Given the extent of Kevin Andrew's reliance on the paper by Hughes and Warrin from the right wing Centre for Independent Studies in his diatribe against the left on Aboriginal affairs, why does he not cite this CIS paper? Does he not want his views to be seen to be driven by this right wing think tank?

According to Mooney's review of Maddox's God under Howard in Online opinion (6 April), he claims there are real problems in the influence these think tanks wield. It looks more and more as if he is right. OK they have the right to say what they want but is it not time to tell the public just where these think tanks get their money? And when their publications are used, as Andrews does here, do we not have the right to know his sources?

yes there seems to be more than a few details of the last 50 years left out there.

its a shame that these type of policies are coming about now, some 220 years after colonisation, perhaps if they were the dominant thought back even 50 years ago the picture for aboriginal communities would look like it does now.

as for those sra's, am involved in groups which must get involved in this new way in order for them to continue to provide services in our community. recently attended a sra development workshop where we got a similar history speil and were told that johnny's set a target for 80 sra's to be in place by mid 2005. dont think much of this new way simply because it is too airy fairy with losts of flowery words aka ad-hoc bandaid approach.

the plan is start off small, negotiate single issue sra's that involve one maybe two govt agencies who'll work with the community to develop a strategy/action to address the issue. the plan then advances to the next stage of developing multiple issue sra's that will involve multiple agencies and the community working together to develop strategy's. sounds good but the process is still undefined.

this new policy reeks of ah-hoc make em up as you go along approaches and aboriginal communities have very little recourse if the government fails to fulfill its part of the deal, which is opposite for the govt.

as for the success stories, eg mulan community, the community already had the eye wash program in place and demonstrated improvements before the sra was even developed. the govt jumped on the program and tied into its new sra policy move and the rest is history.

One would assume that understanding the geographic variations in the socioeconomic status of Indigenous peoples is of great importance when developing policies aimed at reducing the level of Indigenous disadvantage and especially in those locations where reliable Labor markets do not exist. I see no indication in this article that such fundamental information has been used to guide policy.

Why is it so hard to say sorry to our indigenous peoples when we did not recognise them as normal citizens till after 1970. It is to be reminded that we are now a democracy where everyone has equal rights. Or are we still the old guided democracy of pre-WW2 when we were dumbed down as schoolkids to thrill to a school globe splashed with colonial pinky red, giving a surge to tne breast with Land of Hope and Glory, and Mother of the Free.

After WW2 there was a Grand Declaration to end all such bulldust when our Queen apologised to India, and to so many other former colonies it could fill nearly half a page. And here we have John Howard with not enough gumption to say sorry to our formerly oppressed native peoples in case he is brought before a global Court of Law.

Naturally they haven't made the grade expected of them since gainimg citizenship, but if it will ease what has been going on like a festering sore, it is about time our PM made the recognition commitment, just as Canada did for her original owners.