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.

Mr Denmore is right to challenge Cornflower’s assessment that the “Australian population is not entirely convinced that Mr Howard has taken his initiative solely for political advantage”. Polls show that they are cynical – and rightly so.

Having been caught flat-footed throughout the first six months on 2007, and with shocking polls, Howard has become increasingly desperate. His $10 billion water scheme was rushed out without even going to Cabinet; he manipulated the Hicks return; he’s played the compulsory History card; he tried a ‘fairer’ version of WorkChoices. Nothing seems to be working for him.

Bruce Haigh reminds us that in his 33 years in Parliament (1974-2007) and in the face of countless reports, Howard has said nothing in parliament in support of the rights of Indigenous Australians. In four terms as PM, Howard has starved indigenous health, education and housing of funds, abolished ATSIC and marginalised the Aboriginal Affairs portfolio.

Then mid-2007 he suddenly discovers an ‘emergency’. But why has it failed to bite in the electorate? The timing, of course and his track record. And his hypocrisy: Howard’s feigned distress for the “wasted years of childhood” for Indigenous children stands in stark contrast to his heartlessness when he stole the childhood years of hundreds of incarcerated refugee children. Howard had many reputable reports on the emotional and psychological damage his policy was having on refugee children; but he was cold and unyielding.

Many Australians also see Howard doing a big favour for the mining industry which he has consistently served in public life for three decades by rolling back Aboriginal ownership of their tribal lands. No one including Howard and Brough has been able to explain why it is necessary to confiscate Aboriginal land to rescue children from sexual abuse. He didn’t take Catholic land when priests were convicted of child sexual abuse.

It’s cruel cynicism that he’s taking land under the hypocritical colours of humanitarianism expressed as sympathy for the Indigenous community he's ignored throughout his career.

No, Cornflower, the indigenous children are being used as a political football by Howard. And in his typically devious fashion, he has circumvented the possibility of any rational response by smearing critics of his strategy as sympathisers of abusers.

You have completely missed the point of Haigh's article. Howard has done this time and time again - orchestrated a dramatic, non-consultative response to an emotive issue in a bid to stymie debate and wedge those who would have an opposing viewpoint.

In this case, he has scraped the bottom of the barrel.

I don't see that Rudd allowed himself to be wedged at all.

It didn't take a genius to see that the Shock and Awe Aboriginal Children Rescue Operation was going to fizzle out as an election issue. Rudd initially agreed with it in principle, but asked for more detail. Of course, as with the Sock and Awe Water Rescue Operation, there wasn't any detail to be had.

There's no need for Rudd to square up to Howard on anything when Howard is doing such a fantastic job of spontaneously combusting all by himself.

This week alone Howard's had a seniors moment, even his best friend Denis Shanahan has conceded Bennelong is looking shaky, Kevvie has got The Parrott onside with his groceries thing and his MySpace adventure highlights Howard's technological ineptitude. All in one week.

Allowing himself to get drawn into Howard's bizzaro power fantasies would not be as productive for Rudd as leaving Howard to go on building his sandcastles below the tide line.

chainsmoker,
How eloquently you put that, tis music to my ears.

While sympathetic to the overall argument, this ‘clever-Howard’ trail that the author leads us along is becoming tired and predictable.

I’ve always been a sceptic about the ‘Howard, the clever politician’ label – which is tantamount to being a climate-change denier.

Howard is not a clever politician. He is a mediocre politician, well-served by a clever media

Meanwhile as Bruce writes his cynical piece, the children continue to be sexually and emotionally abused. No mention of the pathetic attempts or non attempts by State Labour governments to rescuse these kids. At least Mr Rudd has the decency to reconise the problem.

Howard? I despise the little beggar! but thank him for the action and demand it is forever.
My mob? Labor? well in the early days the NT looked as weak as water to me.
Underline in your minds this is fact not just in far outback but near country towns.
Children in these community's are bashed raped and neglected EVERY NIGHT!
Howard is a grub but he was right here right this time, threads are starting like hail stones that abuse the man but ignore the fact some Aboriginals have no pride in themselves or their race.
A good deed to end your role in politics Howard again thanks and good riddance.

Call me naive, but I consider it a possibility that Howard is genuinely concerned about indigenous children. However, the way this "policy" is being implemented suggests otherwise. They've ignored the recommendations of the "Little Children are sacred" report, ignored the views of the NT police and attempted (unsuccessfully) to steamroll indigenous opposition. On top of this, the action so far seems principally aimed at providing photo opportunities for Mal Brough.

I'm pleased to see this issue getting some attention, but I'm not sure that the "emergency response" is anything more than a hastily cobbled-together sham. However I'd be more than happy to be proved wrong on this.

I am Proud of Rudd, Gilard and Swan for their courage and Good Economic and Reform Policies.

Our Politics in Everyday Life? Where inclusiveness "will" help get US ALL BACK - On Track.

BASIC PROBLEM SOLVING.

Climate Change - Addressing the Future in Australia, as national partners in world economic and ecological change.

