthly 56 (May 2010). Lambert, Anthony. “Rainbow Blindness: Same-Sex Partnerships in Post-Coalitional Australia.” M/C Journal 13.6 (2010). Langton, Marcia. “It’s Time to Stop Playing Politics with Vulnerable Lives.” Opinion. Sydney Morning Herald, 30 Nov. 2007: 2. McAllan, Fiona. “Customary Appropriations.” borderlands ejournal 6.3 (2007). 22 Nov. 2010 ‹http://www.borderlands.net.au/vol6no3_2007/mcallan_appropriations.htm>. Moreton-Robinson, Aileen. “The Possessive Logic of Patriarchal White Sovereignty: The High Court and the Yorta Yorta Decision.” borderlands e-journal 3.2 (2004). 1 Aug. 2007 ‹http://www.borderlands.net.au/vol3no2_2004/moreton_possessive.htm>. ———. “Whiteness, Epistemology and Indigenous Representation.” Whitening Race. Ed. Aileen Moreton-Robinson. Canberra: Aboriginal Studies Press, 75-89. Norberry, J., and J. Gardiner-Garden. Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Amendment Bill 2006. Australian Parliamentary Library Bills Digest 158 (19 June 2006). Ong, Aihwa. Neoliberalism as Exception: Mutations in Citizenship and Sovereignty. Durham: Duke University Press, 2006. 75-97.Oxford English Dictionary. 3rd. ed. Oxford: Oxford UP, 2005. Rio Tinto. "Rio Tinto Aboriginal Policy and Programme Briefing Note." June 2007. 22 Nov. 2010 ‹http://www.aboriginalfund.riotinto.com/common/pdf/Aboriginal%20Policy%20and%20Programs%20-%20June%202007.pdf>. Roberts, David J., and Mielle Mahtami. “Neoliberalising Race, Racing Neoliberalism: Placing 'Race' in Neoliberal Discourses.” Antipode 42.2 (2010): 248-257. Stringer, Rebecca. “A Nightmare of the Neocolonial Kind: Politics of Suffering in Howard's Northern Territory Intervention.” borderlands ejournal 6.2 (2007). 22 Nov. 2010 ‹http://www.borderlands.net.au/vol6no2_2007/stringer_intervention.htm>.Stokes, Dianne. "Muckaty." n.d. 1 Aug. 2010 ‹http://www.timbonham.com/slideshows/Muckaty/>. Terrill, Leon. “Indigenous Land Reform: What Is the Real Aim of Land Reform?” Edited version of a presentation provided at the 2010 National Native Title Conference, 2010. Watson, Irene. “Sovereign Spaces, Caring for Country and the Homeless Position of Aboriginal Peoples.” South Atlantic Quarterly 108.1 (2009): 27-51. Watson, Nicole. “Howard’s End: The Real Agenda behind the Proposed Review of Indigenous Land Titles.” Australian Indigenous Law Reporter 9.4 (2005). ‹http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/AILR/2005/64.html>.Wild, R., and P. Anderson. Ampe Akelyernemane Meke Mekarie: The Little Children Are Sacred. Report of the Northern Territory Board of Inquiry into the Protection of Aboriginal Children from Sexual Abuse. Northern Territory: Northern Territory Government, 2007.

"January 2003." Bibliography: 10.1-10.11 leaves. This thesis presents results from the Katherine Region Diabetic Retinopathy Study (1993-1996). These results provide the first detailed information on the basic epidemiology of diabetic retinopathy and impaired vision in an Aboriginal diabetic population.