The more reporting that comes out about the Aurukun case, the more questions appear – though no-one is asking them in many of the mainstream media outlets. Here's a few: 

  1. It was initially alleged that the child, having been fostered out to a non-Indigenous family, was returned because two social workers believed that such cross-cultural fostering was 'another stolen generation'. The source for this is one anonymous departmental advisor. The report has not been sighted or directly reported. Quite possibly it's true. Quite possibly it's a frame-up in what was a case with more factors. We don't know. Yet the idea that she was returned because of 'stolen generation' issues has become a received truth.
  2. Now an SMH report suggests that the girl was so desperate not to go back to her foster family after visting Aurukun for a funeral that she 'jumped out of the car' and refused to leave, the social workers concluding that any removal would have to use physical force to remove her. Strange The Australian, which appears to be all over the case, missed this event that is somewhat inconvenient to their narrative.
  3. The non-Indigenous foster carers are reported as warning that the girl was offering s-x in exchange for money and cigarettes, even while in their care. Is there then any indication that she would necessarily have been safer in a white and/or mixed community than in Aurukun? The s-xual exploitation of developmentally disabled girls is pretty widespread, as the appalling Werribee 'C-nt the movie' video case demonstrated.
  4. The Australian alleges it has spoken to the family of the girl in question, principally the uncle and aunt, which raises questions they haven't considered in the news report:

    If they are direct family, why weren't they caring for the girl when she was returned to Aurukun? And why aren't there any questions hanging over their care of the girl? Are their comments now a bit of damage control, of which journalists would be more sceptical if the people were white?