I agree, alcohol control and enforcement of restrictions on Aboriginal communities in the Cape [and elsewhere] should not be questioned on the basis of egalitarian notions of rights. The level of violence and the victims of alcohol related crime is statistically high and it would be equally criminal for any government to ignore these facts. However it is also clear that restrictions and the policing of Alcohol management plans (AMP's) have had varying degrees of success and in some cases have increased sly grogging and illicit drug use and these are issues that Langton, Pearson and others have failed to address in their public statements. Pearson’ hard love policies need to be coupled with strategies that empathize and treat this issue as a health issue that effects the whole community. Just how effective are these AMPs? How best can we empower community councils (and resident police) to address both alcohol use and abuse? Many community social workers (also ordinary members of these communities) rightly complain that preventative and health support services are not being rolled out. Abstinence is not a cue. There are individual community people who desperately want to get off the roller coaster ride of alcohol abuse but find themselves silently going with the flow - because that is all there is to do. These people want to change their lives but there are no avenues for support that are both real and culturally sensitive. If Pearson and Langton truly believe is providing communities with a hand up and not just hand outs, they6 need to champion alternative pathways and support for chronic alcoholics (and drug abusers) They are not evil people, just people like you and me.

*Furthermore - why is that Pearson and Langton hardly ever advocating for the important role that community governance and democracy should play in any decision making within these communities. I find this astounding omission from their rhetoric revealing. The Cape York Institute should not the sole arbiter of social and cultural policy for Aboriginal communities. A much deeper resentment of community council's is not just about the lack of consultation regarding AMP's but rather the arrogant and condescending role that the Cape York Institute (namely Mr Pearson) has played in deciding what is best for communities with absolutely callous regard for how communities themselves appoint and recognise their own leaders (both elected and not). White Australian communities would not put up with (for example) the Centre of Independent Studies designing policy for them, why is it that the CYI has such free and unquestioned rein of the social engineering of policy for Aboriginal communities. This approach is not only fascist, but completely antithetical to the goals its policies set out to achieve. The mind boggles as to why this fundamental plank in the longitudinal reform and restoration in these communities is being ignored.*