Some things span nations, and this is one of them.  I hope Oz will try new ideas.  Often they are the hardest to get going just because they are new and different.

To be honest I think paternalism is necessary. But not the soft, saving the children kind. The 'grow the fuck up' kind is what is really needed. We need a leader - whether aboriginal or otherwise - to say they either clean up their act or their children will be stolen, their towns demolished, their people scattered and their culture of abuse and neglect eradicated.

There are lots of Hollywood actors out there looking for black babies. If rural folk aren't willing to look after their children's needs they shouldn't be allowed to have them.

With any luck a bit of harshness will bring out any latent leaders in the aboriginal population and encourage them to take matters into their own hands. And that's what's really needed.

I would have expected something more practical from you cacto. Can you explain how in the hell your idea would actually work? I don't think even Andrew Bolt would view your idea as practical. Thankfully, nor does Mal Brough.

I'm envisioning special camps, with slogans above the gates like 'Work shall set ye free'...

Nah, just kidding.

But really responsibility for these communities has to be laid at the feet of those who live in them. In the thirty-plus years since the government started being nicer to aboriginals nothing much has changed. It hasn't worked at all. I think the key will be to encourage remote communities to look after themselves. And if that means withdrawing any government benefits from people living in communities that don't clean themselves up (thus bringing a speedy end to the community) then so be it. Standards of living in cities are so much better it's not funny; I figure we'll get better outcomes by encouraging/coercing recalcitrant rural folk to move to the city (where law and order can be enforced more easily, linguistic profiles allow for better career options and schooling is more effective) than by spending tens of thousands of dollars per person just to create comparative advantages in whatever rural hovel they choose to live in.

The hyperbole was just window-dressing - I don't think it's legal in this country to approach an issue these days without taking an absurdly extreme approach. One of the more enjoyable legacies of the cold and bitter Howard years.

I'm an unabashed Howard fan, but I am totally confused about this action they're taking. I understand they had some sort of inquiry that made some recommendations, but I'm almost certain this wasn't one of them.

For me the problem can be summarised as the Aborigines have an awful standard of living. The old paternalism didn't work. The more recent (last 30 years) programs haven't worked. Going back to paternalism won't work (though I hope it does, since no-one could wish what they suffer on anyone).

I just think no-one actually knows what would work. And that is the crux of the problem. And it just won't go away.

Furthermore, this program is limited to Territorians. Not Queensland. Not WA, or anywhere else. Not one State Government would allow this interference. And the results won't happen overnight. I don't believe anything would happen that's quantifiable, not only in this government's lifetime, or the next, or maybe even the one after that. So if it does work it won't tarnish the current Labor State Governments. And if it doesn't the current Federal Govt will be long gone.

Thanks for your reponses.
I like what you have to say darth. A number of Aboriginal councils in the NT have been saying how they have been asking for a number of services for a long time now to deal with these issues. I know this to be true because I read just about everything I can about indigenous issues. Now all of a sudden, they want to give money to working in thie individual communities. It will be interesting to see whether they allocate it topractical programs designed to tackle the drug and sex abuse. I hope so.

Cacto, I think it is much better to quarantine the money to ensure it used responsibly is a much better idea than withdrawing it. Those children do not deserve to go hungry while we make a point about responsible parenting. The Government seems to support this idea, though I agree with Noel Pearson that it should be limited to those parents who are behaving irresponsibly. Many Aboriginal parents already do the right thing and they should be encouraged to continue to do the right thing for themselves. Otherwise, this will simply become another form of passive welfare. I also think withdrawing money would simply lead to more crime as druggies try to fuel their habits.

Paternalism does not work for the same rason that capitalism does work on the whole. People need to be given the opportunity to do things for themselves. Having all this stuff imposed on them is not the solution. They have to be given incentives to work. The Cape York Institute has had many good programs getting indigenous people involved in enterprise and industry. These industries often use traditional knowledge as well. There is no need to abandon the remote communities. There is however a need for them to learn to respond to the effects modernisation and colonisation has had on them.