A Fair Workplace for vitality and baseline need for 'Productive Change' (ie: A 'No Wrong Door' is a door back to vitality)

Health Policy - needs a future (Alma Ata) working for Sustainable Economic Approach over coming decades. Civic engagement through Preventive Health means a focus on economic health at base levels for ALL! It is collabrative (use of human capital) and cost saving.

Housing Summit - A will to (think tank) and address a distorted market is a serious way to future productivity, through a level and balanced creative Sustainable Economic Ecological (Human Environmental) Approach. It is a critical "Basic Need" Australia.

Foreign Policy - We are all connected (hence our 'collective securitues') addresses a future for Sustainable Economic Approach for ALL in our region. (Ten points for the inclusion of Small Island and Pacific States-RUDD)

May HOPE be a SAFE OPTION in this coming decade!

http://www.miacat.com/
.

Anyone with a view of Parliamentary history knows politically it has always been the likes of the Bruce Haigh's of the world and their media that work hard at ensuring the John Howard's of the world accomplish little no matter how good the idea. Their the first to take credit for doing nothing while belittling the others efforts. Makes one proud to be of a nation encumbered by and held to a functioning standstill by leftist in the name of democracy.

"We never did anything about it when we was in office, an by God they won't do nothin if we can help it while we're out of office."

Now see, the thing is, that the perpetrators are known to the families, police, communities, and everybody else. But, how many arrests have there been? Far too few. Alcohol is but one cause. Poverty is no cause at all - many poor men don't abuse children because they can.
No, John Howard's government is not serious about this issue at all. It is, as Bruce Haigh hints, a smokescreen for something else. Now, what else could it be, I wonder?
Get real! The man heading the country has never once expressed an interest in the welfare of anybody, much less the Indigenous population. His agenda is so far from the stated that it takes the breath away. Good intentions? Rubbish! Meanwhile the known perps are still free. The Indigenous have too few programs of their own to run that would increase self-confidence, restore pride, provide money so that they did not have to depend on welfare, provide real education opportunities that did not force them to separate from their parents, etc ad finitum. If JH were in any way real, these programs would have been instigated as part of his platform many years ago, not weeks away from an election only. An altruistic John Howard and Mal Brough? Oh, please!

Having got past my bout of laughter at Cornflowers post, I scrolled down the threadpage till my eyes alighted on an intelligent comment remarking on how Rudd had had the wit not be dragged into the quicksand by the man sinking into it, who can't save himself but thinks he can by dragging some one else down to the gutter level of public brawling that discredits them rather than him ( he knows we expect no better of him, but the tabloid press will fall on anyone silly enough to play his game of giving him and his half baked "issues" oxygen- they are only gambits ) No doubt, Baird's comments concerning the repulsive aboriginal emergency gambit were spot on.
Nonetheless, Rudd worries me. He has backed away from endorsing moderation of the silly and Draconian Terrorism laws in the wake of the Dr. Haneef Mohammed travesty, and on Labor in general, we can hardly be encouraged by Iemma's antics concerning the "Forbidden City" ( where are you H. Rider Haggard?? ) and the authoritarian response in support of the globalisation/pillage-isation gabfest there.

funguy

Regardless of one's political preferences, one should be independent enough to recognise that the subject Galaxy polls presented obvious inconsistencies.

If jeer or cheer is your thing then so be it, but it does not say much about your capacity for independent thought. Have you ever considered that there are people who do not align themselves with either 'side' and eschew ad hominem arguments and abuse in favour of discussion?

It’s hard to believe that someone with a penchant for deceiving the Australian people , as evidenced in this piece of hocus pocus , could ever have been allowed to represent Australia in anything at all, let alone as a diplomat!
But then, I seem to remember you were appointed by Whitlam…or by Labor, anyway….I think you’re a failed Labor candidate as well aren’t you? Explains a lot.
Of course Howard was reluctant to interfere in East Timor…he wasn’t silly.
Most of the points you make are so ridiculous , uninformed and garbled that they deserve to be ignored …. you don’t even say where the naval vessels were deployed to…. then you’re into the usual silly old mantras.
Are you telling us that your man Rudd, would hand over the power to decide who can come to Australia, to a Norwegian or any other freighter captain, and/or an Indonesian people-smuggler?
Why don’t you just get Rudd to clear this matter up with the Australian people asap?
The children ended up in the water by the hand of their own parents, who relentlessly sabotaged and scuttled the boat, knowing their children would inevitably end up in shark-infested waters…burning, chopping….it’s all in the Navy signals….end of story.
Arrivals by plane go through customs, who check them out.
Detention camps were a Labor policy….the time spent in them is due to their recourse to the High Court…a Labor policy.
On Iraq, the liar is you…not Howard.
Where is the evidence re your Howard / Wheat Board claim…..it’s another lie, isn’t it?
The Iraq war isn’t over yet…your lust for defeat for our soldiers and surrender to Al Qaeda is palpable….you and Rudd are desperate to pull them out before they have a chance to win, aren’t you?
I guess you, like Rudd, think the people of Afghanistan deserve freedom and democracy…… but the people of Iraq don’t……even though they risked their lives to vote for freedom on three occasions.
It’s another lie that Howard and Brough conveyed the impression that most aboriginal men are paedophiles…lie upon lie.
What an embarrassment you are.