I have been very sceptical regards the issue of sexual abuse of aboriginal children. Normally child sexual abuse is only about 5-10% of total abuse occurring to children, and the most common form of child abuse is neglect.

With the attention on child sexual abuse in Aboriginal communities, there can be less attention on what forms the most common forms of child abuse.

The lack of gainful employment seems to be the main cause of so many social problems in aboriginal communities, whether they are remote communities or aboriginal communities in cities. There are many services in cities, and I don’t think having extra services for aboriginal people will help much without having gainful employment as well.

The incidence of aboriginal children not attending school is far too high, and those children are now condemned to a life of welfare dependency without gainful employment.

I also understand that in some Aboriginal communities, women drinking and smoking when pregnant is close to 100%, while doctors are now recommending that no woman drinks alcohol or smokes while pregnant due to the greater risk of deformities occurring to the baby. Children born to mothers who drink or smoke while pregnant have a far greater likelihood of being born welfare dependant also.

Freeze ALL funding for new buildings, freeze all major maintenance projects, on all these communities until valid, legally enforceable leases obtained from these Land Trusts (these private land owners).

These Land Trusts receive money from mining royalties and other leases previously issued.

These Land Trusts, as private landowners, need use their income from their landholdings to finance their developments.

Why is an an Australian (who happens to be Aboriginal) wanting to live within their "Traditional Homelands" NOT entitled to same level of security in residence, same rights, same responsibilities, as other other Australians ?

Why is an Australian (who happens to be Aboriginal) living within their "Traditional Homelands" STILL required to obtain permission for visitors, whether family, friends or tradespeople ?

Commercial decisions re Western Desert air service closure was result of decisions made by people running the company and the Land Trusts.

They were NOT, are NOT, the only air service able to service the Western Desert; They are NOT the only air service servicing the Western Desert.

Open all the publicly funded airstrips on various communities to public access, so other people can use them, have avgas available for sale, then better air services will be possible.

Better air services possible ages ago, was Land Trusts decisions not to allow airstrips be declared open to public stopped them.

Private airstrips on private land should be paid for by Land Trusts who privately own them.

Better road services possible ages ago, was Land Trusts decisions not to allow roads be declared open to the public blocked this.

As private roads on private land, these roads should be paid for by the private Land Trusts who own them.

Only when the Land Trusts, and shareholders within communities, start paying their own way, or go bust, or find funding from others who feel it is worth the cost, will they address underlaying problems in the communities

Lifestyle adaptation from living as a hunter-gatherer to being an urban resident involves a large change in how you relate to the world around you.

When living in abnormal bush communities, similar to zoos, these change can be even slower.

Why is it so hard on communities ?

Administrations demand money from residents living in these houses yet these same administrations do stuff all to get people valid leases for these houses and other buildings.

Almost all these buildings constructed and funded with public monies.

Land Trusts will not issue leases.

Is no big deal for others around Australia obtain leases for their homes and businesses, why is this not so on the communities ?

When other Australians try purchase or build their homes, they as borrow money for which the financiers demand and receive security over the land titles.

On communities because you can not get a lease from Land Trusts you can not get security for a loan.

Who will give their money to someone who wants to build a house on community with no securit

Why post this unrevised, six months after original publication, when there is a new government, without acknowledgement of this momemtous change or some attempt to place indigenous concerns into a current context or perspective. John Howard and Mal Brough are gone. I opened this article expecting something about more recent developments. If the writer wants this information to inform future policy makers or even comment on the plans of the present government in the light of her no doubt valid observations she needs to make that clear.

Because, Patricia WA, it is part of our Best Blogs 2007 feature which is showcasing 40 of the best blog posts from Australian blogs for 2007 throughout the month of January. Regards Susan Prior - editor.

Hi SusanP (Editor) I hear you. Great response.

What hasn't changed since I wrote the blog post are:
- the need for things to improve in Indigenous communities,
- the truth that change must be managed thoughtfully and carefully so that the change does not result in something worse
- the truth that if you want people to change their behaviour, persuasion works better than orders.

The likely outcome of the intervention as proposed by Mal Brough was for community members to move into the fringe camps and long grass of towns. This has already begun. There's more access to alcohol in towns than there is in communities, and there's less family support for raising children and looking after the elderly. I cannot see this leading to an improvement in people's lives.

The idea that community people could improve their lives by borrowing money to buy or repair houses on the security of the land, or to maintain airstrips and airservices, was always cloud-cuckoo stuff - as a glance at the ABS census data on incomes would show. There's very little money in all but a few communities, and the rising costs of food and fuel mean there will be even less money. So life is getting grimmer.

Regrettably it might be regarded by the editorial team as "best of" but it is still flagged as posted at the current date. From my perspective it was never in date and its well past its use by now. It is mainly unsupported claims (quoting someone elses unsupported claim is not an authority) and plenty of "author" emphasis to lipgloss over the gaping holes.

As for facts? Gunboats?? What Gun boats? - I recall Wilde talking about Gun ships (a helicopter reference) but both descriptors are wrong. There were no combatant capabilities deployed, it was a legitimate humanitarian support and many Norforce members come from the communities and are highly respected in communities. As for "footy games" we'll ignore the logistic support to medical teams and as for the supposedly 'successful CDEP' - there are few reliable commentators that regard CDEP as remotely successful. It is widely regarded as "sit down" money in many schemes.

The article entirely misrepresents key components of the Intervention. That's free speech, but don't make the mistake of sseing this as remotely accurate.

as for the Goverment ignoring advice from wilde and anderson - they didn't offer any on how to protect the current generation of kids, the report was silent on law and order and overall the recommendations were a pretty poor effort. More talk, education for the future (ok in itself but many kids don't even go to school and nothing on that either), but nothing for those being abused, neglected and ignored right now. The one thing the Report did achieve was a great job in dispelling, once and for all, the claim by some that there was no problem- abuse was uncovered in 44 of 44 communities visited. hmmmm

"Lipgloss"? A pretty cosmetic and trite contribution to my mind(my emphasis!!). I think this should have been re-considered on its chronological releveance and merit before being re-published.

JHS - re your update comment, can you tell us where Mal Brough said people should move to the long grass as you claim? I went and looked at the previous Government's Blue print for Indigenous Affairs which said the exact opposite - it said there was no purpose in moving people from dysfunctional remote communtities to the long grass of Darwin and Alice Springs? It said people had a right to live where they wanted to, but conversely, services could not be guaranteed if a person put themselves beyond the reach of those services. For example, living in a "homeland" should not be facilitated if it meant kids couldn't get to school - but if kids went to school, then that might be an option, but on the same terms as the wider community.

Why would the Government have promised some $1.6 billion in remote community housing funding if their policy was to move people to the long grass in town as you suggest? By the way - grog is only easier to get in the long grass of Darwin and Alice Springs because of the NT Government's appalling lack of will to enforce and tighten their alcohol laws in re public consumption - but in any case, under welfare reform those people moving from communities will have less money to spend on substance abuse wherever they live - with 50% of welfare being dedicated to staples - through their local community store.

It is quite wrong to misrepresent what people said in the way you have. Is that what they teach at Universities these days? It would have been a "Fail" on any paper to misrepresent sources like that when I went to uni.

I think I am more inclined to agree with Alison Anderson - indigenous woman and NT Labor MP who said the Emergency Response should be supported and not watered down. She directly represents the people affected.