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.