It is sad what academic involvement in a dogmatic discipline does to your thinking. (It is a descriptive, not emotive term. Religion is another dogmatic discipline.)

It makes reality so simple and answers so obvious. A simplistic picture of reality is so convincing and straightforward solutions look so attractive – that it makes me worry, that it is likely to become the preferred ‘easy fix’ solution.

But it might be worth to look around and think through the whole problem.

It might be worth to ask ourselves:

• Are there any proven, working solutions?

Yes, there are. There are examples of effective, community-based intervention strategies that focus on solving the problem and CHANGING BEHAVIOURS. I recommend Barbara Biggs’ article ‘Moral Outrage’ from this website

• What would be side-effects of the proposed? It seems to me that quite obvious result of such policy would be putting the perpetrators into further desperation; it would hugely exacerbate problems of disconnection with reality.

• What would be the long-term effects the proposed solutions?

In fact, we know something about it. We know, that if we put kinds into foster homes, with a feeling of disconnection from the society they will not be exposed to appropriate role models, they will be deprived a loving family support. (Yes, I know – it was just forgotten, that they have mothers too.)

According to Professor Zubrzycki it was the case of many Vietnamese and Lebanese orphans that were taken - with best intentions - to Australia. Many of them ended up in gangs. This was the only social reality they knew, this was the only community setting they felt comfortable with…

Finally, the author says: ‘We would not want our own children to battle for a shower with 29 other inhabitants, fight over crumbs in something resembling a kitchen, or be at a heightened risk of sexual abuse. So we can’t let it happen any longer in northern Australia.’

I could not agree more. But … Should ANYONE in Australia live in such conditions?

We need to find a way to change the whole situation.

The children should not be removed, the perpetrators should be, all of them.

In the same way that an Apprehended Vioence Order can be issued to remove a violent or threatening person from a residence, more or less on suspicion, anyone who is perceived as being a threat to these children should be removed.

One of the grounds of assessment could be intoxication, no intoxicated person should be in the presence of children in a situation where other people are not able to protect those children.

This should include parents where necessary, if a mother or father is too drunk, or absent due to drinking, to take care of children the parents are equally at fault.

Additionally, set up children's refuges 'on site' at the settlements, staffed by people of Aboriginal background, preferably from the same mob, who can look after the children for a few hours, days or weeks, ensuring the children's safety,nourishment, health care, education etc. A local foster parent scheme, with alcohol, and anyone under the influence of alcohol, banned from the facility.

It would also force the parents to show their hands - by them having to make a choice as to what was more important to them, their children or booze.

It would be halfway between removing children from their background and leaving them unprotected. Sure, it would not be cheap, but would be it would be worth it.

If care was required for more than a few days an assessment process could take place as to the competency of the parents to care for the children, and an education set in place to enable the parents to gain insight, skills and attitudes to get the children back.

My only fear is that the people staffing these facilities would be liable to be pressured or subject to violence from the others in the community.

I did reading recovery in school for 6/7/8 year olds to help children who were struggling to read. I believe that if you don’t fix reading issues early, a students education and outlook on life is seriously disadvantaged and damaged.

Immediately I noticed a pattern in the mistakes that these children were making. I realised that the problem for most was that they had picked up bad habits in relation to the sounds of certain regularly used letters. Without any acknowledgment to the child of the actual reason for the difficulty or any assistance or direction on how to change the bad habit, as opposed to just practicing more reading, the more they read the more it cemented the habit.

One little boy had a serious problem with his learning. I spoke to the teacher, I spoke to the other parents in reading recovery. Every parent could see that he had a serious learning problem and some even said that they had also spoken to the teacher. Because no action was taken I brought up the issue at a P & C meeting about how the school deals with students who have obvious educational difficulties and I mentioned this student in reading recovery.

Wow, did the mood in the room change….One mother very aggressively stated how she knew who this kid was and that his mother was Aboriginal and that she neglected the child at home!

I couldn’t believe it so I said that I didn’t care what that mother did at home or who she was. When the child was at school he should be educated regardless.

I suggested that the child needed to be assessed and that the mother should be included in the reading program and attend meetings to speak with the readers/teachers and her child together so that they can organize a plan to work together to best help the student succeed.

It was not a good meeting, and we ended up having to leave that school, but one day whilst walking down at the shopping centre this lady came past me and said “F..... off”.

Ah, the old 'we know whats best for you' rhetoric rears its ugly head once again. The issue here is that there is a need (and great difficulty) in giving Indigenous Australians the sovereignty they deserve whilst also being interventionalist and concerned about fundamental human rights issues in many communities. This problem has been compounded throughout history by 'big brother' throwing money at the issue and hoping no-one would notice. And then all of a sudden we have brough running around like this problem just suddenly occured to him! What rubbish.

Complicated, heavily interconnected social issues require complex. heavily interconnected and well thought-out solutions. Grass roots iniatives at a community level is the only way these issues can be approached and constructively dealt with.

The rhetoric of this author, that we need to get over the stolen generation and all its horribleness, and start doing it again, is really difficult to comprehend..

I find such culturally blind and brutal opinions from someone who is teaching young people how to administer the law very difficult to stomach. I agree with many of the other postings when the question is asked "where" does Mr Convill want the children to be taken to? To remove them from their communities altogether and place them in "white" society may seem like the right thing to do if you consider "white" society to be better than Aboriginal. But wouldn't it be more appropriate and culturally sensitive/empathetic to fund safe houses and women's refuges within or close to communities and enable Aboriginal women to run them - likewise maybe "cool down" places for the men to go? This isn't rocket science and I am not an expert on any of this but the last thing that needs to be done, surely, is to punish the women and children by enforcing them to leave whatever security and support they do have in their communities. I would be interested to know if Mr Convill has ever visited a remote community (without an entourage, suit or tick list) and experienced first hand the positive steps that are being taken by many indignous women in providing safe houses in their own communities. These sustainable healing initiatives could be acknowledged and supported more instead of trying to apply Euro-Australian sticking plasters to the wound. They'll only slide off in the wash anyway!!

James says: "It is unfortunate that we have allowed this clear and simple fact to be overshadowed by the political correctness engineered by the bleeding hearts of the Left."

Herein lies the true intention of Jame's article -political point scoring.

There are a few versions of how “political correctness" found its way into discourse. The how determines the true meaning of political correctness. It can also be applied in language and other areas.

For the sake of this Jame’s article let's stick with the yarn about US Unis becoming the stronghold of certain ideas and etiquette. It is charged that these ideas were leftist. Whatever that is? To examine, analyse or criticise these established ideas was supposedly seen as paramount to heresy. That is the right’s take on it anyway. Academics who challenged the dominant paradigm were often supposedly howled down. Most of this is untrue. Ideas were often rejected because they were racist or just plain wrong. Nevertheless, a lot of sensible thinking was treated unfairly as well.

Of course, the far right created a monster out of political correctness. This was something to add weight to otherwise shallow and often racist and cultural supremacist arguments. People get riled at the suggestion that they are being shut up. A look at Australian history and discourse doesn’t suggest political correctness slowed many people from speaking their piece. Now the situation has become absurd and reversed with people jumping on the rubbish truck and entrenching their own dominant set of ideas and unloading all sorts of garbage on people who hold different opinions