That was a huge build up for a damp squib at the end.

The Australian population is not entirely convinced that Mr Howard has taken his initiative solely for political advantage. There is more than a fair chance he as a father was moved by the Little Children are Sacred report. In fact his actions to date are in accord with the first three recommendations of that report, namely to take action on indigenous child abuse in the Northern Territory. Mr Howard would have been clever enough to avoid indigenous matters if he was only interested in votes.

It would not be enough for Mr Rudd to oppose Mr Howard's initiative, he needs to address the recommendations of the Little Children are Sacred report in a practical way and so far he has made no attempt whatsoever to do that.

Fact is that almost everyone is keen not to discuss the detail of the report and its recommendations, despite the solid grassroots consultation that went into it and its practical, commonsense recommendations. The media is sidestepping the issue in preference to assisting the extreme of either side have their day in the sun. Sensationalism sells it seems.

You would think that for once the politicians, indigenous experts (what a sorry self-serving lot they are!) and others would for once put down their cudgels and work together to get something done for the most vulnerable group of society, indigenous children, who are well proven to be suffering from neglect. But I guess the kids will have to wait for that because the Little Children are Sacred report is in the too hard basket.

Cornflower says the population is not entirely convinced that Mr Howard has taken his Aboriginal initiative solely for political advantage. Yet the recent Galaxy poll found just that - most people believe Howard has acted only because of the proximity of the federal election.

It beggars belief that he would be doing it for any other reason. Of course, Howard might have some personal abhorrence at the findings of the Children are Sacred report. But what human being worthy of the name would not have felt horrified?

Bruce Haigh makes the perfectly valid point that Howard, not once in his 33 years in parliament, had expressed any support for the rights of indigenous Australians....until now and at a time when he faces the real prospect of electoral defeat.

As to the merits of his quickly devised wedge/solution, that is an entirely different debate. But sending in the military in such a dramatic fashion and suspending Aboriginal leases would appear to be a ham-fisted response to a problem that requires consultation and sensitivity.

But Howard just wants to make a splash. It is as simple as that.

I agree. 85% of an item telling no one anything they don't know.

To conclude Rudd has been wedged on this issue simply tells me this item was written over a week ago as it has disappeared from the media. Have a look.

What has happened is that Howard has attached a millstone to his neck and that of the Coalition. For decades into the future this issue will be the one people say "Remember Howard's promise about helping the indigenous people?". Yeah, lasted a week but, given the polls said 75% know it's only a wedge issue for Howard, he's stuck with the promises that no one could make.

Have any of you actually heard anything on this issue over the last few days? I haven't and it's not in the papers. After only a week or so. But the people are stuck with Howard's half baked invasion which will do more damage, again.

Howard will be remembered but only in disgust and revulsion.

It seems to me that the article, and the foregoing comments, have good points to make. The report(s) concerning aboriginal child abuse are horrifying, and would (and indeed should) produce an immediate emotional reaction in even the most cynical and case-hardened politician - John Howard included. Whilst Howard has consistently betrayed the trust of the Australian electorate in the cause of pragmatic conservative politics, and the once largely genuine sobriquet 'Honest John' is now a term of derision, it is difficult to say what different action could have been taken. Something, whatever that something might have been, had to be done then, and John Howard did something. That the 'something' is now seen as political opportunism is unfortunate but irrelevant. It may even be true - everything a politician does has a political interpretation - that is the nature of politics. The real issue now is to maintain momentum, ignore the bleatings of the various nay-sayers most of whom themselves are politically motivated, and do everything within federal power to alleviate the sufferings of the aboriginal children. The aboriginal problem is unsolvable - any attempt to maintain a 'culture within a culture' is doomed from the start, both in Australia and the rest of the world. The least (and very likely the best) that we can do is to protect aboriginal children from brutalisation at the hand of their own putative protectors.

You are joking, yes? Wasn't that the same pollster who declared in June that Howard was rapidly closing the gap - a finding that was out of step with other pollsters? Now the pollster has come up with an equally newsworthy finding indicating that around 60% of voters are Howard haters - most journalists would not agree with this, but reason alone suggests some problem.

What if the poll asked if Mr Rudd or any other politician was serious in addressing indigenous issues?

Returning to what I was intimating previously, the indigenous children are being treated as a political football by those who oppose action. While Mr Howard remains the only prominent figure with his foot on the sticky paper to do something real about the Little Children report why not run with that?

re 'honest (sic) john' - people have forgotten that this was ever a term of derision. it was introduced by the media to describe jh when he was treasurer in the fraser government. it was always intended ironically - that is, the media recognised jh's disposition way back then. after he became prime minister, the media in its fawning appears to have forgotten. the cartoonists alone maintained their clear sighted view ... now we know why swift and pope were so necessary and appreciated in their day. in today's australia, the cartoonists have assumed their role, and thank goddess for that.