I think its easy to keep arguing the negative case in all of this; to allow political perspectives to cloud the debate; to be cynical; etc .... the question of why the NT and not the ACT and or state Aboriginal communities as well is really irrelevant. Keep it simple .... tackle what you can. I can't see any harm coming out of the current exercise ... worst case outcome will be that we have even more awareness nationally of the terrible plight of these communities. That may then steer people to what I think is the more fundamental issue (not to belittle the sexual abuse crisis).... many remote Aboriginal communities are not sustainable communities if we are to apply standards applicable to the rest of Australia's communities .... and the majority seem intent on using these standards to judge these communities. Can these communities really afford to continue in their current form or should they just close? Jobs have not and will not materialise in these remote locations... and jobs are at the heart of the standard of living enjoyed by the vast majority of Australians living outside of remote Aboriginal communities.

Am I going to deny the political aspect to the 'timing' of this "Save the Aboriginals" thrust ?

No.
Is this a rehash of 'Tampa' ?

probably (by Timing)

Should it surprise us that "Politicians" of EVERY flavor, do this kind of thing close to democratic elections ?

NO!

Does this alter the reality of the issue ?

NO!

Frank, I noticed a little 'vilification' there :)

"Removing the permit system is good, too. Howard's white mining mates can go in there and get started with exploration, and whatever else they might like to do. How about sexual abuse, for example?"

Now 'that' was a bit of a leap into the 'blanket statement, guilt by default' wild blue yonder old son.
Yet you are quite enthusiastic in your criticism of me over my allegations/claims about Islam/Mohammad?

But to all posters "Howard is a Criminal" errrr.. good grief.. I suppose this is mean't to say "But ME... and my mob, well, we are saints, and we are beyond blemish and spot.. undefiled in every way, and if WE were in charge, aaah..all this stuff would be fixed overnight"

Well..excuse me for choking. I am reminded of the parable of the Pharisee "Oh God..LOOK at THAT sinner over there.. that tax collector.. eeeuwwwww what a baddddd person he is (unlike me) I thank you Oh God that I am NOT like that ratbag there"

But the Tax collector just beat his chest and poured out "Oh God..be merciful to me a sinner"

Jesus then said "THAT mans prayer was heard" Jesus said that the Pharisee 'prayed with himself'... and how true that is.

Drawing attention to evil, and pointing people to Christ as Saviour is called "evangelism". Pointing to evil and claiming self righteousness- is unholy pride.

Let's not point to 'Coalition/Howard' evil, with the suggestion that 'we/us/ourparty' is holy and righteous. But by all means compare ALL (them and us) to Christ.

Communicat - the article demonstrated quite convincingly that the Federal Government has all the power it needs under the Constitution to act in the States on this issue. They used it to get Workchoices through. Your objection is baseless. Try reading the article before commenting next time.

Jackson - your objections, which are obviously made in good-faith, seem to rest on the assumption that traditional Aboriginal lifestyles and contemporary Australian lifestyles are mutually exclusive and immiscible. According to you, they can either be hunter-gatherers, or be "modern" Australians. According to you, they can choose one and only one way. Your comments suggest that these two lifestyles are polar opposites, two ends of a spectrum, with nothing in between.

Your conception of Aboriginal culture seems to come from the same mould as the 'noble savage' camp who think that cultures are all hermetically sealed little separate units that must not be 'contaminated' by outside influence.

I would suggest to you that such dichotomous thinking is not able to capture the fine-grained nature of the problems faced in remote communities, nor the complexities needed to work out a solution. I don't claim to have an answer, but since you do, you need to explain why you think Aboriginal people can only go 100% one way or the other - and how choosing one way or the other would actually solve this problem.

For your comments imply that the problem of child abuse will somehow be solved if Aboriginals make a choice between being hunter-gatherers or living a contemporary Australian lifestyle. Would you care to expand on why you believe this? How does this choice, on which you place so much importance, have anything to do with solving child abuse?

BOAZ_David: Do you honestly believe, that in the days when the judges ruled, Boaz would have shown favour to Ruth had she come from her homeland, not out of love or sacrifice nor with such literal humility, but rather in numbers that demolished the annual barley harvest?

You encourage: "Let's not point to 'Coalition/Howard' evil, with the suggestion that 'we/us/ourparty' is holy and righteous. But by all means compare ALL (them and us) to Christ."

Not that I am an adherent to such a belief, but surely you would agree that much of the 'state of emergency' in NT indigenous communities deals with desert people suffering generations of oppression for their adherence to a spirituality that is much more Christ-like than either the Howard government or the majority of Australians that are not subject to this racially explicit intervention.

One could even go so far as to liken the Howard Government to the Pharisees in their ultimate solution to the recalcitrant firebrand from Nazareth.

Odd Mercurius your view about the Commonwealth's constitutional capacity in this respect goes against that of a respected constitutional lawyer I was talking to recently.

Glad you raised the point about the Commonwealth's constitutional powers over the Territory communicat. The states are more than free to start co-operating with the Cwth on this matter and invite them in to start the same approach on their own trouble-spots (Walgett, Goodooga, Wilcannia to name but a few in NSW). But they wont because they have political leverage at the moment.

Mercurius thinks he can dazzle with some big words. However his statement on the Cwth's use of the constitution to enable Workchoices is off-track. Workchoices only applies to constitutional corporations (companies, and trusts with corporate trustees). The Cwth has no power to enforce Workchoices on state govt employees NOr the employees of sole traders and partnerships (and trusts with non-corporate trustees). These are under the jurisdiction of the State laws (except Vic, because Kennett handed over this power to the Cwth while still in office). So we now have TWO sets of work place laws, just to make things even more complicated! A point frequently ignored. However, I digress...

Yes, it would have been ideal to have had some action on this issue before now. But remember that the trendy thing has been to aboriginal self-determination. Had govt intervened before, the cries of racist and paternalism would have been even more shrill than the are now. The indigenous communities have been given the chance over many years to sort this out themselves. They havent, so now it is time for intervention.

As for the nuclear issue, if we are going to dig up uranium and sell it, we should be prepared to take back the waste. Why not put it back where it came from (which contains radioactive material (uranium) anyway? Guess what - this is the NT!! But wouldnt be PC to put it back in Ranger in Kakadu. However, if that's where it came from, that's where it should go.