What is a distraction is to concentrate on child sexual abuse by itself.

The sexual abuse is a sub-set of the much broader problem of child neglect. To focus solely on sexual abuse, although attractive in some quarters,is to politicise the problem. It will result in wastage of resources and a holistic approach to the nutrition, care, education and safety of children and vulnerable youth will not be possible.

Can anybody out there tell us all how many taxpayers’ dollars have been consumed by Aboriginal Affairs over the past 10 years? [an estimate to the nearest billion dollars will do].

Andrew says:
(quote)
A range of Australian blogs recently addressed the theoretical question of whether a politician’s motives are relevant in assessing their policies. ... assessment of motive ... really isn’t relevant in assessing whether the policy is any good.

The motives may be as pure as can be and the policy still is bad. Conversely, the motives may as devious as possible, but the policy may still be spot on.
(end quote)

True, so far as it goes. I'm not commenting on the motives for this particular policy, but, in general, the motives behind a policy can have a great effect on how it is carried out, and so whether the policy is successful.

Best example of this is the Vietnam war - allegedly motivated (partly) by the welfare of the Vietnamese people. That this was false resulted in the My Lai massacre and its aftermath, and (allegedly) numerous lesser but similar incidents, which resulted, inevitably, in the loss of the war.

This is a joke right?

It's the fear-mongering leftists, led by the Greens and Democrats in Parliament, that are the main reason nothing has been done all these years.

It's interesting to hear from both sides that things have deterioated in the last thirty years, about the same time the multicultural policies were implemented - that state, ludicrously I might add, all cultures are equal.

It was these policies which led to the backing off by government in this area, not to mention the cries of 'witch' by leftists who can't handle any type of interaction with, or critical analysis of, the culture of non-Anglo's.

For fear of learning the truth that non-western cultures are backward, barbaric, and violent.

All you sanctimonious bridge walkers and 'sorry book' signers should hang your heads in shame. You really don't see how that behaviour is racist do you!

So patronising!

If one were to look at Hansard over the last ten years or so it would be Democrats and Greens politicians calling Howard a racist for getting rid of ATSIC. Or throwing in fear campaigns of stolen generations to get votes.

You know what?

I hope with all my heart that the current generation of indigenous inmates sue the likes of you for being the reason they weren't stolen!

They're lives were sacrificed for leftist populism!

For shame.

How do you people sleep at night?

Well Andrew, what has Pearson being saying for the last 8 or so years?
I'll tell you, nastly stuff about his own mob, thats what.So much so that any solution put up by grassroots leaders is palmed off as 'evidence of welfare mentality and dysfunctionality'.

His reference to Aboriginal law and sociality is simply an attempt to distance himself from the views that made him the pin up blackfella for neo cons and right wingers.

Yes I realise you like to stand in the middle and describe both sides of politics and be a referee, but you need to understand the game that we blackfellas are fighting first.

“That Aboriginal child sexual abuse in the Northern Territory be designated as an issue of urgent national significance” is hardly the only matter of national significance in Aboriginal communities.
How does it stack up against petrol sniffing in those same communities? What permanent damage is done by sexual predation compared with permanent brain impairment by the latter?
Both of these terrible problems needed urgent action long ago. Both are but symptoms (exceedingly nasty) of the social dysfunction in communities needing robust attention.
For petrol sniffing, there has been desultory action such as introduction of “Opal” petrol in some areas; but no real drama, or action against underlying cause, about this extremely serious problem.
For sexual abuse of children it is different: A most robust action has been initiated in response to this latest report. Why does this difference exist? Both problems (and others) have been well publicized for many years in plenty of harrowing detail prior to this month.
Whatever the reason, I hope the most is made of this opportunity.
But opportunism it is for Howard – why else would his initial media statement have been wrapped in emotive tissue around medical teams being brought in to assess sexual predation upon the communities’ children? Top marks to the medical people responding to that call: no such examination without proper protocols. The difficulties for such examination were glaringly highlighted in Britain a decade ago due to over-enthusiasm, by an ex-patriate Australian doctor, in finding phantom cases almost everywhere.
“Even the head of John Howard’s hand picked taskforce to implement this plan, Sue Gordon, has been quoted as “being among those warning of inadequate resources to support the plan”. However, she has said “her taskforce would move quickly to determine what extra resources were required. And she said the commonwealth had promised to pay” (my emphasis).”
We might live in hope that durable improvement to the underlying causes of the social dysfunction will arise out of this. But it is exceedingly sad that, on the history of Government behaviour in the recent past, there is little reason for expectation.