Rainier,

I was concentrating on what would be needed to fix the problem from this point on without going back to what has happened in the past. I agree that racism is an ugly human trait. However, it doesn't always lead to a bad outcome. It has actually lead to the isolation of many Aborigines (which is good if that is what they want, but bad if they do want to make a go of it in Western society.) So the effects of racism is a mixed bag.

When it comes to the loss of whole tribes - I don't want to sound too glib here - but maybe their time was up. It happened with proud tribes like the Aztecs and Incas too.

RObP, I'm afraid i can't engage with you as you're not very well read and I'm not about to give you tutlage on world history, colonialism, race theory and evolution here. Sorry.

Rainier

You are dead right. Health experts have declared there is an annual shortfall in Indigenous health of $460 million, based on what they estimate is needed to bring the health of Indigenous people up to around the level of non-Indigenous Australians' health.

However I am also right, because what I was talking about was the total health expenditure and the trend of this expenditure under Howard (rather than the estimated need).

I also agree this years' Federal Budget produced only $30 million of additional funding annually to be spent on indigenous health over the next four years. This may be paltry and far less than what may be needed, but it is nonetheless an increase, which continues the trend already established under Carmen Lawrence and Michael Wooldridge.

Re my "beloved Howard government" - I would probably like to see the end of the Coalition as much as you do. That doesn't mean that I don't value accuracy in debate, and giving recognition where it might be due.

Celivia,

You asked "why is Howard targeting NT Aboriginals when there are more urgent needs?"

I personally find it difficult to imagine what could be more urgent than the NT situation. It seems he has chosen to act here because the Commonwealth still has responsibility for the NT in a way it doesn't for the states. The AndersonWild Report provided him with a strong reason to intervene. It comes on top of Nanette Rogers' report, and it is now clear how irresponsible the NT Governments have been in ignoring this desperately bad situation over decades. Plus his opponents are in power in the NT: he may think there'll be electoral advantage in acting on these issues during an election year, and the mining boom has given his treasury enough funds to do it.

Re the armed forces: these Norforce troops are in camouflage but they don't carry weapons. They are part-timers who drive, play footy with the kids, and have in the past often sorted out sewerage problems and built roads. Most of them are locals, and a fair number are Indigenous.

For the cynics, a primer on Norforce:

http://www.theage.com.au/news/National/A-very-special-kind-of-force-minds-the-north/2005/03/04/1109700672482.html

Dan,
Thanks for the reply. As discussed before, some of the other States have higher incidences of child abuse; that’s what I meant when I said ‘more urgent needs’.
However, even if I accept that the NT is the best State to start action, the Anderson/Wild report certainly didn't recommend abolishing the permit system and didn’t recommend to act without consulting the aboriginal communities first.

Did you see the OLO new article by Jennifer Clarke? “Doesn’t a ‘national emergency’ require a national response?”
It’s the only clear information I have found on why the NT is targeted and has dissolved some of my confusion.
Anyway, I’m sick of Howard blaming the states all the time. The conditions for aborigines is everyone’s responsibility.

Cornflower,
Thanks for this link, its good to know about, but what is their involvement, if any, with the present situation? The Age didn’t say, just that they patrol the Northern border.

Celivia
Although some states appear to have higher incidences, the NTG usually has no child welfare officers in most remote communities; teachers etc get completely frustrated with doing notifications but finding no effective followup. The NTG child welfare system is very dysfunctional, and is not picking up the big majority of cases.

As for Anderson/Wild - it's not a great blueprint for action. It's mired in worthy cliches about approaches that have been tried endlessly before without producing many results. As Rothwell and Pearson pointed out, it doesn't identify the role of Aboriginal agency and responsibility in all this, and falls into the romantic culturalist trap on far too many occasions. Despite no evidence that culture is adaptable to resolve many problems, it nostalgically yearns for cultural solutions that don't exist, and absolves male cultural traditions with a sentimental posing of idealised roles for men that won't produce beneficial outcomes. AndersonWild documented the problems, but it would be foolish in the extreme to rely on that document for solutions.

The permit system: there's a strong case for allowing media reps to have automatic access as politicians already do, but given existing education levels it shouldn't extend much beyond accredited journalists. Permit abolition gambit is a silly ideological dogma of the conservatives, and would prove counterproductive.

Re consulting the aboriginal communities first: there has been an enormous amount of consultation over 20 years, hardly any action. It's not difficult to see what the problems are, or what responsible Indigenous people want done about them (eg decent policing). These people are sick of being consulted. Many don't agree with the Land Rights changes, but these are not new.

“Doesn’t a ‘national emergency’ require a national response?” -yes it does; that's why Howard challenges the states to act too, and form a partnership to address the issues nationally.

I'm not trying to defend how the HowardBrough plan was developed & is being implemented, but let's all get on with constructive criticism of this very important busines and not default to our own assumptions, political beliefs or comfort zones.