The opposition to Howard and Brough's intervention has not been about the protection of children from Domestic Violence and sexual abuse or the misuse of Welfare entitlements, buying grog, drugs and gambling but the unilateral and arrogant way they went about it's implementation; The accusation against the Martin Government that they weren't acting quickly enough so the Federal Government had to intervene as a cheap point scoring backhander.

So far the action has raised fears amongst some communities that their children will be taken away in a repeat of past practices, unnecessarily raising apprehension amongst people who have no reason to believe otherwise given the lack of community consultation.

There is also well founded suspicion that this is a political exercise similar to the Tampa fiasco only utilising the Army instead of the Navy .
If anything is to be salvaged from this expensive operation, Howard must include all relevent players and resist the urge to play politics.

To succeed, he must reverse existing policies depriving remote communities from infrastructure, training, health facilities upgrade and education facilities equal to those of other Australians.
To start with providing adequate housing, community members must be employed building their own homes with qualified supervision.

People are less likely to trash homes they have built themselves.
The proposed punitive actions should not be forced on families and communities which are not dysfunctional.

I totally agree with you Maracas, the opposition is indeed because of Howard's unilateral and arrogant, and ill-thought out but and invasive implementation. Like you, I was aghast at the cheap point scoring abuse of Claire Martin. She's been begging for help and funding for years and received nothing from him.

Then he initiates his invasion and occupation the same way he, Bush and Blair invaded and occupied Iraq, as you say, using the army instead of the Navy. Totally inexcusable. Of course the communities are fearful of another generation of stolen children. Further, Howard has no intention of including the relevant players. He isn't doing this to improve the situation, only to try to play the race card in order to try to get the prejudiced to vote for him in the coming election.

I fully agree with your suggestions for improvement, he needs to reverse his policies and provide funding for infrastructure, training, health and education for there to be an improvement, but he won't come up with the funding for any of that because he doesn't want to improve the situation, only to buy votes.

Sadly, all communities in the NT are going to be subjected to military invasion and occupation. I've been communicating with several of my friends who are still working in the field and in the settlements and they've said the fear and unrest in the communities is rampant. They have said that they are also fearful for the members of the community. They expect high handed tactics, against the members of the community and even against themselves for supporting the fearful aboriginals.

People are less likely to trash homes they have built themselves.
The proposed punitive actions should not be forced on families and communities which are not dysfunctional.

It strikes me as very ironic that the same Premiers and state governments that the current federal government demeans and discounts, when they cry out about shortfalls in funding for education, policing and health, are now expected to donate police to this suddenly perceived crisis in aboriginal health and safety in the Northern Territory.

And the compliant responses of the state premiers, except in the case of the WA Premier, have been puzzling to me. In another time, place and context, might the others have been called Uncle Toms?

There are so many vectors of analysis with the issue that Dr Scutt has raised, and many have been addressed here, that it's hard to know where to begin.

The 'pollie' in me (which I've been trying to exorcise) says that Howard at 8 points down on the two party prefered had to do something drastic. He might not lose the election, but it may be close. Too close as John is a Menzies man. He wants a Lib dynasty.

What better way to get shift the media agenda from the AWA's, which Rudd was winning, back on to one of the lefts home ground. There's no votes in this for Howard but it moves the spotlight away from the AWA's.

I also can't be so cynical and say that direct and firm action needs to be taken to stamp out sexual violence against all women and children. I can't remember the last time the army was called in for a domestic issue - Cyclone Tracy or was it the Newcastle earthquake?

That's unusual and normally there would be an axtraordinary meeting of heads of state to discuss troop movements, although this is somewhat attenuated by NT being effectively under Commonwealth control.

Howard has had 12 budgets to address problems in the NT, SA and NSW but he has done nothing. Now it's 'Call in the Army' and he's throwing money at the problem. Hmmm. This is an intergenrational problem. I wonder if he will (or Costello) still keep funding it in 4 years time if he wins the next election?

Cheryl aka Malcolm King

We are forever demanding that the various layers of government work together to get results, yet now that it is happening there are some who call for a return to political brinkmanship. What credibility do such critics have when the lives and freedom of the most vulnerable members of the community are at stake? If the major political parties can rise above petty politics in this then so should those who ought know better than to risk undermining this landmark initiative.

Some castigate politicians on both sides for not consulting more with indigenous leaders and advocates. Of course such critics are pretending that consultation on implementation will not happen, despite clear evidence to the contrary. In any event, we are talking about action by governments with a clear mandate to protect and advance the wellbeing of citizens. Such roles and priorities are not new, they are fundamental.

The way some critics are talking they would have us believe that the democratically elected government has to make excuses and seek approval before taking action to protect its children.

What is forgotten is that some at least of those who claim to represent indigenous interests and some of the indigenous leaders themselves are part of the problem. Over thirty years the reports of government auditors have been scathing about the fraud, misappropriation and wastage of the billions of taxpayer dollars allocated to indigenous needs.

Critics of the present initiatives by government are less than honest in pretending that such huge sums were never granted, or that indigenous leaders were not involved, or that the money was 'wasted' by government when these funds were requested, controlled and expended by (and on) indigenous leaders, indigenous consultants and experts and those uniquely sensitive to indigenous issues (a quality that has always been a pre-requisite for employment with agencies administering indigenous policy and delivery of services).

It is pleasing that there is broad consensus on urgent action to help indigenous children. Many of the children at risk may not be alive to see the outcome if the ponderous consultation process recommended by some critics is accepted.

"What better way to get shift the media agenda from the AWA's, which Rudd was winning, back on to one of the lefts home ground. There's no votes in this for Howard but it moves the spotlight away from the AWA's."

Too true Cheryl. Last week we were all workers voting on IR. This week we're all Aussies who care about Aboriginal kids voting on a race-related issue.