KEY POINTS:
This week, as federal police officers and Army troops began moving into the Northern Territory, Prime Minister John Howard's extreme measures to save indigenous children became a test of both national will and conscience.
Those who support Howard believe that after decades of failure to lift indigenous Australia out of the lower reaches of the Third World, an end to their suffering and the horrific abuse of their children would justify whatever means are employed.
Those who oppose the package of measures to take over key aspects of Aboriginal life in the Northern Territory believe it is a reversion to paternalism at best, and at worst a resumption of the policies of assimilation and mission stations that created the "Stolen Generation" of indigenous children removed from their parents, often to a life not far removed from domestic slavery.
In the middle are a large number of Australians who agree with the need for dramatic action, but are concerned or unsure about the means. Human rights, resources, longevity of commitment, and the assumption that a Canberra bureaucracy knows best are all thorns dragging at the national conscience.
There is also the nagging reality that this is an election year. While it is unlikely that Howard embarked on a project of such a scale as a means of pulling voters back to his Government, a leader with such finely tuned instincts would not overlook the political bonus that might flow from it.
Equally, there is no doubt that this is policy on the run on a gargantuan scale. Federal and state police forces openly questioned their ability to come up with the extra officers required; defence chiefs already pushing their forces to the limits in major overseas deployments met hurriedly in Canberra this week to determine what and how the military could contribute. The Government has been forced to turn to Army reserve doctors - a limited pool that the Defence Force is already and separately trying to expand - and is appealing to civilian doctors and nurses to volunteer as they would for a large natural disaster.
The logistics are horrendous, with as many as 70 tiny indigenous communities scattered over the Territory's 1.4 million sq km. Many can barely support themselves: water, food, accommodation and medical and social resources will have to be trucked in.
And there is resistance from within the communities Howard wants to help. At Mutitjulu, the tiny settlement near Uluru (Ayers Rock) which will be the first to be taken over, locals have told reporters that women and children have fled into the bush to escape compulsory medical examinations. The community also warned that it may block tourists' access to the huge and iconic rock in protest against the measures.
Howard's package includes bans on alcohol and pornography on Aboriginal land, the end to Aborigines' rights to control access to their land, federal control of their communities, the "quarantining" of 50 per cent of welfare payments to ensure all is not spent on alcohol and drugs, welfare payments tied to attendance of children at school, school lunches compulsorily funded by parents, and medical examinations for every indigenous child under 16.
In a speech to the Sydney Institute, Howard likened Australia's inability to lift Aborigines out of poverty and squalor to the inadequacy of America's response to the devastation of New Orleans by Cyclone Katrina: "We have our Katrina, here and now."
His call to arms was triggered by a report into sexual abuse of indigenous children in the Northern Territory, which echoed a series of earlier reports listing similar evils across Australia, none of which led to any significant action.
Howard's urgency, his rejection of further consultation and his belief that what ultimately counts is the safety and welfare of children, also reflect the thrust of the Territory report, which said: "It is necessary that this process of recovery begin NOW. There is no more time for us to wring our collective hands."
The package also closely mirrors measures the respected Aboriginal activist Noel Pearson wants to introduce into his tribal lands on Cape York Peninsula, detailed in a submission passed to Canberra just before Howard decided to move.
But even among the indigenous, professional, human rights, church and social organisations that have welcomed Howard's dramatic focus on the plight of Aboriginal Australia, there is scepticism and a deep belief that some of his key measures may do more harm than good. Removing Aborigines' right to control access to their lands deeply alarms many.
Many believe that the package tramples basic human rights, and there are real fears in some communities that the intervention from outside of white medical and social workers, backed by police and soldiers, could thrust Aborigines back into the dark past. Even if this is improbable, memories of the Stolen Generation are etched deeply into the indigenous psyche.
Beyond this are concerns that whatever the assurances of today, the scale of commitment required will sap Government and national resolve well before the results appear.
Howard announced that his taskforce overseeing the programme would exist for 12 months. The authors of the Territory report said that even if the Government provided the resources needed to tackle the underlying, endemic causes of indigenous suffering, "the best that can be hoped for is improvement over a 15-year period, effectively a generation or longer".
No answers have yet been given to the basic questions: where will the doctors, nurses, dentists, social workers, police, and the others needed to support them come from - not only now, but over the long term?
Where and how will they be housed and fed? Where will the money, materials and builders come from for the housing indigenous communities need? Some estimates place this cost alone at A$1 billion or more.
And will abused children be removed from alcoholic and violent parents? Where would they be taken, and for how long? What services will be available for alcohol and drug-dependent communities? How will jobs be provided and viable economies created?
Dramatic intervention is one thing. Lasting the distance is another.
