Is Melinda Tankard Reist asking for all young girls to be removed from their communities so they can't be targetted for sexual abuse? Is she prepared to fight for adequate funding for boarding schools so that they are staffed by compassionate and qualified teachers? That the schools guard against abusive predatory adults getting into positions of care?

No I would interpret Melinda's argument as intelligently arguing an alarmingly simple point. There is a persuasive argument of 'harm minimisation' that surfaces continually in our social debates. It seems that some are content to sweep problems under the carpet by minimising the 'harm' in a situation. In this regard, it is to prevent unwanted pregnancies and STIs among the young female indigenous population, by providing more and better access to a range of contraceptive methods.

Melinda is simply highlighting that this approach, whether theoretical or practical policy, is a terrible solution that ignores the human rights issue of protecting this vulnerable group of people from further abuse.

Wouldn't you agree? The harm minimisation argument comes from a sector of society that has lost faith in the goodwill of people and the capability of humankind to overcome adversity. It implies an acceptance of current injustices as unavoidable and attempts to minimise the damage, albeit with good intentions, while the result is actually counter-productive. Look at injecting rooms for drug addicts and arguments such as the one in today's paper concerning cannabis sold in pharmacies.

When injustices occur, we must react firmly and promptly to stamp it out and treat the problem at its source. The problem Melinda highlights has to do with sex abuse in Indigenous communities and it will be in the government's best interest to expedite urgent action in it's carrying through of interventionist policy in this regard.

IT seems this is another policy just to look like they are doing 'something' even if it is not at all addressing the issues. Mal Brough was one of the few pollies with the ticker to take some positive action. As long as people are to gutless to stand up to these cultural practices women and especially young girls will be treated at least as bad if not worse than extreme Islamic groups treat their women. If Mr Rudd wants to get beyond useless grandstanding with useless symbols he will do something about this human rights issue right in our backyard.

If my daughter was being sexually abused I would want her removed from harm, not fitted with an implant to prevent pregnancy! I think indigenous girls/women are are entitled to the same standards we would have for our own daughters - that there be a focus on protecting them from sexual predators, not just pregnancy.

It's a difficult issue. There isn't a clear answer here.

Yes, the ideal solution as other posters have pointed out, is to remove children from the situations where they are being abused. It simply isn't acceptable.

On the other hand, I don't think it's going to happen. Fear of repeating a 'stolen-generation' type situation makes it harder, and proving these things is never easy. But ultimately, I agree we should say to hell with political correctness, and get these children the hell out of there.

But if that's not going to happen, then yes, Implanon is a better alternative. Reist keeps mentioning that it 'brands' girls for sex, but we have only her statements. I dare say it happens, but I doubt most girls advertise they have the implanon treatments, and in order to be in that situation, they must already be in a situation where they are abused frequently.

Pregnancy is only going to continue the cycle. It sounds depressing, I know, but what chance does a child have, born to a 13 year old rape victim? I'd never condone a contraceptive of this type if it was done against the will of the child or her parents, but if they want to have it done, then I think they should be able to make that decision.

If, just once, Reist made a stand for women's rights that wasn't in line with Catholic pro-life, anti-contraceptive sentiment, then perhaps I'd believe that her priority here places the welfare of these girls above that goal.
As it stands, every piece she has written has attacked forms of contraception.

I think she's using this to further her agenda. Even if just one of her articles didn't fit neatly into that agenda, I'd reconsider, but as it stands, she doesn't put forward alternatives. She just wants them to stop the implanon treatments.

I'm a bit disgusted that something like this is used to further her political agenda.

I'm a bit confused, TurnRightLeft... are you saying, you could see merit in Melinda's argument, only if she weren't associated with an agenda with which you disagree? That seems an odd basis to judge an argument.

I can understand the good will with which this Implanon move has been undertaken. I wonder how easy it is however to move contraceptive "harm minimisation" from a middle class setting to the poverty and violence that some of these girls are living in. I think that Melinda's theory is not proven, certainly - but I would like to see some research that the outcomes for girls who are given this implant are better than for girls who are not, before giving my tick of approval to the administration of powerful contraceptives to minors.